4 ms·

"I am just glad I never uploaded a photo" This is futile -- likely dozens of organizations and government offices have your photo. Have you ever gone to a bank

"I am just glad I never uploaded a photo" This is futile -- likely dozens of organizations and government offices have your photo. Have you ever gone to a bank teller, used a bank machine, got a license or passport, did virtually any activity where you identified yourself and were recorded, etc. You can't hide from this. Well you can, but only by going full Kaczynski. "There is a reason why they denied the use" In all probability it's Occam's razor -- some small unit did it without it become some overarching thing. Then they make a statement on it, the unit goes "Oh...by the way..." and they correct their statement. It's a pretty large organization and I'm sure units have a fair bit of autonomy. "The plead for the case of two missing children is dishonest" No it isn't, and this argument is itself dishonest. I mean, I'd like more details, but I have no reason to not believe it helps in child exploitation cases, completely orthogonal to any other action that can be taken.

raxxorrax 7y ago
I am not located in the US or Canada and I am pretty sure there are not dozens of organizations that have my photo, not even the state. The material collected from banking machines is tightly regulated and has to be completely deleted after a certain time. It is for immediate cases of theft and the data never sees long term storage. A completely different scenario compared to databases with biometric data. > I have no reason to not believe it helps in child exploitation cases The argument is that it isn't enough to justify deployment. Not having kids helps against exploitation cases. I already gave another example. You are free to look after your kids in the most intrusive form if you wish for more security. Give them the largest transmitter you can install on them without hurting their backs. Mass surveillance has significant repercussion for public spaces. We wouldn't even need it with a falling crime rate, but that is another discussion. In my state surveillance in general is forbidden. There are many good reasons for that. Abuse, the thing you are painting on the wall, being the most prominent one. This is why the laws got put into place. > some small unit did it With the controversies around video surveillance and the deployment costs of such software, I believe this to be unlikely. It is also no excuse for that matter.

raxxorrax 7y ago

I am not located in the US or Canada and I am pretty sure there are not dozens of organizations that have my photo, not even the state. The material collected from banking machines is tightly regulated and has to be completely deleted after a certain time. It is for immediate cases of theft and the data never sees long term storage. A completely different scenario compared to databases with biometric data. > I have no reason to not believe it helps in child exploitation cases The argument is that it isn't enough to justify deployment. Not having kids helps against exploitation cases. I already gave another example. You are free to look after your kids in the most intrusive form if you wish for more security. Give them the largest transmitter you can install on them without hurting their backs. Mass surveillance has significant repercussion for public spaces. We wouldn't even need it with a falling crime rate, but that is another discussion. In my state surveillance in general is forbidden. There are many good reasons for that. Abuse, the thing you are painting on the wall, being the most prominent one. This is why the laws got put into place. > some small unit did it With the controversies around video surveillance and the deployment costs of such software, I believe this to be unlikely. It is also no excuse for that matter.