|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 20, 2019 16:08:28 GMT -8
Want a hot take? The government should not be using things like automated license plate readers, facial recognition software or cell site simulators unless the policies and procedures outlining their use, data retention and data destruction are published and unclassified and the source code for those softwares (and associated machine learning softwares) is also published and unclassified. Stop demanding I concede my privacy without giving up yours. TRO I think I would go a bit further than that. Show me what problem we are trying to solve. Then show me a system to solve it and all of the costs associated with it. Also in the case of FR I want to see how accurate it is before launch. I can tell you while visiting a certain customer in a certain country after they took mt photo for security badge they asked me if I wanted to see myself going through the local airport. Yes it was that accurate and that fast. |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 20, 2019 16:22:03 GMT -8
Want a hot take? The government should not be using things like automated license plate readers, facial recognition software or cell site simulators unless the policies and procedures outlining their use, data retention and data destruction are published and unclassified and the source code for those softwares (and associated machine learning softwares) is also published and unclassified. Stop demanding I concede my privacy without giving up yours. TRO Don’t know much about cell site simulators so no comment...but aren’t license plate readers and facial recognition used in public places like streets, airports, etc? If so, there is no right to privacy there. Any person can take a picture of you and/or your license plate on the street and keep it forever...so what privacy rights do those things make us give up? |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 20, 2019 16:23:33 GMT -8
Want a hot take? The government should not be using things like automated license plate readers, facial recognition software or cell site simulators unless the policies and procedures outlining their use, data retention and data destruction are published and unclassified and the source code for those softwares (and associated machine learning softwares) is also published and unclassified. Stop demanding I concede my privacy without giving up yours. TRO I think I would go a bit further than that. Show me what problem we are trying to solve. Then show me a system to solve it and all of the costs associated with it. Also in the case of FR I want to see how accurate it is before launch. I can tell you while visiting a certain customer in a certain country after they took mt photo for security badge they asked me if I wanted to see myself going through the local airport. Yes it was that accurate and that fast. Pretty sure the problem they’re trying to solve is arresting criminals, finding stolen cars, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 20, 2019 16:25:48 GMT -8
I think I would go a bit further than that. Show me what problem we are trying to solve. Then show me a system to solve it and all of the costs associated with it. Also in the case of FR I want to see how accurate it is before launch. I can tell you while visiting a certain customer in a certain country after they took mt photo for security badge they asked me if I wanted to see myself going through the local airport. Yes it was that accurate and that fast. Pretty sure the problem they’re trying to solve is arresting criminals, finding stolen cars, etc. We have LPR here in Danville and it has worked quite well. Danville is a bad place for criminals and LPR plays a role in this. Can the data be misused/sold for other data gathering having zero to do with crime? Absolutely. Can we enact reasonable laws to protect against this? Why not? The tech is solid and I am all for it but not without protection for not publicly approved use. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 20, 2019 16:41:57 GMT -8
Racism racism racism. Wash rinse repeat.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., took aim at the Electoral College, calling it a "scam" and suggesting it disenfranchises people of color.
In an Instagram story posted Monday, Ocasio-Cortez began by joking that she saw "many votes" while driving through the desert, which she sarcastically referred to as the "electoral college."
She then cited several excerpts from a New York Magazine article that refutes arguments in favor of the Electoral College, telling Republicans that the system "is, in fact, a scam."
"The Electoral College has a racial injustice breakdown," Ocasio-Cortez said. "Due to severe racial disparities in certain states, the Electoral College effectively weighs white voters over voters of color, as opposed to a 'one person, one vote' system where all our votes are counted equally."
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 20, 2019 16:48:29 GMT -8
 Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross resigned Tuesday amid allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination within his department, the mayor's office announced. "New allegations of sexual harassment as well as gender and racial discrimination among the rank and file have recently been brought to my attention," Mayor Jim Kenney said in a statement. "While those allegations do not accuse Commissioner Ross of harassment, I do ultimately believe his resignation is in the best interest of the Department." |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 20, 2019 16:49:00 GMT -8
Pretty sure the problem they’re trying to solve is arresting criminals, finding stolen cars, etc. We have LPR here in Danville and it has worked quite well. Danville is a bad place for criminals and LPR plays a role in this. Can the data be misused/sold for other data gathering having zero to do with crime? Absolutely. Can we enact reasonable laws to protect against this? Why not? The tech is solid and I am all for it but not without protection for not publicly approved use. Agree 100% that the data shouldn’t be sold or misused and laws/policies saying that make sense. However, banning the cops from using something that is public anyway seems pretty stupid. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 16:55:04 GMT -8
Want a hot take? The government should not be using things like automated license plate readers, facial recognition software or cell site simulators unless the policies and procedures outlining their use, data retention and data destruction are published and unclassified and the source code for those softwares (and associated machine learning softwares) is also published and unclassified. Stop demanding I concede my privacy without giving up yours. TRO Don’t know much about cell site simulators so no comment...but aren’t license plate readers and facial recognition used in public places like streets, airports, etc? If so, there is no right to privacy there. Any person can take a picture of you and/or your license plate on the street and keep it forever...so what privacy rights do those things make us give up? Yes, capturing that data on public rights of way or in public locations would not be a per se invasion of privacy. For ALPR’s however, they do not discriminate between a car parked on the side of a public street and a car parked in a private driveway. That information is captured, processed and stored for an unknown amount of time from a private property. The same is true for facial recognition software. Many citizens were concerned with the proliferation of body cameras. Data have shown body cameras are a net positive for both citizens and law enforcement however those same officers are now taking those cameras into private homes. The largest supplier of these cameras, Axon, has acquired two artificial intelligence startups. They did, about 6 weeks ago, state they will not use facial recognition software in their body cameras ( www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736644485/major-police-body-camera-manufacturer-rejects-facial-recognition-software). This should be applauded and the wording should give people caution. I agree with NPR (and most other news outlets reporting on this) that Axon could do this in the future when their tech becomes more reliable. Cell site simulators (also referred to as Stingrays, a specific brand of cell site simulator) are another issue altogether. More concerning about those are some police and sheriffs have used cell site simulators in the field (without a warrant) then tried to pass those uses off as information gained from a confidential informant. Those are particularly nasty because they emulate a legitimate cell tower and can be used to triangulate position based on signal strength, intercept private communications and disrupt legitimate cell service. These devices are not targeted so your phone will connect to it if you are in range. Stingrays in particular are very onerous because the device manufacturer requires law enforcement to comply with NDAs where said agencies are not permitted to disclose whether they are in possession of these devices. Here’s the NDA ( www.documentcloud.org/documents/1727748-non-disclosure-agreement.html) and here’s an article from 3 years later with the attempted, limited backtrack ( arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/fbi-now-claims-its-stingray-nda-means-the-opposite-of-what-it-says/) TRO |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 20, 2019 17:09:19 GMT -8
Don’t know much about cell site simulators so no comment...but aren’t license plate readers and facial recognition used in public places like streets, airports, etc? If so, there is no right to privacy there. Any person can take a picture of you and/or your license plate on the street and keep it forever...so what privacy rights do those things make us give up? Yes, capturing that data on public rights of way or in public locations would not be a per se invasion of privacy. For ALPR’s however, they do not discriminate between a car parked on the side of a public street and a car parked in a private driveway. That information is captured, processed and stored for an unknown amount of time from a private property. The same is true for facial recognition software. Many citizens were concerned with the proliferation of body cameras. Data have shown body cameras are a net positive for both citizens and law enforcement however those same officers are now taking those cameras into private homes. The largest supplier of these cameras, Axon, has acquired two artificial intelligence startups. They did, about 6 weeks ago, state they will not use facial recognition software in their body cameras (https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736644485/major-police-body-camera-manufacturer-rejects-facial-recognition-software). This should be applauded and the wording should give people caution. I agree with NPR (and most other news outlets reporting on this) that Axon could do this in the future when their tech becomes more reliable. Cell site simulators (also referred to as Stingrays, a specific brand of cell site simulator) are another issue altogether. More concerning about those are some police and sheriffs have used cell site simulators in the field (without a warrant) then tried to pass those uses off as information gained from a confidential informant. Those are particularly nasty because they emulate a legitimate cell tower and can be used to triangulate position based on signal strength, intercept private communications and disrupt legitimate cell service. These devices are not targeted so your phone will connect to it if you are in range. Stingrays in particular are very onerous because the device manufacturer requires law enforcement to comply with NDAs where said agencies are not permitted to disclose whether they are in possession of these devices. Here’s the NDA (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1727748-non-disclosure-agreement.html) and here’s an article from 3 years later with the attempted, limited backtrack (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/fbi-now-claims-its-stingray-nda-means-the-opposite-of-what-it-says/) TRO I absolutely agree about body cameras being positive for coos and the public. I also agree that the cell tower thing should require a warrant. The ALPR capturing someones car license plate in their driveway doesn’t concern me at all...the DMV already knows which plates you were issued and so do the cops so that doesn’t seem to affect privacy rights. Also, things on your private property, that are visible from a public place, (like your driveway) are not protected. If its behind a fence, in a garage, etc...that's a different story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 17:15:27 GMT -8
Yes, capturing that data on public rights of way or in public locations would not be a per se invasion of privacy. For ALPR’s however, they do not discriminate between a car parked on the side of a public street and a car parked in a private driveway. That information is captured, processed and stored for an unknown amount of time from a private property. The same is true for facial recognition software. Many citizens were concerned with the proliferation of body cameras. Data have shown body cameras are a net positive for both citizens and law enforcement however those same officers are now taking those cameras into private homes. The largest supplier of these cameras, Axon, has acquired two artificial intelligence startups. They did, about 6 weeks ago, state they will not use facial recognition software in their body cameras (https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736644485/major-police-body-camera-manufacturer-rejects-facial-recognition-software). This should be applauded and the wording should give people caution. I agree with NPR (and most other news outlets reporting on this) that Axon could do this in the future when their tech becomes more reliable. Cell site simulators (also referred to as Stingrays, a specific brand of cell site simulator) are another issue altogether. More concerning about those are some police and sheriffs have used cell site simulators in the field (without a warrant) then tried to pass those uses off as information gained from a confidential informant. Those are particularly nasty because they emulate a legitimate cell tower and can be used to triangulate position based on signal strength, intercept private communications and disrupt legitimate cell service. These devices are not targeted so your phone will connect to it if you are in range. Stingrays in particular are very onerous because the device manufacturer requires law enforcement to comply with NDAs where said agencies are not permitted to disclose whether they are in possession of these devices. Here’s the NDA (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1727748-non-disclosure-agreement.html) and here’s an article from 3 years later with the attempted, limited backtrack (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/fbi-now-claims-its-stingray-nda-means-the-opposite-of-what-it-says/) TRO I absolutely agree about body cameras being positive for coos and the public. I also agree that the cell tower thing should require a warrant. The ALPR capturing someones car license plate in their driveway doesn’t concern me at all...the DMV already knows which plates you were issued and so do the cops so that doesn’t seem to affect privacy rights. Also, things on your private property, that are visible from a public place, (like your driveway) are not protected. If its behind a fence, in a garage, etc...that's a different story. I could have been clearer on my position. I am okay with these technologies being implemented as long as those agencies using them remove the veil of secrecy. Publish the policies and procedures for their use, data retention and data destruction and I am okay with it all. Once that information is public then I have the opportunity to criticize it and challenge it. Law enforcement are supposed to work for the public they serve and the public they serve cannot provide that oversight if these agencies continue to hide behind classifications and non-disclosure agreements. TRO |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 20, 2019 17:24:41 GMT -8
We have LPR here in Danville and it has worked quite well. Danville is a bad place for criminals and LPR plays a role in this. Can the data be misused/sold for other data gathering having zero to do with crime? Absolutely. Can we enact reasonable laws to protect against this? Why not? The tech is solid and I am all for it but not without protection for not publicly approved use. Agree 100% that the data shouldn’t be sold or misused and laws/policies saying that make sense. However, banning the cops from using something that is public anyway seems pretty stupid. We agree. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 20, 2019 17:25:02 GMT -8
I absolutely agree about body cameras being positive for coos and the public. I also agree that the cell tower thing should require a warrant. The ALPR capturing someones car license plate in their driveway doesn’t concern me at all...the DMV already knows which plates you were issued and so do the cops so that doesn’t seem to affect privacy rights. Also, things on your private property, that are visible from a public place, (like your driveway) are not protected. If its behind a fence, in a garage, etc...that's a different story. I could have been clearer on my position. I am okay with these technologies being implemented as long as those agencies using them remove the veil of secrecy. Publish the policies and procedures for their use, data retention and data destruction and I am okay with it all. Once that information is public then I have the opportunity to criticize it and challenge it. Law enforcement are supposed to work for the public they serve and the public they serve cannot provide that oversight if these agencies continue to hide behind classifications and non-disclosure agreements. TRO We agree. |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 20, 2019 17:30:19 GMT -8
I absolutely agree about body cameras being positive for coos and the public. I also agree that the cell tower thing should require a warrant. The ALPR capturing someones car license plate in their driveway doesn’t concern me at all...the DMV already knows which plates you were issued and so do the cops so that doesn’t seem to affect privacy rights. Also, things on your private property, that are visible from a public place, (like your driveway) are not protected. If its behind a fence, in a garage, etc...that's a different story. I could have been clearer on my position. I am okay with these technologies being implemented as long as those agencies using them remove the veil of secrecy. Publish the policies and procedures for their use, data retention and data destruction and I am okay with it all. Once that information is public then I have the opportunity to criticize it and challenge it. Law enforcement are supposed to work for the public they serve and the public they serve cannot provide that oversight if these agencies continue to hide behind classifications and non-disclosure agreements. TRO Agree on it all being public. Are you aware of agencies not disclosing these agreements or policies? Seems like that is all public information. Many agencies have their policies on their web sites so anyone can see them...which is the way it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 20, 2019 17:55:49 GMT -8
Want a hot take? The government should not be using things like automated license plate readers, facial recognition software or cell site simulators unless the policies and procedures outlining their use, data retention and data destruction are published and unclassified and the source code for those softwares (and associated machine learning softwares) is also published and unclassified. Stop demanding I concede my privacy without giving up yours. TRO I never had a problem with this but I have nothing to hide. Go ahead, take my picture |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 20, 2019 17:56:59 GMT -8
Want a hot take? The government should not be using things like automated license plate readers, facial recognition software or cell site simulators unless the policies and procedures outlining their use, data retention and data destruction are published and unclassified and the source code for those softwares (and associated machine learning softwares) is also published and unclassified. Stop demanding I concede my privacy without giving up yours. TRO I never had a problem with this but I have nothing to hide. Go ahead, take my picture 'I have nothing to hide' is the worst argument available. |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 20, 2019 18:07:39 GMT -8
I never had a problem with this but I have nothing to hide. Go ahead, take my picture 'I have nothing to hide' is the worst argument available. Yeah but it's true. It's time for my closeup Mr. Demille |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 20, 2019 18:09:53 GMT -8
I never had a problem with this but I have nothing to hide. Go ahead, take my picture 'I have nothing to hide' is the worst argument available. For some people (I don’t want to speak for Fug) like me, its not an argument about privacy rights. I agree with Fug and don’t care if they watch me cause I got nothing to hide. That doesn't mean I’m okay with any violations of anyones constitutional rights. For me, its two separate things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 18:23:51 GMT -8
I could have been clearer on my position. I am okay with these technologies being implemented as long as those agencies using them remove the veil of secrecy. Publish the policies and procedures for their use, data retention and data destruction and I am okay with it all. Once that information is public then I have the opportunity to criticize it and challenge it. Law enforcement are supposed to work for the public they serve and the public they serve cannot provide that oversight if these agencies continue to hide behind classifications and non-disclosure agreements. TRO Agree on it all being public. Are you aware of agencies not disclosing these agreements or policies? Seems like that is all public information. Many agencies have their policies on their web sites so anyone can see them...which is the way it should be. It’s old data and probably not the most reliable but this site did a survey of 75 departments and has listed criteria from 2017 whether the information is public, current and readily accessible or not. www.bwcscorecard.org/Yes, this came from a quick search and no it is not representative of anything other than the status about two years ago for the listed departments. In other words, it appears data on the availability of these policies is not tracked, unreliable or (especially in this instance) not current and incomplete. TRo |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 18:25:00 GMT -8
Want a hot take? The government should not be using things like automated license plate readers, facial recognition software or cell site simulators unless the policies and procedures outlining their use, data retention and data destruction are published and unclassified and the source code for those softwares (and associated machine learning softwares) is also published and unclassified. Stop demanding I concede my privacy without giving up yours. TRO I never had a problem with this but I have nothing to hide. Go ahead, take my picture You've nothing to hide? Who do you bank with and what is your account number? Asking for a friend...  TRO |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 20, 2019 18:44:46 GMT -8
I never had a problem with this but I have nothing to hide. Go ahead, take my picture You've nothing to hide? Who do you bank with and what is your account number? Asking for a friend... TRO Well we all can go only so far. Take my picture to see if I'm a person law enforcement wants to talk to but my personal information should be private |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 20, 2019 19:17:30 GMT -8
I never had a problem with this but I have nothing to hide. Go ahead, take my picture You've nothing to hide? Who do you bank with and what is your account number? Asking for a friend... TRO If you want to get in on a unique opportunity I just got an email from a Nigerian Prince and his offer is unbelievable |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 20, 2019 19:19:48 GMT -8
I never had a problem with this but I have nothing to hide. Go ahead, take my picture 'I have nothing to hide' is the worst argument available. Would we all not be safer if the cops had keys to our homes should the need arise? Safely first right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 21:39:38 GMT -8
'I have nothing to hide' is the worst argument available. Would we all not be safer if the cops had keys to our homes should the need arise? Safely first right? I love throwing that out when anyone starts to talk about backdoors in encryption. TRO |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 21, 2019 7:19:01 GMT -8
Would we all not be safer if the cops had keys to our homes should the need arise? Safely first right? I love throwing that out when anyone starts to talk about backdoors in encryption. TRO Big picture. I think we all want to take reasonable measures to prevent and prosecute crime. We want good tech to be used as a tool to that end. We don’t want that to be a license to abuse the public trust and everything should be made public in how we manage this and checks out in place because this data has much value and as such some humans will be motivated to breach the public trust. |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 21, 2019 9:11:53 GMT -8
I love throwing that out when anyone starts to talk about backdoors in encryption. TRO Big picture. I think we all want to take reasonable measures to prevent and prosecute crime. We want good tech to be used as a tool to that end. We don’t want that to be a license to abuse the public trust and everything should be made public in how we manage this and checks out in place because this data has much value and as such some humans will be motivated to breach the public trust. Barbed wire? Cool idea, that shall keep the wolves out of the pasture. Great invention. What a fool. Wolves... They put it around the mines where the dissidents are sentenced to penal labor. What a fool I, Father Kabany, am.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 9:39:55 GMT -8
I love throwing that out when anyone starts to talk about backdoors in encryption. TRO Big picture. I think we all want to take reasonable measures to prevent and prosecute crime. We want good tech to be used as a tool to that end. We don’t want that to be a license to abuse the public trust and everything should be made public in how we manage this and checks out in place because this data has much value and as such some humans will be motivated to breach the public trust. And by that same token I would not buy a deadbolt for my house with a little device attached where law enforcement can get a warrant then unlock my deadbolt. If they have a warrant, they can break down my door if I’m not around and cooperating. Same goes for my phone - if they have a warrant they can break down the door (break the encryption) to access that information if I am not around and cooperating. A decent approximation are the TSA approved locks with universal keys for TSA agents to open and inspect your luggage. Thing is, you can buy those keys on eBay. www.ebay.com/itm/Multifunctional-B35-TSA002-007-Key-Bag-For-Luggage-Suitcase-Customs-TSA-Lock-Key/351935701650?hash=item51f100a292:m:myASCAJhEZUTAvJoa_pgcFQ TRO |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 9:43:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 21, 2019 11:26:31 GMT -8
Of course if we no longer call it surveillance that will change everything............... |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 21, 2019 11:54:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 21, 2019 12:18:57 GMT -8
The so called media and the so called community:
Notice below that the community member is complaining about her friend losing money at a "school supply giveaway".
The so called media wont bother to ask the question about how you expected to make any money at a give away event to families in need.
F the police? F U!
Cardi B has some harsh words for the New York City Police department after force allegedly shut down a “back to school” event hosted by her friend.
In a since-deleted video originally shared to Instagram Live on Tuesday, TMZ reports that the Bronx-born rapper accused the NYPD of bullying the principal of a Brooklyn school into canceling a school supply giveaway her friend Star Brim was slated to host next week. According to Cardi, Brim had foot the bill for the event herself and was now losing money.
“I find that s–t so f—ed up by the NYPD … it’s like this is really for the kids,” Cardi, 26, reportedly said in the video. “Shorty was really coming out her pockets, just to help the community, and it was for kids to have a fun, positive day.”
Then Cardi unleashed the full extent of her rage. “I just find that s—t so f—ed up,” she reiterated. “F— you and motherf—ing suck a fart and suffocate on it.”
“F— you!” she added while flipping off the camera with her middle finger.
The “Bodak Yellow” MC has her own troubles with the law. Cardi is currently fighting an open felony assault case in the New York borough of Queens. The charges reportedly stem from an incident that occurred last August, when two bartenders, Baddie Gi and Jade, at Angels Strip Club claimed that Cardi ordered an attack on the women because she believed her husband, Migos rapper Offset, had had an affair with one of them.
A police spokesperson told CNN that Cardi was allegedly “throwing chairs, bottles and hookahs in the club at 3 a.m.” NBC New York reported Cardi was caught on camera tossing an ice bucket at the women
|
|
