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

191–200 of 211 posts

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

#191

Post by lm28469 »

noqc wrote: post #185
lm28469 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OK but then again look at a map of Palestine vs Israel territories over the years... Who's under "imminent threat"? Who's under "credible threat"? One could argue Palestine is defending from an illegal occupation and as such Israel couldn't even claim self defense, just like Russia can't claim self defense in Ukraine

Even in international self defense there are criterion and limits

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

#192

Post by chaps »

tptacek wrote: post #183
chaps wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Think of it like gun/taser safety -- even an empty gun is treated as a loaded gun because of the significant risks. These systems have well-documented histories of leading to false arrests and ruining lives and families. When the risks are destroying someone's life, why isn't it treated with similar caution?

The spectrum stuff is about the likelihood of harm was my interpretation. Obviously we shouldn't be throwing spears, but there's probabilistic side of it that doesn't exist with nukes, and there's a spectrum between all of that with various probabilities of extents of harm. So if the harms of using these technologies intrinsically carries similar probabilistic risks (false arrests, elevated charges, etc), why not treat it as a risky object worthy of kicking someone off the range? I'm reminded of situations of waiting for the rangemaster to walk away so you can do something stupid and risky.

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

#193

Post by reverendsteveii »

gruez wrote: post #4
reverendsteveii wrote: post #2

>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.

If the police aren't bound by policies they create themselves and voluntarily agree as an organization to be bound by, what are they bound by?

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

#194

Post by reverendsteveii »

tetromino_ wrote: post #28
johnisgood wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a case (in Eastern Europe) where someone who took a video of their colleagues sleeping during a night shift got in trouble for the usage of phone (which is known to be used BTW), and nothing happened to the ones sleeping through the night shift. We are talking about a facility full of people with dementia and are known to go back and forth the hospital for serious falls and all that (at night, too). So bac…

Which is in some ways similar to the case in this article. The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student . And the article is somehow painting the rock-throwing attacker as a victim, even talking about the attacker's complaints that they were identified and are now receiving hate mail.

>rock-throwing attacker

did you miss the part of the article where the charges were dismissed with prejudice because this absolutely is not the guilty party? You seem to be arguing as though everyone you're arguing against is on the criminal's side but this person didn't do what they were accused of and still had their rights circumvented.

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

#195

Post by ccorcos »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #165
bsenftner wrote: post #60

Earlier 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?

I think what he’s saying is if the police department is trying to identify a person in a photo, then anyone from the public can try to help them out.

Whether those people use facial recognition software or not isn’t exactly relevant to the law because the police didn’t use it. And it’s legal for other people to use it. As far as the police are concerned, they could have just been the person’s neighbor…

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

ccorcos wrote: post #195
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think what he’s saying is if the police department is trying to identify a person in a photo, then anyone from the public can try to help them out. Whether those people use facial recognition software or not isn’t exactly relevant to the law because the police didn’t use it. And it’s legal for other people to use it. As far as the police are concerned, they could have just been the person’s neighbor…

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by tptacek »

chaps wrote: post #192
tptacek wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Think of it like gun/taser safety -- even an empty gun is treated as a loaded gun because of the significant risks. These systems have well-documented histories of leading to false arrests and ruining lives and families. When the risks are destroying someone's life, why isn't it treated with similar caution? The spectrum stuff is about the likelihood of harm was my interpretation. Obviously we shouldn't be throwing s…

Right I'm still commenting on this thread just to make it clear that I think nukes are bad too.

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

#198

Post by [deleted] »

umeshunni wrote: post #187
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…

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#199

Post by scoofy »

i_love_retros wrote: post #95
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #22

How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?

[flagged]

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.

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

#200

Post by i_love_retros »

scoofy wrote: post #199
i_love_retros wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.
Post reply on HN