Raw LLM Responses

> The technology is being trialled in the UK but has so far led to zero arrests Ya'll are so upset about this for some reason. It's almost like none of you even read the first line of text past the title of the article. It's not like they are arresting people based on this technology. The title itself doesn't even make sense because she's not completely comfortable with a 98 percent false positive rate. That quote was taken out of context so fools on the internet would read the title and automatically assume something that isn't true. For the lazy: > In the UK, there are two legal challenges underway questioning whether facial recognition technology undermines human rights to privacy and free expression. As The Register reports, when commissioner Dick was asked about this at a hearing this week, she replied that she was “completely comfortable” with the technology’s use, and that the Met’s lawyers were “all over it and have been from the beginning.” The quote is in regard to weather or not the technology undermines human right's to privacy and free expression. It's entirely reasonable to hold the position that if sombody is in a public place it's not a violation privacy of to video tape or take pictures of them. Weather or not you agree with that sentiment is perfectly fine to argue, but the article is obviously trying to take her out of context to make it seem like she supports enforcing laws around a 98 percent false positive rate, which might as well be an outright lie. Click-bait journalism is getting seriously out of hand these days. They will put anything in the headline to get you to click it.