4 ms·

> This headline is extremely misleading because it leads you to believe that they are IDing this person because they are a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester".

> This headline is extremely misleading because it leads you to believe that they are IDing this person because they are a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester". It read like a privacy issue. Then I read your comment, and was confused. > More proper would be "NYPD Bypassed Facial Recognition Ban to ID Rock-Throwing Assailant" This is inaccurate. The charges were dismissed. At best, it's an alleged rock-throwing assailant. > In the end, this is not a free speech issue except tangentially; it is a privacy issue. That's what the original headline suggested to me on first reading. Why did you think the headline was a free speech issue? That being said, the threat of a government disobeying its own rules and policies is a deterrent to free speech.

andrewla 1y ago
[flagged]
- chaps 1y ago
  "This is right and proper" They literally banned the use of the technology!
  - andrewla 1y ago
    Here I am referring to their desire to find a person who committed what appeared to be a criminal act. I am not excusing their use of the technology, only that the state and specifically the police have a compelling interest to find people who commit crimes. There are lots of limitations on their powers to accomplish this end, but we do want police to investigate crimes.
    - chaps 1y ago
      You are definitionally excusing their use of the technology. The definition of "excusing": "attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify."
- mtalantikite 1y ago
  > why mention that he was a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester"? That does not seem relevant at all Because it seems highly unlikely that if I were to walk out of my apartment right now, walk down to the waterfront, and throw a rock at a group of people sitting at Marsha P Johnson park that the NYPD would even respond to the call. Never mind getting a fire marshal involved to run my photo through a facial recognition program. They've got more important things to deal with. (I'd also, of course, never do this). This was a protest movement that was a national story and included congressional hearings, so it does seem relevant to have the context.
- autoexec 1y ago
  > If it is a privacy issue, why mention that he was a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester"? That does not seem relevant at all; It provides context. The US has an extensive history of illegal/unconstitutional/questionable surveillance of protesters. This could be seen as either another example of exactly that or, at the very least, as a warning that the police in NY are willing to illegally use facial recognition when it suits their interests.

andrewla 1y ago

[flagged]

chaps 1y ago
"This is right and proper" They literally banned the use of the technology!
- andrewla 1y ago
  Here I am referring to their desire to find a person who committed what appeared to be a criminal act. I am not excusing their use of the technology, only that the state and specifically the police have a compelling interest to find people who commit crimes. There are lots of limitations on their powers to accomplish this end, but we do want police to investigate crimes.
  - chaps 1y ago
    You are definitionally excusing their use of the technology. The definition of "excusing": "attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify."
mtalantikite 1y ago
> why mention that he was a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester"? That does not seem relevant at all Because it seems highly unlikely that if I were to walk out of my apartment right now, walk down to the waterfront, and throw a rock at a group of people sitting at Marsha P Johnson park that the NYPD would even respond to the call. Never mind getting a fire marshal involved to run my photo through a facial recognition program. They've got more important things to deal with. (I'd also, of course, never do this). This was a protest movement that was a national story and included congressional hearings, so it does seem relevant to have the context.
autoexec 1y ago
> If it is a privacy issue, why mention that he was a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester"? That does not seem relevant at all; It provides context. The US has an extensive history of illegal/unconstitutional/questionable surveillance of protesters. This could be seen as either another example of exactly that or, at the very least, as a warning that the police in NY are willing to illegally use facial recognition when it suits their interests.