[flagged]
Laws need to apply to the govt, too.
seems like a pipedream. US politicians wont even ban or stop insider trading by themselves.
NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
181–190 of 211 posts
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not so important that the fire marshal has facial recognition, because the office chose that option because access was then free of charge and a mere handshake to them. If not the fire marshal, some independent 3rd party. This is a known trivial loophole to facial recognition bans. (Former lead dev of globally leading FR system.)
Sorry, can you clarify this? I’m not understanding. I think you’re saying - the fire marshal happened to be the route chosen in this case - but there are many other routes - so the fire marshal detail is kindof insignificant. Is that a correct understanding? If so, I still wonder why the fire marshal has access?
Fire marshals are investigative, and under less scrutiny. That specific one probably just wanted it. If one wants Clearview FR, there is very little beyond ethics and the state of mind to understand the ethics preventing anyone from running Clearview FR.
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how the spectrum is relevant. Murdering one person is not as bad as murdering 100. Still a murderer.
In the context of criminal prosecution/litigation, there's an enormous difference between "murdering one person" vs "murdering 100". For limitless reasons! Like, is a victim of life threatening domestic violence who shoots their abuser during an attack a "murderer"? Or is an abuser who killed their spouse in a rage a "murderer"? Obviously these are different and the prosecution/defense hash that out over a very, very…
Obviously mass murder is worse (and a more severe crime) than murdering one person, but I'm still lost as to what the existence of this spectrum has to do with the actual story. If you throw a rock at someone, being apprehended by the police is not the nuclear option.
Note that we're talking about murder because the comment that set this off tried to pass off "throwing spears" as benign comparatively. No it isn't!
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#184>A city fire marshal used FDNY’s access to a facial recognition software to help NYPD detectives identify a pro-Palestinian protester at Columbia University, circumventing policies that tightly restrict the Police Department’s use of the technology. Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition?
> Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition? Arson investigation, identifying the people at the scene of a suspicious fire?
I really don't understand what the face of a person has to do with understanding whether something is arson or not. Just as I see no reason why my local grocery store's security guard needs to be able to look up my face in a database directly. If they need to gather more data, then they can ask law enforcement to identify any relevant people and gather relevant information (potentially bringing witnesses in for questioning if there's a legitimate need), then do their investigation based on the evidence to analyze the circumstances of the fire.
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is self-defense by any means. You might want to argue that it is unfair as a revenge or something?
If you want to frame it like this it's out of the definition of virtually any legal definition of self defense. Self defense usually implies a "reasonable" use of force, what's happening there hasn't been reasonable for more than a year now. If someone points a gun at you you can kill them, that's self defense, if you burn their entire village down, track and kill their family members 3 generations up it's not self d…
You are conflating civil law with international law. In a civil context, my right to self defense is very weak. If my neighbor is stockpiling weapons, and announcing his intention to kill me, I am obligated to trust the deterrent of the state. The state has the monopoly on force. I could easily be killed by this person, but they would be prosecuted by the state, and this system defends me quite well. It is only when my life is in active danger that I am allowed to take proactive measures. If the person shoots me in the leg and drops his gun and starts running away. I'm not allowed to pick it up and kill him in response. That's the state's job (There's no chance I would vote to convict this man if I was on a jury to be frank, but that's the principle).
This is very different from the interstate case. If a state shoots another state in the leg and runs away, the only way to establish a deterrent is to shoot back. There is no police force to do it for me. This is the main diffference between civil law and international law.
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I don't get the two sides here. From what I understood, the police aren't allowed to use facial recognition. I mean at that point, why not just allow the cops to search without warrants, and do whatever they have to do to catch bad guys? Like I can totally see the potential debate about if this type of ban should be in place. Sure! But the fact is, that's the current situation. The police can't, and shouldn't, ju…
I'm not suggesting they should bypass current laws. I do question if it should be against the law to check against an existing data source like facial recognition. One could have put the picture out to the press, and asked, "hey, do you know this person?" type of thing and gotten the same answer. I get that it's a slippery slope and it is a bit invasive to even establish many of these databases... not to mention the…
> One could have put the picture out to the press, and asked, "hey, do you know this person?" type of thing and gotten the same answer.
There's no guarantee they would have done this or that they would have gotten the same answer, though, is kind of salient to the point. There's a chance they wouldn't, because you (hopefully) don't want to make someone look like a suspect to their entire community if their chances of being involved in a crime are low. And even if you do, there's a decent chance you wouldn't have gotten a reply -- especially if their loved ones believe they are innocent. And it would've alerted them and they would've had a higher chance to escape. Which is terrible thing for society if they're a genuine criminal, but a good thing when you're persecuting a non-criminal.
Probabilities and collateral damage matter. If you just treat everything that is "possible" uniformly, then you might as well claim that they COULD generate a random number and just happen to identify the person correctly by sheer luck, so who cares if they do anything to optimize that.
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#187There 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…
[flagged]
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Claiming that an administrative policy against using facial recognition as a "right" seems like a stretch. This is such strange way to describe "right for privacy".
Hurling a rock at someone is privacy now?
It's really fortunate that no one is arguing that because you're right, it would be a pretty absurd stance to take. What we're saying is that not doing anything wrong entitles you to privacy and until you're tried and convicted you didn't do anything wrong. I dare say the fact that the case was dismissed with prejudice goes pretty strongly in our favor on this one.
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, but when a white guy with a swastika tattoo kills a black guy media speculates about the reasons. What could it be?
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#190The company used, Clearview AI, collects publicly available imagery. It would be different if the government was providing it. Here's an idea: maybe don't post your photos on social media. Still scary nonetheless.
Since when is not posting selfies to social media a requirement for civil rights, particularly free speech and the right to assemble?