Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's not attempted. Its executed. Below are the articles that define genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention
I agree.
NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
201–210 of 211 posts
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#202How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?
This guy was accused of hurling a rock at a protester, it seems we are trying to defend the right to peaceful protest? Like, this guy was identified off video of him throwing a rock at a protester that hit them in the face. By all accounts this is someone who is trying to violently suppress peoples rights. That he got off on police misconduct in the investigation is a loss to society, no matter how many waxing words…
Several of the riots leading up to the breaking away of the colonies from the crown would make rock throwing look tame. They were rioting over something much less horrific than what is going on in Gaza. This pearl-clutching, accepting any level of enforcement against the mildest of accusations, I don’t know what to call it except anti-American.
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it not a war? The state of war is any organized violence to achieve political goals that happens outside of a social contract.
Wars are two sided. I should have called it a massacre of Palestinian children by Israel, really.
Nothing about war makes it two sided.
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#205Wow, NYPD is full of people who support Israel?
Yes, the NYPD is genuinely full of cops who support Israel. They have partnerships with Israel, they are trained by Israeli, the NYPD even has an office in Tel Aviv. Check out the training they get: https://jewishcurrents.org/training-nypd-keffiyeh-watermelon...
> the NYPD even has an office in Tel Aviv
i wish there was an oversight group to get rid of wasteful spending like this
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#206>bypassed ban Broke the law is the phrase we want here. They did an illegal thing. They didn't just scoot past a barrier, they violated people's rights.
>They didn't just scoot past a barrier, they violated people's rights. Claiming that an administrative policy against using facial recognition as a "right" seems like a stretch.
You have a right to due process, which means operating within their defined laws and systems
That policy exists as a scape-goat to there not getting actual laws passed that would make it flatly illegal. This way they can prevent the real law, still break the rules, and get away with it
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This idea about it being a privacy issue is completely false.
Firstly, if the police have probable cause, then your privacy can be invaded in order to search for evidence. For instance, Hans Reiser was not convicted at the time his Honda Civic was searched.
Secondly, it is admissible to have an eyewitness identify you. Someone who knows you can testify that you were at a certain time and certain public place. Someone who doesn't know you can testify that someone who looks exactly like you was at a certain time and place. This is not a privacy violation.
Public pictures are not private information.
The reason we don't necessarily want police being able to match faces across databases of public images has nothing to do with privacy concerns. It's the concern that the ability gives too much power to the state, risking the rise of a surveillance state, which can use the technique to identify members of targeted groups. In other aspects it is a very good technique that can help bring wrongdoers to justice.
In other words, it's about managing unintended consequences, not about privacy principles.
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This idea about it being a privacy issue is completely false. Firstly, if the police have probable cause, then your privacy can be invaded in order to search for evidence. For instance, Hans Reiser was not convicted at the time his Honda Civic was searched. Secondly, it is admissible to have an eyewitness identify you. Someone who knows you can testify that you were at a certain time and certain public place. Someone…
They didn't have probable cause or a witness. If they did they'd get a warrant for this info. The outrage here is because they circumvented the laws surrounding privacy by using a third party to access the information who isn't bound by those laws and then that third party "voluntarily" gave them information.
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#209[flagged]
Oh well, if he did something bad then it is totally ok for the police to do illegal and unconstitutional things to catch him. Thank god we can trust the police to never ever abuse or misuse things like this. “It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches us, that the guilty sometimes go free than the citizens be subject to easy arrest.” - Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
> if he did something bad
"something bad" is doing a lot of work there, good job trying to downplay STONING someone
Re: NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
#210This 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…
Making a whole big " but " around something that probably happens on a playground everyday feels at best like bad faith here. Just maybe a low bar for "troubling," and is the perfect framing and mindset for allowing exceptions like this to continue to be pushed through.
> feels at best like bad faith here
I think accusations of bad faith of other commenters is against HN guidelines.