Software Could Help Reform Policing -- If Only Police Unions Wanted It (fastcompany.com) 258
tedlistens writes: The CEO of Taser maker Axon, Rick Smith, has a lot of high-tech ideas for fixing policing. One idea for identifying potentially abusive behavior is AI, integrated with the company's increasingly ubiquitous body cameras and the footage they produce. In a patent application filed last month, Axon describes the ability to search video not only for words and locations but also for clothing, weapons, buildings, and other objects. AI could also tag footage to enable searches for things such as "the characteristics [of] the sounds or words of the audio," including "the volume (e.g., intensity), tone (e.g., menacing, threatening, helpful, kind), frequency range, or emotions (e.g., anger, elation) of a word or a sound."
Building that kind of software is a difficult task, and in the realm of law enforcement, one with particularly high stakes. But Smith also faces a more low-tech challenge, he tells Fast Company: making his ideas acceptable both to intransigent police unions and to the communities those police serve. Of course, right now many of those communities aren't calling for more technology for their police but for deep reform, if not deep budget cuts. And police officers aren't exactly clamoring for more scrutiny, especially if it's being done by a computer.
Building that kind of software is a difficult task, and in the realm of law enforcement, one with particularly high stakes. But Smith also faces a more low-tech challenge, he tells Fast Company: making his ideas acceptable both to intransigent police unions and to the communities those police serve. Of course, right now many of those communities aren't calling for more technology for their police but for deep reform, if not deep budget cuts. And police officers aren't exactly clamoring for more scrutiny, especially if it's being done by a computer.
Hehehe (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the biggest enablers of police brutality, who got rich on it has ideas how to solve the problem his products exacerbated in the first place.
Lovely.
Re:Hehehe (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. Tasers were sold to the public as an alternative to using guns.
They are used instead as an alternative to having a conversation.
Don't taze me bro [wikipedia.org].
Tasers alternative to gun AND baton (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Tasers were sold to the public as an alternative to using guns. They are used instead as an alternative to having a conversation.
Actually they are an alternative to the gun and the baton. So when non-conversational its taser or baton. Taser is likely the better option there too. As for non-conversational, there is a point where the conversation ends and its the officers choice not yours. When given instructions to sit down, lie down, put your hands behind your back, etc the conversation has ended and the compliance phase begins. You can keep talking but you cannot resist once the arrest decision has been made. If its unjust your lawyer will have to sort it out, congratulation, you may have won the lawsuit lottery. If you resist, you just threw away your lottery ticket because resistance will now be the just reason for your arrest.
Re: (Score:2)
When given instructions to sit down, lie down, put your hands behind your back, etc the conversation has ended and the compliance phase begins.
No, that's when the shooting-you-anyway phase begins.
Re:Tasers alternative to gun AND baton (Score:5, Insightful)
In practice it seems like the cops are more likely to immediately scream an order at you, and then before you are able to react attack you. That seems to be what happened to Martin Gugino, if there was an order he certainly didn't have time to act on it before being assaulted.
The problem now is that people don't believe they will be safe if they comply, so they sometimes run instead. For them it could be a matter of life or death, there is no way to know if that cop has a history of violence and is going to put his knee on your neck.
Another problem is that it isn't always possible to comply. If they told me to lie down or hold my hands behind my back I would be physically unable to without causing myself a great deal of pain. If they are not willing to listen to me explaining that to them then I'm going to get violently assaulted and maybe tazed. The fact that there may eventually be a show trial where they are acquitted doesn't really comfort me much.
Re: (Score:2)
If people really don't believe it's safe to comply in a common arrest situation it's because they either have no common sense or have allowed silly people and the silly media override their common sense. You don't structure your behaviour around corner cases, if that behaviour in the common case is much more likely to get you killed or badly hurt. It's bad EV.
As for abrupt behaviour by police, ignoring any specific instances for a moment, that is taught behaviour. It's not irrational or malicious, it's just
Re: (Score:2)
Expected Value. Most commonly used as poker lingo.
Re: (Score:2)
When given instructions to sit down, lie down, put your hands behind your back, etc the conversation has ended and the compliance phase begins. You can keep talking but you cannot resist once the arrest decision has been made. If its unjust your lawyer will have to sort it out, congratulation, you may have won the lawsuit lottery.
If you survive. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tasers alternative to gun AND baton (Score:5, Insightful)
While I am, especially after Corona, absolutely more libertarian than I've ever been, I still don't get your stance.
For various reason, there needs to be an official force that upholds the law.
That would be the police. The police is THE institution that is tasked with applying ultima ratio to make people cooperate with law and law enforcement. So yes, if the police tells you to do something, you fucking do it. Because that officer is a human being and no matter how right you think you are, THAT person is armed and likely judging you at every interaction for potential danger.
You do not antagonize an animal on high alert. That is also true for humans and a police officer has bigger claws than you.
You may protest, obviously, but you comply. You can always drag their asses through the courts later.
Don't get me wrong, I know that system is rigged so I admit it's never a fair fight... but escalating an altercation with an armed person is NEVER advisable.
Re: (Score:2)
So you being "absolutely more libertarian" than you've ever been is a farce. Cops don't get to make up law or ignore the bil
Re: (Score:2)
The Street Is Not A Court House!
If you think you have a civil rights claim, lawyers will line up to represent you since cities are inclined to pay out in these situations.
Do not resist, fight or otherwise try to "stand up for your rights" on the street. You may call that being a bootlicker, but the fact is the cops have the authority to arrest you. If they do so wrongfully, your opportunity for redress is in the Court House.
The Judge system lets Street cops (Judges) (Score:2)
The Judge system lets Street cops (Judges) take care of stuff and we don't have to pay for jury's, public defenders, people sitting in jail waiting for there trail
Re: Tasers alternative to gun AND baton (Score:4, Insightful)
That goes both ways though. The idea that has eroded is that power and responsibility are comeasurate. Once police have control of the suspect, he is in their care, they have no place in punishing. It goes the other way too, like with the Wendys shooting: once you grab the taser, the responsibility to use non lethal force is gone, because you gained power over his non lethal weapon.
Re: (Score:3)
Cops don't get to make up law or ignore the bill of rights.
Yes they do. They can literally kill people for any or no reason and they only get held accountable if there is a publicly released video.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny little thing called unreasonable search and seizure, read up on it
Arrest is not search and seizure. Two different things. Keep reading.
Re:Tasers alternative to gun AND baton (Score:5, Informative)
While I agree that people need to follow instructions for their best interest (for now) and rely upon the courts to correct injustice (it may reverse the permanent damage to your record, but you won't "win the lawsuit lottery" unless they inflicted serious injury without reforms to hold them accountable).
The problem in a lot of these videos is that the subject is by all appearances following directions. They get told hands on their head, and hands go on their head. They say down on the ground, they go down on the ground. They say hands behind you back, the hands go behind the back. Then they say 'oh, you aren't putting them far enough back, you are resisting' and tase them. Or they skip the order to go on the knees and just kick their legs to force them to fall on the knees. And this was footage from one of those pro-police shows with live footage, and they thought this made the police look good, imagine what they would opt not to show.
Re: (Score:2)
And there's your gullibility problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem in a lot of these videos is that the subject is by all appearances following directions. They get told hands on their head, and hands go on their head. They say down on the ground, they go down on the ground. They say hands behind you back, the hands go behind the back.
You and I are watching entirely different collections of videos.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, there are definitely videos of encounters where the police are acting decently in a difficult situation, where they are employing force where force is appropriate.
However there are also videos where the officer is wholly inappropriate and abusive to a seemingly benign subject. That this happens at all is bad enough, but is particularly infuriating when all too often there is no accountability despite clear evidence.
Depending on who you've selected to indoctrinate you today, you will be happily fed a s
Re:Tasers alternative to gun AND baton (Score:4, Insightful)
So the police are heavily armed animals against whom you have no real recourse either at the time or after, and you seem to be ok with that. Yeah you're a massive bootlicker.
How about having police who aren't vicious armed animals on high alert ready you regard citizens as a deadly threat. You know like civilized countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Tasers alternative to gun AND baton (Score:2)
The biggest problem is police bullying. They really should not be judging and they should not be armed/empowered to such a degree that they have no fear. They should exercise some amount of caution in everything they do. The biggest creator of that is over-arming the cops while systematically disarming the citizens. Anytime you tell one group they have authority over another group, and then ensure a massively unlevel playjng field, you will always get abuse of power. Its the concept behind term limits in th
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest problem is police bullying.
True, actually bullying would be a big problem. However by law police are allowed to control the situation while they go about their lawful duties. Hence your legal obligation to comply with orders.
your legal obligation to comply with orders comes at the expense of cops issuing orders while on a power trip just because they felt like being an asshole in the first place. That is what I mean by bullying. Long before it escalated to excessive force, it started by the cop already deciding someone was a piece of shit lowlife and started treating them entirely differently than someone else. Its been proven time and time again that the exact same situation will get a completely different response based purel
Re: (Score:2)
>>For various reason, there needs to be an official force that upholds the law.
Yes, but that police force should not be trained that it is better to kill a person than to injure them
They should not be trained to escalate to the point of aggression
They should not be trained to use the taser incorrectly (most are fired from too close resulting in pins being too close and ineffective)
They should not be trained to draw their weapon and empty the clip the instant that they "feel" their life is in danger
The
Re: (Score:2)
Love the detail.
Re:Hehehe (Score:5, Interesting)
San Francisco Police Department got their tazers taken away because of a long string of abuse. Seems the SF coops just loved using them for the shits and giggles. Last year there were regular radio ads with the chief of police trying to convince everyone they needed their tazers to be able to effectively do their job. My bullshit meter went off the scale.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where bodycams would enter into it.
They came after tasers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, like I said, if you're a "businessman" worth your salt, you first create a problem by selling your crap to the government, and then "solve" the problem you created by selling even more crap.
Sustainable business model.
Re: Hehehe (Score:2)
Its amazing how they are always off whenever these controversies happen. How about a never turn off version. You get the device at shift change. It never goes home with you, and it records your entire on-duty activity. You should not be taking personal conversation while on duty anyway.
Re:Hehehe (Score:5, Insightful)
Bodycam footage gets locked away by police forces and getting access to is is a very long and time consuming process even for use during trials.
This is what continually and utterly amazes me.
No police in any jurisdiction should have access to their own body cam footage. All camera video collected by police should be immediately streamed and/or uploaded to a neutral, independent third party tasked with its secure handling.
At no time, ever, should the police be responsible for deciding - or even allowed to influence - which videos are released. And no one from a police department should be allowed to view or review their own video, especially if required to give testimony about it.
Want to decreased abuses? Increase accountability. Stop letting the foxes guard the hen house.
Re: (Score:2)
The strawman is then followed by a false dichotomy where it's either the police itself who gets to handle the footage or a private corporation.
If you want to keep the chain of evidence under control of the state there are other, independent state institutions that could handle that besides of the police itself or private corporations. And again, GP never said that they're objecting private corporations doing this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They are a huge source of soft money for politicians in the US, thats cash donations and unions taking money from each paycheck and giving it to politicians. They also have been know to more directly affect voting by selective enforcement on voting days discouraging people from moving about, so stop and frisk and traffic violations.
A Slightly Different Question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Over the last few years, there have been numerous excellent investigative articles - to say nothing of a detailed FBI operation - looking at white supremacists and fascists infiltrating US Law Enforcement. Here are just a small selection of articles covering this:-
White supremacists and malitias have infiltrated police across US [theguardian.com]
The FBI warned for years that police are cozy with the far right. Is no one listening? [theguardian.com]
White supremacist and far-right groups have infiltrated US law enforcement [trtworld.com]
Hidden in Plan Sight: Racism, White Supremacy, and Far-Right Militancy in Law Enforcement [brennancenter.org]
Body Bags and Enemy Lists: How Far-Right Police Officers and Ex-Soldiers Planned for 'Day X' [nytimes.com]
White Supremacist Infiltration of US Police Forces: Fact-Checking National Security Advisor O'Brien [justsecurity.org]
The FBI has quietly investigated white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement [theintercept.com]
If we continue to think of this problem as "police unions" or "a few small bad apples", then we pre-emptively blind ourselves to a much larger, more sinister problem.
Another way to think about this is to think of it as being similar to "genetic dominance". If two people - one with dark brown or black eyes and one with bright blue eyes - were to have a child, there is a much greater probability that their child would have dark brown or black eyes, because the gene that determines *brown* eye colour is naturally dominant over the gene for *blue* eyes.
Now translate that concept to a moderately-sized police force. On day one, all your police officers are decent, law-abiding and neutral in their application of the law. Then one day a white supremacist is recruited. Over time they encourage friends to join - maybe it is a "power trip" thing; maybe it is a "firearms" thing. Slowly, imperceptibly, that police force begins to employ more and more white supremacists. Eventually, enough are present for more overt acts of racism. Non-white-supremacist officers are "encouraged" to turn a blind eye. It is exactly the same sort of "dominance mode" that we see in genetics. The "naturally decent and law abiding" officers in a department will typically be the silent, just-do-your-job-and-be-professional types. The manipulators are the white supremacists.
Your question is critically important, then, because it gives us an opportunity to recognize the misconception and break it down.
To borrow from technology fault-finding principles: we can't solve the problem until we correctly define it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too many people are in denial about the far right for anything to ever be done.
Re:A Slightly Different Question... (Score:5, Insightful)
In many different cases, but in particular when we are talking about institutions and agencies - local government, state and federal - we are accustomed to thinking of them as opaque, mystifying and complex "things" where "stuff happens" that, honestly, we don't really have the time or interest to get involved with. A bit like, for example, the process by which a local police force obtains permission to use tazers.
In my very limited experience, where decisions are made "behind closed doors", where there is no direct, personal accountability, where there is no transparency, decisions tend to be significantly poorer than those where decisions are made with transparency and participation. Fictional example: if "Charlie", Chief of Police, goes to his mate, Mayor Mike, and says, "Just wanted to let you know, my boys are gonna carry tazers now, so we don't have to shoot people. We think it will be safer..." and Mayer Mike says, "OK, sounds good", that's an example of a behind-closed-doors and risky decision.
On the other hand, if Chief Charlie had to go before the Town Council and an open public meeting and explain why they wanted to carry tazers, chances are they would be asked to bring forward evidence that showed that tazers were needed, that they could reduce the risk to the public [innocent as well as guilty] and were safe to use.
In my contrived example, I'm trying to show that good transparency leads to better decisions and a better society. But in a way that lends itself to the issue you give for "the far right". The reason that "The far right" infiltrate police forces is because there's no oversight. They don't have to answer for their actions.
Imagine how different life would be if there were a federal law that said, "All on-duty law enforcement officers must wear a fully functional body cam whilst on duty, with a federally mandated punishment of 1) loss of one month's pay; 2) loss of 3 month's pay; 3) loss of job and 3 months in prison for a failure to comply..." suddenly what you'd find is that all the people who work as police for "questionable reasons" would want to work somewhere else, because you have just taken away their job satisfaction [which was obtained by abusing their authority].
I'm particularly concerned with the discussions of "warrior culture" and the idea that public streets are some kind of war zone. If that is your outlook "going in", then you are actually creating a space in which any kind of extremist [far right or far left] becomes easier to spread.
In the re-make of the sci-fi show, "BattleStar Galactica", Commander William Adama (Edward James Olmos) is asked by President Roslyn () if he will put military on to the ships of the fleet to help maintain order. He refuses. His explanation is so vitally relevant here:-
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. " (See here [imdb.com]).
That is exactly the problem we see today...
Re: (Score:3)
In one of the public meetings on the subject, I had written in a question/suggestion that was read out:-
"If, as our Police Department insist, a Tazer is completely safe, then will the Chief and Deputy Police Chief - along with the senior officer for all departments/teams within the force wishing to use Tazers, agree, here and now, to submit themselves to being Tazed on a rolling two-year basis? In order to demonstrate th
Re:Hehehe (Score:5, Insightful)
I know when they where introduced where I live the whole pitch was that it could replace the gun as the "once in a career" absolute last resort.
Here in Australia the thinking was always that using a firearm was something that would be done maybe once at the most in a policemans career, generally against a weapon weilding bandit to save a life.
It was never SUPPOSED to be a compliance tool. The idea that using a lethal weapon against someone simply for disobeying or even putting up a struggle is abhorent. Its murder.
So did the TASER get used for that once-in-a-lifetime lifesaving role? Nope. Its used as a compliance tool. "Get out of the car or I'll tase you". Hell we even imported that idiotic made up disease "Excited delerium" , a rare disase with the unique property that it only ever strikes simultaneously to a taser useage, but is totally not caused by the taser somehow, to excuse the fact the fucken things keep killing people.
Re: (Score:2)
Policy+permanently-on bodycams can fix this.
Bodycam not working? The officer is regarded as off duty, without pay.
Re: (Score:3)
Removing the tasers will solve it. And it will be cheaper, too. You can even afford bodycams that not "malfunction" for the savings.
Re: (Score:2)
Often you don't need to "stop" them. You figure out who they are, protect the bystanders, and let them run out. Then pick them up later. Trying to "take them down" right now is usually just a power trip and a substitute for the officer doing their normal job. This is setting aside the fact that nowdays in the US, because mental health services for the unemployed are essentially non-existent, most perpetrators in this situation actually have some mental illness that can be managed more effectively withou
Re: (Score:3)
If you are speaking strictly of the Taser, I think that was a well intentioned weapon gone wrong. One could make an argument about ongoing support of tasers, but even then I think there's room for people to credibly feel like they do more good than harm.
The original problem: police only had guns and batons to subdue suspects. Both can kill or seriously injure with a high probability. A Taser is a safer weapon than either (though more dangerous than I think the inventors assumed it would be). So the Taser be
Has he not heard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Software, if used by police, is inherently racist.
Re:Has he not heard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Software, if used by police, is inherently racist.
Let's remember the old computing adage, "garbage in, garbage out".
If you have a historical tendency of disproportionately heavy-handed policing in some neighborhoods, and your dataset therefore includes more crimes for people of those neighborhoods, and you use this dataset to train your machine-learning algorithm, then of course it will give you back the answer that people of those neighborhood are more likely to commit crimes. This isn't reflecting truth, just your selective training data. You can manually remove "ethnicity" from your dataset but the ML algorithm will be great at finding all its correlates.
If you have a dataset with lots of white faces and few black faces, and you use this dataset to train your facial-recognition machine-learning algorithm, then of course it will give you back a recognizer that has a hard time distinguishing black faces. This isn't reflecting truth, just your selective training data.
If you have a word-image dataset that's scraped from the kind of places on the internet that use racist or sexist slurs, and you use this dataset to train your image-describing machine-learning algorithm, then of course it will give you back a recognizer that uses racist and sexist slurs to describe images. This isn't reflecting truth or the English language, just your selective training data. https://thenextweb.com/neural/... [thenextweb.com]
Machine-learning algorithms would be wonderful ways to help our society if only we could provide fair and balanced training data. I've never yet seen that happen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Any data that is not politically correct, like for example demographics of violent criminals, is automatically not true and double plus un-good.
If you keep talking about this you will be reported to big brother and will be the next target for the 2 minutes of hate.
Forget AI (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is pretty much the exemplar of a stupid statement.
A major issue is police unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Police unions act as if they are responsible for standards of arrest even when the DA specifically provides instructions. Take a look at how the Philly PD listens to their DA.
Do we allow military to unionize? Why should we tolerate the unionization of police. I mean lately our PD has as much of the same equipment, except our military has rules of engagement enforced via courts marshall. Cops have no such liability.
Re:A major issue is police unions (Score:4, Insightful)
our military has rules of engagement enforced via courts marshall. Cops have no such liability.
Untrue. The limited immunity of police only covers their actions that are (1) within the law and (2) within department policy. If you think of law+policy as a rules of engagement its actually pretty similar between police and military. The difference in reality is that laws and policies of the military are more restrictive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is true [wikipedia.org] unfortunately.
You realize your link is less strict that what I said? Did you read what I wrote? Perhaps you should re-read to understand your error. What I described, law plus department policy, is part of basic law enforcement training in my state. Your link merely mentions the law, I suppose some states may not include policy.
Even if only the law, it is still equivalent to the military rules of engage since such rules are orders and legal orders (and regulations) are the law in the military.
What is confusing you
With precision of smartphone voice dictation (Score:2)
And police officers aren't exactly clamoring for more scrutiny, especially if it's being done by a computer.
Because AI, like incomplete and edited video clips, will probably not provide context or the complete story.
Face it, the software would probably do little more than count flagged words or phrases. With all the precision we see with voice dictation on our smart phones at best
Major changes are needed (Score:2, Interesting)
Too many police officers today are little more than wannabe Gestapo impatiently waiting for the next Hitler to come along. This isn't a problem just in the United States, but in a lot of democratic countries. In the wake of an incident the popo in my city are enthusiastically sweeping under the rug, a joke has started making the rounds.
Q: Why haven't the cops come out with a beefcake calendar like the fire fighters did?
A: Amazon couldn't provide enough theatrical makeup to hide all the swastika tattoos.
Oh for fuck's sake NO MORE AI CRAP! (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to 'fix' police problems in this country? Try civilian oversight of police departments. Also get rid of 'qualified immunity'. No 'get out of jail free' cards for cops who shoot first and cover it up later. Enough is enough. We need to POLICE THE POLICE since they clearly and objectively can't be trusted to do it themselves.
Top to bottom. Everyone from the Chief of Police on down to the lowliest beat cop should answer to a civilian oversight committee, constituted of members that reflect the constituents of the affected neighborhoods -- so it the neighborhood is, say, 75% African Americans, then the committee shall be 75% African Americans.
This is the ONLY WAY things are going to change. Law Enforcement has had it's chance to change things and they didn't bother.
That's just the beginning. There needs to be fundamental changes in how police conduct themselves. I needn't even get into that there's been plenty of talk already about changing how they're trained to deal with suspects and the mentally ill. I'll add that we need to audit all current police, screening them for violent and racist tendencies, and remove those, and screen all new candidates the same way to prevent them from ever getting a badge and a gun in the first place. The problem is systemic and there needs be a systemic solution.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Face it: all this 'AI' stuff just turns out to be UTTER CRAP.
Not all of it. AlphaZero turned out to be really great at chess.
Here's a crazy idea (Score:4, Insightful)
What about actually reforming the police? You know, passing new laws that would define new standards for police conduct? Maybe clearly define their rights, training, requirements.
Just kidding, I know that it's no longer possible to pass any meaningful laws in US. I guess giving more money to some corporation is the only possible action here.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be done right after the reform of the prison system.
A country with more people imprisoned than any other country in history and where prison rape is regarded as funny by most of the citizens is nothing to be proud of.
Re: (Score:2)
Which should be done right after the reform of justice system, healthcare, political party financing, election system, environmental management, tax system, banking, personal data protections.... But nothing will be reformed, no matter who wins in November.
Re: (Score:2)
At what level of government?
At the local level? Go for it. Just know that it won't be the same across the state
. At the state level? Go for it. You live in a state and you can work to change your states laws. This is where most of shit people like you want the federal government to do should be done. You will, however, have different standards in different states.
At the federal leve? The federal government has limits on it's power, or is su
I have free solutions (Score:2)
As 1A audits demonstrate (Score:2)
...most police officers haven't got a clue about the law or even when they are allowed to ask for ID.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent application wasn't filed last month (Score:2)
. . . the patent issued last month. The patent application was filed on August 15, 2017.
Axon was thinking about this three years ago.
One idea ... is AI (Score:2)
Re: Delusional (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Delusional (Score:2)
He was responding to a guy who literally said "get rid of all cops" you nitwit.
Re: (Score:2)
I did some more math and it's even more dramatic than he said.
Turns out 100% of murders in the US are committed by about 0.004% of the population! So we need to do something about that 0.004% of the population and the murder problem goes away!
Re: Delusional (Score:2)
Guatemala has an effective form of community policing. When the criminals get too brazen they burn a couple.
Re:Delusional (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem isn't the way police do their job, its the job we give them to do.
The problem is that they're operating a a country where everybody they meet potentiallly does have a concealed gun.
Re:Delusional (Score:4, Insightful)
Get rid of county mounties, poorely selected, poorly trained and poorly controlled by incompetent hick mayors. State based policing only, properly selected and properly trained a two year university degree, people you fucking lives depend upon both of those, you actual fucking lives. Select them better and train them better do not listen to the entirely bullshit software and hardware solutions, all a lie which will be doctored to always create an illusions of innocence.
Better people, trained properly and supervised properly by the state. A two year university degree, to dumb to pass, then too fucking dumb to be a police officer and could never grasp a proper understanding of law.
Re:Delusional (Score:5, Interesting)
Get rid of county mounties, poorely selected, poorly trained and poorly controlled by incompetent hick mayors
Most problems with police abuse happen in urban areas. The problem with not the "hicks".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Delusional (Score:3, Insightful)
They still abuse the fuck out of POC
[Citation needed]
If this were actually true, rather than being a far-left talking point, why do 81% of black Americans want the same amount or more [gallup.com] policing? Generally speaking, people who are "abused the fuck out of" don't tend to say things like "yes, I'd like some more of that please".
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Its a narrative. Its their narrative. It is the narrative of Progressive Racists who only see color when it matters to them, and no other time when it really matters. Want evidence?
Secoreia Turner. Shot and killed at a BLM blockade. Bet BLM never told you to chant her name. That would have been ..awkward.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by BLM. And unless her killers were able to clear themselves in an internal investigation while on paid vacation, the way cops do, you're parroting a dumbfuck racist talking point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They still abuse the fuck out of POC
[Citation needed]
If this were actually true, rather than being a far-left talking point, why do 81% of black Americans want the same amount or more [gallup.com] policing? Generally speaking, people who are "abused the fuck out of" don't tend to say things like "yes, I'd like some more of that please".
Just because they want more policing that does not mean they want police that shoots unarmed people in the back instead of tackling them and executes no-knock warrants on the wrong address and then riddles the people inside with bullets. Why is it so hard to imagine people can want more properly trained professional policing and fewer (as in none) of the badly trained racist thugs that currently passes for police in their community?
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, if the people saying "DEFUND THE POLICE" wanted better trained police then they wouldn't be trying to defund the police. And, you may want to ask Minneapolis how well that is working for them with their 87% increase in crime since they defunded their police.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called selective push polling. Black americans worried about crime in no way translates to support for draconian and racist police forces. Dumbass.
Re: Delusional (Score:2)
POC tend to be poor. Poor people tend to commit more crimes, more frequently than any other demographic. That means they have more and more frequent contact with police... and more bad outcomes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Delusional (Score:3)
There are more poor Whites than there are poor POC in the United States, if poverty was driving factor, we'd see more poor whites being abused by the police than POC.
Perhaps the issue is a little more complex than you think?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> We have police wearing cameras now, and absolutely nothing has changed.
That's not true at all. Those of us who watch the whole videos, and not just the edited clips that make the MSM, now know how frequently the media flat-out lies about encounters with police. You'll see some schizophrenic reported as "unarmed" despite charging at police with a knife, you'll see that other people are suffering long before being arrested because they shoved drugs up their ass (which is incredibly dangerous and a grea
Re: (Score:3)
The real eye-opener for me with these unedited videos is how brazenly people will lie to the cops, especially bystanders. You'll see on video the person being arrested doing X and these bystanders will start yelling at the cops not only that he didn't do anything but also specifically that he didn't do X. People getting pulled over for minor traffic violations pleading that they've done nothing wrong, only later to admit their licence is suspended. I even saw video of someone arguing with the cops that he h
Re: Delusional (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like they have nothing so they're intentionally obfuscating it. Reading the description instead of the abstract helps a bit, but not much.
On the first pass, it sends audio for a human to make an accurate transcript. On the second pass, it assigns timestamps to the words found in the first pass by using automated voice recognition, and filling in approximate timestamps where the human transcriber has words that are missing in the AI transcription.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like they have nothing so they're intentionally obfuscating it.
Its not obfuscated. It the translation of engineering-speak into courtroom-speak. The patent is not something for engineers to work from. Its some for lawyers to argue about in court.
See my other post for my first guess at a translation back to engineer-speak. Short version: They have a dictionary of all unique words in the conversation. Then they have a collection of timestamps that map to a word in the dictionary. The timestamps represent every word in the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like they have nothing so they're intentionally obfuscating it.
Welcome to most patents.
My big problem with this is that they are high level ideas that pretty much anyone would say 'sure, makes sense to cobble those concepts together', but claims novelty because no one has done it. The problem is in most of these patents is that the writers themselves are also not going to do it. I have seen many a patent where either they do know roughly how they would do it but it's way too much to do beyond writing a patent, or otherwise they have absolutely no idea how to actually i
Re: (Score:2)
"Plurality" is something like "all the possible members of a set". The first set is a dictionary of all unique words in the recording, there is no duplication in the dictionary. The second set contains instances of a dictionary word being used, there may be repetition here. The instance is timestamped, etc. There is a one to one mapping between words appearin
Re: (Score:2)
I am nearly certain that if I did not know it was my patent, if you showed me one of my own patents I would not understand what it was trying to say after the patent attorney is done with it.