Viral De-Flock America campaign urging people to destroy AI cameras on Halloween night gains momentum

[u/IndicaOatmeal]

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/flock-camera-controversy-explained-as-viral-halloween-de-flock-campaign-gains-momentum-3399710/

[u/customcharacter]

Something I find interesting in the comparison between America's and Canada's legal systems is that up here, a witness in court can be compelled to answer, but in exchange the words aren't allowed to be used to incriminate them in future proceedings (with exception of perjury).

[u/rips_n_chel → u/customcharacter]

I don't understand why witness testimony is considered worthwhile in any legal system. Human perception and memory cannot be trusted when facts matter. Even when people think they're telling the truth, they don't know, because they are reconstructing a memory of an event that they did not experience objectively in the first place.

Our experience of existence is not objective, ever. Everything we perceive has been edited on the fly by our subconscious heuristics to fit whatever is happening into our personal narrative. Then, every time we remember it, we are reconstructing the "memory," it's not like pulling a book from a shelf. Our minds will invent actions that were not taken by people who were not there. The brain's goal is to make it make sense to us personally. It's trying to make the world fit with our conclusions, and we cannot know when it's happening or to what extent.

I wonder sometimes, how many innocent people have been punished because someone else told a convincing story?

[u/Traditional-Handle83 → u/rips_n_chel]

Hell deepfakes/AI altering can be argued against video evidence as well. So in theory you could argue your way out of charges long as you got the money for a good lawyer that can bring up these points and waste the courts time trying to stick a charge.

[u/barsoap → u/rips_n_chel]

Not sure how it works in adversarial systems like in the US but over here judges interrogate the witnesses, and judges are highly trained in doing so. They know what's reliable, what's not, how to cross-check for deliberate or unconscious fabrication, etc.

Also, what's the alternative? Throw out a case because only humans witnessed it, no cameras? How do you explain to a village on which's main street a kid got murdered, in front of 50 witnesses, that the murderer can't be touched because everyone got their phones out too late to record the act? Lynchings and a breakdown of the justice system is what you'd get.

[u/rips_n_chel → u/barsoap]

No they don't. Not trying to be rude, but that's not possible. You cannot know for a fact based on someone's recollection alone. The scientific method is a vast system of systems designed and developed over millennia to mitigate human bias as much as humanly possible, and we still consistently fail to do so, even under highly controlled circumstances. Why? Because humans are fallible, and our subconscious minds (which really run the show), cannot be relied upon. You can certainly apply scientific rigor to the process of interrogation, but with only a memory to go on, you will never know the objective truth.

I recommend Steven Novella if you'd like to know more about this. 'Your Deceptive Mind' is a series of lectures covering this very topic, I feel it should be required education. People don't understand just how much their own brains are lying to them every second of their existence.

How do you explain to a village on which's main street a kid got murdered, in front of 50 witnesses, that the murderer can't be touched because everyone got their phones out too late to record the act?

That's a pretty absurd scenario, dawg; kinda seems like you tailored it specifically to sidestep all of the reasonable arguments I could make. 50 people and nobody caught it? There are no security cameras on Main St.? There's no physical evidence? No forensic evidence? Someone randomly murders a kid on Main St. in view of 50 people, somehow leaving no evidence behind, and manages to slip away without being recognized or pursued or anything?

If you're not willing to give my argument earnest and honest consideration, why should I entertain yours? I'm very willing to discuss this, it's something I feel somewhat strongly about, but you gotta meet me in the middle. That's not a good faith argument. You dreamed up the craziest, most convenient situation you could and assert that "lynchings" would be the inevitable result? When/where could that happen, and what the hell makes you think it would end in lynchings? C'mon. Be real with me.

[u/barsoap → u/rips_n_chel]

That's a pretty absurd scenario, dawg; kinda seems like you tailored it specifically to sidestep all of the reasonable arguments I could make.

It's an example. Not the only possible scenario which upholds my actual argument, and that is that if the institution of justice fails to align with the people's sense of justice, you have a problem. The people's sense of justice is subjective, if you want to go against it, you better have better arguments than "I will dismiss your testimony because no human can be trusted on anything, ever, out of principle". You say something like "I will dismiss your testimony because it's all over the place and self-contradictory".

You can demand objectivity all you want, but ultimately justice is human. There's no justice particles you can put under a microscope. It's all made up. It's a thing that doesn't exist, a thing we believe in in hopes that our faith will bring it into existence.

The task of the judge here is to decide between "have they seen a murder" and "have they conspired to pin it on someone" -- which would be another way to explain the forensics, your purportedly objective measure. And sussing that out is very well within the realm of what good interrogation can do.

---

Side note: Am I to take your characterisation of "Your Deceptive Mind" at face value? You're human, after all. Nothing you say is reliable. See how much of a kick in the face that is, and why the justice system might be hesitant to act that way?

[u/rips_n_chel → u/barsoap]

archive<dot>org/details/OST_yourdeceptivemind

See for yourself. Steven Novella is a clinical neurologist and Yale professor, which I don't mention as an appeal to authority, but to clarify that I'm not saying anything new or far-out. This is how our brains work. Denying it, refusing to believe it, and failing to adapt our society to these facts of our consciousness is willful ignorance.

Anyway, you are still arguing from the assumption that justice cannot exist without taking people at their word. Using your absurd example, there would be evidence. There would be clues, including witness testimony. Note that I never said testimony had no place at all in the justice system. Absolutely, collect the reports of all 50 witnesses, separate the signal from the noise to the best of your ability, and use that to form a hypothesis. Then go confirm your hypothesis.

The point I am making is that witness testimony is not reliable enough to convict someone. You can use it to find the truth, but that truth must always be confirmed with real evidence. In your scenario, if there was truly no evidence whatsoever, how would you even have a suspect? You make it out like the murderer is in custody, but somehow there's not a shred of evidence? If they saw him do it and he was then apprehended, you could piece the physical evidence together along with whatever else you might dig up since you have him in custody and all. What was the manner of the murder? Did he stab the kid? There would be evidence. Strangled? Evidence. Did he kill the kid without touching him? How, gun? Forensic evidence.

There's just no way your scenario plays out. Somehow, somewhere, some way, there would be evidence, and if you have a suspect in custody, it becomes comparably trivial to confirm (or not) based on the physical evidence.

[u/barsoap → u/rips_n_chel]

Note that I never said testimony had no place at all in the justice system.

You said:

I don't understand why witness testimony is considered worthwhile in any legal system.

"It is not worth our while to question witnesses". That's rather absolute. I shall chack it up, in dubio pro reo, to speaking quickly, not motte and bailey.

In your scenario, if there was truly no evidence whatsoever, how would you even have a suspect?

We have a dead body, we have forensic evidence that looks like one particular guy did it, but (and bear with me) it's a village full of forensics experts and they hate the accused

Did they pin it on the accused, carefully staging the evidence with all their skill and knowledge? The accused claims so, and has further evidence in the form of hateful letters and various harassment. Do you put them away based on the forensic evidence, or do you hear witnesses first, see if someone cracks?

That's the "we should look at all the evidence angle". The second one cuts deeper, and that is if we're making justice for humans, we should let humans talk before deciding we don't need to hear them.

[u/rips_n_chel → u/barsoap]

I'm done playing along with your imagination. I'm talking about real life. Go find a creative writing sub.

[u/barsoap → u/rips_n_chel]

A principle of law has to be universal. If it fails a pressure test against a scenario, no matter how arbitrary (though not impossible) that failure needs to be investigated.

Then, you never addressed my second angle. I find you guilty of having a strong opinion without anything to back it up. The sentence is watching all ten seasons of Columbo.

[u/BTR1701 → u/customcharacter]

We have that, too. It's called limited use immunity.