AI, Drones, Security Cameras: San Francisco Mayor's Arsenal To Fight Crime (reuters.com) 65
San Francisco will vote next week on a divisive ballot measure that would authorize police to use surveillance cameras, drones and AI-powered facial recognition as the city struggles to restore a reputation tarnished by street crime and drugs. From a report: The Safer San Francisco initiative, formally called Proposition E, is championed by Mayor London Breed who believes disgruntled citizens will approve the proposal on Tuesday. Although technology fueled the Silicon Valley-adjacent city's decades-long boom, residents have a history of being deeply suspicious. In 2019, San Francisco, known for its progressive politics, became the first large U.S. city to ban government use of facial recognition due to concerns about privacy and misuse.
Breed, who is running for re-election in November, played down the potential for abuse under the ballot measure, saying safeguards are in place. "I get that people are concerned about privacy rights and other things, but technology is all around us," she said in an interview. "It's coming whether we want it to or not. And everyone is walking around with AI in their hands with their phones, recording, videotaping," Breed said. Critics of the proposal contend it could hurt disadvantaged communities and lead to false arrests, arguing surveillance technology requires greater oversight.
Breed, who is running for re-election in November, played down the potential for abuse under the ballot measure, saying safeguards are in place. "I get that people are concerned about privacy rights and other things, but technology is all around us," she said in an interview. "It's coming whether we want it to or not. And everyone is walking around with AI in their hands with their phones, recording, videotaping," Breed said. Critics of the proposal contend it could hurt disadvantaged communities and lead to false arrests, arguing surveillance technology requires greater oversight.
You know (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too hard to actually enforce the law on the book. I mean that's a starting point.
Re:You know (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too hard to actually enforce the law on the book. I mean that's a starting point.
No amount of cameras will do a goddam thing if you don't actually prosecute criminals.
Re:You know (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You know (Score:5, Insightful)
Thinking the exactly same thing.
I mean, even cops out there are starting to give up on "enforcement", because even if they catch and arrest someone, for the most part with no bail, that person is back on the streets in 24 hours or less.
So, if you aren't going to jail them, if you aren't going to prosecute them...why bother with all the AI, bots, drones and cameras?
All you're doing at that. point is collecting data.....for what end?
If they want to start an end to crime...go back to prosecuting thefts/shoplifting under $900.
Put back bail lock up criminals. Prosecute criminals you arrest.
And, quit outright shaming of the police...encourage them, train them and properly fund them.
And hell, for fun, maybe make CA constitutional carry and let citizens actually have a fighting chance against the criminals....the criminals certainly don't seem hamstrung by the overly strict California gun laws, now do they?
Re: (Score:2)
Put back bail lock up criminals. Prosecute criminals you arrest.
Only if it's no bail for everyone, not just those that can afford it.
Also, make the city/county/state culpable for any loses, if the verdict is innocent.
The ol' "whoops -- our bad!" bullshit has got to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
"why bother with all the AI, bots, drones and cameras?"
It's not about criminals, it's about the surveillance state. They want to see what everyone is doing all the time. Makes it easier to control people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that's hard to do without hurting minority/POC feelings.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give 10:1 odds that a few years from now, we'll get accusations that SF's chosen AI systems are biased against people of color. This feels like the mayor is just shifting responsibility to some hand-wavy magic technology, which will conveniently get blamed when it fails to produce results.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the case of the US army long ago trying to use AI to create a tank gunner's assistant. They showed the computer lots of pictures of Western and Soviet tanks so it could aim at the Soviet ones. Then in tests it kept trying to shoot everyone indiscriminately. They trained it on nice sh
Re: (Score:2)
Prosecuting criminals can only be done after the fact. After your car was stolen, after your shop was vandalized.
The focus needs to be on prevention. The problem is that prevention isn't very visible, and you can't count how many crimes were not committed. So inevitably political pressure means more cops, more convictions, more paying for people to be in prison, but rarely does much to actually stop you becoming a victim in the first place.
Worse still, prevention tends to require socialist policies, which a
Re: (Score:2)
An important tool for prevention is fear of consequences. It's certainly not the only tool used, but it has to be one of them for the effort as a whole to be successful.
Re: (Score:1)
Lip stick on a pig. C'mon people...we all know what the problem is and how to fix it.
It's bad when somebody lies to you. It's especially bad when they lie to you and know they are lying. But when they lie to you and you know it - and they know that you know they're lying they disrespect themselves as much as they disrespect you while reducing any potential future audience by one - forever.
Re: (Score:1)
Law enforcement is easy. We just build robotic cops. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
And since other cities, similar in size and larger, do just that without the brutal crime rates of SF, one cannot help but wonder just what their real goal is, because it's not lower the crime rate.
I guess that sure beats the hell (Score:1, Troll)
Oh and we going to get drones and AI to watch over Wall Street and stop them from crashing the economy every 10 years like clockwork? To be fair I think covid-19 caused them to miss a beat but they'll be back on it before long.
Fun fact wage theft is orders of magnitude more money than all the shoplifting in America. And when they steal wages even if it's not your wages right away it will be later when that money exits the economy moving
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
San Francisco is super unequal, a mix of the soul-crushed poor and the ultra-wealthy, not much middle left. The solution to San Francisco's issue is to fix in equality. Normal people need to be able to afford to live.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, ignoring crime doesn't help, either. The solution is obviously a dystopian future of reeducation camps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That violent crime bill paid for more police and prisons, as well as illegalizing more behavior, including some gang-related crime. The bill did seem to reduce violent crime, but it also made the US have the largest per capita prison population in the world, and many would argue that it took fathers away from their families... there's a high correlation between fatherlessness and violence among youn
Re: (Score:2)
Just locking people up works in the short term, but the underlying issues that cause crime still need to be addressed.
Well, you cite the Biden Crime Bill, and fatherless children as a failed policy and it's aftermath. I'll cite El Salvador who says says murders fell 70% in 2023 as it cracked down on gangs [reuters.com]. The aftermath? By all accounts, their move seems to have dramatically driven down crime and some would say has gone a long way in making citizens feel safe and thus able to participate in civil discourse, shopping, outdoor activities, and more. Those are not small things to have been robbed of by a lawless environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering if El Salvador will have similar issues 30 years from now.
Ghettos full of fatherless young men fueling crime sprees? Dunno. Maybe. However, if it does take 20-30 years, they won't be dodging gangbangers in the streets in the meantime. I'd guess in 30 years they'd come up with the same answer: if the fatherless children grow up to be criminals, lock them up also.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't homeless
Of course not, the US Supreme Court is just hearing a case about improper removal of people from a public venue and possible human rights violations.....*eyeroll* [courthousenews.com]
It's gangster culture "boosting" to get rich the easy way.
Citation Needed.
A fear of being caught and spending serious time in prison would certainly have a chilling effect.
Ah yes, the go to point for a rethugican talking out of their ass: They don't fear me enough. Let the beatings commence!
Perhaps you're the one who should be locked up for being a threat to society.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"The results are clear. When city leaders coordinate to identify, arrest, and prosecute those who attempt to wreak havoc on our businesses, residents, and visitors, we create a safer city for all," said District Attorney Brooke Jenkins.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're not wrong, but you aren't connecting the dots, which may be counterproductive to your wishes.
As a society, we watched a bunch of college kids get thrown in jail over petty copyright violations, even as record executives raked in millions of dollars off of artists that they themselves were only too happy to ruin. As a result, a lot of people are never going to support punitive deterrents for copyright violations.
We also watched a lot of people of all stripes get thrown in jail for petty marijuana use
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing a car to drive around and smash the windows of parked vehicles to then loot property inside is a far graver transgression than possessing a dime bag of weed. This is a strawman.
The pattern we're current
Re: (Score:2)
Aaron Swartz was a big one, but you probably think that the government did the right thing in his case.
It looks like you think that the problem is that the justice system coddles people, and you'd prefer a more authoritarian response.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that the homeless are criminals. I said that there is great inequality. People with opportunities do not act this way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I guess that sure beats the hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, rent control sounds compassionate but turns out to be punishing.
People can afford rent but then nothing else.
Just let the market float and those suffering people move to affordable areas and crime greatly diminishes.
It's only because the fascists want a pool of cheap uneducated labor that they maintain this calamity.
Some kind of neofeudal hellscape they've created.
Re: (Score:3)
San Francisco is super unequal, a mix of the soul-crushed poor and the ultra-wealthy, not much middle left. The solution to San Francisco's issue is to fix in equality. Normal people need to be able to afford to live.
But it's been that way for decades in the whole Bay Area, though. Back when I was stationed there before the base closures, one of the first things that struck me on my first trip to Berkeley was the contrast between the poor beggars crowding Telegraph Avenue, and the expensive luxury cars driving past them as if they weren't there. Even back then the middle class was disappearing fast in the Bay. So the Rich/Poor divide is not causing the current crime wave.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of addressing any underlining issues that cause crime right?
Yes, according to you people, the underlying issue is that white people aren't carrying enough cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...Out of addressing any underlining issues that cause crime right?
Despite the best of intentions, things like The Great Society are abject failures. The corruption takes over, the money lines pockets, the people these programs help get precious little tangible help, and are still trapped in a cycle of poverty five and a half decades later! Meanwhile, the people running the grifts make out like bandits.
I have no sympathy for any of this, nor empathy for those who vote for it. The Bleeding Hearts failed, and it's quite noticeably falling apart right now.
Yes do it (Score:2)
Quit coddling ultra-violent criminal activity for exaggerated fears of privacy violations. Republicans, this isn't going to be used to reveal you like going to gay bath houses. We already know. Democrats, this won't reveal that you're corrupt and take bribes. We already know.
Just put in laws saying that surveillance cannot be used to prosecute petty cases, and anyone accessing or using surveillance for anything other than investigating violent crime should be put in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
You're plan would make sense if one thought that any of this would actually improve anything. At the end of the day, however, it's still catch and release, just with more footage. Plus a bunch of money down the drain, paying for all the watchers and their gear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes do it (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Quit coddling ultra-violent criminal activity for exaggerated fears of privacy violations."
They don't need cameras. They need sane LAWS against crimes, actual ENFORCEMENT of those laws, and then PROSECUTION of the crimes along with real PENALTIES following. They are doing NONE OF THOSE right now to any reasonable levels. It was INTENTIONAL and what they have now are the RESULTS.
Putting cameras all over without changing everything else that is broken will just lead to all the existing problems ALONG WITH privacy violations.
What an absolute moron (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't a human being on this planet that thinks their catch and release same day with no bail, usually based on skin color btw, even for violent crimes is a good idea. Or their "you can steal it as long as it's under $900" bullshit. Unless their AI, drone, camera idea is somehow going to use them to keep the mayor from entering their office or using a computer, IT'S NOT GOING TO DO A DAMN THING.
Detriot (Score:5, Informative)
Last year the police commissioner of Detroit made a concerted effort to run through the huge backlog of homicide cases that were put off after the COVID lockdowns and arrest those that never showed up to court. That same year, the homicide rate in Detroit dropped precipitously. It's almost as if you lock up people committing the crimes, the crime rate goes down.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It will buy lowered hatred by voters for a few years, which is the goal, and does so putting the unsavory task of new police laws and spending directly on the heads of the voters so, again, politicians can hide from it.
Remaining in power is the goal. You have to wonder why.
Enjoy (Score:3)
Contractors, consultants and lawyers rejoice! The new plan is lighting a bunch of money on fire building out a "safeguarded" Big Brother in the midst of their libertine utopia.
Yup, surveillance state (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but China doesn't have a legal system based on "catch and release" like SF and California in general seems to have embraced.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but China doesn't have a legal system based on "catch and release" like SF and California in general seems to have embraced.
China tends to be proud of their "quick trials" for petty criminals... not sure how fair the trials are, but it's not like US courts are on the level either.
Re: (Score:2)
When the .gov says don't worry about your privacy. (Score:2)
It's time to start panicking about your privacy!
Re: (Score:2)
What privacy would that be, exactly? Does privacy even exist?
You can't say IF to something which has happened! (Score:2)
Ignoring that and pointing out people have phones that can process stuff, shows the level of gross incompetence of the people rushing this infantile technology into place. I'm sure one day AI will be ex
Wokeness-leveraged hegelian dialectic (Score:1)
Boots on the ground (Score:2)
It is all by design... (Score:2)
haha some arsenal (Score:2)
Notably missing is prison.