4 ms·
> there seemed to be no substantive discussion Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Try google "aclu facial recognition", "eff
by chishaku 6y ago
> there seemed to be no substantive discussion
Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Try google "aclu facial recognition", "eff facial recognition".
congress.gov returns 132 bills introduced in the last two sessions going back to 2017. If you read the titles, it's clear many of them are related to transparency and respecting rights to privacy.
https://www.congress.gov/search?searchResultViewType=expanded&q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%5B%22116%22%2C115%5D%2C%22source%22%3A%22all%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22facial+recognition%22%7D https://www.congress.gov/search?searchResultViewType=expande...
- hpoe 6y agoI don't mean to imply that there wasn't discussion or advocacy around the issue but rather it was not an issue that was high in public awareness or concern.
- ncallaway 6y agoI don't really see how this interpretation of what you wrote makes sense. "Also there seemed to be no substantive discussion prior this about the police using Rekognition until it became a hot button issue." If you didn't mean that it wasn't an issue that was high in public awareness or concern wouldn't it be tautological that it wasn't high in public awareness or concern until it was a hot button issue? Like, the definition of it becoming a hot button issue is that it's high in public awareness or concern. Am I misinterpreting something? Did you mean something else and I just got it wrong?
- dagnabbit 6y agoPlease borrow some integrity and own your words. You wrote that there was no substantive discussion. Now that you have been proven completely wrong about that, you are pretending that there wasn't mass-market discussion instead, which is different. Lame.