Aside from such obvious risks and liabilities, the in-development Wi-Fi system raises all kinds of privacy and legal exposure concerns. Because the absence of metal detectors or visible cameras notwithstanding, this is hardly, as the report characterizes it, a “nonintrusive alternative.” It’s highly intrusive and overrides the entire purpose of concealed carry. [More]
Who thinks this is really about stopping violent crime?
Garret FLOCK Langley’s business model marches on. We must renegotiate our privacy vs ‘security’ expectations with security and pervasive surveillance taking primacy. We must accept that our rulers have valid reasons to compile the patterns and profiles of our lives. It’s for our safety of course; and for economic efficiency. Every camera, sensor and scanner saves the cost of 87 (or some insane number) of physical cops. If we deploy enough automated surveillance we will eliminate crime per Langley.
My little burb’s PD is pitching a real time crime information center scheme. Can’t imagine what that will require.
No, just no.
And yet they still can’t seem to just pick up the known bad actors and lock them up until they put as much energy into proving they’ll behave as they did to get locked up.
Something like 90% of violent crime in the USA is committed by a hard core 10% of violent criminals. Imagine how things would be if that 10% was semi-permanently behind bars.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/25/us/baltimore-student-chips-ai-gun-detection-hnk
I cite that in the article.