Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Maybe it's time to reuse the old argument but now in the opposite direction:
"If the police is not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear."
This is a tough issue.
On the one hand, what about undercover cops?
On the other, it's known that the framers of the Constitution meant for the people to have access to arms partly as a hedge against governmental use of arms against the people. If facial recognition is a tool that the government will use against the people, then the framers clearly envisioned restricting the government's ability to prevent people from using facial recognition.
By default I tend to side with the Constitutional order, so I favor the people having unrestricted access to facial recognition tech. That said, I do see the chaos facial rec will bring. Not only for police, but frankly, for everyone else as well. Better start finding a side door out of that hotel tryst with your secretary fellas. Hypothetically, the wife could use some popular new facial rec service that runs against all the public photo or video upload sites for the day. You could be busted if you go out the front door of the hotel just when some college girl is snapping a selfie to share with the world. Or some dad thinks sharing a picture of his son's football team, taken at just that instant, would be really cool. All of which show you and your secretary exiting the hotel in the background.
Always an option. :P
I get your point, just poor example.
The parent comment was giving an easily-imagined example of how facial recognition can impact an everyday person. You don't have to be in the spotlight to be affected - you could be affected by facial recognition even if you're trying your best to go unseen, which the parent comment does a great example of demonstrating.
She is going to be feel hurt, but she wont be lied to anymore.
The real question though is if that is a tenable strategy in the long term. Like that hatebreed song goes, “fight fire with fire and you’ll see everyone is burning”
Your argument about public spaces works just as well for private spaces. If this trend continues there will be no reasonable expectations of privacy at all.
I am not twisting that, i am just saying the same applies to "in your home"
Americans do.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's not known. Radiolab did a great piece on the 2nd amendment's history: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radio...
TL;DL: The idea that U.S. citizens should arm themselves to defend against a tyrannical government appears to be a relatively new idea. The text of the 2nd amendment is vague and unclear:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The original intentions are shrouded in a historical fog of obscurity.
So really, like most of the Constitution, the meaning is up to the people and the courts. That's why we established the Supreme Court, to help us establish the living meaning behind the Constitution ... oh wait:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi...
The Supreme Court is also a modern day construction, also originally an object of constitutional obscurity.
I guess the real summary of the U.S. Constitution can be summed up as ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The framers considered the military to be the only arm of force the government held. The police force wasn't a thing at the time. The 3rd Amendment says the government shall not quarter forces with the people, more or less. This seems to imply that the military shouldn't be deployed amongst the population as a means of applying the force of the government, which has a monopoly on force. Understanding the 3rd Amendment in this context provides a very clear picture of the 2nd Amendment. The people should have a well-regulated militia, with which they police themselves.
Here's a video that does a decent job of highlighting what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI
I will grant you that allowing police to use tape to cover their name tags is wrong on many levels.
But if protesters use this technology to target policemen's families, why would anyone in their right mind take the job?
Ideally, you aren't; you are going to disband the centralized, omnipurpose paramilitary law enforcement entities known as "police departments", redistribute law enforcement responsibilities among domain-specific entities that for the most part are not exclusively, or even centrally, law enforcement, and not violate the public trust the way police departments have broadly and systematically done over an extended period of time.
The metric we should look at is not GDP per capita (which is how the U.S. bears similarity to Europe), it is crime.
If you look at intentional homicide rates among large countries (>1m population), the U.S. is comparable to countries like Ecuador, Argentina, Kenya, and Pakistan [1].
The U.S. intentional homicide rate is bigger than Western European countries by a factor of 4 or 5.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
A major contention of the defund/dismantle movement is that the US prioritization of paramilitary law enforcement for local funding exacerbates the social problems that create crime, even if you don't count crime-by-police.
Considering over 240 million 911 calls are placed in a given year, at a surface level this feels extremely efficient — certainly more so than other parts of our bureaucracy.
Crime occurs for social, cultural, and/or financial reasons — focusing on the financial, we have a giant bureaucratic and inefficient government, an incredibly large population, and a lot of waste. I don't think one could argue the $24/person/month we pay for police would make a substantial difference / stop a ton of crime.
I should imagine it's gone up since then?
> Considering over 240 million 911 calls are placed in a given year
But if you cut the police spending by, say, 50% and used that money instead to providing social services, mental health services, etc., how many of those 911 calls go away?
I already know the answer. It makes the place look a hell of a lot like Western Europe.
The people not making their living outside the law don't need more police and they sure as shit don't need more militarized police. The largest group of people who are making their living outside of the law can easily be made to not be doing that by an act of congress.
It will reduce the profitability of the drug trade, which may result in less crimes or an increase in other crimes. It may also increase the number of people addicted to drugs, which, in the United States, leads to an exponential increase in both violent crime and property crime [1].
There's many other forms of crime and homicide than drug-related, and plenty of people need the police for reasons that are not related to drugs.
Separately, those people would not be making their living "not outside the law," they would be out of work. Drug legalization doesn't mean we allow existing supply chains from violent cartels.
Violent crime in the U.S. is just far more deadly.
It's a tough problem, but I suspect the actual solution probably has to do more with shifting our culture than with changing our laws.
What will happen if domain-specific entities protect their specific regions and there are issues with other entities near-by?
What have the Romans ever done for us? There has been local law enforcement for ages until empires started. Civilization happens because somebody unites a region under one law enforcement. It's not pretty for everybody, but by which force should domain specific forces not fight each other if central authority is disbanded?
Subdividing the police department could work.
New-York inhabitant already thank you, especially given the radical upspike in violence since the NYPD defunding !
You can't have unarmed law enforcement against armed gang-bangers...
They don't mean regional fiefdoms.
Domain here meaning function, not territory. What we currently have for local law enforcement is mainly territory-based all-purpose paramilitary forces. (State and federal law enforcement is mostly divided among domain-specific agencies, most of which report to top-level departments with some focus other than generic law enforcement.)
> but by which force should domain specific forces not fight each other if central authority is disbanded?
No one has suggested disbanding central authority, either at local or higher levels, only disbanding centralized all-purpose local paramilitary law-enforcement agencies.
> Despite the uptick of crime in his ward, Cunningham, who supports the creation of a new community safety agency to replace the police department, said it’s particularly important now to start instituting some of those public health-based approaches to violence prevention. Recently, the council took more than $1 million from the police budget to hire “violence interrupters” to intervene and defuse potentially violent confrontations. [1]
> “If we have these systems in place we are getting ahead of the violence,” said Cunningham. “That’s why I have advocated so strongly for the violence interrupters, because if they are interrupting the violence before the guns are being fired, then the MPD doesn’t have to respond to that violence.”
> “What I am sort of flabbergasted by right now is colleagues, who a very short time ago were calling for abolition, are now suggesting we should be putting more resources and funding into MPD,” Cunningham said.
I'm questioning the general competence of politicians when the best solution they have is hiring unarmed citizens to... interrupt potentially armed and unhinged aggressors?
1 - https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/15/with-violent-crime-...
Activists are going to decide they don't like them and start stalking them as well.
Also, there is now a watchman watching the watchman, but who's watching the watchman watching the watchman ?
I do not condone violence and at the moment the police seem to be doing most of it. There needs to be a check on that.
I guess your opinion then fully depends on where the MSM camera are pointed toward, because you've got to be awfully blind if you think ONLY the police has been violent.
You heard: "you think ONLY the police has been violent"
I said: "I do not condone violence"
You seem to heave heard: "I do not condone violence [and don't think anyone except for police has used it]."
Try harder.
I am aware that others are violent, but they're also not pepper spraying people milling around with their kids or black bagging people on the street.
Someone who claims to have the most dangerous job in America getting nervous about being identified while pepper spraying protestors has got an uphill battle convincing me that they're the victim. Armed agents of the state also clearly have to have a role in a country with as many guns as ours.
They should conduct themselves professionally enough that they aren't pepper spraying people sitting in the street and aiming rubber bullets at their heads. Start there. If you are captured on film pepper spraying some 20 year old kid sitting on the street in the face for a solid twenty seconds? No, you are absolutely not qualified to carry a firearm, much less "protect the peace".
U.S. civilians own nearly 400 million firearms, which is larger than the country's population. The intentional homicide rate is comparable to Kenya, Pakistan, Ecuador, or Argentina (5x higher than Western Europe). Are you sure that police will be able to operate effectively without being armed in a somewhat militaristic manner?
> redistribute law enforcement responsibilities among domain-specific entities
What will happen if I call 911 and report someone stole from me at gunpoint? What if I report that someone violated my restraining order against them? What if I report that someone is yelling threateningly at waitstaff at a restaurant?
> not violate the public trust
While we absolutely need more oversight, there are over ~55,000,000 documented police-public encounters in a given year, and ~1,000 cases of lethal force used by police (vast majority were people attempting to harm the officers).
The rate of lethal force as a percent of interactions: 0.0000206473%.
The rate of lethal force against the total U.S. population: 0.00000343477%.
I have a problem with centralized, all-purpose paramilitary law enforcement agencies.
If you ignore half the words of a description, it can change the meaning significantly.
In a country as armed and violent as the United States, escalation happens quickly and dangerously. We've all seen videos of officers pulling a car over for speeding and being executed the moment they look away, there's been more than a few in the past couple months alone [1] [2] [3]. Nearly any situation can become lethal for the officer and civilians [4], so I think it's fair to ask in what situations there would be an armed responder.
Edited with sources as it was downvoted:
[1] https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/police-release-footage-of-fata... [2] https://apnews.com/article/808248ed232ca2a83dad8780359bf69b [3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/us/south-carolina-deputy-kill...
[4] https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/16-153...
- Mao Zedong
It's easy to wonder how the government would collect taxes without armed police. Or confiscate guns if stricter gun control laws are created. The reality is, of course, that they merely want to defund or disarm this version of the police.
> What will happen if I call 911 and report someone stole from me at gunpoint? What if I report that someone violated my restraining order against them?
FYI, the police have no obligation to do anything in the restraining order scenario: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale...
In fact, police have no obligation of duty to you as an individual in almost any scenario.
Wasn't an open warrant for violating a restraining order what led to the Jacob Blake alteraction?
Yeah, I don't know why the biggest argument people raise against radical reform of the US law enforcement system is "the current system is doing a spectacularly bad job at controlling crime, so we shouldn't mess with it".
Why is the crime rate high? Is it really because of police, or do they help? How will some radical restructuring reduce it?
There are many questions here.
Preventative policing, while effective in social democratic countries with low inequality like the Nordics, isn't on the table when we see violent crime that mirrors African and South American countries. Disincentivizing homicide in a country rife with inequality and materialism is a harder task than we imagine.
There are ~900,000 police officers in the United States, and 240 million 911 calls, and 50 million police-public interactions. That's an average of over 50 interactions per day for a police officer.
Those are numbers per year, not per day.
The murder clearance rates are quite low when I checked, so at least part of issues is the way police prioritize their work. And you wont raise murder clearance rates by surveilling protesters nor by having guns from army nor by arresting people for loitering and what not.
You cant disincentivize homicide when you don't catch murderers. And most murders are also among people who know each other, not random events.
I would argue that anything above 0.00% is wrong. Police must and should always use non-lethal approach. Regardless of their situation. Sound / visual / sensory approach would incapacitate the violent persona and bring it to justice. Police in now way should be granted judge and executioner roles.
We are either consider life precious or not at all. No middle ground.
Of the percent I cited, >90% of that lethal force is against an armed individual.
I don't know what sensory approach could prevent every single death, when there are so many cases of violence in this country.
Where there is a will...
There are values of 0.00000343477% which are below 0.00%.
>The rate of lethal force as a percent of interactions: 0.0000206473%.
Could you explain this number? I get 0.001818%. Did you forget to correct for the factor 100 in giving a percentage?
What is the percentage when it comes to Black and Latinos in the US?
In other words, disband PD to create... another PD.
A mob follows no rules and some try to blind police officers using lasers. Or they can simply harass somebody for days on end.
No one ever won a lawsuit against a mob.
Why is it acceptable when police stop people for breaking traffic laws, but "false imprisonment" when other drivers do it?
On a more serious note, this is the stuff Libertarians have been talking about for decades. There is no consistency to government power and laws at all, so it's all smoke and mirrors. And only backed by circular power. I.e. Government gives itself legitimacy because it is government.
If the police have lost consent of the governed, then the problem is with the government.
We’re not in a perfect world, and — as all humans are imperfect — evidence of badness will accumulate in even the best of us. I wish I knew how to fix that, because it also applies to literally all online activity, and isn’t just a cops thing.
" If you have nothing to hide, why refusing surveillance?"
So police should be exempted from mass surveillance ban ?!?
Whatever the solution ends up being, I want the police to be the same as everyone else with regard to that solution.
I don’t really get normal human psychology, so I don’t know if everybody or nobody should have facial recognition software in public places, but I do think it should be a choice of “everybody or nobody”.
How much "wrong" does an organization have to commit before it becomes a net liability?
"But if protesters use this technology to target policemen's families, why would anyone in their right mind take the job?"
Why would anyone in their right mind take a job where they covered their name tag to protect their identity?
Sunshine is a disinfectant.
Nutjobs who want power over others and are willing to imperil themselves to pursue it will continue to become cops. By discouraging people in their right mind from joining the police, the police will become more dangerous. 'All Cops Are Bad' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Unfortunately I think some police reform/abolition activists have decided to accelerate this feedback loop under the theory that making things much worse is the only way to make things better. 'ACAB' makes bad cops think they're in good company while probably making good cops want to quit (and similarly filters new police recruits.) The premise is presumably that when cops get worse, more of the public will support reform. 'Accelerationist' approaches like thus might be well intentioned, but I think the consequences are more likely to be disastrous.
Escalate appropriately to targetting family - you know the same way they would if crazed vegans attacked a meat packing worker. Anyone so cowardly they cannot accept working for a living for an entity /with a legal monopoly on use of force/ has no business being a police officer. If they cannot accept being protected like everybody else we don't want the cravens.
Back in the old days, you could just go to the next town, take on a new name, and build a new life. Or, you could sexually assault a woman while in high school, then become a Supreme Court Justice. We may need to adjust our sense of what things are forgivable, since in the future none of us will be able to simply leave the past behind.
Edit: If it wasn't obvious, that was sarcasm about the Supreme Court Justice. I think it's a tragedy he was appointed, and was alluding to the idea that if that house party had cameras streaming to the public internet, it wouldn't have happened.
I was talking to the person doing my physical and he mentioned that most men he sees are being ‘nagged’ in to buying insurance by their wives after a baby.
I found that to be interesting. It’s ultra irresponsible to not have some coverage, and if I were on the other side, I would nag too.
https://news.wfsu.org/wfsu-local-news/2010-05-07/walmart-sue...
Not sure how that panned out in the long run...
https://www.businessinsider.com/is-there-a-dead-peasant-life...
Neat little cyberpunk device but doesn't quite work in reality without some other foundational assumption changes for things like "actually somehow provides substansially better life insurance even if it may also be used to place a hit on you".
Easier to convince people who have a death wish / create terror on people rather than death.
Poisonous animals generally don't kill, even when they are about to die. It's the terror.
no
only if an officer looks at the data a warrant is required, as long as only automatons process it, the rules do not apply
U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal (reuters.com)
A big problem I'm noticing everywhere is that, while we have access to all of this information on how the government works, no one exercises their access to that information before commenting on internet forums and spreading misinformation and doubt about our DEMOCRATIC institutions. Even if you don't elect the person who heads these agencies, you do elect the person who appoints those heads.
wut
Do you know what the NSA does? Maybe look it up...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Human_Intelligence_Sour...
It is very common in the United States for Congress to pass laws, but exempt themselves.
Example 1: I have read that OSHA rules don't apply to Congress.
Example 2: Political ads are exempted from the Do Not Call rules.
Yes, if someone in a trusted position of authority is caught doing something illegal they should be removed from that position and then charged with what ever crime it was they committed. Just like you and I would have done to us. Why is that even a question on your part?
I think the parent isn't actually questioning that someone in authority should or should not have the same repercussions, but rather rhetorically calling out, as you explicitly did, they often are held to a lower standard.
Apple requested to shut down 3 Telegram channels used by the people of Belarus to expose the identities of their oppressors.
It’s also rarely the case that when there is a transfer of power, for the police to all be fired, which you’d think would be the case if they were the oppressors who had just been overthrown.
Doxxing police may be an effective strategy, but it’s also true that social media driven mobs end up killing people, sometimes in error.
Standing up against oppression is necessary, but it’s also messy, and nobody really smells of roses.
peaceably: inclined or disposed to avoid strife or dissension; not argumentative or hostile:
assemble: gather together in one place for a common purpose.
step 1: go to ddg step 2: type "define peaceably" step 3: hit "enter" step 4: read the first or second definition in the results step 5: ????? step 6: profit
It’s interesting because the dictionary.com definition is very constrained.
Avoiding dissention, and not being ‘argumentative’ seem like a stretch for describing most peaceful protests in the US.
Or are the implications of this definition the issue?
> peaceably, adv.
> 2. Without being subject to disturbance or opposition; in peace, quietly; tranquilly, peacefully.
> 1375: Barbour Bruce v. 231 “It anoyis me.., That the clyffurd sa pesabilly Brukis and haldis the senȝory That suld be mine.”
> 1471: Fortescue Wks. (1869) 527 “Kynge Knoght kepte and occupied the same lande.., and died peasibly seased tharof.”
> 1593: Shakes. 2 Hen. VI, iii. iii. 25 “Disturbe him not, let him passe peaceably.”
> 1727: De Foe Syst. Magic i. iii. (1840) 71 “We come to desire your leave, that we may go peaceably, and do the duty of our worship.”
> 1824: Mackintosh Speech 15 June, “They saw the laws obeyed, justice administered,..and the revenue peaceably collected.”
> peaceably, adv.
> 1. With peaceful or friendly disposition, intention, or behaviour; amicably; so as to make for or maintain peace; without making strife, opposition, or disturbance; without quarrel or dispute.
> c1330: R. Brunne Chron. Wace (Rolls) 7300 “Ȝyf swylk be comen, & peysibly þe hauene han nomen, In pes lat þem take þer rest.”
> 1389: in Eng. Gilds (1870) 52 “Honestliche and peysiblyche to gon to þe forseyd chirch.”
> c1449: Pecock Repr. iii. xiii. (Rolls) 363 “Regniden in successioun euermore oon emperour after an other pesibili to gidere.”
> 1535: Coverdale Zach. viii. 16 “Execute iudgment truly and peaceably.”
> 1599: Shakes. Much Ado v. ii. 72 “Thou and I are too wise to wooe peaceablie.”
> 1599: Nashe Lenten Stuffe Wks. (Grosart) V. 228 “Not any where is..a warlike people peaceablier demeanourd.”
> 1709: Addison Tatler No. 96 2 “Good Subjects, that pay their Taxes, and live peaceably in their Habitations.”
> 1855: Macaulay Hist. Eng. xii. III. 190 “With assurances that the city should be peaceably surrendered.”
>peaceably, adv.
> 3. Comb.
> 1692: Wicked Contriv. Steph. Blackhead in Select. fr. Harl. Misc. (1793) 512 “Some other good and peaceably-minded man.”
> 1781: Cowper Conversation 90 “The clash of arguments and jar of words,..Divert the champions prodigal of breath, And put the peaceably-disposed to death.”
Don't equivocate between the people protesting for their votes to be counted and the people kidnapping and torturing them in response.
It seems like there are millions of people in Belarus who are equivocating in some way.
I’m not questioning whether the dictator should go.
I’m saying that for each person in the situation, whatever their role, the calculus of what action to take is not black and white.
For example, by all accounts Lukashenko is backed by Putin. It could be that people are less scared of the police, and more scared of what could happen if they overthrow Lukashenko, and Putin sends in little green men to restore order.
That’s just one example of what people might be considering. I’m guessing there are also a bunch of people who simply don’t have a clear idea of exactly what’s going on.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-17/belarus-torture-prote...
The goal of fighting oppression this way is to drive the number of willing participants down and keep as many of those contracts open/unfulfilled. Quiting vacates 1.
However, given the high cost of such a decision, the desired benefit tends to be attained, as there is always sufficient numbers of willing participants to bid on those vacancies. Every year people graduate, separate from the military, migrate here.
Fighting labor market dynamics is unscalable. Changing labor markets via political mechanisms on the other hand is.
Theoretically, sure. You're going to do this in Belarus, the most openly totalitarian state currently? The problem is that politically changing the dynamics is nigh impossible until the existing power structure is neutralized.
I'll agree that losing a living wage is a large difficulty, but reducing totalitarian oppression to market dynamics is callous, or biased. The larger situation demands action beyond rational choices.
It’s rarely that clean.
So no, I still don't feel bad about it, even if that cop needs the job to feed his family. Maybe they should fight the system that doesn't support their citizens in need (people with health problems, people who don't have money for food, people who don't have homes) instead of being willing participants against those fighting for a better government that actually serves the needs of its people?
But that’s never the case. There is always a mixture of people with good motivations, people who just want to get into a fight. This is just as true for the protestors as it is for the police.
If it was so clear what was right, then it would be simple to overthrow the government since the vast majority of people would be in agreement.
Whether or not the court system is about retaliation is a completely separate debate.
I'm exiting this thread as you've shown no interest in listening to anyone that has disagreed with you.
Doxxing doesn’t equate to transparency or holding people accountable in court, and it certainly can mean retaliation.
That brings us back to my original point - if you believe in accountability you don’t necessarily believe in doxxing cops. It’s not that clean.
Honestly I'd prefer vigilante justice over that.
Dox the cops, 100%. I'd rather a cop be hurt unfairly in the line of duty than a protester fighting for what he believes in. This country was founded on overthrowing tyrrany. If the cops don't accept the risks of the job then they can quit. Cops need to be held to a higher standard, not lower or even equal. The government (and police) should fear the people, not the other way around.
So no. It is that clean.
Nobody said anything about the police policing themselves. That doesn’t mean the only alternative is doxxing. That is a false dichotomy.
It’s only ‘clean’ if you can only see two options, and think there are no alternatives.
It's clean because the police should be held to higher standards than the public, and they can quit if they don't want that responsibility.
Now it’s “angry mob” vs “no police accountability”.
Nobody else is talking about either of these.
I will always choose the people over the police, even if the people are violent. A public mob is better than a police mob.
Until the police are held accountable to the public, I feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.
As to making people “seem like they are anti-police”, why would I need to do that? I don’t think people have a problem with being seen as anti-police. Is there something wrong with being anti-police? It seems like an entirely valid position to hold.
Being anti-police as an institution doesn’t automatically mean being in favor of mob violence against individuals. You can be strongly against a structure, without hating the individuals who occupy the role.
It is possible to want to hold the police accountable without believing that the only way to do this is to dehumanize them, or to doxx them.
All you have done here is double down on an extremist position.
“The police” is a very large and diverse group of people. You have said you feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.
You have said that you are willing to completely dehumanize all police, and support violence of any kind against all of them and the killing of innocent people in the name of your cause, which is an unspecified ‘accountability’.
You are therefore a politically violent extremist, or at the very least someone who supports politically violent extremism if such a distinction can be made.
Can you find one other comment where I have labeled anyone anything? It should be very easy if I end every one of my comments like that.
Nobody else here has said they don’t care about innocent people dying. That is only you.
You keep twisting what people say only to respond with gotchas and try to wear down your opponents.
You are saying that you don’t care about police dying.
I could point out that police are people, so what you are doing here is to dehumanize anyone who you consider to be police.
However, I accept that you wouldn’t recognize that argument, because you then go on to say, that they can quit whenever they want.
I.e. they can avoid being killed by simply making the choice not to be Police.
This is the very definition of political violence - threatening the lives of people who support institutions you don’t like.
“I will always choose the people over the police, even if the people are violent. A public mob is better than a police mob.”
“Until the police are held accountable to the public, I feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.”
“the public needs to do it by whatever means necessary even if that harms innocent police officers”
Seems pretty clear what you are advocating. You don’t have to say things like this if they aren’t what you mean.
I choose to help the people, not the police.
“the public needs to do it by whatever means necessary even if that harms innocent police officers”
Advocating methods that knowingly include harming the innocent is advocating violence.
You are clearly advocating violence.
Why not just admit it?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874243
I think it’s reasonable to assume you won’t, because if you could have without resorting to denial and gaslighting, you would have done.
As I said before and you never addressed: if I say I don't care about you, does that mean I'm advocating violence against you?
You can't use that line on groups of people you don't like while also wanting privacy for groups of people you do like.
However in this case it's actually different, as police officers are meant to be public servants.
Just because someone does public work doesn’t mean they should be denied a private life.
Are you saying the goal of de-anonymizing is to punish the police?
Earlier it seemed like you were interested in trials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862054
I’ve also personally witnessed a policeman on horseback in the UK striking a peaceful and stationary protester in the head with a baton resulting in profuse bleeding.
If it’s true in Belarus, then it’s also true in the UK, and US.
But, what isn’t clear is that a Telegram group doxxing officers is a clean way to deal with it.
How do we know which officers were doxxed and for what reason? How do we know what will happen to them? Would you feel comfortable if the officer in your video was killed?
Doesn’t seem clean to me.
Keep a dossier, have a trial.
Doxxing is not that. Indeed I could see it even being raised as a defense against future culpability.
“The officer was in fear for his life because he was being personally targeted by protestors.”
When? Your approach is to limit political autonomy to zero and offer an institutional solution that will probably not be available. What if the compilation or possession of such a dossier is treated as evidence of conspiracy to commit sedition?
If compilation of a dossier is treated as evidence of a conspiracy to commit sedition, then surely doxxing would be too.
Doxxing might well be used as evidence of a conspiracy to commit sedition, but by distributing the information widely it's strategically superior to holding it in isolation. It's easy to act with impunity against a lone individual, but if some unknown number of people are possession of the same information the marginal benefit of arrest is vastly reduced.
That is a straw man argument, undeniably so. It in no way represents my position.
I agree with you distributing information widely is superior to holding it in isolation, and I agree with you about reducing the benefit of arrest. Nobody said anything about just one person holding all the dossiers.
There are many ways to accomplish this which are not doxxing if the goal is real accountability.
Some of the participants in the brutalities called it a "mexican slaughterhouse" and several trials came to the conclusion that massive human rights violations have occurred.
Unfortunately the commanding officers have been promoted for not maintaining order and not exercising the authority over their men that their role demanded. They too loved it though and throughout.
Are you saying doxxing and random retaliatory violence equates to ‘accountability’?
This is why generally police are identified by badges with numbers, and rather than their names and addresses.
Are you suggesting that the home address, name, and photograph of all police officers should be made publicly available everywhere?
2. How do people know who the Belarusian police are in order to doxx them?
#2 if you can identity the police using ML, then you can use those identities for any legitimate purpose that a badge number would be used for, such as collecting evidence against them, and clearly doxxing is not the only thing you can do.
You don't doxx police officers and paste their IDs online. The chance you're taking, the certainty indeed, is that someone will follow through (perhaps even an agent provocateur) providing the justification for waves of ruthless revenge.
Nope, you bring your dossiers to a higher court and ask for Justice (EU, ICJ, UN.)
Edit: unless of course the situation has deteriorated so badly that the prospect of civil war with all its casualties and pain is on the table.
You seem to be confusing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
On the other hand, I think my point about national attacks on supranational institutions remains relevant.
The EU isn't a court, and European institutions (including European courts like the ECHR) are particularly not "higher courts" over police in the US. The ICJ hears only cases between state parties, not between states and their subjects, and the UN isn't a court at all, and, again, is only a forum for state parties, not for disputes between individuals and states, though sometimes you can get a state party to stand up for subjects of another state; but, that's not really much of a practical option if the offending state is the US, both because of its Security Council role (which Uniting for Peace, in theory, provides a route around through the General Assembly), and because of its hyperpower status (which means that there is, in practice, no way to enforce a decision against it, even if one was reached through UfP.)
When the oppressor only has the truly pathological cases to support them, it's a lot easier to know who to fight.
I know, the 'good' officers can be leveraged, hostaged, or any number of other coercive ways to make them do what the oppressor wants.
And I don't generally agree with the 'stay in the system and help fix it from within'. When you're having to take crappy orders from above, your only recourse is mutiny or other disobedience and it's a lot harder to manage in an already corrupt chain.
No it's not, not generally. When the police goes away, in a lot of places, society falls apart because the vicious prey on the rest without hesitation. Especially the good cops don't want that, because they're in it to serve and protect. "I'll just not go, lol" equals "some drug lord will take over the city and rape and pillage with impunity". They don't want that, and the super majority of citizens also doesn't want that.
If I were to bet, I'd say secret squads are more likely than cops just giving up and not enforcing the law any longer.
Seems like a very poor idea. Would you want somebody doxxing you for your work? How much more so it is if you're a cop.
I don't see any good at all in this.
'cancel culture' is probably the most fascist thing since those infamous nazi brown shirts. It really is domestic terrorism.