[flagged]
Then we should change the laws. Fuck this surveillance society garbage, and its proponents.
Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
51–60 of 151 posts
Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recording things is generally interpreted as a form of speech. For example, recording police officers in public is speech. If the government can ban private parties from recording people's faces in public, the same could be done to prevent recording the police.
Commercial speech is substantially less protected under First Amendment case law. You can't prohibit random individuals from declaring themselves a citizen journalist and recording people, but I think it would be entirely possible to pass a law saying private companies may not assemble facial recognition databases for sale to third parties.
They don't need to sell the database, just the video that builds the database. Or give it away for free and magically number go up in some bank account in Cyprus or Hong Kong.
Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
#53The issue with governments implementing mass warrantless surveillance is not training or standards, NIST or otherwise. It should be straight-out illegal. Governments do not have "free speech" rights. As for private citizens doing it: I think there are already sufficient laws about recording people without their consent. You can hire someone to stand on a corner and watch for a specific person to walk by, but a law pr…
Governments do have free speech rights. Those rights may be limited compared to the rights of private citizens, but they do exist.
Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
#54The issue with governments implementing mass warrantless surveillance is not training or standards, NIST or otherwise. It should be straight-out illegal. Governments do not have "free speech" rights. As for private citizens doing it: I think there are already sufficient laws about recording people without their consent. You can hire someone to stand on a corner and watch for a specific person to walk by, but a law pr…
It should be illegal for the government to monitor what is, in most cases, public property (airports and border crossings)?
Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
#55The issue with governments implementing mass warrantless surveillance is not training or standards, NIST or otherwise. It should be straight-out illegal. Governments do not have "free speech" rights. As for private citizens doing it: I think there are already sufficient laws about recording people without their consent. You can hire someone to stand on a corner and watch for a specific person to walk by, but a law pr…
I feel like this has the same basic shape as the problem of industrial pollution. Instead of the classic "diffusion of responsibility", there's more a "diffusion of injury". Theoretically, class-action lawsuits are supposed to handle this, but those are basically toothless when a government organ can hide its process for "security" reasons and then have the case dismissed for lack of standing (cf. Jewel v. NSA).
Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
#56The issue with governments implementing mass warrantless surveillance is not training or standards, NIST or otherwise. It should be straight-out illegal. Governments do not have "free speech" rights. As for private citizens doing it: I think there are already sufficient laws about recording people without their consent. You can hire someone to stand on a corner and watch for a specific person to walk by, but a law pr…
Governments do have free speech rights. Those rights may be limited compared to the rights of private citizens, but they do exist.
This is a blanket statement needing substantiation, but then, so was mine and I don't feel like doing research. Maybe some legal scholar will weigh in.
I predict a case about this will reach the Supreme Court in the next few years.
Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they basic RGB cameras or do they collect depth as well? Would even know if they decided to change the system to start collecting depth data, even if comparisons are to flat images? Honest questions, as that’s where my concerns are. Boil the frog. If they start to collect more, it’s not as simple as “they already have my picture.” Should there be a breach, I can’t easily change my face. I’m generally of the opini…
I have no idea and don't know the difference but I could say the same thing of the camera they used to take my passport photo or my state ID.
That’s true, but those are also different agencies, so at a minimum you’re spreading the data (and risk surface). My concerns are generally (though not entirely) around data breaches rather than the collector. And sadly we have ample evidence that federal agencies aren’t always great at securing PII.
But more to the point the reason for doing it is there, for better or worse — want a passport? Have a picture taken. In this case I am (at least for now) comparing opting out or not. You can still take your flight without them taking that additional picture. That of course may not stay true.
Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
#58The issue with governments implementing mass warrantless surveillance is not training or standards, NIST or otherwise. It should be straight-out illegal. Governments do not have "free speech" rights. As for private citizens doing it: I think there are already sufficient laws about recording people without their consent. You can hire someone to stand on a corner and watch for a specific person to walk by, but a law pr…
From my understanding, don't many places like big retail stores or malls already use facial recognition with their security systems? Whether it be to deal with flagging banned individuals who come on premises, or for things like tracking where people go in a mall. These kinds of things privately I think are already used a lot.
There's a difference between recording everyone entering your space, and recording everyone in a public space.
Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way is it faster? Do you skip xray for carry ons?
TSA Precheck lines are excessively long now, to say nothing about the normie lines which probably violate some population density laws of the universe. Meanwhile the Digital ID line is (at least for now) practically empty. So that's an easy 10~20 minutes shaved off. Once I'm ushered through to screening I have the same convenience benefits as TSA Precheck since it's a prerequisite for Digital ID anyway.
Cool. You must be at ATL. I hardly ever run into a line long line at pre check, I am thankful most flyers dont sign up. A line even shorter sounds good, and with global entry and passport, the government has everything it needs to track me down.
Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition
#60> Civil rights watchdog
Well not quite. They keep getting money every year, but officially their mandate expired in the 90’s and has never been renewed. As crazy as that is by itself, they certainly don’t have the authority to do anything.