4 ms·
Why is it acceptable that police use facial recognition to target protestors, but "doxxing" when activists use that same technology to hold police accountable?
by jakelazaroff 6y ago
Why is it acceptable that police use facial recognition to target protestors, but "doxxing" when activists use that same technology to hold police accountable?
- ekanes 6y agoThe difference would be that police are privately identifying people.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoHow would you have activists hold law enforcement accountable? Publishing the information is literally the only tool in their toolbox.
- ekanes 6y agoYou're interpreting from my comment a viewpoint, but I'm really just answering the exact question. The police do need to be held to a higher standard than civilians.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoSorry if I was unclear. I'm not asking what the difference is; I'm asking (semi-rhetorically) why the former is acceptable and the latter not.
- stretchwithme 6y agoBecause some protesters will use that information to go to the homes of police officers and continue their vandalism there.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoJust like police will use that information to go to the homes of protestors and continue their brutality there.
- beisner 6y agoSame could be said for police.
- stretchwithme 6y agoOf course. But there is no way to stop a mob or even identify who they are. Recording them won't help. A mob follows no rules and some try to blind police officers using lasers. Or they can simply harass somebody for days on end. No one ever won a lawsuit against a mob.
- CompanionCuuube 6y agoWhy is it acceptable when police walk around with a handgun, but "disturbing the peace" when normal people do the same thing? Why is it acceptable when police stop people for breaking traffic laws, but "false imprisonment" when other drivers do it?
- gremlinsinc 6y agoIf anything, cops should be held to a higher standard, so whatever's good enough for them to use against us should be doubly good enough to use against them.
- zo1 6y agoBy virtue of magical "government" dust. Made by the same substance used to create ink for the sacred "Social Contract" document that can't be broken, except if you move to Somalia where it has no power. /f On a more serious note, this is the stuff Libertarians have been talking about for decades. There is no consistency to government power and laws at all, so it's all smoke and mirrors. And only backed by circular power. I.e. Government gives itself legitimacy because it is government.