den Otter [email@example.com] wrote:
>ROTFL. Right, of course a sentient witness *can* be trusted.
Uh-huh... and when exactly did I say that they could? No, I didn't say that, did I, actually? I said that non-sentient witnesses couldn't be trusted. Yet people like you would throw out a hundred witness statements if you had a faked video which showed a fake crime.
>In other words, no matter how flawed automated (video) surveillance
In the last year or so, I've had my photo taken by one red-light camera while driving through a green light, and two speed-cameras while driving at 30mph in a 30mph limit. Living in an authoritarian surveillance state I have a very different opinion on the infallibility of automated systems; luckily either those cameras were out of film or some sentient worked out that they were fucked up, otherwise I'd have lost my driving license without commiting any crime.