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

Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

therecord.media

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 151 posts

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#121

Post by AlbertCory »

nine_k wrote: post #74
krapp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments do have free speech rights. Those rights may be limited compared to the rights of private citizens, but they do exist.

Democratic governments have privileges bestowed on them by their constituences. I don't remember where the US Constitution gives any branch of government "free speech" rights. It definitely has some protections for speech of officials in Congress and in courts. Authoritarian governments, of course, have all the rights they manage to grab. Look what Russian officials say. I suppose that North Korean officials can say…

Very well put. People use the word "right" in sloppy ways, basically just "I like this."

The government is protected for speech related to its duties, in clearly spelled out ways.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#122

Post by krapp »

AlbertCory wrote: post #121
nine_k wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratic governments have privileges bestowed on them by their constituences. I don't remember where the US Constitution gives any branch of government "free speech" rights. It definitely has some protections for speech of officials in Congress and in courts. Authoritarian governments, of course, have all the rights they manage to grab. Look what Russian officials say. I suppose that North Korean officials can say…

Very well put. People use the word "right" in sloppy ways, basically just "I like this." The government is protected for speech related to its duties, in clearly spelled out ways.

>The government is protected for speech related to its duties, in clearly spelled out ways.

..which is a different claim than "governments have no free speech rights." They do, just limited in ways that individual free speech rights are not. But even individual free speech rights aren't absolute.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#123

Post by erikaww »

rockskon wrote: post #99
erikaww wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be a fantastic idea for the government to surveil road infrastructure. We spend a crap ton of our GDP just on healthcare addressing the negative impact of traffic violence. Not to mention everyone knows someone that has been killed or affected by this. Outright saying the government shouldn’t monitor this is in bad taste. You can argue that the solution is to stop doubling down on our bad investment,…

I don't know anyone who has been affected by "traffic violence". As big of a source of death it is, it's still an infinitesimally small one in he grand scheme of things.

You’ve never been in accident or almost hit by a car? You don’t know anyone that has died that way? Really?

Infinitesimal? It’s one of the leading causes of death among youth on the order of suicide, homicide and drug overdoses. Calling it infinitesimally small is horribly offensive.

It’s a big reason why our life expectancy is lower than peer countries. Again to reiterate, we spend a ton of our GDP just in healthcare to address traffic violence. Modern fire departments mostly address car accidents rather than fires.

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about and you are going to hit a sore spot in many Americans

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#124

Post by refurb »

hammock wrote: post #78
giantg2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a passport, they already do. If you have a driver's license or state ID, they most likely do.

The TSA scanners use a hi res stereoscopic camera to take a 3D photo of your facial features. It's not the same as your passport photo

Different tech for sure.

But I have global entry which is all done through facial recognition now (and matching to passenger manifests). No passport needed. The camera they used was just a normal DSLR, but it had no problem matching me.

The tech is getting really good.

In Singapore you can enter through automated gates without ever interacting with a person or showing a passport. All through facial recognition if they have a photo on file (citizens and permanent residents).

I assume the tech will get good enough to scan entire crowds very quickly and identify everyone.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#125

Post by ParacelsusOfEgg »

rockskon wrote: post #99
erikaww wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be a fantastic idea for the government to surveil road infrastructure. We spend a crap ton of our GDP just on healthcare addressing the negative impact of traffic violence. Not to mention everyone knows someone that has been killed or affected by this. Outright saying the government shouldn’t monitor this is in bad taste. You can argue that the solution is to stop doubling down on our bad investment,…

I don't know anyone who has been affected by "traffic violence". As big of a source of death it is, it's still an infinitesimally small one in he grand scheme of things.

For those who haven't encountered the term before: "traffic violence" is another way of describing "car accidents" that emphasize that injury due to automobiles is not inevitable and should be worked to be eliminated.

I do find it hard to believe rockson doesn't know anyone who has been involved in a car accident if they live in the US.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#126

Post by AlbertCory »

erikaww wrote: post #123
rockskon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anyone who has been affected by "traffic violence". As big of a source of death it is, it's still an infinitesimally small one in he grand scheme of things.

You’ve never been in accident or almost hit by a car? You don’t know anyone that has died that way? Really? Infinitesimal? It’s one of the leading causes of death among youth on the order of suicide, homicide and drug overdoses. Calling it infinitesimally small is horribly offensive. It’s a big reason why our life expectancy is lower than peer countries. Again to reiterate, we spend a ton of our GDP just in healthcar…

I think the revulsion, if I can call it that, is to the apparently-trendy term "traffic violence."

What was wrong with "traffic accidents"? People had gotten used to it so you had to invent something new?

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#127

Post by AlbertCory »

krapp wrote: post #122
AlbertCory wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very well put. People use the word "right" in sloppy ways, basically just "I like this." The government is protected for speech related to its duties, in clearly spelled out ways.

>The government is protected for speech related to its duties, in clearly spelled out ways. ..which is a different claim than "governments have no free speech rights." They do, just limited in ways that individual free speech rights are not. But even individual free speech rights aren't absolute.

No, krapp, you're wrong. "Rights" belong only to citizens. The fact that some government speech is protected does not mean the speaker has a "right."

Language matters.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#128

Post by baggy_trough »

ParacelsusOfEgg wrote: post #125
rockskon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anyone who has been affected by "traffic violence". As big of a source of death it is, it's still an infinitesimally small one in he grand scheme of things.

For those who haven't encountered the term before: "traffic violence" is another way of describing "car accidents" that emphasize that injury due to automobiles is not inevitable and should be worked to be eliminated. I do find it hard to believe rockson doesn't know anyone who has been involved in a car accident if they live in the US.

It's a propaganda device. Should we rename plane accidents to "plane violence" since they are not inevitable and should be reduced?

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#129

Post by erikaww »

baggy_trough wrote: post #128
ParacelsusOfEgg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who haven't encountered the term before: "traffic violence" is another way of describing "car accidents" that emphasize that injury due to automobiles is not inevitable and should be worked to be eliminated. I do find it hard to believe rockson doesn't know anyone who has been involved in a car accident if they live in the US.

It's a propaganda device. Should we rename plane accidents to "plane violence" since they are not inevitable and should be reduced?

Hmm yeah plane failures are totally as pervasive as traffic violence

Calling it propaganda is also crazy. Like you want people to keep dying this way? Great way to show your true colors pal

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#130

Post by erikaww »

AlbertCory wrote: post #126
erikaww wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve never been in accident or almost hit by a car? You don’t know anyone that has died that way? Really? Infinitesimal? It’s one of the leading causes of death among youth on the order of suicide, homicide and drug overdoses. Calling it infinitesimally small is horribly offensive. It’s a big reason why our life expectancy is lower than peer countries. Again to reiterate, we spend a ton of our GDP just in healthcar…

I think the revulsion, if I can call it that, is to the apparently-trendy term "traffic violence." What was wrong with "traffic accidents"? People had gotten used to it so you had to invent something new?

Kind of. Call it what it is. It’s extremely pervasive and has a massive impact on the culture, quality of life and economics in the US.

It is a shame because it would be a fixed problem if we held people accountable or fixed land use or designed infrastructure to be safer

Post reply on HN