San Francisco May Be the First City in the Nation to Ban Facial Recognition

[Jagger100]

I wouldn't care about facial recognition, *IF it's not used to track individuals movements once scanned, meaning scan locations are only presented when a hit is confirmed of a wanted individual, this would allow for preservation of the amendments while still gaining the advantages of the security. Once they can prove reliability.

Some police cars are equipped with cameras that document all license plates they can read and records the location with a timestamp. So I think this is an unlikely scenario.

 

[Biznatch]

Oh, but vote they do anyway.

Texas just found records of 100,000. No state allows feds to come check... The corruption is likely very deep on illegals voting.

Like the other person making a similar claim, you are gonna need to provide sources to back this up.

And texas has a population of 23.8m. So the 100k records in your claim you're trying to scare us with comes up to .0042% of the population of the state, even if that number was accurate which I doubt. That isn't really going to have any effect on an election, otherwise there would have been no way Ted would have gotten re-elected.....

 

[kju1]

It's what was "reported" (by local news article, small town), for our city, Sierra Vista, the 3rd party company was RedFlex I believe. Our city has since made traffic camera law enforcement illegal and these cameras have been taken down.

I think you and are on the same page. I agree on some very focused survelliance to catch specific targets but not dragnet and see what you get. Too Orwellian for me.

On a side note you mentioned Sierra Vista. I used to live there! Worked there for a DoD contractor a long time ago. Small world!

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I see the word "ALL" as too much and perhaps self defeating. Let me give two examples and see if you see a difference in them.

The first, cameras on every corner, data stored, cops can go "back in time" and check who was at the corner of this and that to help solve crimes and catch bad guys, frequently long after a crime was reported. They can also put a "suspect's" name in the search box and pull up everywhere he has gone in a given time frame, his face, his license plates, his credit cards and bus tokens, all of it. They can almost lay out his complete life in order to prove guilt, probably with a court order, a warrant, but the data is all there for use if/when needed.

The second, search terms, names, facial recognition data, etc, are loaded into "recognition profiles" for wanted criminals. All of the same sensors, cameras, license plate readers, cell tower tracking, etc, are all in place just like in the first example. But in this case, the bad guy walks past the camera, or drives past a reader, and the data is captured, checked, and if there isn't a match, immediately deleted. It's not retained, it's not analyzed, compared, or stored unless there is a hit on a wanted person.

I can see the second for domestic use in the USA, but the first is more like what the US does for Intelligence collection on foreign targets. We grab all we can and make use of what we can. I wouldn't want #1 used on citizens by Law Enforcement. I wouldn't even want #1 used on Intelligence Targets inside the US, over kill for surveillance on specific targets, better to be more focused.

As with all of this stuff, I'm not concerned with legitimate uses of the data, like police with warrants trying to catch bad guys.

It's the inevitable abuses either by employees working on them, or by external hackers getting access to the systems without permission.

And we know this stuff happens. it happens often enough within the NSA that they even have a name for it, "LOVEINT" when the systems are accessed for persona gain and spying on loved ones or love interests.

Whenever there is data it will be abused and targeted for being compromised. The only way to avoid this is to avoid collecting data.

 

[kju1]

And we know this stuff happens. it happens often enough within the NSA that they even have a name for it, "LOVEINT" when the systems are accessed for persona gain and spying on loved ones or love interests.

Whenever there is data it will be abused and targeted for being compromised. The only way to avoid this is to avoid collecting data.

To be fair once per year is not often. And its blatantly illegal and the person doing it gets fired if not also charged with a crime.

 

[lcpiper]

................. it happens often enough within the NSA that they even have a name for it, "LOVEINT" when the systems are accessed for persona gain and spying on loved ones or love interests....................

I get what you are saying, and I don't see your position as unreasonable at all. It's taken some time for you and I to better understand each other.

But that article was blown totally out of proportion if you remember. In fact, the same information, had it not been written as an assassination piece, actually shows that the NSA does a damned good job policing itself, not that it's rife with misuse and abuse.

But it seems you never bought into my take on it so it remains to you an example of the bad.

 

[lcpiper]

To be fair once per year is not often. And its blatantly illegal and the person doing it gets fired if not also charged with a crime.

You are correct that it was rare, of course some feel that once is too much, and I can allow them that, even if I feel that perfect is a pretty high mark to shoot for, when it comes to humans.

You are also correct about the legality part. But most of the people in this article weren't actually charged and some "got away with it" if you call resigning before they can fire you, sometimes with your pension and benefits, getting away with it.

But I still think it's important to make the distinction that the NSA can't charge anyone with a crime, arrest, or prosecute an employee who does this. All they can do is fire them, and refer the incident to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, and Justice, for reasons I do not know, have traditionally failed to pursue these cases. That might be because in order to prosecute them, they would have to take the cases to court, and no one wants to talk about the activities in court because they are active collection capabilities and missions, etc. Better to be happy that you weeded them out, most of the cases either resulted in no personal information being obtained at all, or the abuse was directed against foreign nationals almost universally overseas outside of the US. So not against Americans.