Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:eliminates evidence (Score 1) 53

>Once the AI has written a report of what it thinks it saw on the bodycam, the actual bodycam recording will be deleted in order to "save space".

Baseless fearmongering. If they ever tried that, the defence would have an easy time getting the reports based on the original missing evidence thrown out.

It's already hard for the defense to get bodycam footage. Somehow, it often was accidentally deleted. And when it is available, the cop used the Mute button, and just turned the camera on and off in order to edit the recording. The defense is not allowed to infer anything from the missing/edited/muted footage -- the cop's word is (by law) assumed by the court to be truthful. And as you point out, if there were other cops, they will back up that testimony.

Bodycam recordings will be deleted in accordance with an official retention schedule, but anything determined likely to be needed as evidence for court will be preserved beyond that standard limit.

By this you mean evidence that favors the cop and the prosecution. Exculpatory (or worse) recordings will not be preserved. In fact, it is liable to get "lost" if there's anything on it that looks bad for the cops.

The camera footage that you see where the cops are lying isn't bodycam footage. It's coming from private cameras at the gas station or whatever, third parties. Unless the cops know about the cameras and demand the recordings, so that they can destroy them.

Luckily, we already spend a LOT of money on police equipment and storage is rapidly getting arbitrarily affordable. There's really no justification for not setting retention standards that are more than long enough to prevent such scenarios from routinely occurring without being extremely suspicious events.

They routinely occur hundreds of times every day, and the court is not interested in the rapid-deletion retention policy or how much digital storage costs. When you say "there is no justification", you are forgetting the most important justification of all: the police don't want recordings of their activities. It impedes them.

Why, I think you're a suspicious person for even suggesting that the cops might not be retaining the recordings for a reasonable period of time. And quit complaining about how much money you're spending on the police. The police Do Not Work For You. You are obstructing justice right now with your words. That's an arrestable offense. Hold Still! Quit Resisting! Stop Tasing Yourself! You low-life motherfucker.

We live in an irretrievable police state, and have for some years now. You are Guilty, and the sooner you quit resisting, the easier and longer your life will be. The America of the mid 20th century is gone, that was a dream. I would say, "Wake Up!" But I don't want to give you bad advice.

Comment eliminates evidence (Score 1) 53

Once the AI has written a report of what it thinks it saw on the bodycam, the actual bodycam recording will be deleted in order to "save space".

These reports are used in three ways, currently.
First, the prosecutor uses it as the basis of charging the crime and the particulars. Second, it is used for performance reviews and administrative oversight of the policeman (ie. is he meeting his arrest quota).

Finally, in court the judge relies on the police report. Whatever a policeman says in court is presumed by the judge to be true and accurate. This is in contrast to the defendant, who is assumed to be lying. Officer testimony is given special weight: if the account of what happened differs, the police officer's testimony is legally considered true above whatever you say. (In a cop-said/she-said, the judge will recite a Latin phrase that I forget, which means "what cops say is always true". This is because the cop is presumed to be an agent of the state, the state is good, and the cop and the state therefore never even have reason to lie or distort.) How does the policeman's report play into this? It is the basis of the charge, it is the primary evidence, and it represents the officer's word. Which is why the policeman will be holding a copy of the report in his hand and referring to it (to refresh his memory and make sure he says what is true and correct) whenever he is testifying on the stand.

What could possibly go wrong?

Comment Re:Apple (Score 1) 44

Is this the new M4-killer that I keep hearing about?
Or is that a different project?

Why is this modded troll?
I just watched a video about Qualcom entering the PC market with a new series of high-performing chips that supposedly rival the latest Apple silicon. I am asking if this is that chip series, or is that something else? It sounds like these... 10 cores etc.

Yes, it is the same chip.
Snapdragon X Elite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Comment Re:Apple (Score 1) 44

Is this the new M4-killer that I keep hearing about?
Or is that a different project?

Why is this modded troll?
I just watched a video about Qualcom entering the PC market with a new series of high-performing chips that supposedly rival the latest Apple silicon. I am asking if this is that chip series, or is that something else? It sounds like these... 10 cores etc.

Comment Re:"Metalhead" (Score 1) 115

Tech bros (and they are always bros) have been using the intended-as-cautionary tales of science fiction as the initial phase in their R&D for about a century now. They were so concerned as to whether they COULD do it that they didn't even stick around for whatever Jeff Goldblum said after that part.

Ooooh, ahhhh that's how it starts...and then later there's flamethrowing and barking...

Comment Re:Why not just go the whole hog... (Score 0) 115

Plausible deniability? You could claim you use it for the tasks they list, not a home defence system.

What's the legality of owning a flamethrower, and of using it on a suspected intruder? They seem to be readily available in the US, but would there be any issue with burning someone instead of shooting them?

In the USA it is legal to own a flamethrower.
And it is legal to use them for self-defense.
That's why it's hard to find them at the hardware
store, and why the daily news is filled with stories
of people burning intruders and the occasional
paperboy all the time. At only $10,000 this new
robot will be flying off the shelves. The hospitals
are already oveerrun with incinerated children
from the traditional flameweapons.
You can expect even more casualties in the
coming year with the autonomous mobile
AI-enabled 3D-printed blockchain flamedog.

And please don't mod this as Flamebait.
In Republic of America, flamedog baits YOU!

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Working...