@remixtures
>Various AI-powered software programs were purchased under the governor’s border disaster declaration or in response to Abbott’s executive orders to prevent mass attacks, agency records show.
The defense sector is all a big grift.
>Several AI companies, including those that sell tech to DPS, have registered lobbyists in Texas this session, according to state records, including Clearview AI, Flock Safety, and LEO Technologies, which sells the Verus surveillance software. One company also has connections to state law enforcement in Texas: Skylor Hearn, a former DPS deputy director, was a registered lobbyist for Clearview AI in 2020 and 2021 and joined the company as its government affairs director in 2022. During his tenure at the firm, he testified in other states against banning or limiting police use of facial recognition tech. This session, Clearview AI has three registered lobbyists in Texas.
The revolving door keeps revolving.
>The Republican lawmaker cautioned that, while he would not necessarily call the agency’s capabilities a “dragnet,” he had concerns about protecting Texans’ privacy: “It does come into question whether we are creating a wide area of study of people who have not committed a crime and trying to use that for law enforcement purposes.”
"That's not bullshit. It's repurposed bovine waste."
>Meanwhile, Senator Parker’s bill, SB 1964, would require Texas agencies to more thoroughly report on how they use AI and what risks of “unlawful harm” these systems have. Under the bill, state agencies would be required to create impact assessments of any AI-powered tools they deploy—though the reports would be considered confidential and exempt from the Texas Public Information Act.
Intelligence for me but not for thee.
>“People want to make sure that the government isn’t just surveilling people who aren’t doing anything wrong just because they can. ..."
Completely missing the point. The government *defines* what "doing anything wrong" *is*. "Only going after bad guys" is tautological nonsense in this context.
>Shah, the attorney from Just Futures Law, said the dangers of surveillance technologies are easily overlooked because they are not viewed as inherently or imminently violent.
>
>“It’s just that it’s creating the infrastructure in which you can be harmed,” Shah said. Plus, she added, many surveillance tools were originally designed for warfare, or by former military intelligence personnel, and should be viewed through that lens and not as the “soft side” of policing, which is how some AI companies market the tools.
>
>“These are wartime technologies that are now in the hands of local cops,” she said. “We should be really worried.”
At least one person quoted in the article understands the problem. Talk about burying the lede, @TexasObserver :P
"Unmarked Vans. Secret Lists. Public Denunciations. Our Police State Has Arrived."
