I make a few reasonable inferences that don't involve magic. Meanwhile you invent active shooters with no shots fired and no gun present. I'm pretty sure they didn't use divining rods or the magic 8-ball to locate the kid in question. The picture was obviously available (since it is documented that it was shown to the kid). It's documented that the kid was cuffed and on his knees. It's documented that there never was a gun.

The "gun" turning out to be Doritos must have been fairly obvious since when the kid pointed it out, he was not arrested and taken away.

It's also obvious that had they looked at the picture FIRST, the kid wouldn't have even known they were there (nor would anyone but the principal and perhaps a few others in the office).

You can feel free to lick as many boots as you like, but leave me out of it. If the police want respect, they'd best get busy earning it.

If you can do that, then you could do the same thing with a mobile passport, in a future where everyone knows how to consume them. Assuming a proper implementation of a mobile passport, it would contain all the same data as your paper passport and would be digitally-signed by the issuer to prove authenticity and origin. Both paper and mobile passports should perfectly usable offline... though both could be checked online. I suppose the odds of a mobile passport being checked online might be higher, and a paper passport might be more durable if you need it to last a long time, though expiration would be a problem in both cases.

In reality, if you found yourself in this sort of situation your best best would be to sneak into Canada or Mexico and ask for asylum. If things were to get as bad as rsilvergun assumes, it would be granted.

So you figure they were waving ostrich feathers at him threatening to tickle?

Do you think the only actual guns in the school at the time didn't loom large in the kid's vision?

How do you suppose they picked out the "right" student to hassle without a picture?

In the before time when I was in high school, searching for weapons was a job for the unarmed principal or the football coach. Either they had the picture on them or they held the kid WAY longer than necessary after the pat down revealed nothing.

The parents should sue the crap out of the cops, the school, and probably the manufacturer of the scanner.

Agreed, the actual publication is considerably more ambiguous. In my case, 2K really would be about the max, but I can easily see other people would have a good case for 4K.

Though notably they're talking about ability to discern the difference in an A/B test. A somewhat lesser display may still make no difference in the 'experience' of normal watching, but that would require a follow-up study.

The AI would be better at feigning human decency.

The mobile driving license standard does not require you to hand your phone over, and indeed it wouldn't help the cop if you did because he'd have to hand it right back so you could unlock before it would send any data. It delivers the data to the copy wirelessly, via NFC, BLE or Wifi, depending on the context. What's on the screen (either a QR code or nothing) does not identify you or prove your driving privileges, so it's useless to the cop, intentionally so.

I was involved in the development and standardization of the mobile driving license standard and in the process spent some time talking to cops from a few jurisdictions. Interestingly to me, the response from the cops was universal: They would strongly object to anything that would require them to touch your phone. Of course, I was talking to the higher-ups and their concern was the liability that would be incurred if a lot of their officers broke peoples' thousand-dollar phones. Individual cops might have different perspectives, but their commanders thought it was way too risky.

As for passports, IMO any useful mobile passport should work the same: No handing over of the device, indeed the protocol should ensure that the device must be in the user's hand to present the passport.

Someday we'll probably get an international standard for mobile passports, but it's not happening any time soon.

Until recently I worked for Google, on Android, and participated in the International Standards Organization (ISO) committee that would be tasked with defining the technical standard for mobile passports. To be clear, the ISO committee can't actually issue such a standard, passports are standardized through ICAO. But the relevant ICAO committee delegates the technical work to an ISO committee.

The current situation in those committees is that the companies who make passport booklets and passport acceptance infrastructure are successfully fending off attempts to define a standard to enable mobile passports. They have gotten a new standard (called the "Digital Travel Credential - Physical Component", DTC-PC) approved that allegedly facilitates mobile devices with passports but isn't actually usable. Apple has refused to implement it and Google isn't making any moves to support it (though someone could write an Android app that does; all of the necessary APIs are available).

One of the main sticking points is that the ICAO committee is currently specifying that any digital travel credential should not support data minimization, meaning the ability to present just a subset of the data. More precisely, they specify that data minimization is a non-goal, but since a protocol that supports retrieving and authenticating a subset of the data without leaking any of the un-presented data is always going to be a lot more complex than a protocol that sends the entire data set in a single signed blob, any technical proposal that supports data minimization will be shot down as needlessly complex.

The ICAO's position on data minimization is that the only use of travel credentials is presentation at border checkpoints, and at border checkpoints you always have to present all of the data, so data minimization support is unnecessary. The counterargument from many people is that passports are used in many contexts other than border checkpoints, and many of those other contexts don't need and therefore shouldn't get all of the data in the passport. Since both Google and Apple insist on data minimization as an essential feature, there's not much movement happening.

My guess is that it will take 2-3 years to break the current logjam on even beginning work on a real, usable standard, then another few years to define it and put it into effect, then a few years more for most border checkpoints to accept it, and perhaps a few years beyond that for people to become sufficiently confident in their mobile devices' reliability that they will travel without a paper passport booklet. So... 20 years or so.

The work with the TSA is on derived credentials that are based on your passport (and securely authenticated), using a protocol derived from the ISO 18013-5 mobile driving license standard. It does support data minimization and looks a lot like what an eventual passport protocol should look like (IMNSHO -- note that I designed big chunks of the 18013-5 standard), but will not be accepted at any border checkpoints.

A paper passport doesn't increase your odds of getting out. All passports are verified electronically by the airlines and TSA. If there's a flag on your passport it doesn't matter whether it's in your phone wallet or in your hand.

You're the one who suggested the dispatcher should have looked. They showed the student the picture while they had him on his knees at gunpoint in the cafeteria.

You're getting desperate.

The 27" screen was just for measuring the true pixels/degree resolution for human eyes.

Or at least replace Trump with an AI.

They had the picture of the alleged gun that was clearly not a gun. That's a DAMNED good reason to doubt he had a gun. They were just too fucking stupid to look at the picture. Too stupid to be allowed to carry a firearm. I agree that there was plenty of stupid to go around. Yes, the dispatcher should have looked, especially since the information came from an error prone AI. The whole lot of them should be re-assigned somewhere where they can't hurt anyone. Not picking up trash, that involves a pointy stick.

It's funny that the one person in the whole story who didn't demonstrate poor decision making was the TEENAGER.

I would suggest that a passenger look at the picture, or they look at the picture before they decide to endanger everyone on the road by driving like a clown for no reason.

I never claimed it was the basics of police training. It is the basics of the society's expectation. You know, the people that ultimately pay them. I would think that making references to things learned in kindergarten and Sunday school would have made that clear.

As for sorry, by the time you actually kill an innocent person (at best negligent homicide), you are probably beyond a simple sorry. But in this case, the kid is right there. A public apology is in order.

It's funny that the much better trained and disciplined military police behave so much more professionally and courteously in spite of being primarily soldiers prepared to go into an actual war zone where killing people is in the job description.

Sort of. System updates originate from Google but flow through the OEM, which is contractually obligated to validate them and then push them out. Apps and some system services (Play services, a collection of security-related system components, etc.) are updated directly by Google.

The expectation for Android Automotive is that systems will have a 15-20 year support lifespan. I think there are even contractual obligations mandating the lower end of that range. So I don't think you keep your vehicles long enough for it to be an issue.

Of course, if they thought about it a minute (not their strong suit), AI would be gone in a flash since THEY are the ones best replaced with AI.