3 ms·
'Katz v. United States' was quite clear - you have no expectation of privacy in public. Anyone may photograph you and use said photos. Do I like it? No. But tha
by dmitrygr 1y ago
'Katz v. United States' was quite clear - you have no expectation of privacy in public. Anyone may photograph you and use said photos. Do I like it? No. But that is the current caselaw in USA.
"What a person knowingly exposes to the public [...] is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." - Justice Potter in 'Katz v. United States'
- softwaredoug 1y agoIf they ignore all other forms of evidence that you're a citizen, that goes beyond privacy in a public space
- jimt1234 1y agoThis ^^^ What is the point of having an ID in the first place, if they can just ignore it?
- advisedwang 1y agoThey legally can take a photo of you, sure. But they aren't just taking a photo from across the street. They are also: 1. "briefly" detaining you to make you face a camera and take of hats etc for the app to get a good enough shot. 2. arresting you if it doesn't correctly identify you 3. using protected characteristics to decide who needs to get scanned.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jazzyjackson 1y agoTaking photo is one thing, storing biometrics to compare against without consent is quite another Illinois has the Biometric Information Privacy Act. https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57 https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=3004&Ch...
- dmitrygr 1y agoFair. If anything is stored, it likely would be illegal in some states.
- qingcharles 1y agoFrustratingly, the BIPA might exclude these offensive actions. It was really designed to protect customers from bad businesses. This sort of action probably didn't factor into it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45750955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45750955 From the statute: "A private entity does not include a State or local government agency."
- advisedwang 1y agoSomething must already be stored, for them to be comparing the photo against.
- dmitrygr 1y agoHypothetically: driver license/passport databases are theirs already
- cosmicgadget 1y agoKeep in mind that what "anyone" can do and what "anyone serving in an official government capacity" can do are different.
- dmitrygr 1y agoThe case I cited specifically talked about government doing it.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoFor facial recognition or just plain photography? Obviously Katz predates the former.
- dmitrygr 1y agoKatz jut said "what a person knowingly exposes to the public" IIRC. We'd need a new SCOTUS case to clarify whether data derived from physical features that can be used to identify you still counts as such
- cosmicgadget 1y agoAgreed. > what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Identity might be, might not be.