‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops
-
easily solvable problem: losing the footage is indication of guilt. you shoot someone, you better have it ready. it malfunctioned, better have a partner who has theirs ready. if no one has footage to clear you, it's used as evidence of guilt.
of course pussy ass lawmakers will never do that.
You misunderstand how the system works.
They are all complicit. -
Please post the entirety of your online history. Surely there's no reason to hide.
...we're talking about hiding though
Whether what you've done is entirely legal (or not) authoritariaism doesn't care.
That goes both ways. That was my entire point.
Who is in power again? The protesters are not making anyone disappear. Goodbye, troll.
-
Protestors or vandals and rioters?
Yes.
The former: to prevent government persecution and unfair retaliation.
Why would they face persecution if they did nothing wrong!?
How is your flavor pallet after sucking so much leather?
-
The point I'm trying to make is that everyone is wearing a mask for the same reason: to prevent retribution for their beliefs and according actions.
They don't "know what they're doing is wrong", they just know that other people think that and will target them for it, which is the exact same reason protestors wear them.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Your point is moot.
For the people by the people or did you forget?
-
Also what about cops outside of the LAPD? This app only useful if it works on any cop.
It is definitely not going to work on any cop. There are still cops who are working in countries where privacy laws exist.
-
I'm a librarian. I also work with members of the public, some of whom do not share my understanding of reality. My information is still public because I'm a government employee.
Why the fuck would it need to be public? Especially in a country like the US where most of the annual reports of companies aren't public where people can actually benefit form.
If you work for a company that company is responsible for the actions you take while working there. If you discriminate somebody in the library it is your library which is being targeted and then they will target you as well.
At least that's now it generally works in the world, variations can exist depending on the area you live in.
-
Why would a librarians info need to be public? Does America require a public database of public servants?
No they don't need to know who is working where. The public just needs to know where the money goes through. Annual reports of a lot more companies should be public.
-
It's a public servants thing--the public wants to know what they're paying for, so public servant salary records are public.
Various websites compile this information from the various state and federal sources. It's wicked easy to find information on, say, every public servant with the title "librarian" in Fake County, Kentucky.
Knowing their full name, you can look up their home ownership records in the county real estate or tax databases and ta-da, you know where they live. You also know if they work part-time at a different public library, so that's convenient for stalking purposes.
Edit: not that I think it's a good thing. It's creepy as all get out. If we have to post salaries, I'd much rather they be anonymized like on Glassdoor.
Edit2: and these lists do get used for political ickiness. There's an anti-union group that mails out helpful tips on how to save money--leave your union. They even provide a "I want to leave" postcard addressed to your union leadership for you to sign, pre-filled-in with your info.
You don't need to know who works at the library, you need to know the financial statements of the company together with the base on which the salary is based on.
It always baffles me when I try to find annual reports of American companies and they are just not made public unless they are public. But for things like non-profits, or government owned companies it is especially important as well. Sadly it is easy to get a non-profit in the US, so people abuse that. Becoming a CPA in the US is also very easy compared to at least NL.
Privacy doesn't exist in the US unless we are talking about companies.
-
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. But this shit will get sued so quick because “safety”
Privacy is the word you are looking for.
O wait ... the US doesn't know privacy for everything but companies
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31924287
wrote last edited by [email protected]I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.
But a question surround this, what if the US wasn't corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn't this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?
In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).
At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn't the people be able to do that?
Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US
-
Commercial versions of these systems exist in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/06/shopper-facewatch-watchlist-39p-paracetamol-london
The Gdpr makes these things harder to do, but not automatically illegal.
Surely you have noticed that there is a lot of criticism of the GDPR and EU tech regulation.
Yeah, and some of it is even true.
As I wrote, the UK does not have the AI Act. This is also a case where EU GDPR and UK GDPR diverge.
Finally, I never claimed it's automatically illegal.
Yeah, and some of it is even true.
Most of it, in my experience. I do not know why this community is so committed to disinformation.
-
I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces, it’s quite easy for you to Google this but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.
Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.
I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces,
I didn't write there was one. It sounds like you "know" that photography is "protected" because you need that to be true.
it’s quite easy for you to Google this
Indeed. For anyone who's not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.
but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.
That's true. You can't because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.
Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.
What do you mean "again"?
The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.
-
I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.
But a question surround this, what if the US wasn't corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn't this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?
In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).
At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn't the people be able to do that?
Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US
wrote last edited by [email protected]The answer is that I don't think it matters because the US or any other society will never reach some utopic standard of privacy. So long as we live in a world where facial recognition is possible - it is better to regulate it strongly than attempt to prohibit it.
In a modern globalized world the old privacy is dead, no matter how you look at it. Going forward something new will need to be built out of the ashes, be it a new privacy or something better/worse.
-
Am I the only one who thinks police should be held to a higher standard of accountabilities?
The police yes, but he is speaking about a convicted criminal that want revenge when he get out of jail. Or even without getting out of jail, sending some of his accomplices to do the job.
-
What are they so afraid of? They're public servants, so they should be publicly identifiable. If they don't like it, get off the government payroll
What are they so afraid of?
The drug lord or mafia boss that sends killers to eliminate their families ?
-
This reeks of a honey pot scheme for some reason.
You're doing nothing to fix it.
-
I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces,
I didn't write there was one. It sounds like you "know" that photography is "protected" because you need that to be true.
it’s quite easy for you to Google this
Indeed. For anyone who's not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.
but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.
That's true. You can't because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.
Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.
What do you mean "again"?
The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You seem to want to me prove that a law doesn’t exist where it’s much easier for you to show me a law doesn’t exist.
You can read this House of Commons debate on the topic Here
Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place
Or you can read This debate from the House of Lords.
The taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rules or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place … and the Home Secretary … expressed our desire to ensure that people are free and able to take photographs in public places
Seems pretty simple really. Although I will concede that processing or personal identifiable information, even if done ok device, would likely be a breach of GDPR.
As for your assertion that I habitually break GDPR, yeah sure in this hypothetical scenario, but thankfully as a software engineer we have a team that handles this for us.
-
I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.
But a question surround this, what if the US wasn't corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn't this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?
In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).
At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn't the people be able to do that?
Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US
wrote last edited by [email protected]The plebs and the regime never have the same rights, in any country
FR is definitely used in GDPR countries.
For police it's so- called 'tightly regulated'.
For private use forbidden but 'there are exeptions' -
The answer is that I don't think it matters because the US or any other society will never reach some utopic standard of privacy. So long as we live in a world where facial recognition is possible - it is better to regulate it strongly than attempt to prohibit it.
In a modern globalized world the old privacy is dead, no matter how you look at it. Going forward something new will need to be built out of the ashes, be it a new privacy or something better/worse.
Well yeah it is better to regulate it but that should include that you aren't allowed to use the data from it to track people etc.
We already have protrait right in the GDPR so it is already hard to use. -
The plebs and the regime never have the same rights, in any country
FR is definitely used in GDPR countries.
For police it's so- called 'tightly regulated'.
For private use forbidden but 'there are exeptions'Based on trias politcal yes you do.
If your country is corrupt then yes the people with money have power. Not every country is corrupt enough for people to really buy into it.
