The solution IMO isn't to make a bunch of rules to try to make them act better, the solution is to increase accountability. That means:
end qualified immunity - when tried in court, they should be held to similar standards as citizens
change how investigations of police officers happens - AG role should change to protect the people, not the state
At the same time, we should increase salaries of police officers to encourage good cops instead of power hungry cops, and perhaps have cash rewards for officers who turn in other officers for criminal violations.
If we focus on laws to force police to act better, they'll just give themselves a pass.
I’m trying to avoid using the term fascist, because it means something specific but nobody can really agree what that thing is. For the purposes of this discussion, I’d prefer to say “authoritarian”
It's more that people probably know what it means, but choose to misuse it to smear their political enemies, and then other people who don't know what it means repeat it.
Here's a clear definition in case you or anyone else that reads this isn't clear on it (or pick your favorite dictionary, it'll be similar):
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Is a network of cameras with facial recognition fascist according to that definition? No. Is it useful to people pushing for such a government? Yes. Is it useful to other authoritarian systems of government? Yes. Is it useful to non-authoritarian systems of government and non-government entities, including private citizens? Also yes.
I wouldn’t call traffic cameras invasive because they’re only at (some) intersections.
What if they're at every intersection, stop signs included?
If the only thing that turns something into an authoritarian system is scale, then it's not the system that's authoritarian, but the way they're used that is authoritarian.
I oppose red light cameras not because they're authoritarian in and of themselves, but because they can be used by authoritarians to screw people. I oppose Ring doorbells not because they're authoritarian, but because the corporation has control and can hand that data over to authoritarians without consent from the owner (or be compelled by authoritarians).
"Authoritarian" is an adjective that describes people, governments, or policies, not inanimate objects or software systems.
A private citizen recording people in public and the government doing so are fundamentally different
Exactly! The capability to record the public isn't authoritarian, the government policy of recording the public is authoritarian.
This may sound like a pedantic point, but I think it's an important one. If cameras are authoritarian, then ban cameras and the problem goes away right? The government will just use radar, track financial transactions, or something else entirely, and you have the same problem.
The real problem isn't cameras or facial recognition, but that the government tracks people. To solve that problem, we shouldn't ban the various ways the government can track people, we should ban the government from tracking people. Don't b regulate the tools, regulate the people using the tools.
Why would it? The article merely mentions that he's posting his nonsense on existing .gov domains, which is something he can totally do as the President.
SKG doesn't specify how companies need to solve the problem, only that games need to continue to function after the company stops supporting them.
For some games (e.g. Assassin's Creed), that could be as simple as disabling the online aspect and having a graceful fallback. For others, that could mean letting people self-host it. Or they can provide documentation for the server API and let the community build their own server. Or they can move it to a P2P connection.
Game companies have options. All SKG says is that if I've purchased something, I should be able to keep using it after support ends.
There’s literally no reason they ever need to be masked.
Cops have rights too. If an officer wants to wear a mask, I don't see any reason to deny them that. They must, however, identify themselves, the risk of someone pretending to be law enforcement is too great.
Police serve the public. If they are working they should all be identifiable
Agreed, I just don't think masks are the issue here. IMO, officers involved in protest duty should have their badge number on their uniform in a big enough font for a camera to pick up. Likewise, body cameras should be on and recording the entire time.
First contact to detainment/arrest is sufficient, and police body cam footage is plenty.
And unfortunately, police can legally detain you up to 48 hours without charging you. There are rules around this, but generally speaking, police have 24 hours to prove they had probable cause and turn the detention into an arrest, otherwise they must release you.
So if police have probable cause to detain or arrest some people in a protest, they can detain far more until they can review footage to complete their investigation before deciding whether to arrest or release individuals.
I'm mostly looking for a smoking gun here. We know ICE has incorrectly arrested citizens and legal immigrants, I want to know if they have broken the law in other ways too. Arresting the wrong person is one thing, denying due process is another thing entirely.
But if you’re “arresting” a protester haven’t they become a defacto suspect?
Yes, if you're detained or arrested, you have the right to know the name and badge number of the person detaining or arresting you.
The videos I've seen aren't that, they're merely protesters asking on behalf of someone else. If there is a video where it's clear that someone being detained or arrested by police isn't given that information, then I'd be very interested because that would be a pretty clear-cut 4th amendment violation.
There are only videos of people asking for badge numbers without getting a response.
Are these suspects or protestors? Because the videos I've seen are protestors. Police must reveal their identity to suspects due to the fourth amendment, but not to the general public.
My point is suspects have a right to know who their accusers are. Whether they share that with others (and they should) is up to them. Having the public know their identities just opens them up to vigilante justice, having suspect know their identities keeps them accountable to the rule of law.
Witnesses who are too far away to see their identification can still see their face to ID them.
Sure, I just don't think that's a reasonable thing to require at all times.
Instead, the public should be free to approach to a safe distance to film, and then attempt to talk with law enforcement when safe. A police officer is required to identify themselves to the suspect due to the fourth amendment. Whether they are required to identify themselves to the public is up to local law, court precedent, and agency policy.
The general public doesn’t need to be identifiable at all times like cops do.
Neither do. Police only need to be identifiable when using their authority, such as when making an arrest or dealing with protests, and in the latter case, only agency affiliation is necessary.
I don't think this is necessary. What does seeing an officer's face do that a name and badge number doesn't? What about undercover cops? What about the winter when it's cold?
I think it should only be required that they declare on what authority they're acting when making official actions, like a stop, detainment, or arrest. They should give their name and badge number upon request, in a form that works for the asker (written or verbal, asker's preference).
If we ban law enforcement from wearing masks, that opens the door to banning masks in public. I get that police should follow higher standards (I'm absolutely in favor of ending qualified immunity), but IMO the rules should merely be that police must self identify in a way the public knows they're legitimate law enforcement when using the authority of their position.
The longest term seems to be about 2 years.