It is possible to put laws into place that require how public-private partnerships work. It would be an imposition upon Flock and upon the police. And that is just fine, and as it should be.

Law enforcement contracting to the private sector should not be allowed to be a bypass of our rights.

The only place I see Al in the legal profession making sense is to do basic caselaw research, where it can cite the sources and the references upstream and downstream to those sources. The lawyer should be responsible to review the claimed caselaw citations to determine the merit of their support for the argument that the lawyer is making, and to pick the particular citations to use that are the strongest for the particular case.

Likewise the same sort of search but inverted, for one's opponent's most likely arguments or rebuttals might be performed, again with the lawyer doing the review based on the citations that the Al tool provided.

There was a television series in the 2010s called Person of Interest where the premise was that one of the main characters had managed to achieve Al, but in order to satisfy legal constraints, the Al was only allowed to spit-out a single phrase about a person, rather than any detail of any sort. It was up to the limited number of persons associated with the Al to figure out why this 'person of interest' had been referenced, whether they were the perpetrator, the victim, a witness, or someone who would suffer downstream effects. While soft science fiction, and pretty clearly taking inspiration from the older series Quantum Leap in having to figure out why they were there, the concept had some merit as to how Al should really be used. It should be treated as untrusted, it should be treated as requiring thorough review. It should be treated as another tool available, but no more trustable or authoritative than any other, and arguably a bit less trustable, a bit less authoritative.

I've seen firsthand in meetings people saying, "Well Claude says..." or "Well ChatGPT says..."

What's bothering me about this is that those running the meeting aren't shutting that crap down immediately.

Except that in basically all of the examples that you cite, the transition was from one proven technology slowly into another technology that was at least approaching some degree of maturity by the time it it mass-market adoption.

In most of those examples. early adopters were nearly all ultrawealthy who were using it for themselves. Those who weren't incredibly rich were technology-enthusiasts of some fashion or another. Those groups initially worked-out most of the showstopper-problems with the technology before widespread adoption, and in many of those industries either compatibility or outright law added extra constraint over time.

AI for the masses has taken a different development path. It's not ready and is misbehaving, to the detriment of many. "Hallucinations" should not be tolerated at this scale of deployment.

Not if you're the police.

Or as it was put nearly two millennia ago, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

This is why systems like this require human oversight. Arguably if there's a judicial review process for allowing searches, then this system needs to be required to use that process. With a system containing precinct, local court district, municipal, county, state, and federal district jurisdictions, the nature of setting up proper permissions alone should be a mandatory herculean effort, probably the most difficult part of the entire system.

Without such a system requiring judicial oversight to confirm that searches are authorized, all we have is a further slide into a police-state.

This seems like a very obvious and straightforward requirement, force the officer to select an active case to tie the inquiry to.

And at the same time display a warning that selecting an unrelated case "will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination".

Make them just as accountable as any other security system in the pirvate sector.

I'm gonna pirate your Pion, by changing it to Prion, (for the ARRRRR). ;-)

"prevent automation"

Buggy Whip Makers would like a word with you.

While your post has some interesting tidbits, some even worthy, the conclusions are incorrect. You're blaming government intervention while proposing government intervention as a solution.

The more government is involved in economic matters, the more screwed up things get, because that's the nature of regulations. We just need ONE MORE regulation, and that will solve all the problems (and somehow creates additional problems).

Supply Demand curves exist in all markets. Pushing them around artificially is a recipe to inefficiencies.

so Keefe also returned to his car and followed several cars behind, hoping to document the next stop."

Yeah that was a stupid thing to do. I don't care which side of the fence you're on regarding Flock cameras, police, or government surveillance, following someone is the wrong response. They're merely an employee doing their job, and you've just escalated it into something very personal.

If that'd have been me, I'd have driven to the cop shop and flagged down an officer, pointed out the car following me, and asked them to go have a word with my tail and ask them to leave me alone.

Taking pictures and filming me out doing my job in public? Sure, fine, go ahead. But if I get tired of it I might leave. Don't follow me, don't harass me. How'd you like it if my buddy with the flock camera mounted on his roof starts following you around? Oh that's different is it? is it really?

"we demand our sovereignty, and also demand you relinquish yours!"

With Passkeys, they have access to your stuff without any oversight by courts and discovery. There are ZERO 4 and 5th Amendment rights to stuff protected by passkeys. They can compel you to unlock your phone, and put your finger on the print reader, and facial scan you .... all without your permission or CONSENT. As much stuff behind that initial Passkey on your phone (ApplePay/GoogleWallet, Banks, everything).

Legally it is untenable how much access they have with Passkeys.

Passcodes cannot be compelled (XKCD hammer notwithstanding). 4th and 5th Amendments apply.

If passkeys are movable, then they can be duplicated and reused by nefarious actors as easy as this seems to indicate here.

I have not, and do not, and never will trust passkeys as primary security for anything.

Passkeys can be compelled legally, with and sometimes without a warrant. Passwords cannot be compelled at all. SCOTUS has already set the rules.

From the sounds of it, the private key used to sign the photograph is IN the camera. So every user holds a private key in their hands they just can't easily get at to use to sign their slop.

And this means it just takes one smart fellow to tear the camera apart and extract the key, and they can sign al the pictures they want to, at least "from that camera".

I suppose as is the case with any asymmetric key-signing system, they'll have a "revocation list" they can use to burn any pictures signed by a "stolen" key once they discover it's been lifted and is out in the wild.

So at that point all the signature can say is "it's not AI until proven otherwise"

And lastly, what's to stop me from generating some slop and throwing it up on a nice monitor and taking a picture of it? Jackalopes are real, I can prove it, here's a certified picture I took of one!

Details bore me. Describing a person's outfit in detail is filled with information I could not care any less about. Its not that I can't visualize, because I can and do.

I do understand why people DO like that kind of stuff, it's just not me.