"I got caught, they have evidence... I'm just going to call them all liars!"

That works in politics (sadly), not science.

You? No. But it might tell the Chinese government about things like troop movements or when a prominent politician is home.

It's surprising how much usable Intel can be extracted from what looks like garbage data. The real issue is the collecting and processing of so much data to effectively extract that useful data.

In fact, smarter people may have to start playing dumb, as solving a captcha too quickly can be a sign it is being done by a bot.

Of course, the counter is adding in a human response profile, applying the correct delay and randomization to match what bot-detectors are using to determine 'humanness'.

What they're doing is banning nudes, with consent or not and for everyone, because some will abuse the capability.

This is, at least to me, not the same as Chinese-controlled social media or networking infrastructure.

It's worth ensuring the control system doesn't phone home or have backdoors - or maybe requiring an open source app so there's less questions of that in the first place, but that's about it.

...get a different television.

It has one job - take signals and turn them into images and sound. Maybe not even sound if you have an audio system.

How dare the EU have consumer protection laws that inconvenience a corporation? That's un-American!

Women being treated like property who should submit to a good fucking on demand is not an acceptable solution to your difficulty finding a partner for sex.

The problem being that you can't actually extract information that wasn't there, you can only add new information that fits.

If you treat the extra detail as an inaccurate estimate, it's fine. But zoom in on that letter someone's holding in their hands and whatever you read will have been made up by the AI.

>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.

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.

What I would be more concerned with is not that such recordings will be deleted to cover up exculpatory evidence, but that they'll be deleted to cover a guilty cop's ass. And that's a lot easier because they simply have to claim nothing happened at all.

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.

That's actually reasonable. Maybe the law you violate isn't, but the secondary law saying "using this to aid in violating a law" is.

Using a VPN while accessing prohibited material is like wearing a disguise while robbing a bank. It shows you know you were committing a crime and put in extra effort to avoid being caught. It's something that undermines any claims of "I didn't know I was doing anything wrong".

Whether that material should be prohibited in the first place is a different matter.

Hey, now. We're far more civilized and make spying on our own citizens illegal. ...That's why we have agreements with our allies to spy on each other's citizens and share the information to ensure we don't break this very important law.

No, they do not stand there with pen and paper scribbling as they talk to people. Short notes on items of interest is about it.

If they need to know every word you said, you get brought in for an interview and it's on camera. Though maybe with the bodycams we're going to see less of that and more of what was said at the scene. I wouldn't know, the last time I did any tech work for cops they were only starting to talk about maybe not resisting bodycams.

The AI summary will be more like an index to the actual recorded evidence, and whether you trust that or not is based on whether you trust the verification tech the camera manufacturers employed and the chain of custody from camera to courtroom.

If you're ever in court on a jury and have to judge whether an officer's written notes are trustworthy... well, they are a trustworthy record of what the officer wanted to have recorded. I'm not saying I ever saw deliberately faked notes or ever saw an officer with a second notebook (pages are numbered so you can't just tear one out)... but I've seen officers wait until they get back to the station to make their notes rather than immediately on the scene, which means they're relying on their memory and human memory is not great. The longer you wait, the more likely your imagination is filling in gaps where you don't actually have clear recall.

For fingerprints? Ugh. I tend to believe they're reliable if you get a good print for establishing probabilities. I also tend to think the experts overstate the probabilities. And good prints are fairly rare. Again, I don't know from direct experience but my time with forensics cops taught me they're far, far more rare than you might expect if you just watched an episode of Law & Order.

If the AI sells bodycams and reduces paperwork.. Good.

Most officers I've worked with really don't like the idea of body cams. They will go on about how it will impair their ability to use discretion to go easy on people who have violated the law, but somehow I suspect it's more about the oversight and not being able to get away with little things any more. And on that score, screw 'em. I don't really care about the little things except that the circumstances that allow those also allow for the big things.

The public really doesn't like paying officers to do clerical work. Officers don't like it either, and wherever it can be done there is generally a push to move things over to civilian clerical staff. Then there are people like me, who came along and started connecting different systems to automate the process enough that you didn't even need as many clerks. You would not believe how many times an officer has to fill out the same information on different forms that became part of the process for different reasons at different times... well, at least in the municipalities I did work for, that got cut down quite a bit.

So you're going to end up with cops doing more policing and less paperwork, and they're going to do it with their cameras on to get there. This is win/win for the public, we will get better policing for less money.