Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops

Boomkop3@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Gaywallet@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I would love to hear what has you concerned about a tool which provides a piece of information which is, by law (California Penal Code Section 830.10), supposed to be accessible to all individuals interacting with the officer - their name and/or badge number.

  source

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The concern was the lack of knowledge that this was public. I noticed it’s in the article, I may have read over it

    source

    • Gaywallet@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Even if an officer’s name and badge number were not public (which would be weird, because both of these are a part of a police officer’s uniform), what is the concern about a tool which provides these?

      source

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It would make it easier for these people to be harassed, or worse. Privacy is important

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Vodulas@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  A. No, this is an article talking about the tool. B. Cops are public figures. Name and badge number are public information. Hence why the first sentence in the article states it uses public records. It does not give their address and phone number. It is not doxxing

  source

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    A. A gun is a tool as well, doesn’t mean you should make them public available

    B. That makes a lot of sense. I’m not from around there, sorry for the misunderstanding

    source

    • icelimit@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      In your example for (A), you’ve unnecessarily used a controversial item in comparison to information/tool that is publicly available and cannot be used to do harm beyond holding individuals accountable, which for law enforcement, needs to be doubly more so.

      A more comparable example for (A) would’ve been something like the location of a police station.

      source

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I suppose, either way it makes harassment and more misbehaviour more easily available

        source
    • Vodulas@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      But an article about how guns are used and that they exist is not the same as selling them. I can see the argument that you should not even report on them because it makes them more popular, but at least in the US, guns are pretty permeated through society

      source

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think it’s more akin to a “get guns ez pz” article. Even if most people can get them, a lot of people don’t because it’s a hassle. But to be fair, if it’s public information then heck, it was only a matter of time until there was a website making it ez pz.

        That’s not this article’s fault. And some important context I managed to miss at first :/

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If it was identifying Lemmy users, it definitely would be. But, it’s a tool that reveals identities of a small, supposedly accountable group, and we’re just mentioning it, so it seems like there’s at least an argument to allow it.

  source

  • icelimit@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Not supposedly, a group that is duty bound to be accountable.

    source

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I think we all no the practice of that is a little hit-and-miss.

      source

      • Vodulas@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It is only “hit” if you mean hit by a police car or bullet. There is zero accountability

        source

        • -> View More Comments