4 ms·

> Additionally the first amendment seems to only apply in this context if it pertains to freedom of the press. That wasn't my understanding. I thought that SCO

by Reelin 6y ago

> Additionally the first amendment seems to only apply in this context if it pertains to freedom of the press. That wasn't my understanding. I thought that SCOTUS had repeatedly ruled that you had absolutely no expectation of privacy when in a public location? It seems weird to me to have a legally protected right to make recordings that doesn't extend to their use (at least for personal purposes). Even so, I suppose the ordinance might be legal because I've never heard of a "right to use of facial recognition technology" or anything that would otherwise imply that. That being said, I find the idea a bit disquieting. I value privacy highly and have serious concerns about the current state of affairs, but specific algorithms being disallowed on the level of an individual person is highly concerning to me. Isn't it only large actors (ie corporations and governments) where abuse becomes a serious concern due to their geographic reach and available resources?

ghaff 6y ago
It's not that there's a right to facial recognition technology but that there's an implied right that, if I take a photo, that I can use that photo. (Except in some specific ways, e.g. using it in some libelous way to misrepresent the subject, certain types of commercial use like ads, etc.) Certainly if I take a picture of a person there can't be a blanket prohibition on trying to figure out who that person is. In the US I have pretty wide rights to take a photo in a public place for editorial purposes and to publish it (which is a variant of freedom of the press).
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Can't you exercise your freedom of the press without automatically subjecting all passers by to facial recognition? For example one could argue that the freedom of the press would be paramount were you wanting to write a story about an event that had happened while using facial recognition to identify participants and or witnesses without letting people gather info on every person on the public street at all hours from now until forever?
michaelmrose 6y ago
You having no expectation of privacy means that the person being photographed has no constitutional rights as far as the constitution to protect. Conversely the photographer has no first amendment right to take a picture save freedom of the press. If the picture isn't being captured for the purpose of informing their fellow citizenry they have no first amendment rights at all to protect in this scenario. If both of these things are true this law creates a new right not to be subject to facial recognition which if it doesn't contravene state or federal legislation is perfectly legal. Do you have a legal theory as to why this law would be problematic? The first amendment seems like a dead end but if you would like to argue it could you please expand on the matter?
- jMyles 6y ago
  > Conversely the photographer has no first amendment right to take a picture save freedom of the press. Why do you say this? > If the picture isn't being captured for the purpose of informing their fellow citizenry they have no first amendment rights at all to protect in this scenario. Even if free press is the only basis for protection of the practice of photography under the constitution, there is no requirement that press activities be exclusively for the purpose of "information their fellow citizenry", and no requirement that the person in question be part of the "citizenry" in the first place. Someone taking photographs in public is not required to disclose all photographs in order for this activity to be protected. Press generally covers not only publication, but documentation, research, and other press activities. If I take a photo in public, the subsequent activities of performing research and analysis of that photo are also protected activities.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    I would say this because the literal text is >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Wherein do you construe taking a picture to be a first amendment situation save where it constitutes an act of communication? Press in current context could be stretched broadly enough to fit basically anyone with a cell phone but in order for it to be protected it has to be capturing something to share with your fellow man. A person taking a picture to share with their fellow man or even using facial recognition to enrich that communication with more info could well be protected but an org feeding a video stream into facial recognition to blanket gather info on your fellow man would be apt to be disallowed.

by Reelin 6y ago

ghaff 6y ago

It's not that there's a right to facial recognition technology but that there's an implied right that, if I take a photo, that I can use that photo. (Except in some specific ways, e.g. using it in some libelous way to misrepresent the subject, certain types of commercial use like ads, etc.) Certainly if I take a picture of a person there can't be a blanket prohibition on trying to figure out who that person is. In the US I have pretty wide rights to take a photo in a public place for editorial purposes and to publish it (which is a variant of freedom of the press).

michaelmrose 6y ago
Can't you exercise your freedom of the press without automatically subjecting all passers by to facial recognition? For example one could argue that the freedom of the press would be paramount were you wanting to write a story about an event that had happened while using facial recognition to identify participants and or witnesses without letting people gather info on every person on the public street at all hours from now until forever?

michaelmrose 6y ago

You having no expectation of privacy means that the person being photographed has no constitutional rights as far as the constitution to protect. Conversely the photographer has no first amendment right to take a picture save freedom of the press. If the picture isn't being captured for the purpose of informing their fellow citizenry they have no first amendment rights at all to protect in this scenario. If both of these things are true this law creates a new right not to be subject to facial recognition which if it doesn't contravene state or federal legislation is perfectly legal. Do you have a legal theory as to why this law would be problematic? The first amendment seems like a dead end but if you would like to argue it could you please expand on the matter?

jMyles 6y ago
> Conversely the photographer has no first amendment right to take a picture save freedom of the press. Why do you say this? > If the picture isn't being captured for the purpose of informing their fellow citizenry they have no first amendment rights at all to protect in this scenario. Even if free press is the only basis for protection of the practice of photography under the constitution, there is no requirement that press activities be exclusively for the purpose of "information their fellow citizenry", and no requirement that the person in question be part of the "citizenry" in the first place. Someone taking photographs in public is not required to disclose all photographs in order for this activity to be protected. Press generally covers not only publication, but documentation, research, and other press activities. If I take a photo in public, the subsequent activities of performing research and analysis of that photo are also protected activities.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  I would say this because the literal text is >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Wherein do you construe taking a picture to be a first amendment situation save where it constitutes an act of communication? Press in current context could be stretched broadly enough to fit basically anyone with a cell phone but in order for it to be protected it has to be capturing something to share with your fellow man. A person taking a picture to share with their fellow man or even using facial recognition to enrich that communication with more info could well be protected but an org feeding a video stream into facial recognition to blanket gather info on your fellow man would be apt to be disallowed.