Words don't belong to anyone. That's because they're words. What matters is how people use language and how they understand them.

And american means someonr from usa.

Wrong, American means someone from the continent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

Prove it.

It's probably pure coincidence but this is the second time this week I've seen someone bring up this argument. Weird.

You were doing so well.

Yes, governmental corruption happens.

No that is not the majority or even common case.

If you remove the power from the federal government, where does it go?

Why is this downvoted? Google is responsible for every literally malicious ad attempting to harm people that they display.

There is a big difference between "these ads have flashing lights and take up half the screen and are annoying" and "this ad is attempting to defraud you".

Man, this was a really good response to that type of argument. I'm going to save it for later.

That moment in time was physically painful.

Ideally, yes, but much like guns, we've found it difficult to stop murders by punishing the people who do them. Turns out it's more efficient to (also) reduce access to certain tools.

Reducing access to a weapon/tool behind any variety of roadblocks because you think the weapon/tool is dangerous is not the same as shifting blame off of the person who did the crime. Saying we don't want people to be able to buy guns without limitations or even saying people should not be allowed to make or sell certain kinds of weapons/tools is not the same thing as saying the person who jumped through the hoops (or ducked underneath them) is not liable for the crime they committed using the weapon/tool. It is certainly the case that no one, at the end of the day, claims the gun is to blame for the murder a human carries out with it... some people will claim maybe the humans making or selling the gun share some blame, but it would be a fundamental attribution error to blame the gun itself.

Multiple things can be bad at the same time and cops have a demonstrated record of failures such that add a system like flock is most likely going to lead to more injustice, not less.

This should be emphasized more. Regardless of how technology could be used, we (should be) are responsible for how it is likely to be used.

Guns can be used for all sorts of things. A handgun in a house is likely to be used for murder/suicide.

> A handgun in a house is likely to be used for murder/suicide.

On an article about people who did no research to actually prove out their assumptions, this is perhaps the most ironic comment to be chastising them.

The irony of someone who doesn't know the facts but has strong beliefs replying to me, exactly like the article writer, is, well, a strong example of how hard it is to make progress when so many people have a vested interest in not moving.

I do know "the facts". The fact is that the vast majority of handguns are never used in a suicide or murder. Ergo the average handgun is not "likely" to be involved in one.

The statistic you are reaching for but misunderstanding, is that they are more likely to be used in a suicide or murder than in home defense against an intruder.

A personally-owned handgun is statistically most likely to simply never be used, or only used at a range. The number of personally-owned firearms that are ever involved in a murder or suicide is literally a fraction of a percentage.

But go off!

No, the fact I was "reaching for" was that they increase the number of occurrences.

More guns in houses, more murder/suicides.

I think guns are as cool as the next guy but I'm willing to maybe consider my personal enjoyment from playing with a gun isn't worth the cost to society.

Except you didn't say "more likely", you said "likely". The former is accurate. The latter is not.

"A handgun in a house" is statistically extremely unlikely to be "used for murder/suicide."

It increases the incidences of both of those things happening compared to no gun.

The total number is relatively small, but so are deaths from measles. Should we not decrease them where we can?

Except of course the entire reason the police picked her in specific is because of information flock gave them.

Could they have, you know, double checked it? Yes, obviously. But they didn't.

I agree that this story is more about the incredible incompetence of the police involved than flock attempting to record everyone and everything, but flock giving the police an excuse to stop looking and arrest an innocent is by no means irrelevant.

Had a random person submitted a pic taken on their phone of a vehicle in the same location the Flock cam did, police would ask:

- Does anything connect this vehicle to the accident?

- Did it look damaged; as though it had been in a crash?

- Did it look like it was fleeing or driving erratically?

- Was there anything suspicious about the vehicle or the driver?

Police would have deemed the photo irrelevant and moved on. But that didn't happen in this case.

Their failure to do so doesn't have to do with source of the image (Flock, shop CCTV, dashcam), but with their inexplicable lack of rigour.

I would say part of it could be on flock depending on how flock displays information and details in responce to a query. Simply flagging a photo for review, no. But if it was like "this single person matches your search parameters exactly and here is their name, address, and current location", which could heavily imply guilt through overconfident displays of information.

At no point does a cop have to look at the photo(s), the timestamps, confirm the plate, see if the person who owns the car is driving it, or see the dozens of other cars in that area at the time that should also be of potential interest. They enter the query and get a single answer so obviously accept it as likely perpetrator.

The lack of rigor doesn't seem "inexplicable" to me- the lack of rigor seems fairly well described in the comment you're replying to.

Can you give an account of the lack of rigor, or is it some kind of holy mystery?

The police should have thought “okay a car was seen within several miles of an accident - so what?”

Their conclusion (after 5 minutes) would have been (obviously) that there’s not so much as a strand of chewing gum connecting the car to the accident, or making it stand out from dozens of others, and they’d promptly get back to searching for the car that actually was involved.

Yeah, I agree that is what usually would or should happen.

But the question is why it didn't happen. Because that is not what happened.

The answer is that it's flock, and that's the point you're "inexplicably" ignoring.

It's pretty clear that flock is presented as reliable evidence to the people acting on it.