[foxglacier]

So what? There were false arrests and convictions made by misuse of line-ups, DNA, eye-witnesses, photos, bloodstains, fingerprints, etc. since forever. You must also blame all those other technologies, so what do you think the police should use to find suspects? In your view, the more help police have, the worse a job they'll do. Is that actually the trend?

[catlikesshrimp]

With all other proof you mentioned, there was always a human putting his signature.

Now that they can blame "AI" no specific officer(s) will take the blame, ever. If no one is responsible there will be many more false positives.

And false positives destroy lives

[dragonwriter]

> With all other proof you mentioned, there was always a human putting his signature.

There was a human doing that in this case; AI doesn’t inititiate charges. “In his charging document, the detective wrote that Lipps appeared to be the suspect based on facial features, body type and hairstyle and color.”

[JuniperMesos]

The article could have - but didn't - mention this specific Fargo police detective's name.

[dragonwriter]

The article not mentioning the name does not change that the detective did sign the police charging documents.

(Nor does the omission in the article of other names and procedural details change the fact that for there to be actual criminal charges, an arrest warrant, extradition, and incarceration, a number of other people had to sign their names to official acts, including, among others, at least one public prosecutor, and more than one judge.)

[worik]

So what???

This woman lost most of her material possessions, was terrorised by "goons"... The police do this stuff regularly, as black people, immigrants, "white trash" etcetera know well. Another opportunity, presented BY AI models for more routine police oppression

As the wise singer said: "Fuck the police!"

[foxglacier]

Exactly, it's the police's fault, as well as the wider system they operate in that enables that kind of abuse, and they do it anyway even with out AI.

[dragonwriter]

AI is, in this case, a tool enabling it, because trawling large databases using AI allows finding people with a degree of similarity to a suspect that would reasonably constitute probable cause int he context of what was until fairly recently the norm for police work because that work relies on proximity and connections to the crime. The understanding of probable cause and what is necessary for it , given the actual investigative process in the case, including the use of large databases unconnected with the events and locality of the crime needs to adapt.

[scarecrowbob]

You're right that they often do a lot of harm.

The point that you're missing is that, in a system where such abuses are possible, many of us really don't want one more tool in their box for them to fuck us with.

Like, they already prove themselves incompetent- giving the power to track anyone in the US via a distributed ALPR system just makes them more dangerous. Giving them all these "AI" based tools does the same.

[foxglacier]

What do you think the appropriate set of tools for the police is? All the same but without AI face recognition or ALPR? Or also without DNA? fingerprints? guns? Access to government held data like tax filings? Access to other police departments' data?

[scarecrowbob]

I don't think they should even have guns, honestly. I am from Texas where we know that they just up and murder folks like Sandra Bland.

They certainly don't seem to use any of that technology well, as you yourself have admitted.

I suppose what I don't understand is why giving them access to more and easier-to-abuse technology would be a "good" thing.

To be clear, I understand that it's the people who kill folks, not guns, and that at the end of the day it's people who need to be held accountable, not the technology. Personally, I do a lot of shooting with a bunch of other queer and trans anarchist folks lately...

But giving more tech to the folks who are already misbehaving without mechanisms to enforce good behavior seems dumb to me.

[foxglacier]

> I suppose what I don't understand is why giving them access to more and easier-to-abuse technology would be a "good" thing.

I see. It's clear that you're ignoring the whole reason police exist which is to prevent crime. Of course a handicapped police force would prevent less crime than a well-resourced one. That's why it would be a good thing to give them more and easier to abuse technology.

The question is where the right balance is. Maybe having cars is OK because it helps them prevent more crime than what they cause by, say, running people over. Whereas having guns could be a net negative because more people are shot by police than protected by them with their guns. But without data, it's just opinions, probably formed from whatever bias the news has. The fact that you named an individual case suggests your opinion is based on biased news instead of data.