"What we need is good information, not more data."

Spot on! I'm a data scientist, and in today's world there is no shortage of data. The problem is developing the heuristics to deal with and thereby transform data into information.

You need probable cause of an actual crime to get a warrant. The expression of your views on social networks rarely rises to that level. One could 'flag' individuals for enhanced public scrutiny, however, under such a proposal so long as one is not trying to get a warrant. Still, I do not think that it is a good idea. It would identify far too many individuals and be counterproductive. What we need is good information, not more data.

That's why any firm that decides to notify law enforcement about what they perceive as dangerous statements on social media needs to be exceedingly careful. It's one thing to arbitrarily censor statements that you don't like, and ban someone you disagree with from your private network, but altogether different when you risk legal backlash from involving law enforcement.

There's a hue and cry about why the social engine giants didn't notify law enforcement about some of the statements made by some of the recent shooters, but I have no doubt their legal staff has rules to prevent liability. Shareholders don't like lawsuits.

AI can be used to flag statements that indicate a possible threat, but humans should review those flagged items, and be trained to recognize the difference between radical opinion and malicious intent to commit criminal acts.Violent threats against specific individuals, racial or religious groups, as opposed to general angry statements regarding those individuals or groups constitute the dividing line to trigger a warrant.

This type of scenario could incringe upon the First Amendment of the Constitution. A person like myself could be arrested due to my political views on Revolution, Civil War and Secession. AI is still in it's infancy stages and is about dumb a brick. We already see that as these systems read news media headlines then go into sell mode tanking the Sttock Market.

OUTRAGEOUS!--Here the state, in effect, kidnaps children from their parents and holds them prisoner (for although the law supposedly allows parents to send them to private schools as an alternative, they are forced into "double taxation" and often cannot do it), and, having gotten them in that situation, has no duty to protect them?!!!

That b****'s name should be changed from Bloom to Blood.

given the judge's ruling...she is a citizen...therefore the govt has no duty to protect her...all protection for the courthouse and judges should be withdrawn..

it's only logical

As others have posted....this is settled law due to earlier cases.

The only option here is to do what the Goldman's did with OJ and sue him in civil court and ruin his life.Any money derived from the lawsuits should be re-invested back in to more lawsuits. Make the bastard show up in court at least once a month for the next 10 years or til he dies...or kills himself. This is basically the tactic Mueller is using to try to get Trump Associate s to say something useful against him.

Yup - that is one of the oxymorons of government: they want to be in control but yet not take any responsibility of the control they want to usurp when they fail!

I seem to recall that this stance has been taken before.

Back in the 70's, in New York city, there was a woman (or women) who was violently raped. When the question was asked, concerning police "protection" the answer that was given stated that the police are not there to "protect" the citizenry (regardless of the "To Protect And Serve" you might see on the side of their vehicles).

I don't recall the exact reason that I researched this article, but it seems that it was in reaction to the draconian gun laws that the city of New York was putting in place at the time. These gun laws made it impossible to obtain a firearm and, yet, the police were not required to protect you.

Go figure...

I think I agree that its not the responsibility of the government to proactively insure our safety. I am not even sure if thats possible.

What they are supposed to do is to stand for us when our rights ARE violated

The judge is not ruling with what most citizens believe the contract called the constitution implies but with what the government determines as its position in responsibility to the slaves it administers. It is correct in ruling that a government which enslaves is only responsible for the slaves in its direct control.

The way to identify a legitimate and therefore moral government is to verify that they are protecting the citizens in their right to be free. If the government is stealing from some with the promise to enrich others then the citizens are slaves. The current motto of the police should be "To Punish & Enslave" not "To Protect and to Serve"

Laws are ENFORCED through the penalty after a law has been broken. Just that true and simple. All protection is the responsibility of the individual.

"Computers are notoriously bad at identifying context, satire, and sarcasm."

Which is why I noted the AI needs to become more refined before I would rely on such reports from the private firms, were I a law enforcement official.

Agreed. Private citizens can certainly report potentially dangerous behaviors for investigation. But I think it becomes much more nebulous ethically once you start getting computers involved. Computers are notoriously bad at identifying context, satire, and sarcasm.

The question is what government is allowed to do in pursuance of that goal. It should certainly pass laws declaring the sanctity of life and punishments for abrogating another's right, but our entire legal system is based on commission of a crime, not merely intent.

If a government agency performs the task, you're correct. However, if the private entities that run the social engines monitor (as they do now) individual communications, and notify authorities of potentially troubling persons, as do current anonymous callers routinely, then the agencies can get a warrant that would allow them to confirm what they've been told and act on it.

We may feel like this is an "end around" of the 4th amendment, but it's a legal path to accomplish a pre-crime regimen similar to what police informants do now.

On the contrary, the only legitmate function of government is to protect its ciitizen's rights, which includes their right to life!

"As AI becomes more refined, it should be possible for law enforcement to scour social networks to look for troubling behaviors and identify potentially dangerous people."

In my book, that is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as they do not have a warrant for any such activities.

Hadn't thought of the custody thing. Now that I do, I think that you are right: if the State is going to make laws preventing personal self-defense, they must take the responsibility for the safety of those they deny that right to. Great point!

No surprise here. This echoes a similar lawsuit brought by a Maryland family when police were too late to save a female relative who was on the 911 line when her attacker killed her. In that case the police were not held liable either, even though they took longer than usual to arrive. Even though many departments like to use the logo "To Protect and To Serve" on their cruisers, it's been well established that the courts recognize the limits of police power to actually serve as a security force. Their primary responsibility is to draw chalk lines around the body, and hopefully catch the perp before anyone else is harmed.

Exercising your 2nd amendment right of self defense is, unfortunately, not as easy as one would think. Even in states like Oklahoma, where concealed carry licenses aren't difficult to get, and a CCW license holder may carry openly, the laws regarding use are often confusing. If you misread a situation and draw your weapon, whatever your good intent, you run the risk of a charge of "brandishing" (considered criminal intimidation or threatening) if someone faint of heart wants to press charges. If you actually have to discharge your weapon, even in your own home, it immediately becomes evidence in a crime scene and must be surrendered to the police until a determination is made as to what actually happened. That's why it's a good idea to own more than one gun.

Regarding thoughts about establishing "pre-crime" units, we aren't actually that far away form something like that. As AI becomes more refined, it should be possible for law enforcement to scour social networks to look for troubling behaviors and identify potentially dangerous people. The legal issue is how to enable such precautionary action without crossing the 4th amendment line of illegal search. From a technology perspective, I think it's possible, but will have to stand up to strong scrutiny before it's accepted. Having seen what the NSA already does looking for spies and terrorist cells, I think pre-crime may be routine in the near future.

The recommendation is interesting.

A nutty teacher with a handgun is 1) unlikely to kill very many people, and 2) completely manageable (interviews, assessments, etc). Such a person could easily shut down the next one of these incidents quickly.

The article is discussing the mass shooting at a FL school. The judge is taking the position that protection would be required in the situation where those in danger were in custody (the state is obligated to protect persons it has incarcerated). In this situation, students are wards of the state while in school (the law requires children to attend school). On those grounds alone I believe the judge is in-error. In a broader sense I agree, as others have said here, that government's primary responsibility/duty is to protect its citizens. That is, to physically protect them from foreign invasion, and from each other through maintenance of a standing military, and through reasonable laws preventing force, fraud, and coercion by anyone (including the government itself). Ok, that's my .02. =]

Agreed, but that would take an impeachment or other similar action at a local level. I highly endorse it, however.

Perhaps. Problem is that the lamestream media isn't going to cover this case and without that, it's going to be hard to get anything like that going.

On a positive note, they did publish an action addendum (the school) and they recommended arming the teachers. Finally, some common sense!