If you demand zero false positives, you won't have any system at all.
Even humans make false positive identification mistakes.
The key is to get the users of the system to understand that the system has false positives, and to take that into consideration when making decisions.
Re: Cameras should be on any time the uniform is worn
...and every citizen who interacts with an officer (and their attorneys and heirs) should have the automatic right to obtain a copy of video from 15 minutes before the start of the interaction until 15 minutes after the end.
Cameras with all-day battery life and capacity are now cheap.
The cameras should be sewn into the uniform with a motion sensor - they stay on from the moment the uniform is moved, and stay on for 15 minutes after the last movement. No "off" switch.
Cameras are charged and downloaded overnight; putting on a uniform with a less-than-fully-charged battery is a firing offense.
And all videos should be saved for a minimum of 2 years.
(I hear YouTube will save all the videos you like, for free.)
Just as it's a sound personal decision not to vote - because my vote is profoundly unlikely to affect the election result, while for sure it'll take 45 minutes out of my day.
But good citizens vote anyway.
As I said, being a citizen includes some responsibilities. Above and beyond what's good for you personally.
Azrael, that conclusion comes from familiarity with the real world.
I've worked in large public tech companies at high levels. I've been in meetings with NSA representatives, who came to ask "favors". Ask. Not demand.
The US government cannot, and does not, tell private firms what to say. And if they tried, the first thing the company would do is file a lawsuit over it (a very public one).
Mike is correct. To think otherwise is uninformed fantasy.
The data is not a work of creativity, so shouldn't be subject to copyright.
Neither should it be owned by the driver, or the manufacturer.
It shouldn't be owned by ANYBODY (but it should be anonymized).
Probably there should be legislation making the data (suitably anonymized) available publicly - so all manufacturers can use it to improve the self-driving algorithms.
So other cars on the road can learn about road and traffic conditions.
Re: NO, problem is Spotify and GIVING it your data in first place.
Hey, Shlomo, it's MY data and I'll give it to whom I please.
And if a bunch of Eurocrats mandate that Spotify give out MY data in circumstances where neither I nor Spotify want to, then it's the mandate (GDPR) that's the problem.
Truth exists (it's not subjective) but our perception of truth is imperfect and subjective.
To the extent there was ever an era with agreed 'truth', it was the result of having a few gatekeepers who controlled the vast majority of media and news production. Those gatekeepers decided what 'truth' was (often with a strong guiding hand from political authorities), published or aired it, and most people believed it. More or less.
Today we have social media, web sites, and a proliferation of media outlets of every size. The correlation between the size of the media organization (and funding) and audience is weak. We have tiny 2 - 3 person organizations with outsize influence, and vice-versa.
I don't think this is all bad - we have a lot more diversity of viewpoint, and people being able to express their views in public is mostly good.
But we've lost that forced common viewpoint, and that is part of what has led to the extreme political polarization we have today, and to airing of crazy viewpoints that used to be suppressed (faked moon landing theories, flat earthers, pedophile clubs under pizza parlors, etc.).
Perhaps 'post fact era' is a better description of where we are now, but the problem is not that people aren't accepting 'facts' (tho of course that happens, as it always has), but that people pay attention to facts and outlets that support their viewpoint, and ignore those that don't.
We need social mechanisms to counteract that - to debunk false 'facts' and expose people to ideas they disagree with.
Robin Hanson at GMU has some fascinating ideas on how that might be done. For example:
I mean, they're public websites. Usually the people who put up web sites want readers.
There seems to be a lot of jumping to conclusions here. For all we know, whoever sits at that computer in the MA State Police could just be a leftie enthusiast.
Sure, it's possible (indeed, likely) that they're reading it to keep an eye on potential violent protests.
Isn't that what we pay them for? What exactly is the complaint?
(If the issue is bias, as a MA resident, I can assure you there simply aren't any right-wing groups here large enough to qualify as a mob.)
By "developers" I mean all involved in the design and implementation of IoT gadgets.
But I know a number of very smart and (otherwise) competent developers who simply have no bare-metal experience at all. The very idea of building up a system from scratch doesn't occur to them, and they wouldn't know where to start.
And they don't understand that the more moving parts anything has, the more likely it is for something to go wrong.
On the post: Atlanta Cops Caught Deleting Body Cam Footage, Failing To Activate Recording Devices
Re: Re: Re: Cameras should be on any time the uniform is worn
I think you'd have small-scale tyrants operating with impunity within hours.
We need police. We also need to control them. It's difficult, but the alternatives are worse.
On the post: Microsoft Posts List Of Facial Recognition Tech Guidelines It Thinks The Government Should Make Mandatory
Re: Fines that work, make it personal
Even humans make false positive identification mistakes.
The key is to get the users of the system to understand that the system has false positives, and to take that into consideration when making decisions.
Just as they are supposed to do now.
On the post: Atlanta Cops Caught Deleting Body Cam Footage, Failing To Activate Recording Devices
Re: Cameras should be on any time the uniform is worn
Who watches the watchers? The citizens do.
On the post: Atlanta Cops Caught Deleting Body Cam Footage, Failing To Activate Recording Devices
Cameras should be on any time the uniform is worn
Much of this can be fixed with technology.
Cameras with all-day battery life and capacity are now cheap.
The cameras should be sewn into the uniform with a motion sensor - they stay on from the moment the uniform is moved, and stay on for 15 minutes after the last movement. No "off" switch.
Cameras are charged and downloaded overnight; putting on a uniform with a less-than-fully-charged battery is a firing offense.
And all videos should be saved for a minimum of 2 years.
(I hear YouTube will save all the videos you like, for free.)
On the post: Indiana Police Chief Promoting As Many Bad Cops As He Can To Supervisory Positions
Bad cops get promoted
At least in some departments.
It wouldn't be surprising if aggressive types get rewarded and promoted in today's quasi-military police departments.
Esp. since, unlike a real military, police never actually face an enemy on equal terms.
The need to win wars (or at least avoid losing them) tends to keeps hotheads out of senior positions in real militaries.
Pretend-military police lack that discipline.
On the post: Nice Work EU: You've Given Google An Excuse To Offer A Censored Search Engine In China
Re: Re: Re: Clearly a legal scam
Just as it's a sound personal decision not to vote - because my vote is profoundly unlikely to affect the election result, while for sure it'll take 45 minutes out of my day.
But good citizens vote anyway.
As I said, being a citizen includes some responsibilities. Above and beyond what's good for you personally.
On the post: Nice Work EU: You've Given Google An Excuse To Offer A Censored Search Engine In China
Re: Clearly a legal scam
It's people like you, who give up without a fight even when they're within their rights, who destroy things for everyone.
If no one will stand up for their rights, we won't have any.
Being a citizen includes some responsibilities. One of those is to refuse to be trodden upon.
On the post: Nice Work EU: You've Given Google An Excuse To Offer A Censored Search Engine In China
Re: Re: Re: Re: technicians running wild
In fact, I'm starting to think that's the entire point of business school.
On the post: Don't Throw Out The First Amendment's Press Protections Just Because You Don't Like President Trump
Oh noes! Mr. Trump is a threat to our freedoms!
On the post: Another Lawsuit And Another Loss For Plaintiffs Trying To Make Twitter Pay For Terrorism
Re: 'If at first you don't succeed, file file again. And again.
- W. C. Fields
On the post: Google Says Our Article On The Difficulty Of Good Content Moderation Is... Dangerous
It's complaining about the comments section
If I could send one line of text to everyone in the world, it would be "Let's all calm down a little".
On the post: Apple Demands Retraction Of Bloomberg's Big 'Chip Infiltration' Story; Bloomberg Has Some Explaining To Do
Re: Re: Re: what magical palantir
They can't tell you that you MUST say Y.
On the post: Apple Demands Retraction Of Bloomberg's Big 'Chip Infiltration' Story; Bloomberg Has Some Explaining To Do
Re: what magical palantir
I've worked in large public tech companies at high levels. I've been in meetings with NSA representatives, who came to ask "favors". Ask. Not demand.
The US government cannot, and does not, tell private firms what to say. And if they tried, the first thing the company would do is file a lawsuit over it (a very public one).
Mike is correct. To think otherwise is uninformed fantasy.
On the post: Politicians Start To Push For Autonomous Vehicle Data To Be Protected By Copyright Or Database Rights
Lots of social value in the data
Neither should it be owned by the driver, or the manufacturer.
It shouldn't be owned by ANYBODY (but it should be anonymized).
Probably there should be legislation making the data (suitably anonymized) available publicly - so all manufacturers can use it to improve the self-driving algorithms.
So other cars on the road can learn about road and traffic conditions.
So mapping data can be updated in real time.
For everyone's benefit.
On the post: Nobel Econ Award Goes To Two Economists Who Have Greatly Shaped My Thinking On Economics Of Innovation
Re: I'm no pedant and am contemptuous not merely sneering, so okay!
I'm a member of a secret society that consists of just ONE person.
It's so secret that you've never even heard of it.
And 300 times more exclusive than "Skull and Bones".
The 1 in 7 billion, or 0.000000014% elite!
On the post: Did France Just Make It Effectively Impossible To Use Twitter?
Re: But we still don't know how deep the rabbit hole is...
On the post: Unintended Consequences: How The GDPR Can Undermine Privacy
Re: NO, problem is Spotify and GIVING it your data in first place.
And if a bunch of Eurocrats mandate that Spotify give out MY data in circumstances where neither I nor Spotify want to, then it's the mandate (GDPR) that's the problem.
The moreso that I don't even live in the EU.
On the post: Court Orders FCC To Hand Over Data On Bogus Net Neutrality Comments
Re: 'post fact era'
To the extent there was ever an era with agreed 'truth', it was the result of having a few gatekeepers who controlled the vast majority of media and news production. Those gatekeepers decided what 'truth' was (often with a strong guiding hand from political authorities), published or aired it, and most people believed it. More or less.
Today we have social media, web sites, and a proliferation of media outlets of every size. The correlation between the size of the media organization (and funding) and audience is weak. We have tiny 2 - 3 person organizations with outsize influence, and vice-versa.
I don't think this is all bad - we have a lot more diversity of viewpoint, and people being able to express their views in public is mostly good.
But we've lost that forced common viewpoint, and that is part of what has led to the extreme political polarization we have today, and to airing of crazy viewpoints that used to be suppressed (faked moon landing theories, flat earthers, pedophile clubs under pizza parlors, etc.).
Perhaps 'post fact era' is a better description of where we are now, but the problem is not that people aren't accepting 'facts' (tho of course that happens, as it always has), but that people pay attention to facts and outlets that support their viewpoint, and ignore those that don't.
We need social mechanisms to counteract that - to debunk false 'facts' and expose people to ideas they disagree with.
Robin Hanson at GMU has some fascinating ideas on how that might be done. For example:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/ideafutures.html
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.pdf
Whoe ver gets this right could become the next Facebook.
On the post: State Cops Accidentally Out Their Surveillance Of Anti-Police Groups With Browser Screenshot
Is reading public web pages "survellience"?
I mean, they're public websites. Usually the people who put up web sites want readers.
There seems to be a lot of jumping to conclusions here. For all we know, whoever sits at that computer in the MA State Police could just be a leftie enthusiast.
Sure, it's possible (indeed, likely) that they're reading it to keep an eye on potential violent protests.
Isn't that what we pay them for? What exactly is the complaint?
(If the issue is bias, as a MA resident, I can assure you there simply aren't any right-wing groups here large enough to qualify as a mob.)
On the post: California Eyes Questionable Legislation In Bid To Fix The Internet Of Broken Things
Re: Re: Linux and lazy developers are the problem
But I know a number of very smart and (otherwise) competent developers who simply have no bare-metal experience at all. The very idea of building up a system from scratch doesn't occur to them, and they wouldn't know where to start.
And they don't understand that the more moving parts anything has, the more likely it is for something to go wrong.
Next >>