‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops
(www.404media.co)
from ssroxnak@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 24 Jun 2025 16:10
https://lemmy.world/post/31924372
from ssroxnak@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 24 Jun 2025 16:10
https://lemmy.world/post/31924372
cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/31924287
threaded - newest
<img alt="" src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/fdb09a41-cfa5-4c27-9d1a-c2c3a8a1c71a.jpeg">
Should be easy to beat this and not worry about being identified and sued.
I know it will be hard guys, but how about:
“Don’t be a power tripping asshole”
You see people holding signs?
Don’t be a power tripping asshole and shoot tear gas, pepper shot, beat people, and shoot non-lethal rounds at them.
You see people marching?
Don’t be a power tripping asshole and shoot tear gas, pepper shot, beat people, and shoot non-lethal rounds at them.
You see reporters documenting it all?
Don’t be a power tripping asshole and shoot tear gas, pepper shot, beat people, and shoot non-lethal rounds at them.
“Don’t be a power tripping asshole.”
“You hear them boys?! We are not to humiliate those idiots! LIVE ROUNDS BOYS!”
Also, “Don’t violate people’s constitutional rights, which you must have at least tangentially sworn to protect and uphold.” 🤷♂️
another way to phrase it is “do your fucking job”
The job of the police is to protect capital.
but what if they glare at me very menacingly, surely I can then shoot tear gas, pepper shot, beat people, and shoot non-lethal rounds at them, right?
they’re lookin at me Sarge. with their eyes.
I don’t think the people you’re asking to not be a power tripping asshole understand that combination of words.
So, shoot live rounds, then?
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a2a598d8-e973-45ba-abbf-f5cdd15a717b.png">
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. But this shit will get sued so quick because “safety”
hail hydra?
Privacy is the word you are looking for.
O wait … the US doesn’t know privacy for everything but companies
I get the impression that the cops are about to hate facial recognition all of the sudden, for no particular reason
Upvoted and agreed, not least because I just learned that “all of the sudden,” while at present a nonstandard variant of “all of a sudden,” has valid history.
And of course it doesn’t matter in this casual context!
But in formal writing, in this era, using “a” will avoid distracting the reader from your main point.
“All of the sudden” is only valid because it’s so commonly (incorrectly) used. Much as it annoys me, that’s just how language works.
“of the sudden” (1570) actually predates “of a sudden” (Shakespeare) according to my OED as squinted at through the nifty magnifying glass. But it’s been considered obsolete for a long time despite having all of a sudden experienced a resurgence.
(Note, I modernized the spellings of “sudden” rather than try to switch focus back and forth)
Can’t we just embrace adverbification and agree to write “suddenly”?
No! For made up reasons I don’t understand adverbs are verboten!
If “all of the sudden” becomes standard I will definitely do this.
all of the suddenly?
Nothing wrong with “suddenly.” I probably should have used it in my previous comment. It’s just that sometimes you want to say “all of a sudden.” Especially at storytime. The extra time helps build the suspense. “Suddenly” is more sudden in that it just jumps in there. With “all of a sudden,” the subject isn’t ready but the listeners are.
People aren’t saying it because they’re language scholars, it’s because they misheard the proper modern usage. So it goes for many language shifts.
Erin: “All of the sudden, I was awake.”
Only if you allow the ignorant to remain uncorrected.
Non-Anglo here.
Totally not distracted bcs my brain autocorrected it to “all of a sudden” without even noticing.
A bit like “It deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are”
Also never seen/heard the “the” variant. (Well consciously that is).
Does not have to be Before Christ.
There’s a reason ICE conceal their faces.
They know what they’re doing is wrong and don’t want to be held accountable if their fascist rule collapses.
Is that why the protestors where them too?
Protestors or vandals and rioters?
The former: to prevent government persecution and unfair retaliation. The latter: yes.
Yes.
Why would they face persecution if they did nothing wrong!?
The government has always had it out for protestors, to the extent that they’ll try and use agents provocateur to escalate the situation. They don’t want people to protest, they just want people to life back and take it. C’mon, you seriously asking this?
The point I’m trying to make is that everyone is wearing a mask for the same reason: to prevent retribution for their beliefs and according actions.
They don’t “know what they’re doing is wrong”, they just know that other people think that and will target them for it, which is the exact same reason protestors wear them.
There’s a difference between wearing a mask because you are engaging in wrongdoing and wearing a mask to prevent unjust retaliation. Even if the actual motive is the same, the implications are very different
The only difference is what you consider to be “wrong” or “just”.
I am not the arbiter of what is/isn’t wrong, but there are some general consensus among the public as well as pertinent legal frameworks.
That’s what you’re doing though
Some beliefs require retribution. Some causes are righteous. Fuck off with your false equivalencies. Rioters aren’t employed by the people- law enforcement is.
Fuck you too buddy
I hope you get everything you deserve.
Thank you
the government should always identify itself to the people
the people should, by default, not be identified by the government
the power imbalance is important: the government is a large and powerful entity which is meant to serve the people without prejudice. people are individually small, and only gain their power from being a large group. the government is given power by the people in order for it to perform tasks beneficial to all, and must be accountable to the people
Your point is moot.
For the people by the people or did you forget?
What do you think that phrase means? The gov just let’s people do whatever they want?
Go home Lars, you are drunk and Napster is dead.
.
Please post the entirety of your online history.
Surely there’s no reason to hide.
Whether what you’ve done is entirely legal (or not) authoritariaism doesn’t care.
What is done in a free society is punished by small men with anger control issues.
What you may find reasonable to say in a free society, could, under a government opposed to free expression, land you in el Segundo - without your wallet.
The gestapo hide their faces because they know what they do is wrong, and to hide from justice.
People who protest or simply appreciate privacy do so because they understand the potential for retribution and being disappeared.
…we’re talking about hiding though
That goes both ways. That was my entire point.
Who is in power again? The protesters are not making anyone disappear. Goodbye, troll.
You think individuals can’t be targeted because they’re “in power”? Why do you think they’re wearing them?
.
So which cameras can be used to overcome normal face coverings? piped.video/watch?v=yRFeS72IM6M
So just use one too and blend in. Put on a stupid Trump or racist hat, and if you are not white, put on gloves. Then surround them.
Cameras. They fucking hate body cameras. When it clears them of wrongdoing, they have the video ready. When they ‘accidentally’ shoot a guy nine times in the back of the head, video seems to be missing.
easily solvable problem: losing the footage is indication of guilt. you shoot someone, you better have it ready. it malfunctioned, better have a partner who has theirs ready. if no one has footage to clear you, it’s used as evidence of guilt.
of course pussy ass lawmakers will never do that.
I believe having lack of evidence being the evidence for a crime is problematic, but it sure is evidence enough that they aren’t fit for their job and they should immediately lose it. Everyone Including the supervisor who failed to run the team properly.
Should be at least streamed to a server not controlled by the police, including things like charge levels so they can’t claim “oh whoops, it ran out of charge!”. A specific organisation within the judiciary, perhaps?
This way they’re gonna need to get far more creative in concealing video.
And if you’re found to do something that is concealing evidence, well that’s a crime by itself
first of all it’s not lack of evidence, it is evidence itself. if the camera is not working that’s tampering with evidence and is a good indication of guilt.
second of all if you can have laws like felony murder you can sure as shit have this. if you commit a felony (like a robbery), don’t hurt anyone, and a cop murders a random person in response because they’re trigger happy pigs, you can be held responsible for the murder as if you committed it yourself.
my suggestion is far more reasonable compared to that: if you kill someone you better have evidence that it wasn’t foul play, because guess what, that’s what everyone needs to do. we don’t just allow people to kill and go free, and cops shouldn’t be exempt.
Hard agree. Its a non negotiable part of the job. I dont know that it would work to say absense of footage is evidence of wrongdoing, but its definitely enough to fire someone. Accountability would keep cops in line. Currently there is VERY little real systematic accountability for cops, in any situation.
You misunderstand how the system works. They are all complicit.
I heard a bit on NPR over the weekend talking about copaganda. Turns out body cams are beneficial to cops, because they can take that footage and selectively edit and release it to push a certain narrative.
If you’ve ever seen a clip on social media, it often starts a few seconds before the cop hits someone, rarely showing the full sequence of events that led up to that point.
And if they can’t edit the footage to make them look good? “Oops, we didn’t retrieve that footage in time so it was overwritten.”
Ever wonder why the uh, default cop idle stance, the at ease stance… is each hand up at it’s shoulder, elbows bent, in front of chest?
Because that way they can very, very easily, and casually, bump their chestcam, obsure its view, muffle the sound.
Is it me or is LA the only part of America doing anything resembling resistance?
I think it’s mainly LA that is seeing a large invasion of federal forces
For the moment
No, it’s happening everywhere. But I’ve also seen some significant resistance happening in other cities like NYC, Newark, Portland, Chicago, Seattle, SF, etc.
It’s just you. There were mass protests across the country just a couple of weeks ago.
Unless you meant the senseless destruction of property.
Mass protests where people did nothing in particular. That is, in fact, not resistance. People in LA are actually making it harder for ICE to terrorize them.
A mass protest, in and of itself, is not “nothing”.
I would argue the opposite. You haven’t noticed the National Guard and Marines being deployed there?
It is. What happened on June 14th was technically a mass protest, but it has none of the aspects that make a mass protest effective. In essence, that wasn't a protest; it was a parade. They can, in theory, be used as a launching point for something more effective, but on their own? Yeah, nothing.
Okay and? They were deployed because ICE wasn't able to do their jobs, and even now they're suffering widespread harassment and obstruction. Not getting backlash because you did nothing isn't the flex you think it is.
Oh please, do go on, what makes a protest effective? Nonsensical general destruction of your neighbors’ property?
Okay and…that’s bad?
Getting the marines and national guard deployed on you isn’t the flex you think it is.
No, real obstruction of fascist activity. And, you know, turning out on a weekday. Mass protests work because, aside from the implicit threat of violence, they grind economic activity to a halt. That is simply not what happens when you parade for two hours on a Saturday.
You’re using a bunch of general language. Why don’t you want to say what makes a protest effective?
Good luck not getting fired.
I can't find the article now, but I read one yesterday about LA protesters doing things like blocking ICE vehicles, towing them away and making noise outside their hotels so they can't sleep. They're actually confronting ICE and LAPD, draining away their energy and reducing the pace of arrests. Here's an example. Do this on a national scale and Trump's little Gestapo won't stand a chance.
They can't fire everyone, but more importantly look up the events of Euromaidan, the various Arab spring revolutions and the recent Serbian (or was it Slovakian?) protests. It's impossible to overthrow authoritarianism without personal risk; that's just not how that works. You're free to choose the authoritarianism instead of the personal risk, but then you can't claim that you're resisting, because you're not; it's either or.
There’s “personal risk” and then there’s losing your livelihood.
And there's getting shot by regime snipers. I'm not trying to make an "others had it worse" argument, but let's not have any illusions about the scale of action and the amount of risk necessary for America to get out of this. The more you wait the more likely it becomes for this happen in the next protest where you live. Also, as I said, they can't fire everyone. Maidan and Arab Spring protesters returned to their jobs just fine after their revolutions.
If we’re not ready to put our jobs at risk to protest for what we believe in, do we really believe in it.
Our founding fathers were risking their actual lives. GTFO with the “livelihood” bullshit.
That’s up to you. I just don’t like to see it downplayed.
That’s why they call it ‘risk’ and not ‘safe.’
No. There probably isn’t more violence anywhere else yet though.
This is ILLEGAL when Working Class people Do It!
-Chuck Schumer at Some Point probably!
Maybe this will actually make politicians flip their opinion on AI… lmao
If the Big Beautiful Bill passes it will be extremely hard to regulate.
Means we have all the time in the world to turn it against them, then!
Now do ICE!
Since they’re typically masked, I’d like to see gait recognition serve the working class for once.
I was thinking this too! Gait recognition can completely bypass facial coverings as a means of identification, but I also don't think it'll be much help here.
Gait recognition can be bypassed by things as simple as putting a rock in your shoe so you walk differently, so when you think about how much extra heavy gear, different shoes, and different overall movement patterns ICE agents will possibly be engaging in, it might not hold up well at tracking them down, especially since to recognize someone by gait, you'd need footage of them that you can already identify them in, to then train the model on.
In the case of fucklapd.com, this was easy because they could just get public record data for headshot photos, but there isn't a comparable database with names directly tied to it for gait. I will say though, a lot of these undercover agents might be easier to track by gait since they'll still generally be wearing more normal attire, and it might be more possible to associate them with who they are outside of work since it's easier to slip up when you're just wearing normal clothes.
A lot of masks only work in the visible light spectrum. It’s entirely possible to “radar” images and remove them.
oh good my phone is set up for that?
No. Most cameras have filters to cut non-visible light.
And any EM that passes through a mask is probably going to pass through flesh too. And any EM that’s transmitted and not reflected means it can’t be imaged by a sensor.
Very thin fabric, like a thin white T-shirt, can be transparent to IR in bright sunlight. But that’s a fairly rare case.
I found this link on the internet and have no affiliation:
icelist.info
is that just user submitted or do they have some sort of verification process (don’t ask me what it would be i can only think of stuff that works with nonfascist governments right now) because, well us and ours have fucked with similar forms too (e.g. that one texas abortion bounty hunter form comes to mind first)
This isn’t working for me. It’s just stuck on ‘Processing…’. It also has a Javascript error.
If only CSI enhancing worked in real life, we could out the asshole on the far left.
<img alt="" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/y_9Jk.w4wehTNNlN8G8y2Q--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTY0MDtoPTQyNw--/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2025-06/3a6d1390-44e2-11f0-b3fe-7a24ea8db828">
.
What are they so afraid of? They’re public servants, so they should be publicly identifiable. If they don’t like it, get off the government payroll
Because criminals get out of jail and can go after their families. We had someone leave a bomb on the doorstep of a judge in our neighborhood.
Such a shame. Anyway, I guess we’ll have to live with the consequences of technology.
That’s a fair concern to a degree of course even the most fair sentences might have a disgruntled person on the other end of it but a fair justice system that serves and protects its community equally has little to fear overall. When a justice system is unfair, unequal, does not serve or protects its community that risk goes way up however they only have themselves to blame for the increased risk. An occasional crazy is just the price of being a human but if the public in general is against you, you’ve done that to yourself through your own actions
There is resistance everywhere, but LA was a special target for the GOP. They are gearing up to make Chicago just as hot here soon.
I’m a librarian. I also work with members of the public, some of whom do not share my understanding of reality. My information is still public because I’m a government employee.
Why would a librarians info need to be public? Does America require a public database of public servants?
I think that’s something they have, yeah. It’s kind of unheard of to me. I can only imagine public servants like librarians or library assistants getting stalked, harassed, etc because their info is publicly available for anyone to access.
It’s a public servants thing–the public wants to know what they’re paying for, so public servant salary records are public.
Various websites compile this information from the various state and federal sources. It’s wicked easy to find information on, say, every public servant with the title “librarian” in Fake County, Kentucky.
Knowing their full name, you can look up their home ownership records in the county real estate or tax databases and ta-da, you know where they live. You also know if they work part-time at a different public library, so that’s convenient for stalking purposes.
Edit: not that I think it’s a good thing. It’s creepy as all get out. If we have to post salaries, I’d much rather they be anonymized like on Glassdoor.
Edit2: and these lists do get used for political ickiness. There’s an anti-union group that mails out helpful tips on how to save money–leave your union. They even provide a “I want to leave” postcard addressed to your union leadership for you to sign, pre-filled-in with your info.
You don’t need to know who works at the library, you need to know the financial statements of the company together with the base on which the salary is based on.
It always baffles me when I try to find annual reports of American companies and they are just not made public unless they are public. But for things like non-profits, or government owned companies it is especially important as well. Sadly it is easy to get a non-profit in the US, so people abuse that. Becoming a CPA in the US is also very easy compared to at least NL.
Privacy doesn’t exist in the US unless we are talking about companies.
No they don’t need to know who is working where. The public just needs to know where the money goes through. Annual reports of a lot more companies should be public.
Why the fuck would it need to be public? Especially in a country like the US where most of the annual reports of companies aren’t public where people can actually benefit form.
If you work for a company that company is responsible for the actions you take while working there. If you discriminate somebody in the library it is your library which is being targeted and then they will target you as well.
At least that’s now it generally works in the world, variations can exist depending on the area you live in.
That really sucks. But a lot of innocent people have the police break into their homes and murder them so it balances out.
Ahh yes of course, two wrongs have always made a right /s
It’s not about being right anymore, that’s never going to happen.
I wasn’t expecting crims to go after their own families, but I’m here for it….
Was the judge a dick head?
If I remember correctly they were convicted of embezzlement. Narcissists and psychopaths get mad when they are held accountable.
Am I the only one who thinks police should be held to a higher standard of accountabilities?
The police yes, but he is speaking about a convicted criminal that want revenge when he get out of jail. Or even without getting out of jail, sending some of his accomplices to do the job.
The drug lord or mafia boss that sends killers to eliminate their families ?
Good. ACAB.
Police the police
Love it
Breaking news!
First animal facial recognition tool invented!
Soon you’ll be able to prove another rancher stole some of your cattle,chickens,etc…
For now only works for pigs.
👏
Is there ski mask recognition software that will work on ICE?
TIL I look quite a bit like 2 LA cops in particular
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b80e84ad-546c-4a78-bdde-dfc0acbd454c.jpeg">
Highly illegal in Europe, obvs. Looking forward to finding out how this will go in the US.
What’s highly illegal in Europe? Taking a photo or using publicly available images to match that photo to?
As far as I know those things are not illegal, although as a Brit I wouldn’t be surprised if they label this terrorism lol
Taking a photo for that purpose is likely out.
Matching it to any publically available images is definitely out.
Creating a database of face images for searching: Nope.
Using this system is very problematic.
Some of this is because of the GDPR. So it’s likely to be illegal in the UK, as well. And some is because of the AI Act (in particular 4. but also 3. to some degree). That’s not something that needs to concern Brits.
I’d have to research 4, but I know for a fact taking a photo of someone in public is protected as you have no right to privacy in public, it’s also not the subjects business what I intend to do with it, so things like posting online might be subject to GDPR but if i wanted to build an app like the one in this post then I would do what they did and have it all on device so it technically isn’t uploaded anywhere.
I would need a law showing that matching a face against publicly available datasets of faces is illegal as that seems insane and difficult to police.
Yes, 3 I agree with as it would fall under GDPR as identifiable information.
Do you remember why you “know” this? Just curious.
Surely you have noticed that there is a lot of criticism of the GDPR and EU tech regulation.
Commercial versions of these systems exist in the UK.
theguardian.com/…/shopper-facewatch-watchlist-39p…
The Gdpr makes these things harder to do, but not automatically illegal.
Yeah, and some of it is even true.
As I wrote, the UK does not have the AI Act. This is also a case where EU GDPR and UK GDPR diverge.
Finally, I never claimed it’s automatically illegal.
Most of it, in my experience. I do not know why this community is so committed to disinformation.
I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces, it’s quite easy for you to Google this but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.
Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.
I didn’t write there was one. It sounds like you “know” that photography is “protected” because you need that to be true.
Indeed. For anyone who’s not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.
That’s true. You can’t because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.
What do you mean “again”?
The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.
You seem to want to me prove that a law doesn’t exist where it’s much easier for you to show me a law doesn’t exist.
You can read this House of Commons debate on the topic Here
Or you can read This debate from the House of Lords.
Seems pretty simple really. Although I will concede that processing or personal identifiable information, even if done ok device, would likely be a breach of GDPR.
As for your assertion that I habitually break GDPR, yeah sure in this hypothetical scenario, but thankfully as a software engineer we have a team that handles this for us.
I have provided the requested Articles in the GDPR. “Presumption of privacy” is not a concept in the GDPR. The GDPR is not a privacy law. It is concerned with data protection.
Debates in either Chamber of UK parliament are not a source of law. Especially not when they took place a decade before the GDPR came into force.
Do you need any further help?
You seem to be misunderstanding my hypothetical application and my street photography.
To make it abundantly clear, as per the discussions in the House of Commons / Lords, that taking photos of people in public is not limited by any law, stature, or rule.
So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online as the person in the photo isn’t easily identifiable, like you can’t get their name from it, they don’t have a right to stop publication simply because their face is shown providing the image isn’t defamatory, misleading, or used for commercial purposes.
UK GDPR may apply if:
Key point Artistic and journalistic expression are except from most GDPR rules, under Article 85, if the images are published as part of legitimate artistic or documentary work.
So:
So do you want to refute these claims when you’ve read Article 85 or concede, as conceded to your other points.
Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.
Edit: Furthermore, they are not a source of law they’re a source of an absence of law as was evidenced by those debates and Article 85 as I articulated above.
That is unambiguously wrong. Please refer to Article 4 (1) for a definition of personal data.
You are quite welcome to look this up on the UK ICO’s website. It is funded by British tax money to provide information to people such as you. I am providing you free tutoring on my own time and you don’t seem to value that favor.
Please refer to the article in question. You will find that it provides no exceptions. It contains instructions for national governments,
Dude it literally states that they shall provides exceptions to former chapters as shown here
This is the exact text. I don’t know why you insist on pushing back. If you want to consult a solicitor to confirm then have at it, but it can’t be more clear than it is allowed under artistic or expression and that member states must provide exceptions to the chapters listed which includes the one you cited. Man alive!!!
2. For processing carried out for journalistic purposes or the purpose of academic artistic or literary expression, Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from Chapter II (principles), Chapter III (rights of the data subject), Chapter IV (controller and processor), Chapter V (transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations), Chapter VI (independent supervisory authorities), Chapter VII (cooperation and consistency) and Chapter IX (specific data processing situations) if they are necessary to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the freedom of expression and information.
3. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission the provisions of its law which it has adopted pursuant to paragraph 2 and, without delay, any subsequent amendment law or amendment affecting them.
Yes. That is what the member states are instructed to do. What is unclear?
You still thinking that you don’t have the right to photograph people in a public place and post them on photography forums for instance.
Beginning to think you’re trolling or you’re that dense that NASA might mistake you for a black hole.
Put like that, that’s exactly correct. That’s not a recognized right in the EU, unlike data protection. That does not mean that it is forbidden, provided that the GDPR is followed.
I have very patiently and kindly answered your questions and corrected your misunderstandings. I am not sure what you expect of me. Should I google explanatory links for you and paste the content here? I feel it would be rude to treat you like you are a child.
You can also see here on this article, but it would much easier if you would provide a law that prohibits this.
Source
Source2
Again?
I can’t see that either of these was written by someone qualified or that they have a good reputation. You should take more care to find credible sources.
I suggest that you check the data protection office of your local government. There may be subtle differences between countries. For the UK, that would be the ICO. But beware, that the UK is no longer part of the EU and its interpretation of the GDPR may be looser.
If you’re into photography, copyright and other laws also need to be considered. There’s a lot of diversity between EU countries in these things.
.
Sounds like fascism to me.
nice.
Is there one for ice too?
No. Those are gravy Seal wannabees. Ice isn’t doing anything on the streets. They are doing the behind the scenes stuff. Deputized bounty hunters are the ones in the streets. No badge, no authority, and as you know instantly disavowed.
So the people doing the snatching are gig workers? Is there a TaskRabbit for fascism?
Lol but yes
FascRabbit
Uh, well someone’s doing it
Also what about cops outside of the LAPD? This app only useful if it works on any cop.
It is definitely not going to work on any cop. There are still cops who are working in countries where privacy laws exist.
From the article icespy.org
I took a selfie and it told me I was an ice agent… Wtf I’m such a piece of shit
Fuck you pig!
Lmao let’s see how long it takes them to shut this down
Here, mirror it.
All they have to do is close the public sources of photo IDs. The tool itself isn’t anything special, anybody familiar with the tech can code something like this up in less than a day, hell ChatGPT can probably vibe code it for you.
Putting it out there for someone to do this for cops in the UK. I can’t run infrastructure but the cops terrorise out local community and constantly refuse to identify themselves/turn off their badge cam.
Already down it seems. Sucks
These guys still really like their tonfas, don’t they?
legends
This is nice. Use their own weapons against these fuckers.
Should be the ice agents too
This reeks of a honey pot scheme for some reason.
You’re doing nothing to fix it.
fix what. You have some expectation that everything is actionable and merely a matter of nattering at people to go do it?
We cant know its a honey pot and its not even remotely realistic to say a citizen can fix it or investigate it. Even an arm of the state would be unable to investigate an intention. So you’re trolling.
Yeah, they’re all honeypots. Signal, honeypot. Lemmy, honeypot. Linux, honeypot. Can’t make anything else. /s
You won’t gaslight us.
I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.
But a question surround this, what if the US wasn’t corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn’t be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn’t this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?
In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).
At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn’t the people be able to do that?
Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US
The answer is that I don’t think it matters because the US or any other society will never reach some utopic standard of privacy. So long as we live in a world where facial recognition is possible - it is better to regulate it strongly than attempt to prohibit it.
In a modern globalized world the old privacy is dead, no matter how you look at it. Going forward something new will need to be built out of the ashes, be it a new privacy or something better/worse.
Well yeah it is better to regulate it but that should include that you aren’t allowed to use the data from it to track people etc. We already have protrait right in the GDPR so it is already hard to use.
Kindly, I believe your blind faith in your societal institutions to be at best naive and at worst a danger to liberty. I mean this as a genuine warning meant to be heeded, not a personal criticism directed at you. I’m an American. This exact blind institutional faith I see you and many other Europeans frequently espouse online was a core part of what caused the civil collapse of my own society. It will happen in yours too if you guys aren’t careful. The prevalence of this way of thinking amongst Europeans I meet online is a dangerous omen. You guys remind me a lot of us back in the 90s. Please. Take it not from an ignorant American, but from a global citizen who has already been down the rough and tumble line.
I think I’ll just quote you from another comment you made in this exact same thread, because you encapsulated it better than I ever could:
This is a fiction. It is a noble lie you are told by people with power. Think semantically. What is corruption? What is “money,” “power,” etc? In your mind, in countries that you believe to be “one of the good ones,” one where by your description the nation “isn’t corrupt enough for people to really buy into it”… who controls the nation and how? Realistically, you aren’t going to be able to provide an answer to that question that is free from discussing existing corruption, because your idea of supposed societies that cross some arbitrary threshold of being “pure vs corrupt”… doesn’t exist in reality. There exists not one corruption-free government, now or ever, in the history of mankind.
This sounds fantastical from your POV but I do mean it as a genuine warning to be heeded. First it starts with gradual scrapes and nicks at the block of reason… stuff exactly like this that everyone engages in on some level, to some degree - it is a transmogrification of the social conscious… soon yet the fascists carve their own damnable Michelangelo from the marble, instead.
The system in the US is different than what we have in NL, nontheless is it good to be vigilant yes I agree, but I have also seen plenty of laws, rules and regulations here in NL and the EU. I also know that some people in the EU are trying to destroy things like encryption because it is abused by crimnals.
There are also plenty of examples of why our tax system is broken at times and people can abuse it. I have seen it enough first hand and at a further distance.
But we still have an open selection for the government and loads of different people from different parties to vote onto which makes it a lot harder fo somebody to do something similar in the US and buy votes etc.
Part of my work is signaling corruptions, well mainly fraud and financing of terrorism etc, but still. The transparance in The Netherlands really helps with preventing it.
But yes I am vigilent, we are lucky that our government failed with Geert Wilders
The plebs and the regime never have the same rights, in any country
FR is definitely used in GDPR countries.
For police it’s so- called ‘tightly regulated’.
For private use forbidden but ‘there are exeptions’
Based on trias politcal yes you do.
If your country is corrupt then yes the people with money have power. Not every country is corrupt enough for people to really buy into it.
“Based on trias politcal yes you do.” what are you trying to say?
And I said nothing about corruption or ‘people with money’
Again, what are you trying to say?
Sorry, but I assume everybody here at least has a basic level of understanding on the political system most democratic countries are at least somewhat based on.
Trias Political is the sense that you have the government, the police and the judges. Everybody needs to follow the law, the government makes that law, the judges judge who gets punished and how long and the police enact that punishment. (Very broadly explained).
If the system works like intended or at least close to, then everybody has the same rights and need to follow the same low. You are were talking about “the regime” what regime are you talking about? Generally people mean the 1%er’s or at least the actual rich. Corruption is what allows the inequality between people, but removing the corruption can also cause issues. Just look at the situation in Brazil.
Facial recognition is not something any company can just use in a GDPR country in the way they do in China or in this example. Again, we have rights.
My original comment was more an “if” question about what IF the US actually functioned like a democracy instead of a consuming focussed, angelo-saxton country.
" Sorry, but I assume everybody here at least has a basic level of understanding on the political system"
I certainly do and know the pretty concept of separation of power, if you have trouble with spelling and forming coherent sentences that’s another matter.
When you say "most democratic countries " That means you believe in the solely theoretical concept of democracy, it doesn’t exist.
Or what countries do ypu think have that?
And LOL at using China as a negative example of FR.
England for one is far worse.
And no I do not mean the 1%ers which is a silly concept. I mean the regime/government whose rights and powers far exceed the powers of normal citizens.
Even when the theory/law doesn’t say that in your imaginary democratic state.
“a consuming focussed angelo-saxton country” again, what do you mean?
That is exactly what we in the west call democracies.
It is merely an ultra-capitalist ,so consumer and profit focused concept. The rights are there on paper.
The TLDR about Anglo-Saxon vs Rheinland’s is different cultures in companies and the Anglo-Saxon (mistranslated in my previous comment) mindset is more along the lines of profit and shareholder value optimalisation (you see this a lot in the English-speaking countries) and the Rheinland’s model has more focus for other things like the other stakeholders like the employees. (You see this more in NL and DE, among others). The Rheinland’s model isn’t the greatest, it is slower because there is more to consider than profit maximisation. And pretty sure it is also worse for startups for similar reasons.
The US is also really consuming focussed, they really want you to consume aka buy as much as possible. That’s why big box stores exist, and that is generally how they seem to act.
The modern NL had a good monetary head start due to our past, but in general our system is pretty decent. It will take a while to get something done and the government will fall pretty often, but everybody can get into it, at least in some levels if they get enough votes. In local politics, this isn’t the hardest thing to do if you want it and believe you can make a difference. We have a lot of issues (uneven taxes, people missing out on social security due to faults of others, discrimination, etc.). But I do truly believe that our government, the rule of law and the executive power is at least pretty decent.
Edit: I don’t believe the US is a good democracy in electoral votes and the mainly 2 party system. Then again the US is just to big and more comparable to the EU than to one country.
What I can say is the,name it Rheinland or W-European is less bad than the awful Anglo-countries indeed.
While there was a few decades of good social structures and conditions for workers post WW2 they have been destroying it slowly but surely.
I am Belgian, so I presume you’re a NL neighbour?
I know things have been going down (a lot of you here for free education and bcs buying NL houses are unafordable) and certainly for Germans even under Merkel who made a lot of people work low wage jobs with very little protection, throw away jobs.
And again it’s getting worse.
The NL government is awful and (extreme) right making awful laws.
Like Germany they are among the biggest bootlickers of the genocider state and the US terrorists.
The extreme right hasn’t been able to do much in NL besides postponing getting anything done. Like I said it is slow af to get anything done in NL due to our structure, but at least the extreme right (or extreme left for the matter) will have less option to pass any actual laws.
Yes, we have issues with housing, the tax system and maybe even schooling. The housing thing is mostly because of bureaucracy and because of environment reasons, we haven’t been able to comply with the EU regulations surround the environmental values. The tax system just fucks over a lot of people, either because the system is to complex for people or because it is just badly written. And the whole school thing is partially resolved and partially an issue because people didn’t read that the loan was only 0% interest for the next few years and because people didn’t know what their options are. Again it is a complex system and some people don’t really understand it, but don’t seek help either or they don’t get the correct help.
There have been talks about making it easier to get the bureaucracy done for building more houses, which hopefully passes. The entire tax system will not be redone anytime soon, so people can still have issues with that, but we will wait and see for that.
Compared to most nations, yes the Dutch government is crap at the time of writing, but that is partially because we do not have a government. The previous Schoof government was also a shit show, but that’s because WIlders can just play opposition and besides his extreme right statements he mostly has left leaning once so he contradicts himself half the time. He is also a one man party which doesn’t help. The BBB is just a one statement party and the NSC just fell apart almost instantly, at least Omtzigt tried I gues. He was like the only person that we could vote for last time that understood how the issues with our tax system are making everything worse.
Schoof and his gand didn’t need PVV to go hard right-wing.
“WIlders has left leaning once” (ones probably) but What?
Statement, arguments, points of views. Whatever you want to call it, it was in his program.
But just disregard it, him being an opposition player is a good enough reason why he failed
A core tenet of the law is the right to trial by a jury of your peers.
Jury trials have a very similar flaw to democracy.
Think of an average person you know, how stupid are they? Now, realize that half the people out there are stupider than that.
An average randomly selected jury is going to be composed of 50% below average intelligence people.
Of the US law yes, but that’s not the case everywhere.
I personally don’t think juries should do more than give extra input to the judge. The judge should follow the law exactly and tif they don’t, the average person should be able to file a complaint about them not doing their job and they should be investigated.
(I also work in a field (accountancy) where you can file complaints to be for very cheap if I don’t do my job correctly)
Curious: how often in your field are people harassed out of work by politically motivated complaints?
Around here, restaurant owners are very vulnerable to that kind of harassment - they can literally be put out of business just by people complaining to the health department, with no real basis to the complaints. Its one thing that keeps restaurant owners out of politics.
Not that often, since it is a very formal matter to sue a registered accountant over here. It costs like 50 euro to complain or something and the accountant can lose his title from it.
nba.nl/…/jaaroverzicht-klachtencommissie-nba-2024…
Yeah, 50€ will stop the drunk at the pub from filing a complaint on his mobile for a lark, but in the greater scheme it’s no barrier at all for people intent on serious harassment.
That’s almost always on the table with complaint investigations against licensed professionals of all kinds.
The bigger trick is: who are the regulators that execute the decision making process, how onerous is it to fight it, etc. A lot of what goes down around here on the “bad side” of all that is that certain actors familiar with the system will develop relationships with the regulatory body and launch complaints sufficient to significantly harass license holders (or any regulated person) just enough to really bother them, but not quite enough to trigger a fight with lawyers in the courts and appeals processes. In a competitive arena like running a restaurant, the harassment can be expensive and time consuming enough to tip the balance between profitable, and shutting down.
If you file a complaint with an instance like the NBA in this instance it will not go directly to the person who you complained about. They should stop the harassment.
In the case of accountants, the rules and regulations already make us write down a lot of our work and why we made certain decisions. If something is not written down, it is going to be hard to defend.
Yes in a restaurant it is different, but generally harassment is pretty rare, at least with the restaurants I have or had as clients. None really saw it as an issue. You just ban them, kick them out, call the cops if it really becomes bad or just deal with the couple bad reviews.
Yeah, that’s how it should work. We have personal experience of a bogus complaint being filed by a big player with a regulatory agency, the agency coming around and interviewing / intimidating us, and subsequently sending us paperwork finding that the complaint was “substantiated” - something we consulted with a couple of lawyers about and they said “this would never, ever stand up in any kind of hearing or trial or other official process, but… to get it reversed will effectively cost you a couple of thousand dollars out of pocket and a lot of time and hassle - better to ignore it.” Of course the real issue is that the big player was guilty of everything in the complaint and more, this is just them “getting in front of the problem” before we complained about them - which we actually had no intention of doing…
The restaurant example comes from a friend who was running a restaurant when he decided to run for political office. His incumbent opponent was directing health inspections of his restaurant at about 10x the normal frequency of inspections… Again, you can fight it, but even if you have the resources to win, what do you get for your troubles?
Meanwhile, the bad actors in the above scenarios repeat their bad actions over and over for marginal advantages. Maybe someday they’ll be taken down for it, but usually not.
It sounds like you are talking about a lawsuit instead of a complaint, or at least I see the two different. Complaints don´t have anything to do with the actual court and lawsuits do.
That is just corruption shining through, something like that (samples) should only be done in set intervals f.e. Man, the US really sucks. And people keep going to massive companies and especially in the US that is destroying jobs and possible the entire country. A lot of the money from massive companies doesn’t end up inside the US government’s treasury.
What I’m talking about is abuse of those complaint systems which is only rectifiable via lawsuit. The abuse lies in the low cost (50€?) of filing a complaint, the corruptability / apathy-indifference of the complaint handling agency, and the relatively high cost of seeking justice vs un-just complaints. In theory, complaint processing at the agencies should filter out frivolous, harassing and otherwise improper complaints - but that’s very frequently not how things run, not all the time.
Yep. I’m thinking more and more what “made us great” in the past was the relative youth of our institutions. The longer these things run the further from ideal they tend to become. I would be very much in favor of institutional reform to attempt to continually improve these situations, but of course “institutional reform” is often a cover for fast-track corruption enabling.
Dystopian future stories about global corporate rule making governments irrelevant have been around for a long long time - the US is continuing to develop in that direction, but we do have at least a little further to go before we completely get there (even with recent accelerations in some areas.)
I am not sure if this is even correct, The Netherlands as it currently is, is pretty young, but people have been living in Europe for ages. We are one of the countries with the lowest corrupt, we do pay a lot of corrupt nations/people though, but that is a different story.
Netherlands specifically did a pretty significant reboot after WWII, and again in 1983? even if the base Constitution was established in 1814 / 1848. The US has been screwing around with a women’s rights amendment to our Constitution for over 100 years and we still can’t get that done - which I attribute to all kinds of entrenched interests blocking change for the better for most people because the special interests might be a little inconvenienced.
My grandparents’ generation (born in the 1910s, formative young adult years during the Great Depression) pushed a strong “never spend a cent you don’t have to” ethos on my parents, and my parents pushed that hard on me. That ethos is pervasive throughout rural America, and when a Wal Mart Supercenter opens they undercut Mom and Pop stores by just enough margin to push that “can’t pass up a better deal” ethos in the local population. Mom and Pop stores usually go unprofitable and close within a year or two of a WalMart opening anywhere within 100km. The customers could afford to still patronize Mom and Pop and ignore WalMart, but that “save a penny whenever you can” ethos wins out. Of course once Mom and Pop are out of business, WalMart goes on to raise prices higher than Mom and Pop used to charge - big data analysis tells 'em just how much they can charge for each of their tens to hundreds of thousands of items to achieve their customer acquisition / retention goals. Meanwhile, Mom and Pop still had stick-on paper price tags on their merchandise when they went out of business.
I see it a lot in the retro gaming community. In NL, a country the is 240 times smaller than the US, we have a lot more options to buy our games from. Heck I can find American limited releases easier in The Netherlands than in the US.
There’s a lot of back and forth on that - through the last 50+ years the US federal government has done a lot to unify and centralize control. Visible things like the highway and air traffic systems, civil rights, federal funding of education and other programs which means the states either comply with federal “guidance” or they lose that (significant) money while still paying the same taxes…
Informed, long run decisions don’t seem to be a common practice in the US, especially in rural areas.
In order for that to happen the Jumbo needs competition. In rural US areas that doesn’t usually exist. There are examples of rural Florida WalMarts charging over double for products in their rural stores as compared to their stores in the cities 50 miles away - where they have competition. So, rural people have a choice: drive 100 miles for 50% off their purchases, or save the travel expense and get it at the local store. Transparently showing their strategy: the bigger ticket items that would be worth the trip into the city to save the margin are much closer in pricing.
GameStop died here not long ago. I never saw the appeal in the first place: high prices to buy, insultingly low prices to sell, and they didn’t really support older consoles/platforms - focusing always on the newer ones.
IDK the specifics of GDPR (and GDPR is relatively new, so it will continue to evolve for some time…)
In my view: the police are public servants, salaries and pensions paid by taxes. They have voluntarily chosen to serve as public servants. Whole hosts of studies show that police who are actively involved with the communities they police, seeing, being seen, being known by the neighborhoods they work in, those police are more effective at preventing crime, defusing domestic disputes, etc. than faceless thugs with batons and guns who only show up when they are going to use their arrest powers to shut down whatever is going on.
If I were to write “my version” of the GDPR that I think the US should enact, there would be clear exceptions for public servants, including police and politicians. Now, you can get into the whole issue of “undercover cops” which is clearly analogous to “secret police” which may be a necessary evil for some circumstances, but that’s not what is going on with OP’s website. OP is providing a tool to compare photos to a public database of photographs of public servants - not undercover cops. By the way: performance is spec’ed at 1 to 3 seconds per photo comparison, so 9000 photos might take 9000-27000 seconds to compare, that’s 2.5 to 7.5 hours to run one photo search.
Considering people all across the world tend to generalise I don’t think it’s a good idea to share all the personal details of a cop. I would rather prefer we just having transparency in the general administration (annual reports) and their salary.
I also dislike that the law should have exceptions. The more exceptions a law has the complexer it gets and the more some people can abuse it.
Fining a complaint about a police office can also be done on their badge number, and that should be enough. If a police is just bad at their job, but a good person (so they fuck up some other way), then they shouldn’t be at risk of being attacked/stalked or whatever by the people they arrested, which is what a public database of the people doing their job allows for. People should be held accountable for their actions and everybody should be held accountable in the same manner.
Just because a photo is made in public doesn’t mean it is a public photo, or at least it shouldn’t mean that. Again, to protect civilians.
I think there’s a balance to be struck. Should the cop’s home address be shared? No. Should their face, badge number and service record be public? Absolutely. I also agree that all public servant’s salaries (including employees of publicly traded companies) should be public.
Agreed, but something as complex as “the police” isn’t going to have one solution fitting all circumstances. Whatever the solution is, it should be simple enough to explain, clearly and accurately, to an average 12 year old.
Any database, public or private, can be endlessly abused. This is the crux of the GDPR.
Yes, but that has always been less than perfect in practice. Transparency is always the answer. Increased transparency with increased accountability for inequity is the right direction to be moving, not all at once, but gradual continuous progress in the good direction is what we should be seeking. Unfortunately, people lately are standing up and cheering for what they call a “good direction” that is composed of more lies, corruption and ultimately more secrecy about what’s really happening.
That’s going to be the tricky part about a future where 200MP 60fps video cameras cost less than $100, and digital storage costs less than $100 per TB.
I feel that outlawing or otherwise restricting the use of cameras in general will go poorly. It has been hobby-level practical for the past decade to drive around with license plate reading software, building your own database of who you pass where and when, and getting faces to go with that tracking data isn’t hard either - setup a “neighborhood watch” of a dozen or more commuters and you’ll have extensive tracking data on thousands of your neighbors, for maybe a couple thousand dollars in gear. Meta camera glasses may be socially offensive, but similar things are inevitable in the future - at least in the future where we continue to have smartphones and affordable internet connectivity.
Even if it’s outlawed, that data will be collected. What laws can do is restrict public facing uses of it. Young people today need to grow up knowing that, laws or no laws, they will be recorded their whole lives.
Making picture in public of others is alreasy not allowed under GDPR, but only if somebody complains you will get into issues most of the time.
We need to stop the bullshit excuses people like you are using to allow for the recording or eveeything it really needs to stop. You are already no allowed to have a camera watching the public streeth
So much for all the security cameras.
People like you need to get your heads out of your own asses an look around at the real world, as it is today, and contemplate for a moment where it is inevitably going. Bitching about how improper video recording is on internet forums is likely to achieve exactly nothing against the commercial interests who will continue to make and sell the technology.
Unless you are the police running a traffic enforcement camera, no?
Depends, if you have a security camera on your own yard it is legal, but if it films the sidewalk it is illegal.
Bitching about things like unlawful camera use is exactly how things like the GDPR get enforced. A lot of people don’t even know that it isn’t allowed.
Heck the police will still use your camera if it is filming the road. They cannot use it as evidence, but it can help them in their investigation. FIlming cars is fine, but it is hard to fil the cars without filiming the people walking or cycling. There is also a balance that needs to be struck between privacy and being able to find/monitor actual criminals. This article from the authority of personal data goes into the Police and their camara use
It’s still a very new area, will continue to be debated and evolve over time. What we think is “ideal” today will not be what people think is “ideal” in 20 years.
True and ofc, but GDPR iirc isn´t completely new, it is built ont op of other privacy laws from different countries.
Well, the US Supreme court did explicitely say cops have no expectation of anonymity while doing their job. This is completely legal. Its premised on the idea that cops arent there to be abusive but to uphold the law, which is not always actually true. The root of the problem is cops behavior themselves rather than the recording or identifying of them. Up until very recently cops at least had their names visible and were required to show ID upon request.
I believe you that it is legal and maybe it should be in the US.
I am just saying that it would be a weird thing if the US ever added more privacy laws since this kinda contradicts this. I believe that the badge number should be enough for some other party to punish cops when needed. But I do not live in the US so my point of view is already a bit different on this entire situation
What does this mean?
Edit: read further down that you’re in a country that doesn’t guarantee jury trials so I’m guessing you’re referring to some kind of criteria not being met to trigger a trial by jury
In my opinion you should look at the law objectively, a group of people who aren’t fully educated on the law and aren’t trained in being objective will not form an objective opinion.
Juries would be fine to give advice to the judge on how the public sees it, but they shouldn’t have a real impact on the outcome of the situation. That should be a question of executing the law.
We have no trial by jury in The Netherlands and the international court of law doesn’t have a jury either. The just have 15 judges to decide the outcome.
Yeah… As someone who has been on a jury, I have to disagree completely. Putting people’s lives into the hands of one (most likely old, straight, white dude in the case of the US) single person is an awful idea. The concept of a trial by a jury of your peers is far from perfect, but it works relatively well.
For an example a single judge being responsible for ruining the lives of thousands of children as a result of outright quid pro quo, look into “cash for kids” scandal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
Who say it has to be one man, it doesn’t have to be one person.
But as somebody who has studied a couple laws (tax laws, some general laws etc) I can tell you that there is so much going on that somebody who hasn´t studied about it shouldn´t have an impactfull stay in it.
In the article you linked had this in the second sentance:
Yes, if corruption is rampant in your country than no it doesn’t work, but that also means a jury can be bought. Probably harder though, so I guess you have a point. I know the US is a corrupt nation, but I always think of it not being a corrupt country. The absurd legal fees, getting paid for more than the actual damages among other things don´t really help to get a second opinion in terms of a lawsuit which everybody in at least the western world has a right to as far as I know.
In NL we do often have cases with only 1 judge, but for important cases we will have 3 judges.
If the police weren’t unaccountable invaders, and just, liked, issued annoying tickets or whatever instead of murdering children and doing to crowds of peaceful civilians things that would be war crimes if done to uniformed enemy soldiers literally any tike they assemble, or even if the obes who actually did that stuff were punished literally at all when they did, i don’t think anyone would have even thought to do this.
They are abd they do and they don’t, though.
Lmao, in france facial recognition is being rolled out all over and we got laws explicitly prohibiting the filming of cops (ofcourse, the only reasonable action to take against the documented brutality of the pigs /s)
I’m not from the U.S. either, so a lot of that is coming from a place of ignorance, so bear with me please. But the way I understand it, is that the website just lets you look up name and badge number - things that police officers (at least in most jurisdictions) are obliged to provide upon request, but often fail to do so in recent U.S. developments. So one could argue that this is more about access to information that should be available anyway, rather than doxxing people for the fun of it, right?
Yeah I guess, I didn’t know that the name was public information. It doesn’t really make sense to me why that is needed. Imo the badge number should be enough to file a formal complaint somewhere and get somebody to act according to that complaint.
You don’t want the name of the piece of shit that fuck us a traffic stop and shoots your neurodivergent teenager daughter in the face to stay anonymous; not you, or your community, nor anyone wants that.
A good time to ask this question after it’s used for good and we have politicians in office who aren’t against the will of the people, not before
Next we’ll see all US cops wearing masks in their regular day to day activities, like in the Watchmen series.