3 ms·
rgoulter isn't saying that the title is wrong, he's saying that it's unncessarily charged. By explicitly specifying that this technique for face recognition is
by jessriedel 8y ago
rgoulter isn't saying that the title is wrong, he's saying that it's unncessarily charged. By explicitly specifying that this technique for face recognition is legal, it suggests that other techniques are illegal and so something bad (but legal) might have been achieved. But in fact, none of this is illegal; the headline is just clickbait.
- Nasrudith 8y agoYeah the other sense is "legally sufficient for a standard like official government identification". Now it is just testimonial science - not bad enough to be automatically thrown out for attempting to use as evidence.
- nickelcitymario 8y agoFair enough, I see your point. But, I'd argue the use of "legal" was to make a real point: We assume this isn't legally possible today, and the article is showing how it is. So I'm not saying you're wrong, simply that I disagree.