4 ms·
People have been circulating photographs of potential threats to their security guards since photography became ubiquitous. This is just an additional tool. >
by da_chicken 8y ago
People have been circulating photographs of potential threats to their security guards since photography became ubiquitous. This is just an additional tool.
> Let's say Hillary has a talk but she doesn't want hecklers. Or Cheney, same thing. That would be unfortunate use of this tech.
Why? Your right to free speech is not a right to prevent others from exercising their right to free speech, and that's exactly what a heckler is doing. Your rights end where others' begin.
The purpose of free speech is to not stifle the free exchange of ideas and arguments, and "shut up," is not a particularly novel or valuable contribution to any conversation. and therefore does not deserve the same level of protection as an actual argument or idea.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y agoCome on, it’s not just a “tool.” It radically changes privacy because of the scale. A human can only scan and accurately identify so many pictures manually with their eyes. I don’t necessarily disagree with the use of technology, but let’s be honest, it’s a dramatic shift.
- da_chicken 8y agoIt's only dramatic change if the purpose of the system is to identify as many people as possible (i.e., data mining the crowd), rather than to scan for a fixed set of known individuals (which is what guards already do). It's like the difference between checking IDs for entry vs scanning and saving IDs for entry.