@1 You aren't splitting hairs, you are bullshitting. Its obviously surveillance.


The petulance and insubordination uniformed police display towards civil authorities is one of the most serious problems facing municipal government in this country. Something needs to be done.


"The law is really ultra clear about the surveillance being the tracking and montoring of /identifiable persons/. Facial recognition is the /identifiable/ part, which is assumed to already have been done."

I appreciate the free add placement for Amazon Recognition and Ring AI, but where is this "ultra clear" law you are referring to? Here is the law I am familiar with. Perhaps you have heard others speak of it:

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Golly, I don't see any carve out in this law for facial recognition. It's almost as if you simply pulled that shit out of your ass and said "this is what I believe and that makes it ultra clear!"

I wouldn't worry though. Whenever cities like LA, Portland or MA pass this restriction they never include any sanctions, so the police simply ignore the law anyway.

"Los Angeles police ban facial recognition software and launch review after officers accused of unauthorized use
Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do when they run an algorithm for you?"

I mean, remember when the historically corrupt King County Sheriff department broke the law restricting them from working with ICE because there were not sanctions attached when they broke the law?

Criminal gangs who face no sanctions for criminal behavior will always break the law. Why worry about the law that even if passed will have no teeth?


6: Agreed. This type of surveillance is hugely expensive.

I originally thought we should cut SPD by 50%, but if SPD has money for a boondoggle like this they have far more money then I thought. Looks like the SPD has far more unused money to burn than I thought.

Will in Seattle is right. A 50% cut isn't nearly enough. We need to cut the SPD budget at least 65% if we are going to prevent wasteful projects like this.

I suspect the SPD compromise will be an offer to put a BLM sticker on every camera.


Oh, it's surveillance, sunshine, and it's tied into the federal state and county properties and highways to make sure they can track you and pretend the fact half of our state is state or federal land has no impact.


Data is inherently surveillance.


@9: My god Raindrop, I thought we would never agree on anything, yet here we are.


@10: I'm a classic conservative - with every antipathy to that type of intrusion that a liberal also abhors.


I'm not a liberal or conservative, but the term "classic conservative" just like "classic liberal" is open to wide interpretation.

Still, you're so close to human empathy on this topic I can almost taste it.....


The detective mentioned in this "horrifying" story is a burglary, or property crimes detective. You all constantly complain about SPD not doing their job. Here is an investigator trying to solve property crimes with the use of technology. Are you so stupid to believe that they would use it for something other than identifying a suspect? You aren't that important (or interesting) and they have better things to do with their time. Like identify the morons who roam the East Precinct stealing and damaging property. Fine, take away useful tools like facial recognition technology and drones (God forbid) but don't complain when the investigator can't identify the deadbeat in a video who ripped off your $5,000. bicycle.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.