2 ms·
I'd need to see the specific wording of the law, but it sounds like the exceptions need to be carefully examined. The ban in Boston enables the police to simply
by bsenftner 6y ago
I'd need to see the specific wording of the law, but it sounds like the exceptions need to be carefully examined. The ban in Boston enables the police to simply contract a private agency, for example; creating private surveillance companies with less oversight than the police. FR is a Pandora's Box, and it is already out in the public's hands. With legal exceptions and a history of simply ignoring legal transgressions when it comes to law enforcement, the situation does not look positive.
- convery 6y agoIndeed, it's a hard philosophical problem. On one hand we need to respect peoples privacy, but on the other FR would allow the police to act faster and catch dangerous people before they do more harm to society. I just hope they don't add a clause about dismissing evidence if FR was somehow part of the process, nothing is sadder than reading the "we have evidence of X doing Y, but the evidence was sent via improper channels so we can't prosecute"-stories.
- bsenftner 6y agoAn issue that concerns me is the necessity for an understanding of racial blindness. This is the inability to distinguish between subtle facial differences, such as seen in siblings and near age cousins of an ethnicity other than one's own ethnicity. It is becoming clear the human operators of FR systems need to be screened for racial blindness. I work in FR myself, and from my perspective the management of and operators of FR systems are simply unaware this is an issue and the obvious solution.