Comment by preg_match
1 day ago
The machines matter, because we know how human behavior works. We know that if you give humans an automated tool that works most of the time, they get lazy, to the point where they make more mistakes than if they had no automation at all.
Flock isn’t an automated tool though; you don’t give it a crime, and it gives back an automated package saying “this is who the criminal is”.
As far as I know, it lets law enforcement query for things against the data. Can be specific (like a license plate) or more general (like a dark colored mid-sized SUV around <location> at <time>).
To get where this story is at, cops here must have done the latter, and taken the first name off the top of the pile and patted themselves on the back, and then waited 7 months, and went and arrested her. Unless there’s an explanation for a 7 month delay, it seems designed to allow defensive evidence to spoil.
There isn’t an uncanny-valley of automation here. There is just lazy, grossly-incompetent, bad-faith, and malicious cops/investigators.
> Flock isn’t an automated tool though; you don’t give it a crime, and it gives back an automated package saying “this is who the criminal is”.
Please tell the police that, then, under penalty of being blacklisted if they ever violate it. They're the ones treating it as such.
I think what we're seeing is that flock is presented to police as a reliable technology that can be trusted for this sort of thing. If a random person had snapped a picture they would have questioned it.
But they didn't question the quality of the evidence. And there is a reason for that.
This should be emphasized more. Regardless of how technology could be used, we (should be) are responsible for how it is likely to be used.
Guns can be used for all sorts of things. A handgun in a house is likely to be used for murder/suicide.
> A handgun in a house is likely to be used for murder/suicide.
On an article about people who did no research to actually prove out their assumptions, this is perhaps the most ironic comment to be chastising them.
The irony of someone who doesn't know the facts but has strong beliefs replying to me, exactly like the article writer, is, well, a strong example of how hard it is to make progress when so many people have a vested interest in not moving.
"A handgun in a house" is statistically extremely unlikely to be "used for murder/suicide."
It increases the incidences of both of those things happening compared to no gun.
The total number is relatively small, but so are deaths from measles. Should we not decrease them where we can?