That’s a policy problem, not a technology problem. Cops are abusing every tool they’re given because they can get away with it, not because of the tool. If you sent them on patrol unarmed and on foot they’d still be going around beating up people with the current oversight regime.
Not the technology, the lack of oversight. I didn’t see any mention of an oversight board or review panel, repercussions for abuse, etc.
Which with any technology, and the clear history of exactly the issues you’ve noted, is an absolute requirement imo.
Great tech and approach. Guaranteed to be used correctly in some cases, and massively abused in others. Without policy revisions to address those abuses, it’s a potentially very frightening technology in police hands.
I mean… their comment was specifically NOT about the normal intended use.
That’s a policy problem, not a technology problem. Cops are abusing every tool they’re given because they can get away with it, not because of the tool. If you sent them on patrol unarmed and on foot they’d still be going around beating up people with the current oversight regime.
That’s the reaction here though.
Not the technology, the lack of oversight. I didn’t see any mention of an oversight board or review panel, repercussions for abuse, etc.
Which with any technology, and the clear history of exactly the issues you’ve noted, is an absolute requirement imo.
Great tech and approach. Guaranteed to be used correctly in some cases, and massively abused in others. Without policy revisions to address those abuses, it’s a potentially very frightening technology in police hands.
“… because they can get away with it.”
Sounds like it doesn’t matter what tech we give them so long as they can get away with it.