6 ms·

When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights.... Now that we do this hundreds of times a day, it has become routine.

tartoran 9mo ago
This is still not fully supported by law. It is becoming normalized indeed, especially by the current admin. Let's hope this is not going to become widely used or that it doesn't stay permanently, eg. it gets at least restricted to some type of crime by future administrations.
- SlightlyLeftPad 9mo ago
  It won’t be restricted until the people push against it to a point where it becomes too politically expensive to not restrict.
- netsharc 9mo ago
  Ah, what's good is law when the branch^W [after rereading about it, executive power is given to one] person tasked with executing laws is... lawless? The notion that future administrations won't be offshots of the current regime (again, why do you think laws regarding democracy, like fair elections, will be upheld?) is also too hopeful. Happy new year!
- otterley 9mo ago
  Not supported by law where? I’m unaware of any legal proscription of this practice in the USA, and the Journal article makes no such claims, either. (IAAL but this is not my primary field of expertise, and this is not legal advice.)
  - b112 9mo ago
    Indeed. And the latest admin is only a string in the ever increasing use of such tech. It should be illegal, but people are deluded if they think it started here.
  - _delirium 9mo ago
    There are many unresolved gray areas around what exactly the 4th amendment permits in the way of what United States v. Knotts called "dragnet-type law enforcement practices". Knotts suggested they might not be permitted, even if they were made up of permissible individual parts, but didn't elaborate. More recent case law has held, for example, that cell phone companies turning over large quantities of records is a 4th amendment search requiring a warrant, even if they do it voluntarily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States). Most other types of dragnets haven't been litigated enough to have solid caselaw on their boundaries afaik. I don't know if it's likely a court will do anything about this particular program, but from what I've read I don't think 4th amendment scholars think this area is at all settled.
    - otterley 9mo ago
      From what I understand, this isn’t so much a “dragnet” operation involving combing through mass quantities of records on demand; it’s more like “this person is in public in my field of view, and I want to know who they are.” More importantly, though, the cases so far have focused on the investigative activity that follows once a suspect has been identified. Here, we’re talking about de-anonymization: identifying one or more individuals who occupy a public space. AFAIK, the Court has never established a reasonable expectation of privacy of one’s identity in public. That will be a steep hill to climb.
      - bakies 9mo ago
        I don't have to identify myself to police where I live. That's why, in my opinion, this is an unreasonable use of technology. I'm not sure what qualifies under the fourteenth but force-ably identifying me when I don't want to be and not required to seems unreasonable.
        otterley 9mo ago
        In the U.S., current law holds that for a law enforcement officer to stop and request identification, the officer needs at least some sort of articulable basis for doing so (Terry stop). The key word here, though, is “stop.” Electronic surveillance of a public space, though, involves stopping nobody. It’s not clear to me that passive identification involves either a “search” or “seizure” within the traditional meaning of the 4th Amendment. We’ll see what the courts think, though.
  - reaperducer 9mo ago
    Not supported by law where? I’m unaware of any legal proscription of this practice in the USA Using facial recognition on people without their consent is illegal in a growing number of states. Facebook lost a class-action lawsuit about this and I (and many other people) got a check for a little under $500.
    - otterley 9mo ago
      It was a settlement, not a “loss” in any legal sense. It sets no legal precedent, and no future plaintiff can cite it. > The settlement, announced Tuesday, does not act as an admission of guilt and Meta maintains no wrongdoing. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/30/texas-meta-facebook-biometric-data-settlement/ https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/30/texas-meta-facebook-... While you are correct that some states do regulate facial recognition, all they can do is regulate their own law enforcement and private entities doing business there. They cannot regulate the federal government (ICE and CBP are federal agencies).
- wslh 9mo ago
  Law is expensive.
golemiprague 9mo ago
But china is safe and clean and nice, so it might be worth it. Anyway we got no privacy anymore, cameras are everywhere and we all captured on someone hard disk, so might as well take advantage of the benefits that comes with this technology
- thrance 9mo ago
  China is not "safe, clean and nice" for everybody.
FpUser 9mo ago
>"When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights.... Now that we do this hundreds of times a day, it has become routine." Normally questions like this would be labeled as whataboutism, false equivalence etc. One rule for thee, another one for me. Personally I think we (The West) are heading to disaster. I really missed older times before 9/11
- aurareturn 9mo ago
  whataboutism This is the default response whenever HN commentators have no other way to say "china bad".
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  How is pointing out this inconsistency whataboutism? It might be reasonable to ask if it's a strawman since it seems reasonable to wonder if perhaps the people against what the Chinese are doing might also be against what ICE is doing. Regardless, it's quite relevant to point out that at this point two of the world's superpowers are actively engaging in this. Claiming that the technology won't be used this way - that people are just fearmongering - clearly doesn't hold water. (Not that it ever did, but now we've got concrete evidence.)
  - FpUser 9mo ago
    >"How is pointing out this inconsistency whataboutism? " It is not, I said it is usually labeled as one here
- expedition32 9mo ago
  America is not the West. There are a lot of things wrong in my country but we don't worship Jesus nor billionaires.
servo_sausage 9mo ago
China is already doing abominable things; how people react to additional surveillance is always related to what the state is actually doing with that information. So a system that supports the abduction of polital rivals (an actual human rights violation) is not the same as a system that supports the lawful arrest of someone breaking a law that's accepted as part of a democracy. I also think the scale of investment plays a part, the investment in surveillance in China is absurd. Its a significant number of people (per capita) that do nothing but monitor people. These new systems are rather cheap; so much so that they feel a whole lot more inevitable.
- kingkawn 9mo ago
  In both systems the law is being carefully followed to support inhumane goals
  - concinds 9mo ago
    ICE and USBP are quite famously breaking many laws.
    - mlrtime 9mo ago
      Unfortunately ICE has somewhat broad powers that allow them to enforce Federal laws that local LEOs cannot get away with. This should be challenged in a court.
      - hwguy45 9mo ago
        Some say unfortunate, others say fortunate. It's a luxury belief to want to let people walk across the border and have no repercussions. Enforce the border, get all the illegals out.
        goatlover 9mo ago
        Everyone in this country regardless of their status is still guaranteed due process by the Constitution. The Venezuelans and Abrego Garcia sent to CECOT was done without due process and in violation of a Federal Judge's orders. Not to mention CECOT is a horrible prison. I think it's cruel and inhuman to deport people already here unless they're engaged in criminal activities. Most of them are hard working people who gave up everything to flee bad circumstances in their home countries. We're a nation of immigrants. You want the border secure, fine (I would prefer immigration reform since we have a large country and tons of economic opportunity migrants fulfill). But don't be so cruel as to support what ICE is doing to hard working people who have established lives here. Most of them are not criminals.
FuturisticLover 9mo ago
The US literary attacked a country and captured its leader. They always have a double standard.
- fiyec30375 9mo ago
  Literary? Haha
  - FuturisticLover 9mo ago
    I can't even ask for forgiveness for this diabolical.
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" [1]. Beijing showed the way. We followed their path. Both are at fault. [1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
- lovich 9mo ago
  > Beijing showed the way. We followed their path. lol, just like China invented social credit scores which are for social control and definitely not like US credit scores which are just good business sense Edit: to be clear I am saying this from a US centric viewpoint. China is catching up but they’ve been behind us for over a century tech wise and the US has been really good at pioneering new forms of injustice. I’m laughing at the idea that we were trailing behind them on learning new for handling their population
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > like China invented social credit scores which are for social control and definitely not like US credit scores which are just good business sense …yes. You don’t get your credit score dinged because you tweeted something naughty. You can be a felon with perfect credit.
    - lovich 9mo ago
      Brah, some employers in the US check your credit score to make sure you are trustworthy enough. Your credit score can be checked in multiple other situations that have nothing to do with you taking on debt, but still somehow your debt factors into the decision. If you think there is no social control as part of this system, then you are just blind to the system you grew up in
      - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        > some employers in the US check your credit score to make sure you are trustworthy enough Sure. They’re evaluating your creditworthiness. What they’re not measuring is your political coherence or social “goodness.” The closest thing we have to a social score is a criminal record.
saubeidl 9mo ago
Let me quote the CEO of ycombinator. >You're thinking Chinese surveillance >US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955 https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955 American capitalists are ideologically driven hypocrites.
- aurareturn 9mo ago
  Are we allowed to criticize Garry Tan here?
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
mizzao 9mo ago
Yep, it's converging to the same system... In China government is controlled by chosen members of the ruling party who become wealthy through it; In the US the government is controlled by billionaires who become powerful through it. Neither is a "government by the people" nor a "democratic people's republic" and both are enacting more and more similar policies.

tartoran 9mo ago

This is still not fully supported by law. It is becoming normalized indeed, especially by the current admin. Let's hope this is not going to become widely used or that it doesn't stay permanently, eg. it gets at least restricted to some type of crime by future administrations.

SlightlyLeftPad 9mo ago
It won’t be restricted until the people push against it to a point where it becomes too politically expensive to not restrict.
netsharc 9mo ago
Ah, what's good is law when the branch^W [after rereading about it, executive power is given to one] person tasked with executing laws is... lawless? The notion that future administrations won't be offshots of the current regime (again, why do you think laws regarding democracy, like fair elections, will be upheld?) is also too hopeful. Happy new year!
otterley 9mo ago
Not supported by law where? I’m unaware of any legal proscription of this practice in the USA, and the Journal article makes no such claims, either. (IAAL but this is not my primary field of expertise, and this is not legal advice.)
- b112 9mo ago
  Indeed. And the latest admin is only a string in the ever increasing use of such tech. It should be illegal, but people are deluded if they think it started here.
- _delirium 9mo ago
  There are many unresolved gray areas around what exactly the 4th amendment permits in the way of what United States v. Knotts called "dragnet-type law enforcement practices". Knotts suggested they might not be permitted, even if they were made up of permissible individual parts, but didn't elaborate. More recent case law has held, for example, that cell phone companies turning over large quantities of records is a 4th amendment search requiring a warrant, even if they do it voluntarily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States). Most other types of dragnets haven't been litigated enough to have solid caselaw on their boundaries afaik. I don't know if it's likely a court will do anything about this particular program, but from what I've read I don't think 4th amendment scholars think this area is at all settled.
  - otterley 9mo ago
    From what I understand, this isn’t so much a “dragnet” operation involving combing through mass quantities of records on demand; it’s more like “this person is in public in my field of view, and I want to know who they are.” More importantly, though, the cases so far have focused on the investigative activity that follows once a suspect has been identified. Here, we’re talking about de-anonymization: identifying one or more individuals who occupy a public space. AFAIK, the Court has never established a reasonable expectation of privacy of one’s identity in public. That will be a steep hill to climb.
    - bakies 9mo ago
      I don't have to identify myself to police where I live. That's why, in my opinion, this is an unreasonable use of technology. I'm not sure what qualifies under the fourteenth but force-ably identifying me when I don't want to be and not required to seems unreasonable.
      - otterley 9mo ago
        In the U.S., current law holds that for a law enforcement officer to stop and request identification, the officer needs at least some sort of articulable basis for doing so (Terry stop). The key word here, though, is “stop.” Electronic surveillance of a public space, though, involves stopping nobody. It’s not clear to me that passive identification involves either a “search” or “seizure” within the traditional meaning of the 4th Amendment. We’ll see what the courts think, though.
- reaperducer 9mo ago
  Not supported by law where? I’m unaware of any legal proscription of this practice in the USA Using facial recognition on people without their consent is illegal in a growing number of states. Facebook lost a class-action lawsuit about this and I (and many other people) got a check for a little under $500.
  - otterley 9mo ago
    It was a settlement, not a “loss” in any legal sense. It sets no legal precedent, and no future plaintiff can cite it. > The settlement, announced Tuesday, does not act as an admission of guilt and Meta maintains no wrongdoing. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/30/texas-meta-facebook-biometric-data-settlement/ https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/30/texas-meta-facebook-... While you are correct that some states do regulate facial recognition, all they can do is regulate their own law enforcement and private entities doing business there. They cannot regulate the federal government (ICE and CBP are federal agencies).
wslh 9mo ago
Law is expensive.

golemiprague 9mo ago

But china is safe and clean and nice, so it might be worth it. Anyway we got no privacy anymore, cameras are everywhere and we all captured on someone hard disk, so might as well take advantage of the benefits that comes with this technology

thrance 9mo ago
China is not "safe, clean and nice" for everybody.

FpUser 9mo ago

>"When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights.... Now that we do this hundreds of times a day, it has become routine." Normally questions like this would be labeled as whataboutism, false equivalence etc. One rule for thee, another one for me. Personally I think we (The West) are heading to disaster. I really missed older times before 9/11

aurareturn 9mo ago
whataboutism This is the default response whenever HN commentators have no other way to say "china bad".
fc417fc802 9mo ago
How is pointing out this inconsistency whataboutism? It might be reasonable to ask if it's a strawman since it seems reasonable to wonder if perhaps the people against what the Chinese are doing might also be against what ICE is doing. Regardless, it's quite relevant to point out that at this point two of the world's superpowers are actively engaging in this. Claiming that the technology won't be used this way - that people are just fearmongering - clearly doesn't hold water. (Not that it ever did, but now we've got concrete evidence.)
- FpUser 9mo ago
  >"How is pointing out this inconsistency whataboutism? " It is not, I said it is usually labeled as one here
expedition32 9mo ago
America is not the West. There are a lot of things wrong in my country but we don't worship Jesus nor billionaires.

servo_sausage 9mo ago

China is already doing abominable things; how people react to additional surveillance is always related to what the state is actually doing with that information. So a system that supports the abduction of polital rivals (an actual human rights violation) is not the same as a system that supports the lawful arrest of someone breaking a law that's accepted as part of a democracy. I also think the scale of investment plays a part, the investment in surveillance in China is absurd. Its a significant number of people (per capita) that do nothing but monitor people. These new systems are rather cheap; so much so that they feel a whole lot more inevitable.

kingkawn 9mo ago
In both systems the law is being carefully followed to support inhumane goals
- concinds 9mo ago
  ICE and USBP are quite famously breaking many laws.
  - mlrtime 9mo ago
    Unfortunately ICE has somewhat broad powers that allow them to enforce Federal laws that local LEOs cannot get away with. This should be challenged in a court.
    - hwguy45 9mo ago
      Some say unfortunate, others say fortunate. It's a luxury belief to want to let people walk across the border and have no repercussions. Enforce the border, get all the illegals out.
      - goatlover 9mo ago
        Everyone in this country regardless of their status is still guaranteed due process by the Constitution. The Venezuelans and Abrego Garcia sent to CECOT was done without due process and in violation of a Federal Judge's orders. Not to mention CECOT is a horrible prison. I think it's cruel and inhuman to deport people already here unless they're engaged in criminal activities. Most of them are hard working people who gave up everything to flee bad circumstances in their home countries. We're a nation of immigrants. You want the border secure, fine (I would prefer immigration reform since we have a large country and tons of economic opportunity migrants fulfill). But don't be so cruel as to support what ICE is doing to hard working people who have established lives here. Most of them are not criminals.

FuturisticLover 9mo ago

The US literary attacked a country and captured its leader. They always have a double standard.

fiyec30375 9mo ago
Literary? Haha
- FuturisticLover 9mo ago
  I can't even ask for forgiveness for this diabolical.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" [1]. Beijing showed the way. We followed their path. Both are at fault. [1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

lovich 9mo ago
> Beijing showed the way. We followed their path. lol, just like China invented social credit scores which are for social control and definitely not like US credit scores which are just good business sense Edit: to be clear I am saying this from a US centric viewpoint. China is catching up but they’ve been behind us for over a century tech wise and the US has been really good at pioneering new forms of injustice. I’m laughing at the idea that we were trailing behind them on learning new for handling their population
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > like China invented social credit scores which are for social control and definitely not like US credit scores which are just good business sense …yes. You don’t get your credit score dinged because you tweeted something naughty. You can be a felon with perfect credit.
  - lovich 9mo ago
    Brah, some employers in the US check your credit score to make sure you are trustworthy enough. Your credit score can be checked in multiple other situations that have nothing to do with you taking on debt, but still somehow your debt factors into the decision. If you think there is no social control as part of this system, then you are just blind to the system you grew up in
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      > some employers in the US check your credit score to make sure you are trustworthy enough Sure. They’re evaluating your creditworthiness. What they’re not measuring is your political coherence or social “goodness.” The closest thing we have to a social score is a criminal record.

saubeidl 9mo ago

Let me quote the CEO of ycombinator. >You're thinking Chinese surveillance >US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955 https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955 American capitalists are ideologically driven hypocrites.

aurareturn 9mo ago
Are we allowed to criticize Garry Tan here?
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

mizzao 9mo ago

Yep, it's converging to the same system... In China government is controlled by chosen members of the ruling party who become wealthy through it; In the US the government is controlled by billionaires who become powerful through it. Neither is a "government by the people" nor a "democratic people's republic" and both are enacting more and more similar policies.