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

NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

thecity.nyc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 211 posts

Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

#81

Post by rangestransform »

neilv wrote: post #44

This seems to be a mixed bag for privacy. You have the judge coming down on the side of privacy, which is good; but the circumstances of the particular case are troubling (allegations of someone throwing a rock at someone else). I'd be happier gaining ground for privacy rights with cases about, e.g., blanket surveillance, using surveillance for political purposes, surveillance capitalism, etc. Then we figure out wher…

The ACLU doesn’t defend nazis for free speech because they think nazi opinions should be embraced by society, but because rights need to be defended for the most reprehensible for them to be truly universal. Same deal here

Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

#84

Post by jasonlotito »

andrewla wrote: post #77

[flagged]

> This headline is extremely misleading because it leads you to believe that they are IDing this person because they are a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester".

It read like a privacy issue. Then I read your comment, and was confused.

> More proper would be "NYPD Bypassed Facial Recognition Ban to ID Rock-Throwing Assailant"

This is inaccurate. The charges were dismissed. At best, it's an alleged rock-throwing assailant.

> In the end, this is not a free speech issue except tangentially; it is a privacy issue.

That's what the original headline suggested to me on first reading. Why did you think the headline was a free speech issue?

That being said, the threat of a government disobeying its own rules and policies is a deterrent to free speech.

Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

#86

Post by mattnewton »

AlexandrB wrote: post #16
atoav wrote: post #7

So while we are making funny euphemisms I hope I can "bypass ownership laws" to relieve the author of the money on their bank account. The state of journalism in 2025 is such they can't even call a spade a spade.

Another funny one: "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester" when they mean "Assault Suspect". I don't get why they're trying to associate pro Palestinian protesters with the actions of a few violent actors.

This one I'm not so sure is clearer - the charges were dismissed, and the fact that he was protesting for Palestine was interesting enough to the police to investigate as a potential hate crime, and may have motivated the police to break the facial ID law here, so it seems relevant enough to put in the title.

Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

#87

Post by sorcerer-mar »

polarbear67 wrote: post #37
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Don’t post your photos on social media” is precisely describing a chilling effect on people’s expression, i.e. the exact thing the First Amendment is designed to protect against.

If a user is willingly uploading their photos to a private company to be publicly shared, how does 1A apply?

You can go do some reading on Third Party Doctrine if you'd like.

SCOTUS ruled there are some instances where private use of a service is 1) effectively necessary for modern life and 2) leaks a huge amount of information about the person, then the government cannot utilize it without a warrant even if handed over or sold willingly by the third party.

I am suggesting that we likely need to expand Third Party Doctrine to things beyond cell tower data because 1) we don't have absolute control over how/where our images are used and associated with our names, and 2) the technology to later affiliate our always-on/always-visible identities (like faces, gaits, or fingerprints) with our names is getting better and better.

You're right that today this is not illegal, but I am pointing out that your argument for "what to do instead" is literally the precise argument for why it should be: it chills protected expression.

Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

#88

Post by mattnewton »

neilv wrote: post #44

This seems to be a mixed bag for privacy. You have the judge coming down on the side of privacy, which is good; but the circumstances of the particular case are troubling (allegations of someone throwing a rock at someone else). I'd be happier gaining ground for privacy rights with cases about, e.g., blanket surveillance, using surveillance for political purposes, surveillance capitalism, etc. Then we figure out wher…

We either have rights to privacy from the police or we don't - if we lose the “rights” at police discretion we don't.

The system has tools like warrants for this. It appears to me as just sloppy policework.

Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

#89

Post by hersko »

hearsathought wrote: post #48
jmyeet wrote: post #38

There are two takeaways from this: 1. US foreign policy is uniparty. As terrible as this administration is, remember that quashing anti-war protests happened under Biden, too. Columbia, Hind Hall, etc were all under Biden. That being said, moving to deport or denaturalize pro-Palestinian protestors is new; and 2. The state will turn violent to quash anti-imperialist sentiment. Let me give you some examples: 1. The MO…

> 1. US foreign policy is uniparty. Only in regards to one foreign entity. > Let me give you some examples: 2 of those 3 directly involve the US and US action. The outlier says a lot. > The state simply will not tolerate anti-imperialist protests. The current administration ran on an anti-imperialist platform. You can protest american, russian, french, chinese, british imperialism all you want. You can quote george w…

[flagged]

Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

#90

Post by andrewla »

jasonlotito wrote: post #84
andrewla wrote: post #77

[flagged]

> This headline is extremely misleading because it leads you to believe that they are IDing this person because they are a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester". It read like a privacy issue. Then I read your comment, and was confused. > More proper would be "NYPD Bypassed Facial Recognition Ban to ID Rock-Throwing Assailant" This is inaccurate. The charges were dismissed. At best, it's an alleged rock-throwing assaila…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN