[HN Gopher] Axon's Draft One AI Police Report Generator Is Desig...
___________________________________________________________________
Axon's Draft One AI Police Report Generator Is Designed to Defy
Transparency
Author : zdw
Score : 197 points
Date : 2025-07-11 00:21 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| surbas wrote:
| Wonder if OpenAI has all the originals, especially in light of
| that lawsuit with nytimes.
| chaps wrote:
| If so, it'd definitely be FOIA'able.
| brookst wrote:
| I don't think FOIA applies to private companies, only
| government records.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Not correct. All FOIA laws that I know of say that any
| records created or held by private corporations under
| contract to the government are FOIA-able via the
| government. (the government has to go out and get the
| records for you)
| chaps wrote:
| Yep! Here's Illinois's statutory language on this topic:
| (2) A public record that is not in the possession of a
| public body but is in the possession of a party with whom
| the agency has contracted to perform a governmental
| function on behalf of the public body, and that directly
| relates to the governmental function and is not otherwise
| exempt under this Act, shall be considered a public
| record of the public body, for purposes of this Act.
|
| The nuance is in the definitional limitations/vagueness
| of "directly relates to the governmental function".
| dylan604 wrote:
| From TFA, " You can read our full report, which details what we
| found in those documents, how we filed those public records
| requests, and how you can file your own, here." With the last
| word here being a link to another article:
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/effs-guide-getting-rec...
| dmead wrote:
| Their models run on Microsoft models and on azure.
| asah wrote:
| The real issue is accountability - officers need to be held
| accountable for reports the way pilots are accountable for use of
| auto-pilot[1].
|
| [1] yes they are:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=are+pilots+accountable+for+u...
| adriand wrote:
| That's really just one issue among many, and it actually makes
| me worry more about this technology, not less: it provides a
| clear incentive for the officer to stand by the contents of a
| report that he or she did not write, even if they realize at
| some point it is wrong, because they hastily or lazily signed
| it.
|
| The way this technology is designed is a clear example of
| dystopian outcomes driven by market forces: capitalism inserted
| into processes (like justice) which society ought to protect
| against perversion by profit motives. I can imagine a version
| of this technology that is designed with societal benefits in
| mind, but instead we get one designed to make the sale.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Here's the thing. I've read thousands of police reports. Most
| police reports are super short and super vague. Most police
| reports _are never read even once, even though a large
| percentage result in convictions_. Most criminal charges
| result in plea deals. Most defendants will never see any
| evidence against them before pleading guilty+.
|
| If, in the exceptionally rare case that a defendant goes to
| trial, an officer has to testify, it is probably on average a
| year after he wrote the report. He will be sat down just
| before trial by the prosecutor and shown his report and asked
| to read it. On the stand he generally will not have his
| report available to reference and is supposed to use his
| memory, but this will be corrupted by his reading of whatever
| is in the report he read a couple of hours before. If his
| report is full of inaccuracies he will almost certainly
| testify under oath to those.
|
| +This situation has changed very slightly in the last few
| years with lawyers now supposed to verify the probable guilt
| of their client before recommending a guilty plea.
| hollywood_court wrote:
| Law enforcement needs greater accountability altogether.
|
| I've long believed that police officers should be required to
| carry private liability insurance, just like professionals in
| many other high risk fields. If an officer is uninsurable, they
| should be unhireable, plain and simple. Repeated misconduct
| would drive up their premiums or disqualify them entirely,
| creating a real consequence for bad behavior.
|
| It's astonishing that police officers aren't held to the same
| standards as the rest of us. As a carpenter and building
| contractor, if I showed up at the wrong address and built or
| tore down something by mistake, I'd be financially and legally
| responsible. I'd be expected to make it right, and my insurance
| would likely step in.
|
| But when a police officer raids the wrong home, injures or
| kills innocent people, or throws tear gas into a room with a
| baby, there's rarely accountability--legal, financial, or
| professional. That's unacceptable in any system that claims to
| serve and protect the public.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Politically, you could probably sell the insurance idea as
| actually _protecting_ officers. But then you 'd get the wrong
| people opposing it...
| lapphi wrote:
| We could call it a cost cutting measure to save the
| taxpayer billions in unnecessary legal fees and
| settlements.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Chesterton's fence cones to mind. I wonder what unintended
| positive effects the current policy has.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| Chesterton's fence, as properly applied, should have been
| considered when granting the immunity we see now.
|
| e.g. I wonder what unintended (or perhaps intended)
| negative effects the current policy has compared to the
| previous one.
| drewbeck wrote:
| Is your question what's the positive effect of an
| unaccountable and violent police force? In general the
| effect is continued terrorization of poor and black and
| brown communities and the entrenchment of the police's
| municipal power. This is a "positive" effect only to the
| worst people who want a hierarchical society where they get
| to be on top by force.
| majormajor wrote:
| IMO Chesterton'ing the state of policing in the US results
| in deep fundamental awkwardness.
|
| Why are police heavily armed and adopting military tactics?
|
| Because of famous encounters with heavily-armed criminals
| by lightly-equipped cops.
|
| Why are criminals able to be so heavily armed?
|
| Because of treating a "right to bear arms" as semi-sacred.
| Supposedly in the name of _distrust_ of government.
|
| A heavily-armed citizenry doesn't _have_ to lead to fascism
| but it can certainly give people great excuses to enable
| it... (See also how it allows the existence of armed
| private militias who will talk about "standing by" to
| assist with certain government actions.)
| acdha wrote:
| Qualified immunity is a relatively modern invention by the
| Supreme Court. The origins were fairly reasonable in the
| civil rights era, saying in Pierson v. Ray that some
| Mississippi police officers were not liable for enforcing a
| state law against assembly which was later ruled to be
| unconstitutional, which is probably the strongest case for
| a positive effect.
|
| The negatives started mounting as it was rapidly expanded
| from the question of whether the action was legal at the
| time as in the Mississippi case to whether the officer
| violated clearly-established precedent for the specific
| actions they made. There really isn't a positive argument
| for that better than "the courts invented a doctrine
| because Congress didn't set a clean policy". Because it
| ties into some hot-button political issues now, we're
| unlikely to see improvements for a while but it is
| interesting to contemplate the alternate timeline where the
| Markey/Booker/Harris resolution in 2020 actually turned
| into a law.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _I've long believed that police officers should be required
| to carry private liability insurance, just like professionals
| in many other high risk fields. If an officer is uninsurable,
| they should be unhireable, plain and simple. Repeated
| misconduct would drive up their premiums or disqualify them
| entirely, creating a real consequence for bad behavior._
|
| And it'd be administered by some faceless bureaucracy full of
| accountants, rather than a couple local politicians that the
| union can just bully (or bribe or whatever) into ignoring
| things.
|
| But of course the current mess derives from sovereign
| immunity, which might be a bit tricky to get the politicians
| to tinker with more than they already have. :(
| messe wrote:
| > sovereign immunity
|
| I think you mean qualified immunity in this context?
| tbrownaw wrote:
| My understanding is that that's the result of the
| tinkering that's already been done to tone things down a
| bit.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > But when a police officer raids the wrong home, injures or
| kills innocent people, or throws tear gas into a room with a
| baby, there's rarely accountability--legal, financial, or
| professional.
|
| It's not just that there's rarely accountability - there's
| explicitly no accountability.
|
| People have sued officers, police departments, cities for the
| cost of damages from such mistaken raids (including ones that
| were completely negligent, like wrong street entirely) and
| the courts have explicitly ruled that they have zero
| reponsibility to pay for any of the damage caused.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That's a dangerous slippery slope. Most public officers
| (employees) are subject to a wide range of ethics and other
| regulations that impact post-service employment. In exchange,
| you're indemnified for official acts and the government has a
| duty to defend you.
|
| I've served in policy making roles at different levels of
| government. There's a variety of businesses post employment
| that I'm not permitted to enter in post employment, some for
| 2-5 years, some indefinitely. Those restrictions are taken
| seriously, and I know that I'll be held accountable.
|
| Putting the onus on the employee is really enabling bad
| behavior - the issue is the poor governance of the police,
| and using the courts as some sort of cudgel won't fix it, it
| will just create more corruption as the powers that be will
| hang out patsies to take the fall.
|
| If the police are allowed to operate paramilitary forces,
| they need paramilitary discipline and rules of engagement.
| Army soldiers breaking rules of engagement get punished and
| officers sidelined and pushed out of the service. Police in
| many cases have been allowed to create cultures where
| everyone scratches each others back. Many police are
| veterans, and many privately will comment on the differences
| between those experiences.
|
| IMO, the way to address the issues you describe is standard
| separation of duties. Invest in state and regional police
| forces, disempower local police, and move enforcement and
| investigation of police to a chain of command removed from
| the police. (Perhaps a State AG) When you need to blunt the
| variance associated with people's poor application of
| discretion, the answer is usually a bureaucratic process.
| nemomarx wrote:
| The difficulty with enforcing via AGs is that prosecutors
| feel the need to have a good relationship with the police
| for their other cases. You need an office who isn't going
| to be working with local and state cops at all, maybe a
| federal body?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Attorneys General are usually not states or district
| attorneys. That may vary by state -- I'm not an expert in
| this... iv lived in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New
| York, where the role doesn't include that so my
| perspective.
|
| Point being, as much separation as possible from the
| police (or any) chain of command is essential. The
| Federal government successfully used independent agencies
| until the circus that came to town with Trump part 2
| appeared.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > But when a police officer raids the wrong home, injures or
| kills innocent people, or throws tear gas into a room with a
| baby, there's rarely accountability--legal, financial, or
| professional. That's unacceptable in any system that claims
| to serve and protect the public.
|
| The American public, or at least the set of them whose vote
| counts among the gerrymandering, have explicitly chosen this.
| Their representatives are now building an even less
| accountable system to be used against "immigrants", i.e.
| anyone non-white, who can be abducted and denied legal
| representation.
| hxtk wrote:
| I really wish policing would take more inspiration from
| aviation on a different avenue for police accountability.
|
| The NTSB exists not to blame pilots (though they sometimes do),
| but to make air travel safer and prevent future plane crashes.
| In the business of preventing disaster in safety-critical
| industry, if you chalk something up to human error or call it a
| tragic accident, you guarantee that it will happen again.
| Finding that everyone did everything by the book means the book
| needs to be rewritten because the book that exists today
| contains a recipe for plane crashes.
|
| I wish police would treat use of force incidents the same way.
| The investigations after police use of force ask whether the
| officer violated the law or department policy. Like most law
| enforcement and judicial work, the exercise focuses on
| identifying, trying, and punishing guilty parties. If there is
| no guilty party, the process can produce no change. I would
| like to see more investigations into police use of force that
| focus on improving safety outcomes instead.
| tehsolution wrote:
| The solution to police state is more policing?
|
| What about less? Take away guns and reach of the cops and
| politicians?
|
| Accountability by making 900k cops across all levels of
| government stripped of power and made normal people? Same for
| the 600k politicians coast to coast. Screw their story mode
| mental illness.
|
| Make everyone busy generalizing logistics process to serve
| biology and stop with story mode hustling memes about fiat
| (vacuous proclamations) valuations using jargon from the 1800s?
|
| Roughly 1.5 million pols and cops have 10s of millions wrapped
| around their finger. With urbanization the best part is a bunch
| of them live just a few miles from any given large urban area
| full of people being screwed by them.
|
| The time for demanding meager reforms from 60+ year olds who
| have no skin in our future is long gone.
|
| Skip the guns and go the route of making everyone a normie
| civil servant and no one has leverage
| https://aeon.co/essays/game-theory-s-cure-for-corruption-mak...
|
| Except the low level gossipy kind like "so n so cheated".
| Statistical analysis of death trends suggest we kill each other
| on Main Street over such gossip at the same rate humans did
| centuries ago. It's those moments of nation state fueled
| atrocity and imperialism when human death spikes. Seem clear in
| the streets most adults just don't go on murderous rampage.
| ta8645 wrote:
| That's incredibly naive. Spend some time watching police body
| camera footage. By and large, the police are doing
| exceptionally well in hostile and difficult circumstances.
| We're all safer because there is a real counterforce to tough
| guys, mafias, and paramilitary strong men. They don't exist
| or are heavily controlled, because the police are a powerful
| force for good. Taking away the police would create a power
| vacuum that would be filled faster than you can imagine; and
| by people who will treat us all much worse than the police
| ever have.
| teddyh wrote:
| If you make that conclusion after watching police camera
| footage, aren't you making a classic survivorship bias
| fallacy? Those films that you watched were those films that
|
| 1. Were allowed by the police officer themselves to be
| recorded in the first place (i.e. the cameras were either
| deliberately switched on, or at least suffered no timely
| "camera malfunctions")
|
| 2. And also only films which made it through the filter of
| being considered suitable for publication, after the fact.
|
| What you have actually been watching are carefully-selected
| propaganda pieces that, even though they may be indiviually
| true and unaltered, are undoubtedly presenting a false
| view, supporting the powers that select them.
| ta8645 wrote:
| Such videos are not the only basis on which to make the
| argument I put forth. But you'll also find many sources
| of police videos that are not "released" by the police,
| but secured by FOIA requests. There are of course
| examples of videos with police planting evidence, or
| using excessive force, or other unfortunate things. But
| by and large, you'll see over and over, the police
| behaving admirably and in the public interest.
| pbronez wrote:
| Yes. It doesn't matter exactly how each word in the police
| report was entered. All that matters is the officer signed off
| on it. They should be personally & totally responsible for the
| contents of the report. I don't care if they use generative AI,
| speech to text, Dvorak touch typing, QWERTY hunt-and-peck or
| anything else. An officer must read the final report and sign
| to assert its accuracy.
|
| If police reports are low quality, it's an officer performance
| problem. Obviously performance management in public safety is
| exceptionally challenging, but that's the problem domain that
| matters. You cannot solve law enforcement accountability by
| tweaking your AI User Interface.
|
| That said, this seems like a missed opportunity to use
| technology to increase accountability. If you're running speech
| to text on body cam footage, great! Everyone involved in the
| conversation should get a copy of the transcript. There should
| be a straightforward way to challenge STT errors.
|
| Again though, it's the same deal as the body cam footage
| itself. Always-on body cams with default public access are one
| thing, officer-managed, sue-to-review is quite another. The
| crucial issues are political, not technical.
| mycall wrote:
| It should matter which parts were written by AI or by officer.
| Once the officer signs off on the report, they take full
| responsibility for the content.
| zdw wrote:
| Do you read EULAs all the way through every time?
|
| People just LGTM rubber stamp nearly everything they're given,
| as it's time efficient in the now.
| tqi wrote:
| Do you think there is a difference between a civilian driver
| ignoring the routine maintenance schedule for their car and a
| professional pilot ignoring the maintenance schedule for
| their plane?
| 9dev wrote:
| That's absolutely their choice, then. But if it turns out the
| AI wrote bullshit into the report, the officer that rubber
| stamped it must be held accountable for that, with no
| difference to a situation where they had written the bullshit
| themselves.
| conartist6 wrote:
| I can only assume you meant to write "shouldn't" instead of
| "should", but if you study human factors you'll discover that
| certain kinds of taking-shortcuts behavior are inevitable when
| dealing with humans. Speeding when we drive, for example. We
| know we are creating a material risk of getting pulled over and
| fined, but we just basically decide to ignore that risk because
| for most of us it is outweighed by the convenience (and real
| value) of getting everywhere we're going faster.
|
| As always considering how a person would interact with an
| intern is surprisingly instructive to how they will form a
| working relationship with an non-sentient tool like a language
| model. You would expect them to give it a probationary
| experience to earn their trust after which if they are
| satisfied they will almost certainly express that trust by
| giving the tool a greater and greater degree of freedom with
| less active (and less critical) oversight.
|
| It is not the initial state that worries me where the officers
| still mistrust a new technology and are vigilant of it. What
| worries me is the late-stage where they have learned to trust
| it (because it has learned to cover their asses correctly) and
| the AI itself actually ends up exercising power in human social
| structures because people have a surprising bias towards not
| speaking up when it would be safer to keep your head down and
| go with the flow, even when the flow is letting AI take
| operational control of society inch by inch
| Ralfp wrote:
| Having picked a habit of watching propable cause proceedings on
| YouTube, I wonder if this is simply result of real reports that
| AI was trained on being purposefully obtuse and laconic to give
| prosecutors a wiggle space in the court room?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Are you talking about Judge Fleischer in Texas?
|
| I do enjoy seeing those (well, I shouldn't).
|
| The prosecutors are given the most absolute trash reports to
| work with. "Failure to ID, after a traffic stop." "What was the
| stop for?" "It doesn't say." "So no PC for the stop."
|
| "A caller and said she thought someone was stealing their
| neighbor's U Haul. A man was observed walking on that street
| and taken into custody for ..." "For what? Walking while
| black?"
|
| But no sympathy for the prosecutors either. Garbage reports,
| but they obviously don't read them pre-hearing, and have
| plainly become accustomed to judges rubber stamping their PC
| hearings.
|
| I do like that he doesn't go 'lightly' with the defendants.
| "You got off lucky this time. You know it, I know it. Do better
| or it might not go the same next time", and when there is PC or
| other such, he doesn't put up with any bullshit either.
|
| More judges like him are needed.
| drewbeck wrote:
| His patronizing tone to the defendants is the one thing I
| can't stand about him. Telling some kid who did nothing wrong
| and was pulled over for no reason "be careful" is bs. What
| else should the kid do? They already were doing nothing
| wrong.
| Ralfp wrote:
| My favorite explanation for this is "Everything you say can
| and will be used against you. So why talk if you are
| winning?".
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| the most interesting idea so far.
|
| What Axon's product should be: Define "best" police report, and
| assist the officer to write that.
|
| What it is: Axon makes whatever police departments ask for.
|
| It doesn't have to be a big conspiracy. It's not incompetence
| either. Hanlon's Razer should really be, "Never attribute to
| malice that which is adequately explained by" the enterprise
| sales pipeline.
|
| Enterprise sales is why we are talking about Axon and not far
| older, detailed, thoughtful efforts from all sorts of other
| organizations.
| csujoy wrote:
| our officers don't have time to comb through every transcript,
| fixing it for privacy, empathy, and all that. But keeping the
| transcripts is still a big win: more info in police records can
| make police officers more data-driven :)
| causal wrote:
| I think such a tool could be useful for ensuring all the facts
| get included, but I hate the idea that some departments could
| start highering illiterate officers if this tech goes far enough.
| viraptor wrote:
| > could start highering illiterate officers
|
| I love this mistake.
| causal wrote:
| Heh. Gonna leave it then
| alganet wrote:
| Can you elaborate a little bit more?
| teamspirit wrote:
| "Highering" should be "hiring"
| alganet wrote:
| I asked for viraptor's elaboration on what he thinks of
| it.
|
| Thanks for your perspective though.
| jameshart wrote:
| Normally people don't come back to explain a joke,
| because it ruins it.
| alganet wrote:
| One could say "it's a joke", without explaining it, thus,
| not ruining it.
|
| Also, saying some vague shit and then claiming it as a
| joke is very convenient.
|
| Finally, police injustice is not a subject for humor.
| It's no laughing matter. I'm not the one who's not
| "getting it" here.
| jameshart wrote:
| The original poster said they were worried about this
| leading to "highering illiterate officers"
|
| Mis-spelling the word 'hiring' as 'highering' when
| expressing a fear about falling literacy standards in the
| police is ironic, and therefore funny.
|
| Further elaboration was not warranted, but I'm providing
| it as a public service.
| alganet wrote:
| Highering is an existing, valid word, and it fits the
| phrase.
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/highering
|
| I agree that it is an unusual choice, but that doesn't
| mean you can assume it was a mispelling.
|
| Moreover, the meaning went through. Ultimately, the word
| itself does not matter, and none of your explanations are
| relevant.
| kortilla wrote:
| That word doesn't make any sense in this context. Stop
| digging this hole further FFS.
| alganet wrote:
| It makes complete sense, it means "promotion" in that
| phrase.
|
| If you are going to disagree, please elaborate.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| That really should be a word: kind of a portmanteau that
| combines hire and raise up/promote.
| hollywood_court wrote:
| This may be news to some, but many departments already hire
| officers that are borderline illiterate. It's especially true
| here in the south.
|
| My mother enjoyed a ~30 year career in law enforcement while
| being able to read at a junior high level. And that's being
| generous.
|
| Of course that's just one anecdote, but just spend some time
| with deputies in rural Alabama and you'll see what I mean.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| never have been in Alabama, and i find that super
| interesting.
|
| how does anyone end up borderline illiterate in the US for
| the last several decades? can kids drop out without passing
| reading, like drop out as grade schoolers?
| qingcharles wrote:
| I've read thousands of police reports. I would say this is
| true about their literacy, and their typing skills are
| equally horrible. They also generally really hate writing
| reports (which are almost universally never read) and tend to
| make them as short as possible.
| kortilla wrote:
| Being able to read at a junior high level is literate. The
| average reading level in the US is 7-8th grade so she's right
| in the middle.
| theptip wrote:
| > So we don't store the original draft and that's by design and
| that's really because the last thing we want to do is create more
| disclosure headaches for our customers and our attorney's offices
|
| You have to wonder if this will stand up in court. I hope not.
|
| AI has a great opportunity to take processes that contain hidden
| bias and make them more legible and therefore amenable to fixing.
|
| But it also has the opportunity to do the opposite, and we should
| be cautious to make sure guardrails are in place when putting
| this tech into life-and-death systems.
|
| "Stamp this LLM text in a hurry" is an invitation for whatever
| errors and biases are baked into the system to be propagated. You
| need provenance and measurement of LLM outputs.
| brookst wrote:
| Yeah the avoidance of record keeping to reduce disclosure
| smacks of the policies that got Google into hot water recently:
| https://www.epspros.com/news-resources/news/2024/google-accu...
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I wondering how much this even matters in the age of everything
| being recorded.
|
| If they are using axon body cameras and vehicle cameras, then
| usually the entire interaction is recorded, often from multiple
| officers.
|
| I cannot imagine a defense so incompetent that they rely on the
| police report rather than watching the entire body cam footage
| and doing their own assessment.
|
| Even if the cops are doing something sketchy (like turning off
| their camera) then it's not like the police report would be any
| more trustworthy.
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| The current administration has already removed the requirement
| for federal police forces to wear body cameras. As well as made
| statements (but little action so far) to federalize the police
| force to be under the jurisdiction of the DOJ. Everything being
| recorded may not be the case very soon. Sorry, I'd get sources
| but I just woke up, I'll edit this later with them.
| jameshart wrote:
| If it's not being recorded, what would this AI summary be
| based on?
| brookst wrote:
| "You are a helpful agent. Police officers will describe an
| interaction to you and you will write a report that
| highlights the appropriateness of the officer's actions,
| omitting anything that might indicate they acted
| improperly"
| jameshart wrote:
| Are people missing that this AI is being offered _by a
| body cam company_?
| istjohn wrote:
| Why do you think that's relevant?
| pjc50 wrote:
| You describe the conviction you want to achieve and the AI
| makes up a report to secure that.
| hughesjj wrote:
| I mean, already at the local cop level "forgetting" to turn
| the body cam on or only releasing the video (at least,
| quickly) if it puts the officer in a positive light seems to
| be the norm
|
| * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/officers-body-camera-
| wen...
|
| * https://www.nbcmiami.com/investigations/body-cameras-
| turned-...
|
| * UK but it's the same discussion
| https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66809642
|
| * https://www.wbrc.com/2025/07/12/coroner-completes-report-
| jab...
|
| * https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/release-of-police-
| bodycam-...
| avs733 wrote:
| It goes a lot deeper than this, the real world isn't as simple
| as 'objective truth' and much of the law relies on interpreting
| the facts we all seek. This is where this technology fails, it
| normalizes nudging the margins to include a framing of what
| happened (including that video) using particular and precise
| language. That language influences court decisions.
|
| For example, the phrase 'furtive movements' seems really
| anochronistic. Is that a phrase you use? cops use in their day
| to day life? But it constantly shows up in police reports. Why?
| The courts have said that 'furtive' movements are suspicious
| enough to trigger probable cause - which justifies a search. So
| now, cops every where write that they observe movements that
| are furtive. Is what your attorney viewed furtive? where they
| normal movements? were they suspicious? The cop described them
| as furtive though and we defer to cops, in part because they
| speak the language of the courts, and now your arrest is valid
| and that search is valid and whatever is recovered is valid -
| because a court said movements need to be furtive and you
| sneezed and a cop described that as furtive even though he had
| already decided to do the search before he got out of his car.
|
| The only way our system works is if at every level every
| participant (people, jurors, judges, politicians) distrust the
| words of police - especially when they habitually use the
| language of the law to justify their actions. What this tool
| does is quite the opposite, it will statistically normalize the
| words police use to describe every interaction in language that
| is meant to persuade and influence courts now and over time to
| defer to police.
|
| https://www.bjjohnsonlaw.com/furtive-movements-and-fourth-am...
|
| https://www.californialawreview.org/print/whack-a-mole-sus
| axus wrote:
| I was thinking the same thing. If the AI report depends on the
| raw audio, then it should be preserved and the defense should
| compare that to the final police report. Having the edit
| history would be useful for improving the software and
| analyzing the officer's motivations, but ultimately we're not
| in a worse situation than before.
|
| I'd predict the synthesis of the AI transcript and the police
| officer's memory will be more accurate than just the police
| officer alone. Would be nice if there's an independent study.
|
| There are very incompetent public defenders, if we attribute to
| incompetence instead of malice, AI isn't changing that.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Even in jurisdictions that require recordings at all times,
| there are times when the police are required by law to switch
| them off (entering certain non-public spaces etc), so there can
| always be gaps that are legal, never mind illegal.
| moron4hire wrote:
| > sign an acknowledgement that the report was generated using
| Draft One and that they have reviewed the report and made
| necessary edits to ensure it is _consistent with the officer's
| recollection_.
|
| We already know that police officers are not more reliable than
| the general public as eye witnesses and that eye witness reports
| are generally very unreliable as they are very susceptible to
| prompting bias. This seems like leaning in to prompt bias. The AI
| is now prompting the human rather than the other way around. This
| is perverse.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| No doubt.
|
| I was watching one of those youtube bodycam videos of an
| accident scene where one of the cars ended up in a gas station.
| Police show up and it's chaos -- victims on the ground needing
| medical attention, witnesses helping (or not) said accident
| victims, police not knowing who was in what car, &etc.
|
| In the midst of all this (when it calmed down enough for the
| police to get a handle on the scene) they tried to identify
| someone who didn't want to be involved and promptly cuffed them
| and threw them in the back of a squad car for "being
| uncooperative". One of the other witnesses, having seen this,
| decided that person was the missing driver of the other car and
| told this to the police with all sorts of confidence.
|
| Now the police have a 'suspect' to concentrate on because
| anyone 'acting squirrelly' must have something to hide as it's
| totally inconceivable to them someone might just not want to
| participate in their investigation. Luckily this poor,
| traumatized kid was able to 'prove' they weren't involved
| before spending who knows how much time behind bars based on
| 'credible' eye-witness testimony.
|
| These audio-only AI generated reports should be all kinds of
| accurate now that police are trained to say 'quit resisting'
| anytime there's any level of force involved specifically for
| the body cams...
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Im Leaving the United States. I worked and lived in the Carribean
| for three years. It was real freedom. Sure a lil dangerous if
| you're an idiot, a little longer wait times for things, bad
| roads, island time whatever. But there certainly wasnt a police
| state.
|
| While there is a degree of lawlessness, but there were times I
| would see cops come to a bar after getting a call about someone
| being too drunk, and theyd drive their car home for them and get
| them home safe. The older Americans there would tell me it was
| like how it used to be in the USA in the 70s
|
| I miss it, I dont want to live in a technocratic police state. I
| dont want to worry about a white van pulling up in front of my
| house because I said something sarcastic online.
|
| Edit: On second thought, I feel far more unsafe in the major US
| city I live in than I ever did in the Carribean, not even
| comparable. So theres that too.
| K0balt wrote:
| Come on over to the Dominican Republic. I've been here for 15
| years, and I've had no problems running several projects from
| here. In the Cibao region you'll find IMHO the best culture,
| and Santiago has a little of everything, though it takes some
| looking to find the gems. I prefer the mountains between
| Santiago and Puerto Plata, close to everything but not in the
| middle of anything. Above 1000m elevation the weather is cool
| nights, warm days.
|
| If you get here HMU if you want to talk about the third
| industrial revolution and what we're working on to make it a
| better ride for humans.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| I spent a month there working for a client at "caso de
| campo". I really enjoyed the month. What was weird, I stayed
| at a town outside (I'm not elite enough to stay at caso de
| campo :P) forget the name but the whole town was just filled
| with Italian expats. It has been on my list of potential
| places.
|
| However, the one thing I didn't like though was all Haitian
| workers, I actually witnessed some pretty awful stuff (like
| literal bloody fights over water bottles) inside caso de
| campo where they virtually had Haitian slaves. I'm talking
| guys standing behind me at dinner waiting to refill my water,
| and that was their entire existence. Probably better than
| living Haiti, but it made me feel uncomfortable. Not sure if
| the rest of the DR is like that though, I didn't really leave
| that area.
| tristramb wrote:
| 'In passing by the side of Mount Thai, Confucius came on a
| woman who was weeping bitterly by a grave. The Master pressed
| forward and drove quickly to her; then he sent Tze-lu to
| question her. "Your wailing," said he, "is that of one who has
| suffered sorrow on sorrow."She replied, "That is so. Once my
| husband's father was killed here by a tiger. My husband was
| also killed, and now my son has died in the same way." The
| Master said, "Why do you not leave the place?" The answer was,
| "There is no oppressive government here." The Master then said,
| "Remember this, my children: oppressive government is more
| terrible than tigers."'
|
| The subject of this paper is the problem of ensuring that
| government shall be less terrible than tigers.
|
| --- From The Taming of Power by Bertrand Russell, 1938
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| ...and that was in 1938, when there was no such thing as an
| AI panopticon.
| lostlogin wrote:
| It also came just before some particularly terrible
| governments really hit their stride.
| matt123456789 wrote:
| And the original "Tyranny is Fiercer than a Tiger"
| significantly predates even that!
| jfengel wrote:
| I wonder if her husband, son, and father in law would agree
| with that conclusion.
| nosianu wrote:
| Yes? They stayed and did not leave. Confucius asking the
| woman did not create that option. It was always there.
|
| My personal thought would also be that one has
| significantly higher chances to succeed against a tiger
| than a government, including much more control over whether
| a tiger attacks in the first place (for example, fences or
| not going out alone would already improve your chances
| significantly, which would do nothing against government
| officials).
| jfengel wrote:
| I don't doubt that. But the story just demonstrates
| survivor bias, literally. Surely there's a better way to
| illustrate the point. As it is the obvious fallacy makes
| me inherently skeptical of a conclusion that I'm
| otherwise inclined to agree with.
| giardini wrote:
| nosianu says _" one has significantly higher chances to
| succeed against a tiger than a government"_
|
| I don't think so! A tiger will kill you in the blink of
| an eye.
|
| As for fences: while clearing land for the British
| railway lines in India, it was sometimes necessary to
| bring in skilled tiger hunters to eradicate these beasts.
| In one attack, for example, a tiger jumped a high fence
| (intended to keep tigers out) around a human encampment,
| seized a victim, _jumped over the fence again carrying
| his prey_ and ran away with the meal.
| tokai wrote:
| Please a village can at least try killing a tiger with
| traps, poison, and weapons. They can do nothing to the
| king.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I dont want to worry about a white van pulling up in front of
| my house because I said something sarcastic online.
|
| I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about
| this happening to them, despite it not happening, and then
| openly prefer a place they describe as "a lil dangerous" and "a
| degree of lawlessness"
|
| This is the kind of thinking that happens when you build your
| entire worldview around exaggerated headlines and online fear
| mongering. When you go somewhere that isn't in the headlines
| all of the time, you have to build your worldview around what
| you see and the vibes you sense instead of the fear mongering
| headlines. When a place described with words like dangerous and
| lawless starts to sound like the safer alternative than a
| country that is demonstrably safer, you're probably getting too
| much of your information from internet sources designed to
| trigger your senses of fear and rage for engagement.
|
| Every time there's an anecdote with cognitive dissonance like
| this (describing the lawless, "lil dangerous" place as feeling
| safer) it comes down to getting perceptions of one community
| through vibes and the other community through news headlines.
| In this case, the description of the US as a technocratic
| police state where people get thrown into a white van for
| sarcastic online comments versus seeing some cops at a local
| bar one time.
| yupitsme123 wrote:
| I agree with everything that you said but it's a "better the
| devil you know" type of situation.
|
| The vibe that many people have in the US is that things are
| constantly in flux and that we have less and less control
| over our lives and environments. Anything could happen.
|
| Considering that, I could understand wanting to go somewhere
| where there's a known quantity of danger and a known set of
| rules for avoiding it.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Ive been a resident of two countries and am a citzen of the
| USA. 2 years Norway. 3 years Bahamas. Along with a lot of
| work in Europe and Asia. So Ive witnessed a wide spectrum of
| governments, and have been detained by all of these
| governments at some point for reasons Im not going to speak
| on.
|
| Maybe its because im a citizen of the USA and they have the
| ultimate power over me, but i felt the most terrified when
| under their custody. Hell in the Bahamas the officials took
| me to Burger King (in handcuffs lol). To be clear im not a
| criminal I just have a wierd line of work that people
| question.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| I also have spent 6 months in a USA jail for what ultimately
| resulted in my pleading to a misdemeanor, and never was a
| crime. My world view is likely a lot different than yours,
| and the white vans do exist. They are here RIGHT NOW.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > and the white vans do exist. They are here RIGHT NOW.
|
| The comment was that white vans would take them away for
| posting something sarcastic online
| noah_buddy wrote:
| I think your mistake is believing that the development of
| infrastructure for one purpose will be cleanly stopped at
| a well-demarcated point once the original purpose is
| served.
|
| When you build the infrastructure for squads of goons to
| kidnap people, then pour gasoline on the fire by
| massively increasing their funding, suddenly, a whole lot
| more people become "deportable."
| Arainach wrote:
| We have the government revoking visas for writing
| articles critical of Israel, and we have white vans
| grabbing people who the administration alleged no longer
| have valid visas. This is all happening right now.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| I was jailed on a bullsh*t "hate speech" statute, because
| I said the f slur to a cop (who turned out to be gay, my
| PI proved this wasn't even true in my civil suit, but
| that didn't matter, they stuck me with this, along with
| some other cop related bs (said I coughed on him and
| tried to give him covid, assault on a police officer)
| This was the government trying to ruin my life because I
| hurt a cops feelings. You clearly haven't dealt with
| authorities much.
|
| In my state there is no intent required, so if a word can
| have multiple meanings in different contexts, the
| government gets to decide how you intended to use that
| word and what meaning you meant. So sorry, you're so
| wrong. There isn't much difference from what i said to
| this very annoying cop, and what a lot of people say
| online. Also, this never would have happened if I had
| said it to a regular person and not a cop.
|
| edit: So yes, I literally was jailed and forced to admit
| to a hate speech crime (alford plea) because of something
| I said to a cop. And you think this is all in my head??
| pjc50 wrote:
| Ah yes, the UK does this kind of thing with Section 5
| Public Order act making it basically illegal to swear in
| front of cops.
|
| Not quite the same thing as just saying something online,
| although the US has now developed special police for
| that. From the part of ""free speech"".
| ashdksnndck wrote:
| If I understand the story, sounds like you got prosecuted
| for assault with a hate crime enhancement.
|
| What do you think happens in the Dominican Republic if
| you call a cop that? It says more about you and the US
| that you thought you'd get away with it. I doubt there is
| any country in the world where personally offending a cop
| like that might not result in the cop abusing their power
| over you.
| giardini wrote:
| _" In my state there is no intent required, so if a word
| can have multiple meanings in different contexts, the
| government gets to decide how you intended to use that
| word and what meaning you meant. "_
|
| By "my state" do you mean one of the United States of
| America? Or are you speaking of somwhere outside the USA?
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| The United States.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| tbh its wild you assumed my world view was curated by
| headlines. You probably have had the softest, easiest life
| and have never put your neck on the line in a way that might
| result in you being locked in a cage by a government
| official, so you welcome the white vans, because you don't
| take enough risk in life for it to ever matter to you.
|
| Wild, and offensive. How do you like it when people make
| assumptions about you?
| Aurornis wrote:
| > tbh its wild you assumed my world view was curated by
| headlines. You probably have had the softest, easiest life
| and have never put your neck on the line
|
| Ironic to make a comment about making assumptions and then
| go on to make some wild ad hominem assumptions.
|
| The news headlines I was referring to was the article we're
| in the comment section discussing.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Get out of here with "ad hominem", you know what you were
| saying. Go back to less-wrong.
| majormajor wrote:
| The current state of the US is not that the secret police
| would come dissapear you for being sarcastic online, but the
| un-secret heavily-armed SWAT police could certainly show up
| if your sarcasm pissed off the wrong person.
|
| That ain't great.
|
| Do you feel like the trend of policing in the US is going in
| the direction of:
|
| 1) less heavily harmed, more accountable, more community-
| involved personal treatment
|
| or
|
| 2) more heavily armed, anonymous, opaque large bureaucracies
| answering only to distant executives?
|
| And which of those directions does the product in the linked
| article point?
| gilfoy wrote:
| And who exactly is this happening to? Who are the wrong
| people? Who are they swatting?
|
| We all know exactly what is going down with immigration,
| but vaguely alluding to that instead of just saying it
| while pretending any given person is in danger would be
| dishonest.
|
| It's always like this though. Vague blurry imagery of
| perceived threats, no details.
| ok_dad wrote:
| > I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry
| about this happening to them, despite it not happening
|
| Oh, but it is. Lots of people are getting picked up for
| online speech, the government is letting "their guys" off the
| hook for open crimes, and it's escalating to talking openly
| about imprisoning the other party.
|
| We're there, it's fascism happening openly, and America isn't
| what it never was anyways.
| derektank wrote:
| No US citizen has had a federal law enforcement abduct them
| for making a sarcastic comment online (unless it was a
| legal threat, which has never been tolerated).
|
| The US residents and visa holders who it has happened to,
| such as Mahmoud Khalil, are largely out of detention and,
| in his case, in a position to file a tort claim against the
| government of $20M dollars.
|
| The current administration is a threat to the rule of law
| and I have no doubt they wish they were not subject to it.
| But they are, they have not attempted an auto-golpe, and
| people harmed by the administration continue to have the
| ability to seek redress through the courts. We are a little
| over a year away from midterm elections, which will almost
| certainly bring congressional impediments to executive
| power as well, at the very least in the form of
| investigations.
|
| We in a dangerous period in US history, but it is not
| unprecedented, and the outcome is not yet determined. We
| are not in a fascist dictatorship today and, fortune
| willing, we might not yet ever be.
| Arainach wrote:
| "It's illegal and you can press charges" doesn't save you
| from being grabbed by a white van. It doesn't save you
| from being shipped to a prison in another country and the
| Trump Administration telling the courts "tough, we're not
| bringing them back". It doesn't save you from the cops
| "accidentally" killing or maiming you.
|
| We are absolutely living under fascism right now.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| While I don't think you should be downvoted... brother, maybe
| the headlines aren't being exaggerated.
| hughesjj wrote:
| > I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry
| about this happening to them, despite it not happening
|
| I mean, the "white van pulling up in front of a house" is
| happening on the daily now [1], the current administration
| has claimed they can suspend habeus corpus [2], they pick up
| US citizens and legal immigrants in these things [3], and
| they allegedly deny entry because of political reasons the
| administration doesn't like [4] (+allegedly [5]).
|
| I don't think the fear of getting disappeared by an
| administration is unfounded, nor do I think we need to see
| documented evidence of exactly that particular circumstance
| happening before we're allowed to worry about it.
|
| I also think the "lil dangerous" part is ironic, given most
| of these "other" places aren't particularly dangerous, nor is
| the US particularly safe as-is. "lil dangerous" and "degree
| of lawlessness" are apt descriptions of the United States,
| and has been for my entire lifetime.
|
| [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=masked+ice+raids&udm=2
| [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-habeas-
| corpus-... [3] https://abc7chicago.com/post/george-retes-
| disabled-vet-us-ci... [4]
| https://apnews.com/article/immigration-detainees-students-
| oz... [5] https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/18/australian-
| deported-o...
| jfengel wrote:
| I am manifestly certain it won't happen to me. I tick just
| about every box: straight, white, male, native-born US,
| healthy, moderately well off.
|
| But I see it happening to others and that makes me upset. And
| my intention to fight that might some day make me a target,
| but that's not the core of it. The core is that it shouldn't
| happen to anyone.
| nkrisc wrote:
| I mean, the president did just threaten to (somehow) revoke
| the citizenship of a celebrity who disagreed with him online.
| Based on what we've seen already, what's to stop them from
| dubiously claiming to have revoked someone's (natural born)
| citizenship and then deport them to somewhere before anyone
| has time to argue anything before a judge?
|
| There was a time I would have agreed with you, but now it
| doesn't seem that implausible anymore.
| leptons wrote:
| >I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about
| this happening to them, despite it not happening
|
| Trump very recently suggested he would revoke Rosie
| O'Donnell's US citizenship, _a natural born US citizen_ ,
| because of things she's said that's (rightly) critical of
| him. I have no doubt he will try to do it, and SCOTUS
| probably won't stop him. _This is political retaliation, and
| it 's absolutely abhorrent._
|
| That's where we are. I have no doubt the "white vans" are
| coming for people who speak out against the tyranny this
| administration is foisting upon us. I have no doubt that this
| very comment may even be used against me someday, as
| ridiculous as that may sound to you right now.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I'm not sure why you're being downvoted so hard, it's a good
| point.
|
| I'm not thrilled with where we are and I'm very cautious, but
| as a Black man in America the net _difference_ in my fear and
| concern over my own government /police right now, as opposed
| to e.g. during Biden or Obama, isn't huge.
| crooked-v wrote:
| The president of the US personally threatened to illegally
| take away Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship because he doesn't
| like her. That seems more 'lawless' to me than some third-
| world countries.
| giardini wrote:
| But it's BS! He's blustering, merely provoking opponents
| into chasing a figment of their imagination!
|
| And so, here you are, wasting time responding to BS, when
| your time and thoughts could be more usefully employed
| elsewhere.
| thisisit wrote:
| How long will this "Nothing to see move on. He's just
| blustering" excuse is going to be used before people
| realize that this guy will try that even if it is
| illegal? With the what has happened to immigration and
| birthright citizen it doesn't seem far fetched. And it is
| frankly insulting to tell people that they are wasting
| time when they express real concern.
| giardini wrote:
| thisisit says: _"...this guy will try that even if it is
| illegal... "_
|
| _How_ will he "try that"? He hasn't done anything
| illegal and, if he does, his own staff and the courts
| will prevent him from doing it.
|
| thisisit says: _" With the what has happened to
| immigration..."_
|
| They've slowed illegals entering the country and they've
| begun to move immigrants out of the country. How is this
| a problem?
|
| I never cared much for birthright citizenship other than
| for offspring of slavery but arguing about it hardly
| seems a good argument for or against Trump.
| lapphi wrote:
| > How will he "try that"? He hasn't done anything illegal
| and, if he does, his own staff and the courts will
| prevent him from doing it.
|
| Are we talking about convicted felon donald trump or some
| other guy?
| thisisit wrote:
| > He hasn't done anything illegal and, if he does, his
| own staff and the courts will prevent him from doing it.
|
| Then you must be living under a rock. He is a convicted
| felon who knowingly broke the law, his people who should
| fulfil their fiduciary duty helped him.
|
| > I never cared much for birthright citizenship other
| than for offspring of slavery but arguing about it hardly
| seems a good argument for or against Trump.
|
| Yep. The goal post shifting Trump supporter. "I can't
| refute this so let's go with "I don't care for it so not
| a valid argument"".
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| You make it sound like some 4D chess ploy to "own the
| libs". Everything I've seen is that it's just a natural
| consequence of electing an 80 year old half senile
| grandpa to arguably the most important role in the world.
| rdm_blackhole wrote:
| > I dont want to live in a technocratic police state
|
| Unfortunately the police state mentality is spreading.
|
| The attacks on encryption and the "need" to crackdown on
| terrorism and CP gives wet dreams to a lot of government
| officials who won't be satisfied until there is a camera in
| every home and your phone snooping on you 24/7 and reporting
| back to the cops all your crimes alleged or otherwise.
|
| No government is immune. France, Australia, the UK, The EU,
| they are all coming for our privacy and freedom of speech and
| they will get them sooner or later.
|
| They say history does not repeat but it often rhymes. I think a
| lot of people have forgotten/never experienced what it's like
| to live in a police state and the 2030s may just bring back
| these memories for some and potentially introduce these
| concepts to a new generation entirely.
| timschmidt wrote:
| This seems like as good a spot as any to drop https://en.wiki
| pedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...
| giardini wrote:
| TechDebtdevin says "...how it used to be in the USA in the 70s"
|
| In regard to drinking and driving the 70s were same as now in
| my experience.
| patrickhogan1 wrote:
| This requires audio to work and appears to create more
| transparency. You can request the audio recording to verify
| accuracy. This will happen as a routine procedure from defense
| attorneys. Any problems with the technology would be discovered
| quickly and if the officer didn't do their job of correcting the
| errors before the report is generated they would be torn apart.
| troupo wrote:
| When EU introduced its AI Act there was much gnashing of teeth
| here at HN over "stifling of innovation" and "getting left behind
| in technological backwater".
|
| EU AI Act _specifically_ calls out and forbids such applications.
| Of course, the state will do what the state will do, but there 's
| an actual obstacle enshrined in law.
| rdm_blackhole wrote:
| And there is the right to privacy enshrined as well but that
| has no bearing on what states will do ultimately.
|
| The EU is in the midst of ending encryption and will soon
| require lawful access to all your data by forcing providers to
| bake in legal backdoors in OSes so that nobody can
| bypass/deactivate them.
|
| All of this done under the guise of protecting the children,
| stopping misinformation(the ministry of truth is back) and
| protect democracy (TM).
|
| The AI act may be a good thing in some cases but we should all
| stop pretending that the EU is not following in the footsteps
| of the US when it comes to loss of privacy and restriction of
| freedom of speech.
|
| Many western countries are slowly sliding into wannabe
| authoritarian regimes.
| efitz wrote:
| A lot of people worry about a Terminator style AI apocalypse. I
| don't.
|
| I worry that we've already created the AI apocalypse and that
| this is what it looks like, along with extremist magnification on
| social media.
|
| I trust AI to be what is is- essentially a lot of math that
| classisfies and predicts stuff, usually words, that the
| prediction can be used generatively, and the classification stuff
| can be used to identify stuff in various media.
|
| What I don't trust is that people will use it responsibly. Hell,
| I don't, when I'm vibe coding, but that's on me.
|
| People are venal and self absorbed and busy and lazy and all the
| other traits that lead to not using AI responsibly. And
| businesses are amoral (not immoral) and want the shortest path to
| revenue, with the least friction.
|
| So of course police officers who want to be on patrol and did not
| sign up to spend countless hours on reports, are going to let the
| AI write it and call it good without proofreading.
|
| We could pass a lot of laws trying to specify products that force
| police to act reliably, or we could maybe just pass a law that
| says that AI cannot be used to write police reports, but that
| clearly labeled AI generated transcriptions and summaries may be
| attached unedited to police reports, if and only if the original
| recordings are also preserved as evidence.
|
| And police departments that keep body camera and car camera
| footage might be ease up on the report writing and only require
| officers to annotate it with their impressions, but otherwise let
| the record speak for itself.
| squirrel wrote:
| Creative lawyers will be all over this. First you get the officer
| to testify that AI helped write the report, then you call the AI
| as a witness. When the judge tosses that, you start issuing
| subpoenas to everyone you can find at OpenAI and Axon.
|
| As others point out, the actual bodycam footage will be
| definitively probative for the events it records. But there are
| plenty of cases where the report itself leads to later actions
| that may be tortious or criminal, and finding out who's to blame
| for the exact wording used is highly relevant.
|
| Example: AI incorrectly reports that during A's arrest, A made
| incriminating allegations about B. Based on the report, the
| police get a warrant and search B's house. When it turns out B is
| innocent, B sues the department, and when the report turns up
| during discovery, we're off to the circus.
| ingohelpinger wrote:
| but hosters need to save my ip and what not for 1000 years when i
| surf burger recipes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-13 23:00 UTC)