Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

banfacialrecognition.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 160 posts

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#111

Post by logicchains »

harshreality wrote: post #44
jstanley wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be a human right to exist at a public place/event anywhere on Earth, regardless of which country you were born in.

Where do you live, Neverland? Of course it should be a human right to freely travel, in a political utopia. Guess where we don't live? We don't live somewhere called no place. If wishes (moral and otherwise) were horses, we'd drown in horse shit.

>If wishes (moral and otherwise) were horses, we'd drown in horse shit.

If everybody thought like this, we'd still be in the stone age. You don't achieve change by deciding it's impossible and giving up.

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#112

Post by logicchains »

golergka wrote: post #92
logicchains wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when was it a human right to tell other people where they're allowed to live?

Since property, both private and public, is a fundamental human right. Just as you have a right to privacy of your home, a country's citizens have the same right to their country.

>Since property, both private and public, is a fundamental human right.

If property is a fundamental right, then shouldn't it be the right of a landlord to rent his property to whomever he wants?

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#113

Post by neiman »

duckqlz wrote: post #2

Ironic how they want your name and address and phone number for a petition to protect your privacy.

In theory you can use cryptography to give a signature confirming you belong to a group, without saying who you are in the group (ring signature, or more specifically for our case, traceable ring signature or linkable ring signatures).

But we don't have the infrastructure to do such things atm, so which other option do you have to prove the validity of a petition?

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#114

Post by whatawaste »

jmpman wrote: post #68

I’ve always used the number of Spanish speaking radio stations on the dial as a litmus test for how much illegal immigration exists in my city. First generation and second generation don’t typically listen to to the Spanish speaking stations, so the demand is being driven by the initial immigrants, the majority of whom are illegal (in my city). No matter how much I hear about illegal immigration being cracked down up…

This might be the stupidest thing I’ve read on the internet this week, congratulations. Have you also considered listening to the local hip hop stations, you might ‘uncover’ the number people illegally smoking weed and stealing all the white women.

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#115

Post by i_am_nomad »

logicchains wrote: post #99
i_am_nomad wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. I’ll be moving in to your house this evening, thanks.

The illegal immigrants aren't staying in your home, they're staying with whomever they're paying rent to. What right do you have to tell him who he can rent to?

Good question. If he also decides not to rent to black people, certainly, that’s his business, and I have no right to tell him who to rent to. Correct?

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#116

Post by golergka »

logicchains wrote: post #112
golergka wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since property, both private and public, is a fundamental human right. Just as you have a right to privacy of your home, a country's citizens have the same right to their country.

>Since property, both private and public, is a fundamental human right. If property is a fundamental right, then shouldn't it be the right of a landlord to rent his property to whomever he wants?

Of course it should. But the landlord's private property is still a part of the country citizen's collective property.

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#117

Post by peterwwillis »

Does anyone see any evidence for this website's claims? It literally just says "big companies are investing in this". No sources quoted, no evidence of how many groups, to what extent, or for what actual purposes.

Basically, this looks like a FUD campaign to work the outrage machine to get more followers and donations (and e-mail addresses)

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#118

Post by derriz »

ivanhoe wrote: post #65
derriz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in Europe are you talking about? The majority of immigrants in any EU country come from other EU countries. Of the remainder, less than 10% arrived as refugees. The vast majority of refugees (over 90% I’d guess) are documented and those from Syria or North Africa constitute only a fraction of all refugees. The average European is highly highly unlikely to have ever encountered an undocumented refugee from Syria…

Sorry, but you have no clue how many undocumented immigrants are all around you. Just because most of them are white you don't notice them in streets and they work shitty and hard jobs so you don't meet them either... I personally know like a dozen guys from Serbia and Bosnia who live in Austria and Germany illegally, and that's a dime a dozen. Us, Albanians and Turks are for EU what Mexicans are for US...

Sorry but an anecdote about your personal experience isn't very convincing.

What would be convincing would be a reference to a source with numbers/data to back up your claim.

The most recent Europe-wide figures are pretty out-of-date but indicate estimates of between 0.3% and 0.7% of people living in Eureope being irregular/undocumented (http://irregular-migration.net). This is much less than the comparable estimates for the US, for example.

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#119

Post by logicchains »

harshreality wrote: post #58
logicchains wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insane that people will go on about how important it is to treat people equally regardless of their race, gender, skin colour or sexuality, but also argue it's perfectly fine and moral to discriminate based on place of birth. Because people clearly have a lot more control over where they're born than they do over their skin color or gender..

Of course it's not "perfectly fine", but having some semblance of border control is the best system we have in the imperfect international environment we're in. Opening borders is not fixing the system morally, it's admitting modern civilization is a total joke (which it may be, the first world being partly the product of centuries of arguably immoral empires) and deciding to burn everything down. You can't do away w…

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America was built on immigration from undesirables (an Irish or Italian Catholic ~100 years ago was treated as suspiciously as a Muslim is now), and it seemed to turn out okay. The key difference back then was there was minimal welfare, so immigrants had to find something productive to do or else they'd starve.

>At best — at best — the 1st world would rapidly equalize economically and politically with the rest of the world. And what would that accomplish?

This is already happening via outsourcing: see for instance the rise of China, hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty while working-class Americans get poorer, and China's rising political influence on other countries. Open immigration would encourage more competition between countries: a hellhole like North Korea would have to clean up its act if its citizens were free to get up and leave.

>And after such a grand experiment, the refugees would be hardly any better off than they are now.

Do you think current (legal) refugees would agree that they're hardly any better off than they were back in their original country? Why would illegal refugees be any different? (Often the only difference between an illegal and a legal refugee/immigrant is that the legal one is at the front of some queue, the illegal one is at the back).

Re: Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals

#120

Post by logicchains »

golergka wrote: post #116
logicchains wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Since property, both private and public, is a fundamental human right. If property is a fundamental right, then shouldn't it be the right of a landlord to rent his property to whomever he wants?

Of course it should. But the landlord's private property is still a part of the country citizen's collective property.

Humans (and presumably human rights, if assuming they're fundamental) existed before countries. So how does a concept that came later (a country) suddenly trump something that's fundamental? What is the moral mechanism by which a group of people declare a certain area a country and suddenly gain property rights over everything within that area?
Post reply on HN