[renewiltord]

Facial Recognition Tech is obviously good if used by competent people:

Narrows the number of haystacks to search for needle => Reduced resources required for successful search => More crimes prosecuted.

Problem occurs when:

* Users of FRT assume all in haystack are needles

* Crimes on book must not be universally prosecuted

The first part can't be helped. US Police, like most US government jobs, is a rest-and-take-it-easy job. In aggregate, unexceptional people doing an unexceptional job. The second part is because people want other people prosecuted but not themselves.

I'm in second category myself. For instance, I am quite capable of using all sorts of drugs and maintaining a productive life. Other people are not. So it's important to prosecute other people and not to prosecute me.

Therefore, for these two reasons, I don't want FRT to be used universally. I want to preserve inequitable outcomes in policing because society is stronger with inequitable outcomes - permits good life for high percentile individuals and constrains operations for low percentile individuals. Demarcating crime from uncrime is Sorites paradox.

[chordalkeyboard]

> I want to preserve inequitable outcomes in policing because society is stronger with inequitable outcomes - permits good life for high percentile individuals and constrains operations for low percentile individuals.

Thanks for being clear about your perspective. Do you think there's potential for abuse with different rulesets for different people?

> Demarcating crime from uncrime is Sorites paradox.

I disagree. The measure of a crime is subjective and objective. Subjectively, the victim notices they have been wronged. Objectively, there is a claim by a plaintiff against a defendant. A claim either exists or it does not, there is no sorites.

[renewiltord]

> Thanks for being clear about your perspective. Do you think there's potential for abuse with different rulesets for different people?

Oh, most certainly. The same structure allows for racial discrimination, which I do not believe is a sensible angle of discrimination: i.e. I think Ben Carson should not be discriminated against for being black. Too high value as a top surgeon.

On the whole I accept it, though, because I don't want Elon Musk prosecuted by the SEC and the instrument that permits both is blunt.

> The measure of a crime is subjective and objective. Subjectively, the victim notices they have been wronged. Objectively, there is a claim by a plaintiff against a defendant. A claim either exists or it does not, there is no sorites.

Indeed. When there is a threshold. However, the costs imposed on society by drug users are dispersed. You can't Categorical Imperative them because some people are not capable enough to handle the responsibility.

Other times the crime is exposure to increased risk: no actual harm may occur. For instance, if you do burnouts on city roads there is little concrete harm, only increased exposure to risk.

It's the same with many things: public drunkenness, drink driving, jaywalking. And society reacts to these by permitting these activities in practice for high-value individuals while proselytizing against them at the same time.

I don't drink-drive but I happily do the other two.

[chordalkeyboard]

> some people are not capable enough to handle the responsibility.

Unfortunately I'm not convinced that anyone is capable of handling the responsibility of determining who is / is not capable of having responsibility. There's just too much potential for abuse.

Thanks for the reply.

[renewiltord]

Thank you for the discussion.

[jtsiskin]

I really can’t tell if this is sarcasm, satire, or serious. I think satire?

[renewiltord]

I get this a lot with this viewpoint but I've passed through the other ones to get to this one.

If it helps, I am familiar with the Veil of Ignorance, the Categorical Imperative, and every other basic tool of ethics you can think of.

[jtsiskin]

Do you think you would still have the same opinion if you were black? Even if selective enforcement makes sense, I would want very smart, highly educated, trusted, and fair people, who know everything about the defendant, making the decision. Not a cop, with nothing more than a photo, choosing who to pursue

[renewiltord]

Probably not, but like I said, I'm not, in fact, black. Like I said, I'm familiar with the Veil of Ignorance, so you can assume I also know affiliated concepts.

[aaron695]

That's succinctly put.

I'd like to rob a bank.

I want enough bank robberies to succeed that the fictional movies and books which are an import part of my life to still be plausible.

In general I don't want just anyone to be able to rob a bank.