4 ms·

I made a comment below about how does this violate privacy rights? I think we all feel at a certain level, making it easier to identify people feels unnatural a

I made a comment below about how does this violate privacy rights? I think we all feel at a certain level, making it easier to identify people feels unnatural and unnerving, may be because for long swaths of history we had a certain level of anonymity just by the nature of reality. Should that be something that is our right? Does that mean we should explicitly impede the efficiency of the government in doing things like identify people? I sort of know where I fall, but that is the discussion that we should be having. Because one could read the law or at least think about the logic of the situation and not see this as really being worse in terms of surveillance. If you're in a public place, you have no guarantee of privacy. Therefore, the question should move to whether this is in fact "okay" or "wrong".

tinktank 8y ago
Nowhere in my previous comment does it say that I'm opposed to lack of privacy in public so I'm not sure how to respond to your comment -- that's not my issue. My issue is that someone shouldn't be targeted for monitoring on the basis of their immigration status. Either do it for everyone or nobody. If you're going to do it for everyone, then have a technical framework in place to ensure (to the best of our ability today) that the system cannot be abused by an errant clown, and have the procedures to provide transparent auditing etc possible and enforce these audits. Otherwise, it's my opinion we'll end up with a corrupt, abused system. Interesting intellectual question for you -- if I have no rights to privacy on going outside, what are your views on the government making it illegal for me to obscure my identity when I'm in public (say, with a mask?)
- noobermin 8y ago
  I agree with you on the monitoring bit. That is a bigger question, more important question is who could the state monitor without a warrant. I guess the nuance is that this tech is not about surveillance/monitoring but it is about identification. Of course, that implies that one had to get the picture in the first place, which brings up that question about who could the state monitor, but I guess that's separate question from whether this tech is good or bad. As for the mask deal, I agree with you, that someone has a right to obscure their identity if they want to.
- alexnewman 8y ago
  Wouldn't this inherintly target everyone crossing a border? What if it was used for rapid progression through border control for Americans? Would you still be against it?
- alexnewman 8y ago
  Is that true? I've only seen this for banks and stuff.
wingspar 8y ago
Perhaps U.S. v Jones has some insight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones FBI/police put a gps tracker on a guys car for long term tracking. Ruled 4th amendment violation, unanimous. Differing reasons. The trespass reason wouldn’t seem to apply but the long term expectation of privacy would seem to apply. Oral arguments included ‘beeper’ vehicle tracking which is labor intensive, vs gps which they can do automatically behind their desk...
alexnewman 8y ago
It is. Every bit store, casino, major airport and mall already is

tinktank 8y ago

Nowhere in my previous comment does it say that I'm opposed to lack of privacy in public so I'm not sure how to respond to your comment -- that's not my issue. My issue is that someone shouldn't be targeted for monitoring on the basis of their immigration status. Either do it for everyone or nobody. If you're going to do it for everyone, then have a technical framework in place to ensure (to the best of our ability today) that the system cannot be abused by an errant clown, and have the procedures to provide transparent auditing etc possible and enforce these audits. Otherwise, it's my opinion we'll end up with a corrupt, abused system. Interesting intellectual question for you -- if I have no rights to privacy on going outside, what are your views on the government making it illegal for me to obscure my identity when I'm in public (say, with a mask?)

noobermin 8y ago
I agree with you on the monitoring bit. That is a bigger question, more important question is who could the state monitor without a warrant. I guess the nuance is that this tech is not about surveillance/monitoring but it is about identification. Of course, that implies that one had to get the picture in the first place, which brings up that question about who could the state monitor, but I guess that's separate question from whether this tech is good or bad. As for the mask deal, I agree with you, that someone has a right to obscure their identity if they want to.
alexnewman 8y ago
Wouldn't this inherintly target everyone crossing a border? What if it was used for rapid progression through border control for Americans? Would you still be against it?
alexnewman 8y ago
Is that true? I've only seen this for banks and stuff.

wingspar 8y ago

Perhaps U.S. v Jones has some insight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones FBI/police put a gps tracker on a guys car for long term tracking. Ruled 4th amendment violation, unanimous. Differing reasons. The trespass reason wouldn’t seem to apply but the long term expectation of privacy would seem to apply. Oral arguments included ‘beeper’ vehicle tracking which is labor intensive, vs gps which they can do automatically behind their desk...

alexnewman 8y ago

It is. Every bit store, casino, major airport and mall already is