3 ms·
The argument would be either (1) that automated facial recognition goes above and beyond the reasonable requirements of the facility, representing an unnecessar
by woodruffw 4y ago
The argument would be either (1) that automated facial recognition goes above and beyond the reasonable requirements of the facility, representing an unnecessary intrusion into a person’s private life, (2) that the same does unacceptable harm in the public sphere, or (3) that its particular application is capricious and clearly represents an attempt to stifle the right to seek legal recourse. Any of these would be sufficient, and may or may not be convincing to a judge.
- kspacewalk2 4y agoI still fail to see the uniqueness, as it were, of automated facial recognition. In 1 and 3, what changes if a human being either looks at your face on a screen or looks into your face attentively at the turnstile, and then matches it using a big old binder with photos? Just the effectiveness of the method? If you're arguing 3, surely the argument has nothing to do with the technology used to identify you and kick you out to stifle your methodology of obtaining evidence outside the court-approved methods of discovery, it is the act of kicking you out that is in itself an issue. If you're arguing 1, I'd say your private life is not being intruded upon in any fashion that's new. You chose to go to a public place, so it is unreasonable to expect that no one might try to identify you based on your facial characteristics. Not sure what to make of 2 without further elaboration. I can sort of steel-man a coherent argument to this effect when it comes to government surveillance, but I don't think it'll apply to a private entertainment venue.