5 ms·

So your rationale here is: if you already have a passport/drivers license, you should be okay with facial recognition software being used by the government? Hmm

So your rationale here is: if you already have a passport/drivers license, you should be okay with facial recognition software being used by the government? Hmm, very convincing.

scarface74 4y ago
The government already has your face on file attached to your identification and is perfectly capable of identifying you using facial recognition. If Google can recognize different images of you based on one image on file, why do you think the government can’t? What do you think you are accomplishing? They also have a record of every flight you take.
- lm28469 4y ago
  That's why we have laws ??? Just because it's technically feasible it doesn't mean it _should_ be enforced. We could also farm humans to harvest their organs, the technology is here, imagine how many lives we'd save !
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Laws against what? Validating that you are who you say you are before you get on plane? Laws against checking whether you are on a no fly list? Every time you pass a police car, they can scan license plates programmatically and if they stop you, they have your ID on file that they can pull up. In most states, your driver’s license is a RealID license approved by the federal government. You are protecting yourself against nothing by not using PreCheck.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  You don't see a slippery slope with facial recognition technology being used by the federal government? Idk - cross referencing your face in public places, being blamed for a crime you didn't commit. I don't' look like my drivers license photo. It's pretty old - I keep renewing it. Look at how Ring has partnered with police departments. I have no issues with people opting into this, see https://www.clearme.com/ https://www.clearme.com/
  - scarface74 4y ago
    They already use license plate recognition when you are driving and there is a clear doctrine of no expectation of privacy in public places. They already have everything they need to do mass surveillance using photo recognition and your photo to do it with if you have a driver’s license and passport. It’s perfectly legal to do so. They can track you via your cellphone using m records that they already get from the carriers. You’ve given up your privacy with the TSA the minute you walked into an airport.
    - marssaxman 4y ago
      You keep making this same kind of argument throughout this thread, and I don't understand what you think you are accomplishing. You seem to think that just because some invasive tracking already exists, people should freely accept further expansions of invasive tracking. Why should that be the case? You should feel free to accept whatever comes along, if that's what works for you; but some of us clearly believe that while some is bad, more is even worse, and it is therefore worthwhile to resist.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        There is no further tracking. The TSA is already tracking you every time you get on a plane. The government already has the technology, your photo and legally can use the photo they already have of you to use facial recognition. There are already traffic cams that scan your license plate and are used to track you every time you drive. There is no expansion You accomplish nothing by not giving the government your photo again that they already have from both your driver’s license and passport. They can track you when you drive, when you fly, by your cell phone.
        marssaxman 4y ago
        I think I understand. I had thought you were arguing something like, "you are already dealing with this old problem, so you should accept this new problem instead of fighting it" - but it sounds like maybe what you mean is more like "I see no difference between these two problems, so I don't understand why you are objecting to one more than the other" - is that right? I would say, of course there is an expansion, or they would not bother to pay for the new technology. Think of Jevons' paradox: if the TSA can use some new technology to scan people more efficiently, it doesn't really matter what they say their intentions are; they will, inevitably, use that technology to scan more people, in more places, more of the time. That is the expansion; let's stop it before it starts, eh?

So your rationale here is: if you already have a passport/drivers license, you should be okay with facial recognition software being used by the government? Hmm, very convincing.

scarface74 4y ago

The government already has your face on file attached to your identification and is perfectly capable of identifying you using facial recognition. If Google can recognize different images of you based on one image on file, why do you think the government can’t? What do you think you are accomplishing? They also have a record of every flight you take.

lm28469 4y ago
That's why we have laws ??? Just because it's technically feasible it doesn't mean it _should_ be enforced. We could also farm humans to harvest their organs, the technology is here, imagine how many lives we'd save !
- scarface74 4y ago
  Laws against what? Validating that you are who you say you are before you get on plane? Laws against checking whether you are on a no fly list? Every time you pass a police car, they can scan license plates programmatically and if they stop you, they have your ID on file that they can pull up. In most states, your driver’s license is a RealID license approved by the federal government. You are protecting yourself against nothing by not using PreCheck.
Eumenes 4y ago
You don't see a slippery slope with facial recognition technology being used by the federal government? Idk - cross referencing your face in public places, being blamed for a crime you didn't commit. I don't' look like my drivers license photo. It's pretty old - I keep renewing it. Look at how Ring has partnered with police departments. I have no issues with people opting into this, see https://www.clearme.com/ https://www.clearme.com/
- scarface74 4y ago
  They already use license plate recognition when you are driving and there is a clear doctrine of no expectation of privacy in public places. They already have everything they need to do mass surveillance using photo recognition and your photo to do it with if you have a driver’s license and passport. It’s perfectly legal to do so. They can track you via your cellphone using m records that they already get from the carriers. You’ve given up your privacy with the TSA the minute you walked into an airport.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    You keep making this same kind of argument throughout this thread, and I don't understand what you think you are accomplishing. You seem to think that just because some invasive tracking already exists, people should freely accept further expansions of invasive tracking. Why should that be the case? You should feel free to accept whatever comes along, if that's what works for you; but some of us clearly believe that while some is bad, more is even worse, and it is therefore worthwhile to resist.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      There is no further tracking. The TSA is already tracking you every time you get on a plane. The government already has the technology, your photo and legally can use the photo they already have of you to use facial recognition. There are already traffic cams that scan your license plate and are used to track you every time you drive. There is no expansion You accomplish nothing by not giving the government your photo again that they already have from both your driver’s license and passport. They can track you when you drive, when you fly, by your cell phone.
      - marssaxman 4y ago
        I think I understand. I had thought you were arguing something like, "you are already dealing with this old problem, so you should accept this new problem instead of fighting it" - but it sounds like maybe what you mean is more like "I see no difference between these two problems, so I don't understand why you are objecting to one more than the other" - is that right? I would say, of course there is an expansion, or they would not bother to pay for the new technology. Think of Jevons' paradox: if the TSA can use some new technology to scan people more efficiently, it doesn't really matter what they say their intentions are; they will, inevitably, use that technology to scan more people, in more places, more of the time. That is the expansion; let's stop it before it starts, eh?