You think giving surveillance tools to cops helps kids? You think they don’t abuse it? You didn’t read the article so clearly not, but these tools are being used by cops to presecute sex workers and innocent people.
Rather than talk about the abuse of power, this article titles itself and spends much of its content hemming and hawing over Ashton Kutcher and the oh dear but what if the actor man you thought was good was not as good as you wanted him to be?
Prediction: It’ll be helping police arrest consensual sex workers at a higher rate than it helps abused children. In jurisdictions where police are paid off by organized crime, it will help organized pimps (who actually do sex trafficking) thwart competition from the consensual market.
I’m sure it will. The problem is that instead focusing on that issue, the article is mostly melodramatic bandwagon bullshit.
The article contains less journalism than it does pearl-clutching and veiled tsks about actors.
Again, insincere.
If the article is about the threat of illegitimate police use of a legitimate and useful law enforcement tool saving children, make the article about that, rather than title it with a facetious question tied to the latest media punching bag irrelevant to any meat in the story.
And saving kids is great! The problem is basically the epitome of the phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
On the surface, a false positive identification isn’t that bad. Validate the data and move on. Case closed, right? Not exactly.
It probably takes time to filter through false positive alerts and maybe some additional investigations are started. The biggest problem is that society naturally follows “guilty until proven innocent”. If someone is caught up in a trafficking case, and they are actually innocent, their career and association with their existing social circles are basically done. That is regardless if they are innocent and that is horrible.
Also there is persistence of data. Once a person gets associated in these datasets, is probably near impossible to have that data removed. This could look really bad if it is found as part of an unrelated investigation and exposed. I won’t even go into the invasion of privacy issues.
While it is great to catch actual bad people, possibly destroying the life of another is also bad. I really wish I could say that is a person is actually innocent they have nothing to worry about. That simply doesn’t apply here.
Again, if what are you are writing about was the content of the article and how the article was presented, it would it be a good article.
Instead, it’s some coy vulture shaking their head and demanding everyone stare at the pop culture dunce of the day who has removed himself from spotlight because he knew the vultures were descending.
You’ve written more relevant content in your post and presented said content more genuinely than this article has done with thousands of words.
That’s not what you’re arguing in your original comment. “Ugh It’s helping kids!” has nothing to do with the author, and everything to do with the subject.
This bandwagon you’re scrabbling to catch hold of is actually for media gossip, not so much about corruption of authority, but your hyperbolic and irrelevant comment will be tacked on late though it is, to everybody else’s.
Is the article about how spotlight doesn’t save children? No. Because it does.
Is it about the apparently genuine campaign to make some impact on a horrific reality? No.
Is Kutcher implicated in anything other than a good-faith effort to aid in identifying and fighting against sex trafficking? No.
He resigned immediately after making a culturally insensitive sentence to avoid vultures, and a vulture is swooping after him to capitalize on his poor judgment.
He resigned immediately after making a culturally insensitive sentence to avoid vultures, and a vulture is swooping after him to capitalize on his poor judgment.
Okay, let’s not pretend it was a single misinterpreted sentence, and now poor Ashton is unfairly hounded.
Ugh, it’s helping kids. Yuck, what an insincere article.
they’re selling a tech product that they hope to make mandatory by law, it’s not some charity lol
laWl totally.
You think giving surveillance tools to cops helps kids? You think they don’t abuse it? You didn’t read the article so clearly not, but these tools are being used by cops to presecute sex workers and innocent people.
Rather than talk about the abuse of power, this article titles itself and spends much of its content hemming and hawing over Ashton Kutcher and the oh dear but what if the actor man you thought was good was not as good as you wanted him to be?
Puffy predatory crap.
Have you actually read it?
Yup
Prediction: It’ll be helping police arrest consensual sex workers at a higher rate than it helps abused children. In jurisdictions where police are paid off by organized crime, it will help organized pimps (who actually do sex trafficking) thwart competition from the consensual market.
Cops are the ones raping kids, judging by recent headlines
I’m sure it will. The problem is that instead focusing on that issue, the article is mostly melodramatic bandwagon bullshit.
The article contains less journalism than it does pearl-clutching and veiled tsks about actors.
Again, insincere.
If the article is about the threat of illegitimate police use of a legitimate and useful law enforcement tool saving children, make the article about that, rather than title it with a facetious question tied to the latest media punching bag irrelevant to any meat in the story.
And saving kids is great! The problem is basically the epitome of the phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
On the surface, a false positive identification isn’t that bad. Validate the data and move on. Case closed, right? Not exactly.
It probably takes time to filter through false positive alerts and maybe some additional investigations are started. The biggest problem is that society naturally follows “guilty until proven innocent”. If someone is caught up in a trafficking case, and they are actually innocent, their career and association with their existing social circles are basically done. That is regardless if they are innocent and that is horrible.
Also there is persistence of data. Once a person gets associated in these datasets, is probably near impossible to have that data removed. This could look really bad if it is found as part of an unrelated investigation and exposed. I won’t even go into the invasion of privacy issues.
While it is great to catch actual bad people, possibly destroying the life of another is also bad. I really wish I could say that is a person is actually innocent they have nothing to worry about. That simply doesn’t apply here.
Again, if what are you are writing about was the content of the article and how the article was presented, it would it be a good article.
Instead, it’s some coy vulture shaking their head and demanding everyone stare at the pop culture dunce of the day who has removed himself from spotlight because he knew the vultures were descending.
You’ve written more relevant content in your post and presented said content more genuinely than this article has done with thousands of words.
That’s not what you’re arguing in your original comment. “Ugh It’s helping kids!” has nothing to do with the author, and everything to do with the subject.
Yes, that perfectly halfway reiterates the intent of my original comment.
Hang on…everyone… they’re clapping! Cheering.
You’ve done it.
Warmsoda reading comprehension? Satisfactory.
Yep, and the Patriot act made us all safer. /s
This bandwagon you’re scrabbling to catch hold of is actually for media gossip, not so much about corruption of authority, but your hyperbolic and irrelevant comment will be tacked on late though it is, to everybody else’s.
deleted by creator
Is the article about how spotlight doesn’t save children? No. Because it does.
Is it about the apparently genuine campaign to make some impact on a horrific reality? No.
Is Kutcher implicated in anything other than a good-faith effort to aid in identifying and fighting against sex trafficking? No.
He resigned immediately after making a culturally insensitive sentence to avoid vultures, and a vulture is swooping after him to capitalize on his poor judgment.
Okay, let’s not pretend it was a single misinterpreted sentence, and now poor Ashton is unfairly hounded.
Please, refocus on what’s important to all of you: the immaterial details of celebrity gossip.