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

141–150 of 151 posts

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

#141

Post by AlbertCory »

underbiding wrote: post #140
AlbertCory wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are you gaining out of this? Stopping the deliberate debasement and pollution of our language. That's what I'm gaining. Or trying to. Call it what it is ("traffic accidents"), and we can stop arguing. Other countries have fewer accidents? OK, that's worth talking about. I didn't "miss the nuance" because I'm not responding to that right here. Or "bad road engineering" if that's what you want to talk about.

Jesus get a grip. "debasement" and "pollution". Language is living. Get off your high horse. People are allowed to invent and use new words and terms. Language evolves with use, not by people like you holding on to dear life for every little thing.

> "debasement" and "pollution"

read https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Inventing inflated words to make something old sound like a fresh crisis is indeed debasement and pollution. I guess you don't know or care what that is.

So don't tell me what to say. You can keep doing it and I can keep calling it out, and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

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

#142

Post by godelski »

OrsonSmelles wrote: post #69
AlbertCory wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between recording everyone entering your space, and recording everyone in a public space.

There's probably a legal distinction, but personally I really don't want, say, my grocery store tracking how long I spent in which aisles to add to my advertising profile. (Yes, I use rewards cards, but I have the option to not enter my phone number and pay cash if I want to exclude a particular purchase from that dataset.)

FYI with a lot of rewards cards you can just get the card and then do nothing but just use the card. Don't install an app and don't add a phone number. I've also been successful using fake phone numbers, even 555 ones.

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

#143

Post by monkeyfun »

beaglesss wrote: post #45
monkeyfun wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a true cynic would note that if an 80% of a dictatorship all agreed and felt so passionate -- if even 40% did, such a government would easily fall apart or be capable of reform. If we could reliably attain passion, cooperation, consciousness? And ultimately, a belief in agency? Then we would hardly even need to protect institutions against such subversion.

I'm reminded of ceausescu. Everyone agreed, up until they suddenly didn't and he and his wife didn't even seem to get it until they were lined up and shot. I think it takes both agreement and desperation for that kind of thing to happen, though. Comfortable people don't tend to buck the people who can freeze their bank accounts in any serious way at simultaneous scale, even when they're in mass disagreement.

Very well put, especially about the necessary dis-comfort.

I've always personally envisioned some terrible end-state of human history where vast swathes of people are in something more like a zoo than a prison. Without escape, but also without enough pain to push them toward resistance, until it's too late to turn back.

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

#144

Post by vik0 »

singleshot_ wrote: post #118
vik0 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost thought you were going to present an argument as to how the government could possibly have no speech "rights" in the first place

Second time around, not much better.

The onus falls on the one making the first claim to explain how the government could possibly have no free speech rights in the first place.

But fine:

The government - all three branches of it (judicial, legislative, executive) - is not some nebulous entity made up of some nebulous actors. The government is made up of people, more precisely, citizens of the United States, a.k.a Americans, not just by feeling - but by law as well.

Americans, as you may - or may not - be aware, have free speech rights as defined in the Constitution of the United States - the First Amendment, if I'm not mistaken.

Americans, when fulfilling certain qualifications, can one day, become part of the government, whether that's going to be a more visibly important position (like, say, the POTUS, a Supreme Court Judge, or a Senator, or a Governor of a state, or a Director of some agency, or other positions that I did not mention), or a, relatively speaking, menial employee, working for some government agency.

The President has free speech rights, the judges (in all courts) have free speech rights, the Senators and all other law-making individuals at the federal, state, or any other level, Governors have free speech rights, "menial" employees, and all others, have free speech rights.

Their free speech comes from the fact that they're, one, American citizens, and, two, on US soil, thanks, in part not just to the First Amendment of the Constitution, but also to the long-practiced precedent of freedom of expression expressed on that particular part of the world.

The government, being made up of American citizens (in all three branches), as explained, has, ipso facto, free speech rights.

Now, please tell me - as it is your turn to do so - if you are a gentleman, how these Americans on US soil, who happen to govern (make the laws, judge the laws, execute the laws) these United States on any possible level (federal, state, county, municipal, etc.) could possibly NOT have free speech rights PURELY because they happen to govern? What is it that you imagine the government to be in the first place? Thank you.

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

#145

Post by Arainach »

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?

"Accident" implies a lack of blame. The vast majority of vehicle "accidents" are not.

If you're speeding to pass someone and hit an oncoming car, that's not an accident.

If you're impatient and try to squeeze by a bicycle and hit them, that's not an accident.

If you're texting on your phone and rear-end the car in front of you, that's not an accident, it was a conscious decision.

If your transmission seizes or your wheel fails off so you fly off the road into something (and you haven't been ignoring maintenance on your rust bucket for so long that you should expect this), that's probably an accident. But that's an infinitesimal fraction of vehicle incidents.

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

#146

Post by giantg2 »

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

Pretty sure many DMVs are using that tech now. Wouldn't surprise me if it's Real ID related and integrated with TSA.

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

#147

Post by jondwillis »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #3

I was appalled to see TSA facial recognition scanners at airports recently, where instead of checking your ID and boarding pass they scan your face. Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out. I’m not sure how the eventual forced violation of biometrics can be stopped when most people don’t care.

I have tried to opt out and by the time I finished my sentence it’s done scanning my face. You’re also facing social pressure to just opt in from the people behind you, because opting out often takes longer, or is implied to take longer, since it isn’t the default. People who also cut it close with their flight times will understand ;)

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

#148

Post by singleshot_ »

vik0 wrote: post #144
singleshot_ wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second time around, not much better.

The onus falls on the one making the first claim to explain how the government could possibly have no free speech rights in the first place. But fine: The government - all three branches of it (judicial, legislative, executive) - is not some nebulous entity made up of some nebulous actors. The government is made up of people, more precisely, citizens of the United States, a.k.a Americans, not just by feeling - but by…

You’ve misread my first post. I’ll step through it more slowly:

Obviously the government has free speech rights. You laughed at the ridiculous notion that the government could possibly have speech restrictions imposed on it. I would laugh too. It’s a funny notion.

But instead of saying a second thing that I agree with, you immediately veered off into kook talk.

Now I am being aggressively challenged to explain how it could be possible for the government to be restricted in its speech by a person who has not demonstrated any capacity for reading comprehension. This, I will not do. Have a nice day.

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

#149

Post by AlbertCory »

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.

Hey, I want to thank you, erikaww, and underbiding for pointing me at a great research topic: a big rock I can turn over and see what's slithering around under there:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41631995

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

#150

Post by vik0 »

singleshot_ wrote: post #148
vik0 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The onus falls on the one making the first claim to explain how the government could possibly have no free speech rights in the first place. But fine: The government - all three branches of it (judicial, legislative, executive) - is not some nebulous entity made up of some nebulous actors. The government is made up of people, more precisely, citizens of the United States, a.k.a Americans, not just by feeling - but by…

You’ve misread my first post. I’ll step through it more slowly: Obviously the government has free speech rights. You laughed at the ridiculous notion that the government could possibly have speech restrictions imposed on it. I would laugh too. It’s a funny notion. But instead of saying a second thing that I agree with, you immediately veered off into kook talk. Now I am being aggressively challenged to explain how it…

Lol okay; have a nice day as well
Post reply on HN