this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
1889 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
72212 readers
4328 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I get the impression that the cops are about to hate facial recognition all of the sudden, for no particular reason
Cameras. They fucking hate body cameras. When it clears them of wrongdoing, they have the video ready. When they 'accidentally' shoot a guy nine times in the back of the head, video seems to be missing.
easily solvable problem: losing the footage is indication of guilt. you shoot someone, you better have it ready. it malfunctioned, better have a partner who has theirs ready. if no one has footage to clear you, it's used as evidence of guilt.
of course pussy ass lawmakers will never do that.
I believe having lack of evidence being the evidence for a crime is problematic, but it sure is evidence enough that they aren't fit for their job and they should immediately lose it. Everyone Including the supervisor who failed to run the team properly.
first of all it's not lack of evidence, it is evidence itself. if the camera is not working that's tampering with evidence and is a good indication of guilt.
second of all if you can have laws like felony murder you can sure as shit have this. if you commit a felony (like a robbery), don't hurt anyone, and a cop murders a random person in response because they're trigger happy pigs, you can be held responsible for the murder as if you committed it yourself.
my suggestion is far more reasonable compared to that: if you kill someone you better have evidence that it wasn't foul play, because guess what, that's what everyone needs to do. we don't just allow people to kill and go free, and cops shouldn't be exempt.
Should be at least streamed to a server not controlled by the police, including things like charge levels so they can't claim "oh whoops, it ran out of charge!". A specific organisation within the judiciary, perhaps?
This way they're gonna need to get far more creative in concealing video.
And if you're found to do something that is concealing evidence, well that's a crime by itself
Hard agree. Its a non negotiable part of the job. I dont know that it would work to say absense of footage is evidence of wrongdoing, but its definitely enough to fire someone. Accountability would keep cops in line. Currently there is VERY little real systematic accountability for cops, in any situation.
You misunderstand how the system works. They are all complicit.
Ever wonder why the uh, default cop idle stance, the at ease stance.... is each hand up at it's shoulder, elbows bent, in front of chest?
Because that way they can very, very easily, and casually, bump their chestcam, obsure its view, muffle the sound.
There's a reason ICE conceal their faces.
They know what they're doing is wrong and don't want to be held accountable if their fascist rule collapses.
So just use one too and blend in. Put on a stupid Trump or racist hat, and if you are not white, put on gloves. Then surround them.
So which cameras can be used to overcome normal face coverings? https://piped.video/watch?v=yRFeS72IM6M
Is that why the protestors wear them too?
Protestors or vandals and rioters?
The former: to prevent government persecution and unfair retaliation. The latter: yes.
Yes.
Why would they face persecution if they did nothing wrong!?
The government has always had it out for protestors, to the extent that they'll try and use agents provocateur to escalate the situation. They don't want people to protest, they just want people to life back and take it. C'mon, you seriously asking this?
The point I'm trying to make is that everyone is wearing a mask for the same reason: to prevent retribution for their beliefs and according actions.
They don't "know what they're doing is wrong", they just know that other people think that and will target them for it, which is the exact same reason protestors wear them.
There's a difference between wearing a mask because you are engaging in wrongdoing and wearing a mask to prevent unjust retaliation. Even if the actual motive is the same, the implications are very different
The only difference is what you consider to be "wrong" or "just".
I am not the arbiter of what is/isn't wrong, but there are some general consensus among the public as well as pertinent legal frameworks.
That's what you're doing though
the government should always identify itself to the people
the people should, by default, not be identified by the government
the power imbalance is important: the government is a large and powerful entity which is meant to serve the people without prejudice. people are individually small, and only gain their power from being a large group. the government is given power by the people in order for it to perform tasks beneficial to all, and must be accountable to the people
Some beliefs require retribution. Some causes are righteous. Fuck off with your false equivalencies. Rioters aren’t employed by the people- law enforcement is.
Fuck you too buddy
I hope you get everything you deserve.
Thank you
Your point is moot.
For the people by the people or did you forget?
What do you think that phrase means? The gov just let's people do whatever they want?
Go home Lars, you are drunk and Napster is dead.
Please post the entirety of your online history.
Surely there's no reason to hide.
Whether what you've done is entirely legal (or not) authoritariaism doesn't care.
What is done in a free society is punished by small men with anger control issues.
What you may find reasonable to say in a free society, could, under a government opposed to free expression, land you in el Segundo - without your wallet.
The gestapo hide their faces because they know what they do is wrong, and to hide from justice.
People who protest or simply appreciate privacy do so because they understand the potential for retribution and being disappeared.
...we're talking about hiding though
That goes both ways. That was my entire point.
Who is in power again? The protesters are not making anyone disappear. Goodbye, troll.
You think individuals can't be targeted because they're "in power"? Why do you think they're wearing them?
Upvoted and agreed, not least because I just learned that "all of the sudden," while at present a nonstandard variant of "all of a sudden," has valid history.
And of course it doesn't matter in this casual context!
But in formal writing, in this era, using "a" will avoid distracting the reader from your main point.
"All of the sudden" is only valid because it's so commonly (incorrectly) used. Much as it annoys me, that's just how language works.
Only if you allow the ignorant to remain uncorrected.
"of the sudden" (1570) actually predates "of a sudden" (Shakespeare) according to my OED as squinted at through the nifty magnifying glass. But it's been considered obsolete for a long time despite having all of a sudden experienced a resurgence.
(Note, I modernized the spellings of "sudden" rather than try to switch focus back and forth)
Can't we just embrace adverbification and agree to write "suddenly"?
all of the suddenly?
Nothing wrong with "suddenly." I probably should have used it in my previous comment. It's just that sometimes you want to say "all of a sudden." Especially at storytime. The extra time helps build the suspense. "Suddenly" is more sudden in that it just jumps in there. With "all of a sudden," the subject isn't ready but the listeners are.
No! For made up reasons I don’t understand adverbs are verboten!
If "all of the sudden" becomes standard I will definitely do this.
People aren't saying it because they're language scholars, it's because they misheard the proper modern usage. So it goes for many language shifts.
Erin: "All of the sudden, I was awake."