Technology

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 60 points 6 months ago

Feature, not bug.

parent

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 22 points 6 months ago (4 children)

As long as they kill p. of c., it'll be deemed legal 🫡🤢

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 6 months ago

Their "facial recognition" ends up just being a binary switch on a light detector

parent

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

Took me waaaaay longer than it should have to realize "p. of c." means "people of color".

Still haven't figured out if you're censoring it, or if you think p. of c. is a faster way to abbriviate it.

Either way, that "shorthand" is stupid, and you should just write it out.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] turtlesareneat@piefed.ca 11 points 6 months ago

Folks who work in social justice will know the acronym "POC" but "p. of c." I don't usually encounter.

Are we sure it's not "prince of caspian?"

parent

[–] muntedcrocodile@hilariouschaos.com -3 points 6 months ago

I'm pretty sure ice is more diverse than every single protest against them.

parent

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago*

Remember 20 years ago when Wikileaks was telling us about all the false positives swept up in the War on Terror dragnet?

Both Bush and Obama got reelected. No one at the federal level gives a shit.

parent

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 10 points 6 months ago

You don't need to ask about likelihood. It's already been shown they don't: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/more-than-a-dozen-wrongful-arrests-due-to-police-reliance-on-facial-recognition-technology

parent

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 point 6 months ago

Imagine they would at the very least have some sort of double check procedure like a skin color chart they could reference if there was any question.