It seems that they often withhold that information from Courts and defense attorneys:
Police around the United States are routinely using facial recognition technology to help identify suspects, but those departments rarely disclose they've done so - even to suspects and their lawyers.
Documents concerning the use and disclosure, of facial recognition technology were provided to the Washington Post as part of its ongoing investigation into use of the technology in the US, but only from around 40 departments in 15 states out of the "more than 100" departments who were asked. Most, WaPo noted, declined to answer anything.
Police records reportedly indicate that, aside from not disclosing that facial recognition technology, police also frequently obscured use of the technology by saying they identified suspects "through investigative means," while others have outright policy documents that tell officers to "not document this investigative lead."
In multiple cases documented in police reports and court filings, WaPo found those charged with crimes based on facial recognition often weren't aware that it had been used to identify them until after they were already in jail – several times incorrectly.
Emphasis added by me.
It seems that the Police sometimes don't even tell the DA's office about this. While I Am Not A Lawyer, this seems like a great argument to abolish Qualified Immunity. The secrecy itself is the best evidence that the process is being abused. I mean, if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about, right?
8 comments:
QI is civil law and abolishing it would just enable ambulance chasers to sue the taxpayers. If you want to accomplish something positive, let's talk about deprivation of civil rights under color of law and use the criminal statute.
Well, departments will see what the problem officers or procedures are because they have to pay out after being sued. At least that is a feedback loop.
If departments don't do anything about it then voters can replace upper law enforcement management, or politicians who won't replace them.
Kevin O'Leary when asked on some FOX show regarding their employment chances after graduation, stated that the protester can be identified simply by their eyes and other features using AI. So they already have a list of names and your resumes is checked against the list. You land on that list and bye-bye chance of employment in big law firm and land a gig as an ambulance chaser in Podunk Midwest.
"Law Enforcement"(sic) has become a bigger threat to our freedom than garden variety criminals ever posed.
VERY well said.
If you paid your Mafia taxes, they actually PROTECTED you.
Seen any sign of that from your GOVERNMENT lately?
This reminds me of the departments that use String rays to intercept phone calls and claim the FBI won't let them talk about it - or the departments that use thermal cameras and then claim the information came from an informant (even in cases it couldn't have).
Jonathan
If their lips are moving, the police are lying to you. True in court, true on the streets, true for decades, beyond any rational dispute. And sometimes, street-level officers are too dumb to even know what they're parroting is a lie. The rest of the time, they're fully aware, and they don't care.
Conduct yourself accordingly.
This should be written in Sharpie on your hand, lest ye forget.
Seems like there's a middle ground in there somewhere, such as denying qualified immunity when the police or DA acts outside the bounds of their oath- lying, destroying, hiding, withholding evidence, denying a suspect their rights, etc.
Post a Comment