4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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 agoWouldn'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 agoIs that true? I've only seen this for banks and stuff.