Utopia Talk / Politics / sebs try to cover up crime data

sam adams Member	Wed Jul 01 12:35:29 http://mobile.twitter.com/AP/status/1278350435942830081 San Francisco police will stop making public the mug shots of people who have been arrested unless they pose a threat to the public, as part of an effort to stop perpetuating racial stereotypes
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Jul 01 12:44:42 No matter the reasoning, is there any good reason to release mug shots of people that are arrested who aren't involved in crimes that pose a threat to the public? Do we really need a mug shot of Betty Smith after she shoplifts some cosmetics?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 01 12:44:47 I have no idea why you would make public the picture of anyone who has been arrested. They have been arrested, not convicted. Now if someone who is a threat escapes that would make sense, but as it is now you are potentially shaming people who are innocent or at the very least not guilty.
Dakyron Member	Wed Jul 01 12:55:24 Arizona would purposefully release DUI, Child Support, and prostitution mug shots to shame the perpetrators. Anyway, its just part of a larger problem of covering up real problems rather than solving them.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 01 13:19:47 Why on earth do they do that in the first place? Also, if you are more likely to arrest people with a certain skin colour, it absolutely would create bias to publish those.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 01 13:20:14 I love that Sam thinks this is crime data.
kargen Member	Wed Jul 01 14:53:18 This is a completely worthless gesture. California law all body camera footage has to be made available to the public within 45 days. Nothing stopping a private citizen from requesting all footage and posting still captures of the videos. Colorado also did a worthless gesture that will end up costing the state more money. Colorado decided to get rid of qualified immunity making law enforcement officers liable for their own defense and possible settlements. Polis and others made a big deal about what a sweeping change this is. What they didn't say is Colorado will now pay a private insurance company to handle what the state used to handle when it came to fees and settlements for officers. So this changed two things. There is expected to be an increase in frivolous charges and even if there is not an increase it will cost the state substantially more money for the same thing we had before the bill was signed into law.
Habebe Member	Wed Jul 01 15:19:57 Semi "worthless", I mean it males it alot more difficult to have your face plastered online as a criminal, I mean its almost impossible to block someones face entirley if your determined enough to find it.
Habebe Member	Wed Jul 01 15:25:26 Woo, Down here its crazy, Ive never seen such nonsense. The local news will post videos of people shoplifting small amounts of stuff like $1-200, sometimes less and then then post close up face pics if available.
hood Member	Wed Jul 01 15:41:32 Meanwhile $2 trillion was stolen from the taxpayers and not a single word about it, let alone mug shots.
sam adams Member	Wed Jul 01 16:11:57 "I love that Sam thinks this is crime data." "Data i disagree with is not official data sanctioned by the progressive state, and is therefore not real data" Lol@seb 25
Nekran Member	Wed Jul 01 23:22:15 "This is a completely worthless gesture. California law all body camera footage has to be made available to the public within 45 days. Nothing stopping a private citizen from requesting all footage and posting still captures of the videos." There isn't? Don't you have a right to your own image in the US? Publishing photos of people (barring some exceptions, like public officials on duty) is not something you can do without consent around here. "Data i disagree with is not official data sanctioned by the progressive state, and is therefore not real data" Yeah... Seb disagrees with... photos...? You are making less sense by the day, sad little Sammy. Why on earth anyone would support the publishing of arrest mug shots is beyond me. Can you explain why you are in favor of this, Sammy?
sam adams Member	Wed Jul 01 23:35:42 You can use photos to determine the race of the perpetrator (or in this case likely perpetrator as conviction rate is about 70%). This is data that the left and seb would prefer to remain hidden. Now i would suppport a law that says the government and private companies must remove photos of folks who are not guilty, but san fran comes right out and says they are trying to cover up high african crime rates. "pictures arent data" is one of the weakest arguments of all time.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 02 01:04:34 So, basically, you think it's ok for the state to dox the approximately one in three people who are -according to your data - wrongfully arrested; and associate them with a crime they are found inocent of? So you can have a way to play guess-the-race. It's like a red-neck tailor trash version of the mythical underground clubs where the rich pay hobos to fight to the death.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 02 01:06:54 The idea it's meaningful crime data being suppressed is the weakest argument ever. The stats and raw quantitative data are still available. The idea that you'll get more accurate data from "analysing" these images is a joke. I mean you've incorrectly assigned people as "Muslims" in the UK due to shitty photos in the past Sam.
kargen Member	Thu Jul 02 01:47:50 "There isn't? Don't you have a right to your own image in the US?" Not really no depending on how it is used. That said the freedom of information act allows citizens to view all kinds of things the police have. They can request 911 calls, camera footage and other things and there is nothing then preventing them from making that information public.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 02 03:22:33 Surely FOI has a carve out to protect data subjects privacy?
sam adams Member	Thu Jul 02 10:18:36 "and associate them with a crime they are found inocent of?" I posted the exact opposite of this in the post immediately before you typed this. You actually cannot read. 26
Nekran Member	Thu Jul 02 10:33:48 Because removing things from the internet is so easy... I still don't see any reason to publish them at all. Weird lack of right to privacy to be so OK with, that.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 02 11:03:06 Sam: Your post explicitly states one in three are innocent, and you are talking about photos released by the police of arrests, not the courts/prosecutors of the convicted. You are saying that they should be removed lster if found innocent, so you are clearly still arguing that it's ok to publish the one in three people who are innocent. Removing innocents months to years later after they've been doxed won't help, will it. They'll already have been published. Not very clear on your own logic are you. You have all the data you need on both arrests and convictions anyway. And arrests tell you very little if the police are biased.
sam adams Member	Thu Jul 02 11:48:57 "Because removing things from the internet is so easy... I still don't see any reason to publish them at all." Now this is a debatable point, nekran. I could see a law where the state can only publish mug-shots after convictions. However san francsico specifically says they are doing it to avoid racial stereotypes... which has nothing to do with personal info and is strictly an attempt to hide data that is contrary tp their political positions.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jul 02 12:07:18 Seb Member Thu Jul 02 01:04:34 Sam Pretty much this post. There is no analytically valid information in those pictures that isn’t already aggregated every year. And you accept a collateral damage of 30% not guilty. That is an insane cost for something of literally no value.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: