Adam said...
> Actually, it is part and parcel of the same thing, Raymond -- especially
> when you add Features Mapping and Recognition software to the
> mix. There is
> a big difference between a human police officer trying to identify a
> specific person directly from a video tape, and that same officer
> relying on
> "authorative" software that claims it has in deed identified a specific
> person. You know human nature: if a machine said it (television,
> polygraph,
> etc.), then we tend to believe it before any other evidence is
> in. Like my
> statement regarding refusal of DNA sampling -- and as backed up
> by Eric with
> a concrete example -- this is a slippery slope with real world
> damages right
> around the corner. That is rather dangerous.
Actually, there is two sides to this. Yes, the software isn't perfect, but
at the same time, I've never met a racist software program. And this is not
to say that cops are racist, but, being human, they are vulnerable to faults
we all have. Software isn't perfect either.
> > Don't tell me, "This policy is bad
> > because it could lead to ..."
> >
> Of course I will say that, Raymond. A policy _is_ bad if it will lead our
> society (or any one of its individuals) in the wrong direction,
> or place us
> on a slippery slope. These are the very judgments that we as thinking
> citizens must make before such policies are allowed under the
Well, when I said, 'dont tell me', I wasn't trying to shut you up per se, it
was just my way of saying that I thought your argument wasn't complete. Yes,
you are right in that these are exactly the kind of conversations we should
be having.
Personally, I just don't feel like this is something that is going to lead
us down the road to a dictatorship.
> law. Perhaps
> I understood your statement incorrectly? Please correct me where I might
> have misinterpreted.
>
> > As a society, we have said that we do not allow for _absolute_ personal
> > freedom. If we did, murder would be acceptable. So, we do have to accept
> > compromises in order to live in safety.
>
> The only valid compromise is this: that we not be allowed under the law to
> deprive another person of his Constitutional Rights by force or
> fraud. That
> compromise leaves quite a lot of breathing room for a just society with
> reasonable safety and the preservation of individual rights.
I concur, and if a cop watching a street doesn't take away your rights, then
a camera doesn't either.
> I really appreciate your take on things, Raymond, and I enjoy the
> discussion.
>
Same here.
Wow, a few weeks ago I was fighting against some pretty strong
conservatives, and now I'm on the other side. ;)
Ray Camden
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
