Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Privacy

US Cities Are Backing Off Banning Facial Recognition as Crime Rises (reuters.com) 128

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
Facial recognition is making a comeback in the United States as bans to thwart the technology and curb racial bias in policing come under threat amid a surge in crime and increased lobbying from developers. From a report: Virginia in July will eliminate its prohibition on local police use of facial recognition a year after approving it, and California and the city of New Orleans as soon as this month could be next to hit the undo button. Homicide reports in New Orleans rose 67% over the last two years compared with the pair before, and police say they need every possible tool. "Technology is needed to solve these crimes and to hold individuals accountable," police Superintendent Shaun Ferguson told reporters as he called on the city council to repeal a ban that went into effect last year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Cities Are Backing Off Banning Facial Recognition as Crime Rises More

US Cities Are Backing Off Banning Facial Recognition as Crime Rises

Comments Filter:

  • Welcome to.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ..the panopticon.
  • Why not just fund policing and focus their mission on fighting crime instead of promoting D.I.E.?

    • Re:What about funding policing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday May 12, 2022 @12:36PM (#62526458) Homepage Journal

      Safety is the excuse to build a pervasive surveillance society, but power is the reason.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        Plus, cops in general have gotten lazy. If you can identify the perp with facial recognition, you don't have to put down the donut and get your lazy ass out of your office.

    • I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a movement lately to defund the police.

      • Re:What about funding policing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @12:42PM (#62526488)

        Here's what defund the police actually means.

        https://www.brookings.edu/blog... [brookings.edu]

        • Re:What about funding policing? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @12:57PM (#62526554) Journal

          No, that's what the Brookings Institute wants you to believe defund the police means.

          I know plenty of people who literally want to defund the police.
          In practice we can see that defunding the police means cut the funds sent to them: https://abc7news.com/san-franc... [abc7news.com]

          So there are lots of reasons to believe that defund the police means defund the police, despite what some think tank wants you to believe.

          • The bigger point is, if you give cops - already borderline homicidal egomaniacs with little to no accountability - new, deadly toys, they'll want to use them in every situation. That always works out poorly for "We the People." Look at no-knock warrants, for example. Or, "I feared for my life, so I shot him," as another. Rubber bullets that are supposed to be non-lethal when fired in a certain manner, but the cops just fire them at people point-blank. Tazers that are supposed to be deployed in limited

        • Re:What about funding policing? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @01:31PM (#62526670)

          Here's what defund the police actually means.

          Defund the police is an intentionally incendiary slogan which many supporters take literally.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]

          If one expects to be taken seriously and not simply ignored as an extremist crackpot they will have to do a better job at communicating.

        • And yet in Austin the funding reduction means if someone burglarizes my house, no officer will investigate. Here is an even crazier example. https://www.kvue.com/article/n... [kvue.com],
          A quote from the article, "On Saturday morning, surveillance video shows a white car driving up, someone shooting out the window and grabbing clothes before driving off. It happened around 6 a.m. when no one was at the store. Andrews called APD around 9 a.m., once he saw what had happened. "They got back on the phone with me and sai

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by dstwins ( 167742 )
            Actually in both of your examples, none of them had anything to do with reducing/eliminating police...it has to do with a lack of bodies (claimed due to COVID, but police also do Sickouts when they want as well) and resources..

            And I personally think some of this is also by design, basically a game of "chicken" to see who blinks first (or who survives the longest).. with the idea being (if we (the police) simply STOP doing our jobs the public will scream bloody murder and give in to our demands for unfettere
            • Catch a clue, both my examples were precisely b/c of funding, or should I say lack of. And of course it is /. so you got modded up for your gibberish.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mjwx ( 966435 )

          Here's what defund the police actually means.

          https://www.brookings.edu/blog... [brookings.edu]

          Indeed, instead of spending millions making the police into an unaccountable paramilitary force, why not use that money to target the source of crime in order to reduce it, prevention being better than cure. Things like:.

          *Checks notes*

          Mainly poverty and lack of opportunities (Employment, better housing and conditions, so on and so forth).

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        And all of this, the whole fucking thing, is BY DESIGN.

        • II have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Chas ( 5144 )

            Defund the police.
            Policing goes to shit.
            Then they start pushing the panopticon state.
            Then we have no privacy and get monitored electronically for EVERYTHING.
            And "We have found you committing X thing WE have decided is a crime."

            Think "Big Brother" run by Idiocracy.

    • Re:What about funding policing? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @12:37PM (#62526466)

      Police prevent crimes from happening?

      • Yes. Any other super basic questions?

      • Police respond to crimes, and society can barely stand to fund that minimal reactive police force.

        You would have to spend 10x to have anything resembling prevention which results in subjects, not citizens.

        • Armed citizens, and functioning economies, prevent crimes.

          Those have both disappeared, so, as I keep seeming to have to ask throughout this discussion, what exactly did people expect was going to happen as a result?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )

        Police prevent crimes from happening?

        Yes, [ojp.gov] unless politicians change their mission to do something else.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        In some cases, yes.
        In more cases, their legwork and case work snap up the criminals for prosecution after the fact (so long as the prosecutors aren't insane lefties).

        If you put a financial and personnel strain on a police force, they become less effective at doing this.

        This is what the whole "crime friendly" government crap is all about.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Lol. They do though. Every criminal caught, in jail, is another criminal not out victimizing the populace. Come on, this is basic shit here.
        • You're only catching them after the crime is committed. So no, you aren't preventing the crimes.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Chas ( 5144 )

            So you're dumb enough to believe that if the crime happened and nobody is immediately caught, "No harm, no foul"?

            This is, at best, retardedly short-sighted.

            • Huh? All I said was criminals aren't caught until the crime is committed, thus the crime isn't being prevented by the apprehension of said criminal. Pretty sound logic. If you think making a statement of sound logic is "dumb", and that somehow means I believe in some made-up adage, well I have nothing more to offer you except a "Good Day, Sir"
              • I think you miss the obvious. The first crime a specific criminal commits will not be prevented. If that criminal is caught, and jailed, then they will not commit a subsequent crime. You don't really believe a criminal stops after the first one do you?

              • I'm not even sure what you're saying here, you're arguing basic, logical, indisputable facts which is seldom a good strategy. At least try to twist the argument a little better.

                Fact: People who commit crimes, especially violent crimes, are more likely to commit further crimes than the general population.

                Fact: If you find someone who commits a crime and put them in jail, they can only commit crimes in jail, where they have fewer opportunities.

                Fact: If there are fewer people known to have committed violent cr

          • Don't be obtuse. Read what the parent said. Putting criminals in jail prevents those specific criminals from committing further crimes against the general population. If you were to assume every crime was a one-off and any random person was likely to be the perpetrator of the next crime, you might have a point. But that is very far from reality. For example, just for violent crime, 1% of the population in the USA accounts for ~60% of violent crime convictions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] FTL "The maj
            • I agree with you about what was said. I am not disputing what was said.
              In response to "police don't prevent crime" the statement was that "they do" by putting criminals "in jail" which is sub-ape level reasoning.
              • It's unclear from your meaningless invective whether you actually understand what's going on here. I will rephrase to a very basic question: If every police officer took 6 months off work, would there be less crime or more crime? And does putting criminals in jail reduce crime or not, you seem to not be very clear on that simple concept.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            So if someone commits one robbery a month and you lock them away for 2 years no crimes are prevented during that period? Really? You would also hope that the person may see the error of their ways whilst in prison resulting in a reduction in crimes after release too.
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

                With our prison system having a recidivism rate of around 60%-70%, it's at best a band-aid that doesn't do anything to solve the long term crime problem.

                Sentences tend to be long, so people are at least off the streets. Reducing the recidivism rate would be good.

    • Why not just fund policing

      But then how would elected officials give kickbacks to those who paid for all those ads to get them elected?

      I don't know about anyone else's town but the Nashville area has been defunding since the recession. Nashville is now at the point, they're just going to stop responding to "minor" car incidents [injurylawyers.com]. Now Metro would have you believe that means, just small fender benders. However, what it really means is that if someone isn't dead, they are not coming out. Car stolen? Well it ain't getting more stolen

    • Police get $100 Billion dollars a year in the USA. How much more should we fund them?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        100 billion.
        Divided by 50 states.
        Divided up by municipalities and state agencies.
        800,000 officers. Average salary $55K a year.
        $44,000,000,000 in salaries alone.
        Equipment, facilities, utilities, insurance, etc.

        Had you ACTUALLY given any thought to the amount, and not just "BIG NUMBURZ!!!"

        • So $100 Billion isn't enough, heard. What number would satisfy you?
          • Umm, lets do it another way. 100B/330M = 300 per person. Seems low. My monthly health insurance is way more than that. And I use it about as much as I call the police. And the few times I've called the police, there was no deductible. On the other hand, my health insurance has yet to pay anything, the bill has always been under the deductible. So to respond specifically, I'd think one month's health insurance or a grand roughly is the number, so 3X current spending.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dstwins ( 167742 )
              Keep in mind, police (like fire departments and military) get specialized union rates.. so they are NOT paying what you pay for insurance or for most services.

              So while their salary seems "ok",I think people forget that their EFFECTIVE salary is MUCH higher due to them not paying market rates for many things.. I know some banks that even offer 1point discounts for police/fire on mortgages.. Its like the CEO that claims to only make 1 dollar, ignoring the fact that their position nets them WAY more than thei

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dstwins ( 167742 )
          Actually according to most stats, the US police force gets an average of 214B a year.. (obviously this is not evenly distributed as some cities/states get more some get less).

          And yes, you can run the numbers.. most of their insurance costs are high due to bad police/corruption/lazy/ineffectual police doing more harm than good.. if the police unions would back shedding BAD police and hold themselves accountable for the same standards they expect the COMMUNITY to uphold, why, you would find they need even les

    • I am for more Uniform Police, who are actually walking the streets, who talk to and know the locals. And they performance is not ties to a ticket or arrest quota.
      Where they can actually Serve and Protect the public, with generally doing things like breaking up fights, escorting kids back to school, Keeping an eye on known trouble makers.

      However, this is mostly now Police in their cars, waiting for a problem to be called in where they have to go in with force, with often Military like equipment. Or hiding y

  • The po po (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Biggest bunch of bully crybabies there is. Ask them to be professional and follow the same laws they swear to uphold? Nothing but whining and mass retirements.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24... [npr.org]

    Snowflakes.

    https://www.reuters.com/invest... [reuters.com]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by GoTeam ( 5042081 )

      Biggest bunch of bully crybabies there is. Ask them to be professional and follow the same laws they swear to uphold? Nothing but whining and mass retirements.

      You have the same opinion as stoned teenagers did in the 90's, so congrats!

      [nleomf.org]

      https://nleomf.org/memorial/facts-figures/officer-fatality-data/officer-deaths-by-year

      Sadly there are real life consequences to these policies for law enforcement and for the citizens they're supposed to serve. Check out the number of officer death by year. Notice something odd about 2020 and 2021?
      The US homicide statistics are much scarier during that time.

  • Privacy or profit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by onefriedrice ( 1171917 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @12:39PM (#62526478)
    So...

    1. Politicians defund police departments, DA's refuse to prosecute criminals.
    2. Crime gets worse.
    3. Politicians have the impetus they needed to exert power power over normal, non-criminal citizens and wreck their privacy.
    4. ???
    5. Politicians and government contractors profit!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Ask yourself who makes money on this, then follow the money trail.

    • Or more accurately if one isn't propagandizing...

      1. Nobody defunds police departments, though a tiny fringe of loud mouths actually wanted to (and the rest wanted small fractions of overall funding redirected to other ways of handling things currently handled by police that probably shouldn't be), and a small handful of cities start not prosecuting a few petty crimes.
      2. Crime gets worse everywhere, regardless of whether they hand one of those prosecutors, or whether the city and state had enacted any ref

  • So ... we know why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @12:54PM (#62526538)

    Why does crime rise? Maybe if we find out why crime rates are going up we could figure out how to fight the cause instead of trying to patch the symptom?

    • Crime rises because of global warming [sciencedaily.com]. To stop crime, we should stop global warming.

      Seriously though, a lot of people are more interested in pushing their own agenda than they are in doing research (or solving the problem). Some politicians actually get benefit from the problem being there.

      We need to find those people, ignore them, and make sure the cry for more research is heard.

    • Money? I mean for a year or so everyone got freely printed money. Now that has dried up, the money that was printed has driven record inflation making newly earned money less useful to those that actually needed that free money, and the place everyone was supposed to put their retirement money is in the process of crashing multiple percentage digits.

      Or maybe crime is not a policing issue or even a money issue, it is a society issue. If society makes you feel like you have a future you might be less prone

  • 99% (Score:2)

    by OYAHHH ( 322809 )

    Of the damn crimes are being committed by repeat offenders. And they don't give a shit.

    The ONLY way to reduce crime in neighborhoods is to fucking move the criminals out of the neighborhood, preferably to prison.

    Nothing else works.

    • Almost 1% of the US population is currently in jail. 1 in 100 people. Those are rookie numbers. We gotta pump those numbers up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )

      That's a pretty short-term way of looking at things. Sure there are some criminals in a neighborhood that you want to rehabilitate, but new ones take their places unless you deal with the underlying causes.

      Improving social safety nets and education will do a lot more to reduce crime long term than spending the money on keeping people locked up. Most people don't become criminals if they can get a good job legitimately.

      Of course this all takes a lot longer to show results, but the end result is better

      • Improving social safety nets and education will do a lot more to reduce crime long term than spending the money on keeping people locked up. Most people don't become criminals if they can get a good job legitimately.

        That really isn't going to help.

        We have the full breakdown of the family of predominately one or two sections of society.

        They are poor and have no fathers....the kids are not taught values, like that of human life.

        The gangs on the streets become their families and role models...and they plai

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ksevio ( 865461 )

          Well there are basically two solutions:
          1. Accept there's nothing that can be done about crime other than lock people up. The problem will gradually get worse as more kids are growing up without parents and families are split

          2. Try to improve the lives of the residents so they don't turn to crime. The problem will gradually get better as people can support themselves and take care of others in their family and community.

          Number 1 is straight forward: dump money into police forces and prisons, but Number 2 i

          • There are a lot of options from education to job programs to community groups that can help with Number 2

            Well, the US pretty much throws more money at "education" than any other country in the world and we get little to show for it.

            It has to be the families and culture that change. You can fund all the eduction you want, but if there aren't parents that make their kids go to school, behave, act respectful and learn, it does you no good.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • About the use of said stuff (and other things) in a Chinese university.

    A choice quote:
    "It was like following a thread that connected to an enormous tapestry, which was how I felt about the surveillance cameras. When I counted the devices in my local subway station, at Dongmen Daqiao, I saw fifteen cameras at track level, forty-seven at the turnstiles, and thirty-eight for the escalators. The total came to a hundred cameras, not to mention the two devices that were positioned in each individual subway car. W

  • Guess what (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sTERNKERN ( 1290626 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @01:02PM (#62526586)
    There are other countries without wide spread facial recognition and much lower crime rates. It should make some officials think, but guess what, it is much easier to be blunt and carpet bomb every last bit of privacy and sacrifice it for the sake of (the false sense of) security.

    • Why does the US have high crime rates? I'll bet it's not caused by facial recognition.

      • Why does the US have high crime rates? I'll bet it's not caused by facial recognition.

        Nope, it is the complete breakdown of the family structure, particularly in the poorer sections of town....no positive male role models.

        The gang has replaced as the role model. And their values are exactly what you are seeing in action now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      There are other countries without wide spread facial recognition and much lower crime rates.

      Yes, and most of those have much stricter gun control laws, or outright banned guns for ordinary people. Would you rather have that?

      Or else, those countries have much better social security network, and also much less drug abuse problem, so people don't have to resort to crimes. That would mean more tax, would you rather have that?

      So, after you rejected all approaches other countries took, what else are you left with?

  • Sigh ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @01:03PM (#62526588) Journal
    1970s inflation, 1970s weakness, 1970s crime ... everything but the music (which was actually good).
    • No, the only good music is that music which I grew up with in high school and/or college and liked and played when I was present. All music since then or not heard my me at that time is shit, and that before it, worldwide and local, is lame-o for olds.

    • Disco is dead, thank god.

  • This begs the question anyway. If we only had facial recognition at our disposal, we could fight crime more effectively thereby lowering crime. Sad, sad, sad.

    • And if we only required everyone (well, except for Important People) to wear a sound/video monitor accessible by the police at any time of their choosing, we could fight crime more effectively, thereby lowering crime.

      Yeah, it'd have a lot of that 1984 look & feel, but think how much better things would be!

  • Crime is at record lows. There's a spike right now because the lockdowns ended. Are we really stupid enough to fall for this? Will we change how we vote and stop letting people rule is with threats?

    • Crime is at record lows. There's a spike right now because the lockdowns ended. Are we really stupid enough to fall for this? Will we change how we vote and stop letting people rule is with threats?

      Well, in the cities (primarily democrat led) where violent crime is skyrocketing, it would seem to be the smart move to try to vote them OUT, since their policies are at the very least, making things worse.

      The catch and release policies are just creating a turnstile of criminals being caught and back on the str

  • "For you and me to live in" - Prison Song by System of a Down.

  • Start with the Politician (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    First start with 24/7 100% tracking and 100% video of all elected government officials and the top 5 layers of every government organization.
    They don't have anything to hide do they?

  • Better to find the cause of the rise in crime and address that.
    Oh noes, that means that the American government would actually have to care about the well-being of Americans.
    That is never going to happen, but one can always dream

  • I'm sorry, we've already been down the speed camera/red light camera path and it hasn't panned out too well. All crooks have to do is wear hoodies, but wait most of the opportunistic crime, the smash and grab, etc. is being done in cities where the DAs are flacid on prosecution. Shit, in LA in front of millions a celeb bitch-slaps another celeb onstage and there are no charges. In fact, he still gets his Oscar.

    Meanwhile, in the same city, a comedian performing onstage is attacked by a guy with a gun and a k

  • If you think about it a high percentage of crimes are solved by some form of visual recognition. Somebody may recognize how a person stands, walks, wears his hoodie, or whathaveyou. The police them work from that possible recognition to develop evidence. If they are careful and thorough enough they find enough evidence down a particular recognition rabbit hole to acquit or achieve a probably conviction.

    Now. I sincerely want to know why a supposedly somewhat more accurate digital recognition algorithm is som

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close