Connect with us

Guns and Crime

It’s time to set limits on law enforcement’s use of facial recognition

Published

on

We need laws defining how law enforcement can use facial recognition

There are so few times I call for more laws added to the books, I could probably name them all on one hand if I had a full day to think about it. We have plenty of laws. Too many. But as technology opens the doors to more opportunities and more risks, it’s important to get ahead of them before abuse can come into play. One such technology is facial recognition as it’s used by law enforcement to identify suspects.

Unlike many privacy proponents, I actually appreciate the proper use of facial recognition. But the righteously paranoid privacy proponent in me also understands that this could very easily be abused by law enforcement, private companies, and government entities if there aren’t restrictions put into place.

Let’s discuss the proper use of facial recognition first. The software is a wonderful tool in identifying people who may have committed a crime or been victims of a crime. CCTV footage of someone robbing a store can be run through facial recognition software to identify possible matches in the criminal databases. This is happening today without the software and has been for centuries. But instead of rounding up people for a lineup or plopping a mugshot book in front of a witness whose memory or vision may be unreliable, the software can help pinpoint potential suspects to explore.

That’s it. That’s the extent of proper use of this technology. It should not be used as evidence for probably cause. It should not be relied upon as anything other than a pointer for law enforcement to focus their investigations on likely suspects, ruling them out with proper investigative techniques and collecting evidence on the perpetrator once they believe they’ve identified the right person.

Anything beyond pointing law enforcement in the right direction is a breach of privacy and should be outlawed.

We cannot have facial recognition software cataloging the whereabouts or actions of citizens. This is what’s happening in China now. It’s even being proposed by some Democrats, including presidential candidates. Such an intrusion is unAmerican and should be anathema to a free society.

We also cannot allow facial recognition software to be a crutch for law enforcement. As appealing as it might sound to give access to run facial recognition software through the massive network of CCTV feeds in any given city, this will invariably lead to false positives. It’s too enticing of a tool to put in the hands of anyone, even those charged with maintaining law and order. Imagine a scenario in which an suspicious spouse tracks their potentially cheating significant other using this software. Or a politician using influence in the department to track foes.

The potential scenarios don’t even need to be nefarious to breach our privacy. What if Suspect #1 is scene in video asking someone for directions to the bus station. An investigator might find this suspicious and start tracking the random person in case they’re in on the crime. This type of Big Brother power cannot be placed in the hands of anyone. There’s too much at risk.

A recent article by NBC News highlights the various uses of facial recognition software as well as the trends in law enforcement today. They rightly note that most agencies do not even mention the use of the software since they do not use it as evidence. This is understandable as an investigator is not required in most circumstances to reveal how they caught the scent, only the steps they took to secure evidence. But this lack of transparency can prevent necessary oversight into how the technology was used and if there were any breaches of privacy that occurred.

I’m all in for technology that enables law enforcement to have advantages over the criminals they seek. But that technology cannot be used against the innocent. Currently, there’s nothing preventing law enforcement from abusing it.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

What does San Francisco Mayor London Breed have to hide about Jeff Adachi’s death?

Published

on

What does San Francisco Mayor London Breed have to hide about

San Francisco politicians would be in an absolute uproar if the Trump administration ordered the suspension of an unambiguous liberty for the sake of expediency. They would declare a Constitutional crisis was underway and would demand the rights of their citizens be upheld while those who violated them should be held accountable. But when the rights of a citizen are trampled on to benefit their corrupt politicians, they stand by the trampling and pretend like nothing foul is afoot.

Such is the story of journalist Bryan Carmody. His 1st Amendment rights were disregarded so blatantly and so frivolously that it’s obvious there’s a major cover up underway that is protecting very powerful people in the progressive mecca of San Francisco. Following Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s death, a leaked police report was released by Carmody, prompting the San Francisco Police to illegally attempt to force him to reveal his source. He is protected by the Freedom of the Press from divulging his source, but strong-arm techniques reminiscent of the actions of third-world dictators doesn’t seem to be making a dent in the official stories from San Francisco politicians, most notably Mayor London Breed.

San Francisco’s mayor shows the country what a real attack on the free press looks like

Carmody claims he was restrained in handcuffs for nearly six hours as the authorities ransacked his home, seizing “laptops, phones and hard drives — including all the images and documents he had archived from his 29-year career as a reporter and cameraman,” the report adds.

Law enforcement officials have neither denied nor contradicted the freelancer’s version of events. The San Francisco Police Department has not yet returned Carmody’s equipment. The raid, which was approved by two trial court judges, also included agents from the FBI.

And all because Carmody refused to give up a confidential source, as is his right. The mayor sees it differently, though, and she is digging in.

The Mayor took the unconstitutional route from the start and hasn’t looked back.

“San Francisco Police Department is in the process of conducting an investigation into how confidential information was released within the Department. As part of this investigation, the Department went through the appropriate legal process to request a search warrant, which was approved by two judges,” her office said in a statement last week.

Even now, as the pressure mounts from news outlets across the country for the far-left political machine of San Francisco to denounce the attack on the press, one that is so much more direct and heinous than anything President Trump has done, they continue to focus on the legality of the search warrants (even though they clearly were not legal by any stretch of the imagination) and the imperative of finding out who leaked the memos, something that no average San Francisco resident could ever actually care about if they’re being honest.

Instead of defending the Constitution and the rights of their citizens, they’re redirecting.

Their unabashed willingness to continue forward despite all the bad press they’re getting can easily lead someone to one conclusion: There’s something really bad surrounding Adechi’s death that has San Francisco Democrats terrified. There’s a cover up happening right before our eyes, one that has politicians, police, and judges involved and unwavering in their willingness to discard the 1st Amendment altogether.

Whatever has London Breed and her cronies spooked about Adechi’s death, it has to be huge. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be pressing so adamantly against the Constitution of the United States in the broad daylight of public condemnation.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Two separate illegal aliens with child sexual crime felony convictions caught crossing the border again

Published

on

Two separate illegal aliens with child sexual crime felony convictions caught crossing the border ag

Thursday was another busy day for border patrol agents. It wasn’t just their standard apprehension and processing of thousands of migrants crossing the border to claim asylum. A handful of convicted criminals were caught trying to secretly cross into the United States, into two child sex offenders.

A 45-year-old Mexican national who had a prior felony conviction for “lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14” in California was captured earlier in the day. Then, a 26-year-old El Salvadoran national who had a prior felony conviction for “child molestation in the first degree” and an active felony warrant for “molestation of a minor” in Washington state was captured with another El Salvadoran national.

Both had been previously deported.

Opinion

Give me one excuse for this. Anyone. Can a single Democrat pushing their doctrine of open borders explain how it’s a good idea to keep border patrol undermanned and under-resourced, block the wall at every turn, and keep laws so weak that of course child rapists want to make their way to a sanctuary city near you.

These aren’t isolated cases.

Every day, we hear of new criminal illegal aliens, previously deported, who are crossing over again to commit heinous crimes like these two child rapists. Why? Because they know leftists will protect, enable, and encourage them.

This is a sickness. No, I’m not talking about the obvious sickness of vile men who find pre-teen children to ruin their lives for the sake of their own sexual kicks. I’m talking about the people on the left who willfully turn a blind eye to the sick crimes of animals like these two.

The saddest part about the left’s embrace of criminal illegal aliens like these two child raping animals is that they will take more offense to me calling them “animals” than to the vile crimes these men committed against children.

Quote

“Democrats have controlled the House for nearly 5 months. Besides supporting infanticide, illegal immigrants, and whining about President Trump, can anyone tell me what they have accomplished?” – Ryan Fournier

Final Thoughts

Border patrol is stretched thin by the migrant crisis, which makes it difficult to apprehend these child sexual predators crossing the border. If they caught two by chance on the same night, how many child molesters are crossing unabated?

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending