4 ms·

> the police “are not going to appreciate it to begin with.” Maybe it's time to reuse the old argument but now in the opposite direction: "If the police is n

> the police “are not going to appreciate it to begin with.” Maybe it's time to reuse the old argument but now in the opposite direction: "If the police is not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear."

avmich 6y ago
I was thinking about the public, would the public appreciate his release or non-release, and whose opinion should weight more and why.
bilbo0s 6y ago
Touché. This is a tough issue. On the one hand, what about undercover cops? On the other, it's known that the framers of the Constitution meant for the people to have access to arms partly as a hedge against governmental use of arms against the people. If facial recognition is a tool that the government will use against the people, then the framers clearly envisioned restricting the government's ability to prevent people from using facial recognition. By default I tend to side with the Constitutional order, so I favor the people having unrestricted access to facial recognition tech. That said, I do see the chaos facial rec will bring. Not only for police, but frankly, for everyone else as well. Better start finding a side door out of that hotel tryst with your secretary fellas. Hypothetically, the wife could use some popular new facial rec service that runs against all the public photo or video upload sites for the day. You could be busted if you go out the front door of the hotel just when some college girl is snapping a selfie to share with the world. Or some dad thinks sharing a picture of his son's football team, taken at just that instant, would be really cool. All of which show you and your secretary exiting the hotel in the background.
- lostgame 6y ago
  ...or, you could; y'know, not cheat on your wife. Always an option. :P I get your point, just poor example.
  - silicon2401 6y ago
    I don't think this is a valid criticism. You seem to be criticizing the idea of a man cheating on his wife, as if the parent comment was endorsing the behavior. The parent comment was giving an easily-imagined example of how facial recognition can impact an everyday person. You don't have to be in the spotlight to be affected - you could be affected by facial recognition even if you're trying your best to go unseen, which the parent comment does a great example of demonstrating.
    - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
      Seems like a weak argument. As a society, we don't want people cheating. If this is the view that one chooses to present, they stand a reasonable chance of persuading people the other way. It's not hard to think of something more persuasive along similar lines. E.g. an app that shows you the ids of someone's past hookups from facebook or tinder or whatever without their consent.
    - watwut 6y ago
      Yeah, but one could argue that this guy's wife is positively impacted by that camera. Now she knows the truth and has a choice to divorce. She is going to be feel hurt, but she wont be lied to anymore.
      - silicon2401 6y ago
        You come off as really wanting to shift the topic from the privacy of the man in the example. Theoretically the wife might find the truth, the camera manufacturer might make more business, the utility company may make more money from the camera, but those are frankly irrelevant to the original point: ubiquitous facial recognition brings a risk to even ordinary people. That's not changed just because others may benefit.
- spongechameleon 6y ago
  Interesting point about the 2nd amendment. With that in mind I’d have to agree then that civilians should be able to employ facial recognition tech against the government. The real question though is if that is a tenable strategy in the long term. Like that hatebreed song goes, “fight fire with fire and you’ll see everyone is burning”
- xapata 6y ago
  Privacy rights shift with reasonable expectations. Soon, no one will have a reasonable expectation of anonymity anywhere in public, and therefore no right to privacy in a public space. However, you can still have that right in, say, your own home with the shades drawn.
  - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
    Why would you have any reasonable expectation to have privacy in your house? There are cameras and microphones in your home, build into hardware devices you neither understand nor control, which are permanently connected to their corporate control servers. While you watch TV the TV watches you, while you shop in an online store, the store takes note what products you look at, and when you call your mom, your call is automatically transcribed and scanned for vile evilness by agencies that will defend the secrecy of their methods with violence against the general population. Your argument about public spaces works just as well for private spaces. If this trend continues there will be no reasonable expectations of privacy at all.
    - xapata 6y ago
      No, you're twisting my words, or simply misinterpreting. The expectation in public is that random individuals have the right to photograph you.
      - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
        your words where: "due to the shift in reasonable expectations, soon people will have no (expectation of a) right to privacy in a public space" I am not twisting that, i am just saying the same applies to "in your home"
        xapata 6y ago
        There's a big difference between purchasing devices that have user agreements and interacting with others in public.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- watwut 6y ago
  I don't cheat on my husband with secretaries, so I should be safe.
- fpgaminer 6y ago
  > it's known that the framers of the Constitution meant for the people to have access to arms partly as a hedge against governmental use of arms against the people That's not known. Radiolab did a great piece on the 2nd amendment's history: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radio... TL;DL: The idea that U.S. citizens should arm themselves to defend against a tyrannical government appears to be a relatively new idea. The text of the 2nd amendment is vague and unclear: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The original intentions are shrouded in a historical fog of obscurity. So really, like most of the Constitution, the meaning is up to the people and the courts. That's why we established the Supreme Court, to help us establish the living meaning behind the Constitution ... oh wait: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/giggly-blue-robot https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi... The Supreme Court is also a modern day construction, also originally an object of constitutional obscurity. I guess the real summary of the U.S. Constitution can be summed up as ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - bun_at_work 6y ago
    It's important to take the 2nd Amendment WITH the 3rd Amendment. They complement each other in the framers eyes. Also, it's important to understand that contemporary terms muddy the waters. The framers considered the military to be the only arm of force the government held. The police force wasn't a thing at the time. The 3rd Amendment says the government shall not quarter forces with the people, more or less. This seems to imply that the military shouldn't be deployed amongst the population as a means of applying the force of the government, which has a monopoly on force. Understanding the 3rd Amendment in this context provides a very clear picture of the 2nd Amendment. The people should have a well-regulated militia, with which they police themselves. Here's a video that does a decent job of highlighting what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI

avmich 6y ago

I was thinking about the public, would the public appreciate his release or non-release, and whose opinion should weight more and why.

bilbo0s 6y ago

Touché. This is a tough issue. On the one hand, what about undercover cops? On the other, it's known that the framers of the Constitution meant for the people to have access to arms partly as a hedge against governmental use of arms against the people. If facial recognition is a tool that the government will use against the people, then the framers clearly envisioned restricting the government's ability to prevent people from using facial recognition. By default I tend to side with the Constitutional order, so I favor the people having unrestricted access to facial recognition tech. That said, I do see the chaos facial rec will bring. Not only for police, but frankly, for everyone else as well. Better start finding a side door out of that hotel tryst with your secretary fellas. Hypothetically, the wife could use some popular new facial rec service that runs against all the public photo or video upload sites for the day. You could be busted if you go out the front door of the hotel just when some college girl is snapping a selfie to share with the world. Or some dad thinks sharing a picture of his son's football team, taken at just that instant, would be really cool. All of which show you and your secretary exiting the hotel in the background.

lostgame 6y ago
...or, you could; y'know, not cheat on your wife. Always an option. :P I get your point, just poor example.
- silicon2401 6y ago
  I don't think this is a valid criticism. You seem to be criticizing the idea of a man cheating on his wife, as if the parent comment was endorsing the behavior. The parent comment was giving an easily-imagined example of how facial recognition can impact an everyday person. You don't have to be in the spotlight to be affected - you could be affected by facial recognition even if you're trying your best to go unseen, which the parent comment does a great example of demonstrating.
  - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
    Seems like a weak argument. As a society, we don't want people cheating. If this is the view that one chooses to present, they stand a reasonable chance of persuading people the other way. It's not hard to think of something more persuasive along similar lines. E.g. an app that shows you the ids of someone's past hookups from facebook or tinder or whatever without their consent.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Yeah, but one could argue that this guy's wife is positively impacted by that camera. Now she knows the truth and has a choice to divorce. She is going to be feel hurt, but she wont be lied to anymore.
    - silicon2401 6y ago
      You come off as really wanting to shift the topic from the privacy of the man in the example. Theoretically the wife might find the truth, the camera manufacturer might make more business, the utility company may make more money from the camera, but those are frankly irrelevant to the original point: ubiquitous facial recognition brings a risk to even ordinary people. That's not changed just because others may benefit.
spongechameleon 6y ago
Interesting point about the 2nd amendment. With that in mind I’d have to agree then that civilians should be able to employ facial recognition tech against the government. The real question though is if that is a tenable strategy in the long term. Like that hatebreed song goes, “fight fire with fire and you’ll see everyone is burning”
xapata 6y ago
Privacy rights shift with reasonable expectations. Soon, no one will have a reasonable expectation of anonymity anywhere in public, and therefore no right to privacy in a public space. However, you can still have that right in, say, your own home with the shades drawn.
- Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
  Why would you have any reasonable expectation to have privacy in your house? There are cameras and microphones in your home, build into hardware devices you neither understand nor control, which are permanently connected to their corporate control servers. While you watch TV the TV watches you, while you shop in an online store, the store takes note what products you look at, and when you call your mom, your call is automatically transcribed and scanned for vile evilness by agencies that will defend the secrecy of their methods with violence against the general population. Your argument about public spaces works just as well for private spaces. If this trend continues there will be no reasonable expectations of privacy at all.
  - xapata 6y ago
    No, you're twisting my words, or simply misinterpreting. The expectation in public is that random individuals have the right to photograph you.
    - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
      your words where: "due to the shift in reasonable expectations, soon people will have no (expectation of a) right to privacy in a public space" I am not twisting that, i am just saying the same applies to "in your home"
      - xapata 6y ago
        There's a big difference between purchasing devices that have user agreements and interacting with others in public.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
watwut 6y ago
I don't cheat on my husband with secretaries, so I should be safe.
fpgaminer 6y ago
> it's known that the framers of the Constitution meant for the people to have access to arms partly as a hedge against governmental use of arms against the people That's not known. Radiolab did a great piece on the 2nd amendment's history: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radio... TL;DL: The idea that U.S. citizens should arm themselves to defend against a tyrannical government appears to be a relatively new idea. The text of the 2nd amendment is vague and unclear: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The original intentions are shrouded in a historical fog of obscurity. So really, like most of the Constitution, the meaning is up to the people and the courts. That's why we established the Supreme Court, to help us establish the living meaning behind the Constitution ... oh wait: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/giggly-blue-robot https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi... The Supreme Court is also a modern day construction, also originally an object of constitutional obscurity. I guess the real summary of the U.S. Constitution can be summed up as ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- bun_at_work 6y ago
  It's important to take the 2nd Amendment WITH the 3rd Amendment. They complement each other in the framers eyes. Also, it's important to understand that contemporary terms muddy the waters. The framers considered the military to be the only arm of force the government held. The police force wasn't a thing at the time. The 3rd Amendment says the government shall not quarter forces with the people, more or less. This seems to imply that the military shouldn't be deployed amongst the population as a means of applying the force of the government, which has a monopoly on force. Understanding the 3rd Amendment in this context provides a very clear picture of the 2nd Amendment. The people should have a well-regulated militia, with which they police themselves. Here's a video that does a decent job of highlighting what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI