Companies such as Flock and Oxon sell wings of sensor-fertilizer wings, licensing panel readers, fireworks detectors, drones-then Amnesty International to understand the data perimeter (at the last year conference, I saw suns wandering between countless companies from AI to the police and presidents who sell it on diarrhea floor). The departments say that these technologies save time, reduce officers, and help reduce response times.
This looks like good goals, but this adoption is a clear question: Who presents the rules here? When does artificial intelligence use efficiency to monitor, and what kind of transparency due to the public?
In some cases, the police technology that is already operating itself leads a wedge between the departments and the societies that serve it. When the police in Chola Vista, California, were the first to obtain special exemptions from the Federal Aviation Administration to fly drones beyond the usual, they said that drones would be deployed to resolve crimes and make people help in emergency situations. They had some Success.
However, the department has also been sued by local media claiming that it is promising to make the drones of the drones openly, and their residents have He said The drones that wander in the sky of the region feel privacy. An investigation was found that these drones were often deployed in slums, and for simple shapes such as loud music.
Jay Stanley, chief policy analyst in the American Civil Liberties Union, says there is no comprehensive federal law that governs how local police departments adopt techniques such as the tracking program I have written. The departments usually have a deadline for their experience first, and know how their societies interact after the truth. (Veritone, who makes the tool that I wrote about, said that they cannot name or link the departments using them, so the details of how they were published by the police were not clear yet).
