Policeware: Making Headlines
June 26, 2020
DarkCyber noted “Machines with Brains.” The article includes a category or “pre title” with the phrase “From Our Obsession.” The “our” is ambiguous. Is it the “our” of the Silicon Valley real news team members or is it the “our” of the zip zip technology craving social milieu?
The point of the write up is that policeware using pattern recognition and other assorted technologies are not ready for prime time. The article identifies several companies as providing solutions that create problems, not ones that solve them. These entities are:
- Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft, deeply suspect companies but ones that had the common sense to drop out of the facial recognition marathon. “Yes, quitters can be winners” in the “From Our Obsession” point of view.
- DataWorks, “one of the biggest resellers of facial recognition technology to US Police departments.” The company allegedly has “contracts with police in Detroit, Chicago, New York City, Santa Barbara, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.” DarkCyber admires alphabetization and mixing states and municipalities. Without context, how large are the contracts? What are the terms of the deal? Are these proofs of concept or full-blown integrated solutions humming 24×7 or some other type of installation.
- Cognitech
- NEC
- Rank One Computing
The policeware market is one which most “real” journalists struggle to understand. Yesterday, in a conversation with a “real” journalist employed by the one and only Rupert Murdoch organization, I chortled during the “interview/conversation” as the young “real journalist” struggled to understand why law enforcement and intelligence professionals try out new technologies.
My comments about the companies providing policeware did not compute for the sincere and apparently fascinated news hunter. The idea that vendors provide news technology, make modifications as technical problems arise, and alter systems as users – yes, real enforcement officials – struggle to apply technology to the challenges enforcement presents.
Several observations:
First, the policeware and intelware markets, companies, and technologies are unknown territories for most technology professionals and terra incognita for a large percentage of “real” journalists. This means the individuals do not know of what they news gather. Out of context is the principal method employed.
Second, the solutions developed for enforcement and intelligence officials are a surprise to the uninformed. No one likes surprises; for example, the idea that a cherished group of Facebook friends may harbor a child molester or a contraband dealer. How does one mitigate surprise? Easy? Sensationalism, finger pointing, and generalizations. Facial recognition sucks. Easy. Does the Amazon-powered Ripper technology suck? What’s that? Ignorance is bliss for some.
Third, exactly what bureaucratic solutions exist to deal with technology? (Oxymoron alert: Bureaucracies are subject to Parkinson’s Law and Augustine’s Laws.) Some “real” journalists enthusiastically embrace mobile devices, online hook up services pretending to be video dating services, and the Twitter lifestyle. Maybe the newly minted experts in policeware have some ideas other than “don’t use technology”? Wait. That won’t work because fairy land, in case one has been oblivious to the social construct, seems to be emulating the world of Road Warrior.
Net net: Information in context and perspective are useful when writing about a technology sector with which one is not familiar. Just a thought because the morphing of “Machines with Brains” into “humans with brains” is an interesting idea to contemplate.
Perhaps an “obsession” with perspective, context, knowledge, and less sensationalistic short cuts would be helpful?
Policeware is becoming a beat. Good. Let’s strive for context, not shouting “Fire” in a socially distanced movie theater.
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2020
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
