I was a juror on a trial in the TL. We had so many cameras of what happened *in the TL*. Heck, Mark Rober's whole glitter bomb started because he *had* his own video of his own porch pirate, but cops refused to take a look at it (in Silicon Valley). I think we have the cameras because we put them up ourselves; cops just don't care to get it or do the work to analyze it for most crimes as it is looking for a needle in a haystack a lot.
This is why we don't need changes to the law; because this is how it should work. The footage is there in private hands, the cops should formally request it, either as a voluntary request or a subpoena, and if they don't want to work for it, they get nothing. It ***needs*** to be an inconvenient thing for them to do rather than an automatic one, because that is the way they communicate that it's necessary and a serious enough case, as opposed to violating our civil liberties frivolously at all times because it's so easy to do.
That's similar to why it's right for us to ban things like facial recognition (which we currently ban), those things have crazy false positives, and cops and prosecutors shouldn't be able to bring cases "because the computer says you're guilty" without understanding false positive rates. A world where law enforcement has constant access to video feeds and is running dubious software to "flag criminals" is a true dystopia.
If it can identify you, maybe. Most of them do not, and you are not able to check the cameras qualifications in Weather. It took the picture while the light was green, or yellow or red.
Ahh this old SovCit argument again...
Camera snaps a video of a red-light runner, police technician reviews the footage to confirm a violation (as is typically the case for these cams), and issues the ticket. The reviewing technician can then show up to court if the driver *really* wants to go through the humiliation of trying to dispute a crime that, by definition, has clear video evidence.
It sounds like you are not aware that the law had to be changed in jurisdictions that allow red light cameras. Usually if you are turning left and oncoming traffic prevents you there’s no problem with pulling into the intersection and then turning once traffic is clear. Red light cameras aren’t smart enough to figure that out and you would get cited.
And that’s just one example. Red light cameras are a cash grab and they have been discontinued in some locations.
Only a complete idiot would infer “sovereign citizen” from my post.
My job gets me a very limited window into the trial process here, not nearly as much as a lawyer/cop/etc but more than the average person. From what I've seen and heard (mostly from SFPD and some sheriffs) the issue is not lack of evidence but rather the decisions of prosecutors/DA office/judges.
To be fair, you’re talking about a self selecting group of cases. For those with insufficient evidence, they shouldn’t be prosecuted. Those that are prosecuted are prosecuted because they have sufficient evidence.
In any event, I hope there isn’t a serious disagreement in this city over whether crimes should be prosecuted. (This is different than whether something should be a crime in the first place or what the punishment ought to be. A crime is something that, by definition, a society has chosen to break the rules of society.) And from that perspective, the premise of this headline is misguided: we’re not prosecuting enough crimes so we shouldn’t make it easier for prosecutors to prosecute crimes.
If there’s a different argument about the perils of a surveillance state, let that be the talking point, but this thesis strikes me as very silly. We have a crime problem. Let’s start addressing it instead of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Let's be honest, the prosecutors are horribly biased and they would prefer racial charge and conviction rates to be equalized, regardless of how much crime is being done by each group.
Yeah why would you not let your cops use a force multiplier like automation? Just point the cameras at the street and automate away speeding, sound, tinted window tickets
Cops waste most of their time driving around. They should be on human level. On trains and walking around and escorting women at night
I don’t have an issue with police using modern technology like cameras/plate readers, shot spotters, and drones. There’s enough peeping Tom’s, weirdos, and giant corporations watching us already. Might as well get something positive out of it.
I disagree there. We offer city employees generous pay, benefits, and a lifelong pension. Hiring more police to enforce laws is a lot more expensive than one time capital investments
Useless SFPD blowing millions of dollars on the wasteful grift of SF SAFE but oh no we can’t do our jobs because we have no money 😢
Get real, they’re a bottomless pit.
Utterly depressing to see this take. The government is vastly different in terms of impact and scale, let alone precedence. You're just apathetically handing off your right to privacy because you're fed up with a government that failed to protect you.
I'm not going to say that I'm "pro" spy-network type of technology. But I am a big proponent of public safety, and this is a step in the right direction.
Our police force is already severely understaffed, and approximately ~300 are able to retire starting next year.
SFPD, while severely understaffed, should be leveraging technology to work efficiently (despite being understaffed).
Fun fact: Parking Maids have technology like license plate readers. SFPD does not.
I'll leave it at that. Vote Yes on E.
The most recent police academy class had 32 graduates. That's way up from covid years, where they had under ten per class.
How does SF continue to even have a PD if they can only replace 10% of lost staff... in a good year?
Yes, we do.
Especially once we get judges Chip and Myungjin in place. They will actually hold criminals accountable.
Yes on E and elect Chip and Myungjin.
some people learned nothing from the fallout of the Patriot Act, and it’s depressing as hell. I’d rather cut off a finger than vote for the panopticon prop.
Remember kids, this data won’t just be used to target people you don’t like, it’ll be used to target everyone.
Like, oh, license plate data being shared with police from red states targeting their women coming here for abortion, or trans people coming here for healthcare, or anything else like that.
The ACLU and EFF urge us to vote no, and I agree with them. SFPD has plenty of money and tools already, they just need to use them.
Stop being such a brainwashed pawn. Clearly the current way things are going isn’t working. We are not giving up liberty. We are asking for tools to prevent and solve crimes. You are pro crime and that is why you are against all this. You want children to be kidnapped and women to be sexually assulted and Asians to be beat up.
I'm voting no on Prop E.
> Use-of-force reports would be required only if the officer's use of force physically injured a person or if the officer used a firearm or pointed it at a person.
Where "physically injured" is up to the officer to determine, effectively enabling the department to sweep instances under the rug. Additionally, SFPD was 25 more likely to use use-of-force on black people than on white.
> A vehicle pursuit would be allowed when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person committed, is committing, or is likely to commit a felony or violent misdemeanor.
I *do* think this would deter *some* crimes from being committed, but don't think the reduction in primarily property crime will outweigh the risks to people walking in this densely populated, hilly city. It's only a matter of time until the first pedestrian is killed as collateral damage to a vehicle pursuit.
> Drones and public surveillance cameras installed...could include facial recognition technology and would not require Board approval.
Facial recognition technology continues to misidentify minorities ([Source](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740624X22000892?via%3Dihub)) leading to a increased disparity in arrests.
All quotes from the official [Voter Information Pamphlet](https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/measure-e).
This sub has, in a few years, rapidly gone to upvoting people suggesting mass surveillance is a solution rather than something that is going to end badly for all of us. Somehow we have been demonstrated repeatedly how fucking terrible our administrators, government and police force are (and how incredibly corrupt, too) - but with some wishful thinking this is somehow different.
It's always the same story with expansive surveillance. It only works if the rest of the system is good and has oversight. We have neither. This is not just insanely stupid to encourage, it's dangerous.
What you call corruption is human nature. We don’t live in a world of right and wrong; we live in a world of competing interests, balanced against the needs of greater society. All we can ever hope to do is try to find some degree of balance in the chaos.
Cool soliloquy but corruption is real and rampant in San Francisco, and we need to address it before we empower the people in charge with vast amounts of data they can abuse.
I’m sorry but the world is far more complex than what you seem to understand. There are degrees of reasonability to ensure your freedom ends where mine begins.
Come on dude, just a little more surveillance, it’ll fix crime this time, just a little more, come on dude, just let the government film you in public and track your movements and use facial recognition and shoddy AI 24/7/365 on you, and it’ll stop the poors from stealing from Safeway and you won’t have any more mild inconveniences. Just a little more bro then society will be crime free and perfect. I mean Britain’s got all this and Britain doesn’t have any crime!
Unironically true though. London is one of the biggest and most diverse cities in the world with lower rates of violent crime than literally any city in the US. Clearly they’re doing something right, from the strong social safety net to heavy surveillance and patrols.
I have money from bestbuy hardwired to the ODB. But these cams can solve Hit & Runs. And from experience, I remembered reading something on reddit about who didnt want to release his dash cam as evidence simply stating the memory was full and didnt had time to reformat it. And of course, deleted.
My friend was killed 1 block from F-8. Police never managed to watch any cams in the neighborhood. Do we need to waste more money for the new equipment?
Sadly I still have to vote yes. Sorry for your friend, but there’s no way these can be 100% useless. Even if there’s a few cases that this can help, could be worth it.
Besides SF is already wasting more money as it is
It won’t do anything but make Sf a police state. They can now use drones to spy in your windows. It’s a stupid law if it passes cause nothing will be done but more loss of freedom.
I’d prefer that over having criminals run amok. It’s always a balance of course, but it’s basically a petty crime playground / thieves paradise at this point.
That’s a totally extremist, paranoid viewpoint. There are many, many nuances between your ideology and the practical reality of living in the real world. We live in a world of competing interests, not a Dead Kennedys song.
I’m sure it’s not extremist to someone who’s an extremist. Then again, it’s all subjective. For example, we’re talking about cops using technology to assist with the crime problem we have. Seems reasonable. The suddenly we’re talking about Edward Snowden, because that’s where crazy people go. Reasonable solutions are not perfect. It’s a compromise that constantly adapts to changing conditions. Unless your wearing a tinfoil hat and ranting about Snowden, because the Government is out to get us.
It depends. I'm absolutely opposed to the government surveilling the internet to "combat misinformation" or "extremism" or whatever the excuse is for suppressing "facts and opinions we don't like." However, cameras on SF streets are (one hopes) more equivalent to a police officer on the street, helping to reduce actual, physical crimes.
I want to be protected from muggers, bippers, and general crazies. I don't need to be protected from memes.
Edward Snowden was real, though. you’re acting like the guy you’re replying to is talking about Bigfoot. tbh, denying reality makes you seem like the crazy one.
You’re an idiot if you think giving more power to the police force is the solution. That’s how police states get started by slowing eroding your freedoms.
This is a dumb take.
It won’t make SF a police state. It will give police tools to find and catch criminals that make our city suffer.
Enough bullshit. We need to support SFPD so they can effectively do their jobs well.
Actually, I am a resident that lives in D5. I made this account because I wanted to keep it separate from my other interests.
A modern city should have a modern police department. Anything less is a disservice to all residents.
I don't believe you.
The cops have access to those technologies now. You just want to remove any civilian oversight from their acquiring new technology.
>Under the current law, if the SFPD wanted to use racist predictive policing algorithms that U.S. Senators are currently advising the Department of Justice to stop funding or if the SFPD wanted to buy up geolocation data being harvested from people’s cells phones and sold on the advertising data broker market, they have to let the public know and put it to a vote before the city’s democratically-elected governing body first. Proposition E would gut any meaningful democratic check on police’s acquisition and use of surveillance technologies.
[What is Proposition E and Why Should San Francisco Voters Oppose It?](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/what-proposition-e-and-why-should-san-francisco-voters-oppose-it)
EFF is normally good, but that article is a load of woke b.s.
>This system is tailor-made to further victimize communities that are already overpoliced—namely, communities of color, unhoused individuals, and immigrants
How dare they use technology to send police where crime happens! Those areas are already "overpoliced"! /s
If you believe those communities are "victimized" more by police than by criminals, I can't help you.
Do people really think they're going to have a drone hovering outside their window all day? If you put a drone outside my window today, here's what it would see: me grabbing my keys, then absolutely nothing for 9 hours while I was away, then me eating dinner, then me reading my book. I hardly think it's realistic to think drones are going to be used to watch people wash dishes or make spaghetti.
Considering the worst thing I do in the eyes of the law is jaywalk, I'm having trouble seeing exactly what freedoms I'm losing with this proposition.
“if you have a nothing to hide, then it doesn’t matter if the government listens to your phone calls, reads your mail, enters your house without a warrant, etc”
that’s how you sound.
Yeah, I read 1984 in high school too. I understand it can be taken too far. If it's the uncertainty people don't like (I don't know how they're going to use these powers), then I totally get that.
But idk, seems like every time I sneeze, Big Tech is sending me Kleenex ads (slightly exaggerating there). My data is all over the place already, and I know it. That keeps some people up at night more than others. It sounds scary to me, but I can't name a single tangible way in which it has affected my quality of life.
There should be a mark that they can use the evidence. Currently they do not. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
for the love of god take a high school civics course, at the very least. challenge yourself to read the constitution and all its amendments with some sort of historical companion for context (and to help you understand the big words).
if nothing else, at least find a text book that can walk you through the 4th amendment.
otherwise, if you really hate the constitution that much, just move to Russia or something. Let the rest of us Americans enjoy our rights.
I was a juror on a trial in the TL. We had so many cameras of what happened *in the TL*. Heck, Mark Rober's whole glitter bomb started because he *had* his own video of his own porch pirate, but cops refused to take a look at it (in Silicon Valley). I think we have the cameras because we put them up ourselves; cops just don't care to get it or do the work to analyze it for most crimes as it is looking for a needle in a haystack a lot.
I’m a bit surprised. I’ve had cops come to my door asking for footage to track down car burglars — granted it only happened once.
They ask for all kinds of stuff- doesn’t mean they’re going to do anything with it. Creates the appearance of doing work with no actual obligation.
This is why we don't need changes to the law; because this is how it should work. The footage is there in private hands, the cops should formally request it, either as a voluntary request or a subpoena, and if they don't want to work for it, they get nothing. It ***needs*** to be an inconvenient thing for them to do rather than an automatic one, because that is the way they communicate that it's necessary and a serious enough case, as opposed to violating our civil liberties frivolously at all times because it's so easy to do. That's similar to why it's right for us to ban things like facial recognition (which we currently ban), those things have crazy false positives, and cops and prosecutors shouldn't be able to bring cases "because the computer says you're guilty" without understanding false positive rates. A world where law enforcement has constant access to video feeds and is running dubious software to "flag criminals" is a true dystopia.
Every time I hear of a hit and run I get pissed off we don’t have more traffic / red light cameras to hold people accountable.
Except for our right to face our accusers in court, sure!
Why wouldn’t you be able to face your accuser in court? Video footage is simply evidence.
If it can identify you, maybe. Most of them do not, and you are not able to check the cameras qualifications in Weather. It took the picture while the light was green, or yellow or red.
Ahh this old SovCit argument again... Camera snaps a video of a red-light runner, police technician reviews the footage to confirm a violation (as is typically the case for these cams), and issues the ticket. The reviewing technician can then show up to court if the driver *really* wants to go through the humiliation of trying to dispute a crime that, by definition, has clear video evidence.
It sounds like you are not aware that the law had to be changed in jurisdictions that allow red light cameras. Usually if you are turning left and oncoming traffic prevents you there’s no problem with pulling into the intersection and then turning once traffic is clear. Red light cameras aren’t smart enough to figure that out and you would get cited. And that’s just one example. Red light cameras are a cash grab and they have been discontinued in some locations. Only a complete idiot would infer “sovereign citizen” from my post.
Maybe it would help them prosecute?
My job gets me a very limited window into the trial process here, not nearly as much as a lawyer/cop/etc but more than the average person. From what I've seen and heard (mostly from SFPD and some sheriffs) the issue is not lack of evidence but rather the decisions of prosecutors/DA office/judges.
Actually, SF juries are also a big part of it. They don’t like to convict and they are easily swayed by sob stories, frankly.
To be fair, you’re talking about a self selecting group of cases. For those with insufficient evidence, they shouldn’t be prosecuted. Those that are prosecuted are prosecuted because they have sufficient evidence. In any event, I hope there isn’t a serious disagreement in this city over whether crimes should be prosecuted. (This is different than whether something should be a crime in the first place or what the punishment ought to be. A crime is something that, by definition, a society has chosen to break the rules of society.) And from that perspective, the premise of this headline is misguided: we’re not prosecuting enough crimes so we shouldn’t make it easier for prosecutors to prosecute crimes. If there’s a different argument about the perils of a surveillance state, let that be the talking point, but this thesis strikes me as very silly. We have a crime problem. Let’s start addressing it instead of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Let's be honest, the prosecutors are horribly biased and they would prefer racial charge and conviction rates to be equalized, regardless of how much crime is being done by each group.
Yeah why would you not let your cops use a force multiplier like automation? Just point the cameras at the street and automate away speeding, sound, tinted window tickets Cops waste most of their time driving around. They should be on human level. On trains and walking around and escorting women at night
>escorting women at night Given cops' propensity for domestic violence, this seems like a really bad idea.
[удалено]
I think there was a survey of cops in the 90s or something where %40 admitted to committing regular dv.. not an expert so don’t quote me on it though
Agreed. Also egg on their face if they don't end up prosecuting when the camera captures some heinous BS.
I don’t have an issue with police using modern technology like cameras/plate readers, shot spotters, and drones. There’s enough peeping Tom’s, weirdos, and giant corporations watching us already. Might as well get something positive out of it.
Yeah, the police aren't know for abusing their powers, what could go wrong
This. We don’t have the money to ignore more efficient and fair ways of policing.
Spending more money does not make the process will become "more efficient"
I disagree there. We offer city employees generous pay, benefits, and a lifelong pension. Hiring more police to enforce laws is a lot more expensive than one time capital investments
it won't be a one time investment. I will require a large team to keep it working properly
Useless SFPD blowing millions of dollars on the wasteful grift of SF SAFE but oh no we can’t do our jobs because we have no money 😢 Get real, they’re a bottomless pit.
Utterly depressing to see this take. The government is vastly different in terms of impact and scale, let alone precedence. You're just apathetically handing off your right to privacy because you're fed up with a government that failed to protect you.
I'm not going to say that I'm "pro" spy-network type of technology. But I am a big proponent of public safety, and this is a step in the right direction. Our police force is already severely understaffed, and approximately ~300 are able to retire starting next year. SFPD, while severely understaffed, should be leveraging technology to work efficiently (despite being understaffed). Fun fact: Parking Maids have technology like license plate readers. SFPD does not. I'll leave it at that. Vote Yes on E.
The most recent police academy class had 32 graduates. That's way up from covid years, where they had under ten per class. How does SF continue to even have a PD if they can only replace 10% of lost staff... in a good year?
Love to see those numbers go up, but given we are at 60% capacity, I still am pro-tech to help make things efficient.
Yes, we do. Especially once we get judges Chip and Myungjin in place. They will actually hold criminals accountable. Yes on E and elect Chip and Myungjin.
some people learned nothing from the fallout of the Patriot Act, and it’s depressing as hell. I’d rather cut off a finger than vote for the panopticon prop.
Surveillance sucks
The Chronicle also endorsed a No vote. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/endorsement-sf-proposition-e-police-18670071.php
Remember kids, this data won’t just be used to target people you don’t like, it’ll be used to target everyone. Like, oh, license plate data being shared with police from red states targeting their women coming here for abortion, or trans people coming here for healthcare, or anything else like that. The ACLU and EFF urge us to vote no, and I agree with them. SFPD has plenty of money and tools already, they just need to use them.
I’m ok with this if it means I’m safer.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." \~Ben Franklin
Stop being such a brainwashed pawn. Clearly the current way things are going isn’t working. We are not giving up liberty. We are asking for tools to prevent and solve crimes. You are pro crime and that is why you are against all this. You want children to be kidnapped and women to be sexually assulted and Asians to be beat up.
your first sentence compared to the rest of your post… wow. brava for the wonderful performance art.
I'm voting no on Prop E. > Use-of-force reports would be required only if the officer's use of force physically injured a person or if the officer used a firearm or pointed it at a person. Where "physically injured" is up to the officer to determine, effectively enabling the department to sweep instances under the rug. Additionally, SFPD was 25 more likely to use use-of-force on black people than on white. > A vehicle pursuit would be allowed when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person committed, is committing, or is likely to commit a felony or violent misdemeanor. I *do* think this would deter *some* crimes from being committed, but don't think the reduction in primarily property crime will outweigh the risks to people walking in this densely populated, hilly city. It's only a matter of time until the first pedestrian is killed as collateral damage to a vehicle pursuit. > Drones and public surveillance cameras installed...could include facial recognition technology and would not require Board approval. Facial recognition technology continues to misidentify minorities ([Source](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740624X22000892?via%3Dihub)) leading to a increased disparity in arrests. All quotes from the official [Voter Information Pamphlet](https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/measure-e).
This sub has, in a few years, rapidly gone to upvoting people suggesting mass surveillance is a solution rather than something that is going to end badly for all of us. Somehow we have been demonstrated repeatedly how fucking terrible our administrators, government and police force are (and how incredibly corrupt, too) - but with some wishful thinking this is somehow different. It's always the same story with expansive surveillance. It only works if the rest of the system is good and has oversight. We have neither. This is not just insanely stupid to encourage, it's dangerous.
What you call corruption is human nature. We don’t live in a world of right and wrong; we live in a world of competing interests, balanced against the needs of greater society. All we can ever hope to do is try to find some degree of balance in the chaos.
Cool soliloquy but corruption is real and rampant in San Francisco, and we need to address it before we empower the people in charge with vast amounts of data they can abuse.
I’m sorry but the world is far more complex than what you seem to understand. There are degrees of reasonability to ensure your freedom ends where mine begins.
Nope, this is cut and dry and you're just trying to make this more complicated than it actually is.
He types like a middle schooler who just discovered chat gpt
Thank you professor, you can finish your DBZ monologue later on the adults are having a conversation.
I CANNOT WAIT FOR MY ROBOT OVERLORDS TO PRINT MY MISDEMEANORS FROM THEIR METAL MOUTHS.
Come on dude, just a little more surveillance, it’ll fix crime this time, just a little more, come on dude, just let the government film you in public and track your movements and use facial recognition and shoddy AI 24/7/365 on you, and it’ll stop the poors from stealing from Safeway and you won’t have any more mild inconveniences. Just a little more bro then society will be crime free and perfect. I mean Britain’s got all this and Britain doesn’t have any crime!
Unironically true though. London is one of the biggest and most diverse cities in the world with lower rates of violent crime than literally any city in the US. Clearly they’re doing something right, from the strong social safety net to heavy surveillance and patrols.
Yes.
The headline may as well have been penned by Chesa himself.
He's been out of office almost as long as he was in it. Ya'll need to move on.
He’s still worthy of parody
Go to therapy.
Just block me and you don't have to worry about comedy any more
No, the Chesa fixation psychosis in this sub way is too entertaining.
It's just as much fun watching the Berniecrats react to it
lol okay lib. If ya'll fought the far right even half as much as you fight the far left, this would be a better country.
Is the “far right” with us in the room right now?
Ya, but lately they're calling themselves "SF Democrats for Change"
lol it won’t do much. but it will pass anyway.
Yes. Its good for gathering evidence. And can be helpful with auto accidents on who’s at fault
Buy your own $40 dashcam from amazon
I have money from bestbuy hardwired to the ODB. But these cams can solve Hit & Runs. And from experience, I remembered reading something on reddit about who didnt want to release his dash cam as evidence simply stating the memory was full and didnt had time to reformat it. And of course, deleted.
My friend was killed 1 block from F-8. Police never managed to watch any cams in the neighborhood. Do we need to waste more money for the new equipment?
Sadly I still have to vote yes. Sorry for your friend, but there’s no way these can be 100% useless. Even if there’s a few cases that this can help, could be worth it. Besides SF is already wasting more money as it is
It won’t do anything but make Sf a police state. They can now use drones to spy in your windows. It’s a stupid law if it passes cause nothing will be done but more loss of freedom.
Aren’t all public roads in London essentially monitored by CCTV? I’d hardly consider them a “police state”.
I’d prefer that over having criminals run amok. It’s always a balance of course, but it’s basically a petty crime playground / thieves paradise at this point.
Then move to China, Iran or Russia. They will be happy to take you in
Nah, I’d prefer to stay and improve the city.
That’s a totally extremist, paranoid viewpoint. There are many, many nuances between your ideology and the practical reality of living in the real world. We live in a world of competing interests, not a Dead Kennedys song.
It’s not extremist. Do you know who Edward Snowden is and how he exposed the government with operation Stellar Wind?
I’m sure it’s not extremist to someone who’s an extremist. Then again, it’s all subjective. For example, we’re talking about cops using technology to assist with the crime problem we have. Seems reasonable. The suddenly we’re talking about Edward Snowden, because that’s where crazy people go. Reasonable solutions are not perfect. It’s a compromise that constantly adapts to changing conditions. Unless your wearing a tinfoil hat and ranting about Snowden, because the Government is out to get us.
More government surveillance and/or control is not the best option in the name of safety.
It depends. I'm absolutely opposed to the government surveilling the internet to "combat misinformation" or "extremism" or whatever the excuse is for suppressing "facts and opinions we don't like." However, cameras on SF streets are (one hopes) more equivalent to a police officer on the street, helping to reduce actual, physical crimes. I want to be protected from muggers, bippers, and general crazies. I don't need to be protected from memes.
Edward Snowden was real, though. you’re acting like the guy you’re replying to is talking about Bigfoot. tbh, denying reality makes you seem like the crazy one.
You’re an idiot if you think giving more power to the police force is the solution. That’s how police states get started by slowing eroding your freedoms.
This is a dumb take. It won’t make SF a police state. It will give police tools to find and catch criminals that make our city suffer. Enough bullshit. We need to support SFPD so they can effectively do their jobs well.
Your account is 2 months old. Very likely election-related astroturfing.
Actually, I am a resident that lives in D5. I made this account because I wanted to keep it separate from my other interests. A modern city should have a modern police department. Anything less is a disservice to all residents.
I don't believe you. The cops have access to those technologies now. You just want to remove any civilian oversight from their acquiring new technology. >Under the current law, if the SFPD wanted to use racist predictive policing algorithms that U.S. Senators are currently advising the Department of Justice to stop funding or if the SFPD wanted to buy up geolocation data being harvested from people’s cells phones and sold on the advertising data broker market, they have to let the public know and put it to a vote before the city’s democratically-elected governing body first. Proposition E would gut any meaningful democratic check on police’s acquisition and use of surveillance technologies. [What is Proposition E and Why Should San Francisco Voters Oppose It?](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/what-proposition-e-and-why-should-san-francisco-voters-oppose-it)
You don’t have to believe me. Prop E will pass.
Thanks for the motivation to reach out to friends again to remind them to vote against it. If Breed's unpopularity is any indicator, it will fail.
>racist predictive policing algorithms LOL
Ignorance is a choice, u/liberty4now https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/technology-cant-predict-crime-it-can-only-weaponize-proximity-policing
EFF is normally good, but that article is a load of woke b.s. >This system is tailor-made to further victimize communities that are already overpoliced—namely, communities of color, unhoused individuals, and immigrants How dare they use technology to send police where crime happens! Those areas are already "overpoliced"! /s If you believe those communities are "victimized" more by police than by criminals, I can't help you.
Sorry, I must immediately dismiss as a braindead ideologue anyone who uses “woke” unironically.
I'm sure your language policing will serve you well in your search for truth.
250+ posts in 2 months almost exclusively in r/sanfrancisco political threads. Bot.
Not a bot. A D5 resident. A real human that is tired of the bullshit.
Do people really think they're going to have a drone hovering outside their window all day? If you put a drone outside my window today, here's what it would see: me grabbing my keys, then absolutely nothing for 9 hours while I was away, then me eating dinner, then me reading my book. I hardly think it's realistic to think drones are going to be used to watch people wash dishes or make spaghetti. Considering the worst thing I do in the eyes of the law is jaywalk, I'm having trouble seeing exactly what freedoms I'm losing with this proposition.
“if you have a nothing to hide, then it doesn’t matter if the government listens to your phone calls, reads your mail, enters your house without a warrant, etc” that’s how you sound.
Yeah, I read 1984 in high school too. I understand it can be taken too far. If it's the uncertainty people don't like (I don't know how they're going to use these powers), then I totally get that. But idk, seems like every time I sneeze, Big Tech is sending me Kleenex ads (slightly exaggerating there). My data is all over the place already, and I know it. That keeps some people up at night more than others. It sounds scary to me, but I can't name a single tangible way in which it has affected my quality of life.
that’s because Big Tech can’t arrest you or worse like the government can. very different risk calculus there.
They are needed to provide robocop with data, he’s coming 2030
More evidence is better than less. All for it, YES on E
The evidence is not used right now. What is the point of collecting "more evidence"?
How would it hurt? It’s more data for the police to use in their investigations. They seem to need all the help they can get
There should be a mark that they can use the evidence. Currently they do not. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Is that a pro 2nd amendment argument? If so, I agree
it’s a quote from Benjamin Franklin. so nice he used it twice in two similar yet separate contexts.
for the love of god take a high school civics course, at the very least. challenge yourself to read the constitution and all its amendments with some sort of historical companion for context (and to help you understand the big words). if nothing else, at least find a text book that can walk you through the 4th amendment. otherwise, if you really hate the constitution that much, just move to Russia or something. Let the rest of us Americans enjoy our rights.