Slashdot Mirror


New York To Test Facial Recognition Cameras At 'Crossing Points' (vocativ.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Vocativ: In a 35-minute speech detailing a landmark $100 billion investment into state infrastructure, largely focused on New York City and Long Island, Governor Andrew Cuomo made a number of promises that would thrill New Yorkers, like the promise of a renovated Penn Station, called Penn-Farley, a direct train from there to LaGuardia Airport, and the completion of the long-awaited Second Avenue Line. Oh, and facial recognition cameras around the city, he said: "At each crossing, and at structurally sensitive points on bridges and tunnels, advanced cameras and sensors will be installed to read license plates and test emerging facial recognition software and equipment." "We're going to be using this in Penn-Farley and we also want to be testing it in bridges and crossings system," he added. On the matter of facial recognition cameras, Cuomo was shy on details. It's unclear how many cameras will be deployed, which agencies will have access to them, what defines a crossing, how citizens' photos will be stored, and what photo databases will be used to compare against the faces of the millions of people who drive into the city. In his speech, Cuomo referenced the cameras as necessary for New York to adapt to 21st century security threats. "In this age of terrorist activity and lone wolves, if you look at points of vulnerability you'll go to our tunnels and to our bridges. So really they have to be reimagined for a new reality," he said.

96 comments

  1. Reimagined for a new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newyorkspeak: facecrime, it was called."

    1. Re:Reimagined for a new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I came here to post the same as the AC above did. But from the same luminary:

      "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. ... The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. ... The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."

    2. Re:Reimagined for a new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if this crap keeps up then anyone with any self respect is going to be looking like the just walked out of Watchdogs, 24/7.

    3. Re: Reimagined for a new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so wtf if im a twin brother of so and so being monitored?

    4. Re:Reimagined for a new reality by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      It was a cool crisp spring morning when the clock struck thirteen

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re: Reimagined for a new reality by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Our monitoring software is guaranteed to work up to quadruplets, in section 34.7.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    6. Re:Reimagined for a new reality by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      There was even a word for it in Newyorkspeak: facecrime, it was called.

      You could get facearrested and Facebooked for that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Reimagined for a new reality by doug141 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.

      Said King George III about George Washington:
              The actual resignation of his command, having made peace between the civil and military powers of the new country -- and, in an emotional ceremony, bidden farewell to his officers on December 4, 1783 -- took place in Annapolis, Maryland, on December 23, when he formally handed back to Congress his commission as commander in chief, which they had given him in June 1775. He said he would never again hold public office. He had his horse waiting at the door, and he took the road to Mount Vernon the next day.
              No one who knew Washington was surprised. Everyone else, in varying degrees, was astonished at this singular failure of the corruption of power to work. And, indeed, it was a rare moment in history. In London, George III qustioned the American-born painter Benjamin West what Washington would do now he had won the war. "Oh," said West, "they say he will return to his farm." "If he does that," said the king, "he will be the greatest man in the world."

    8. Re:Reimagined for a new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also the proverbial Cincinnatus.

    9. Re:Reimagined for a new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sentenced so some hard facetime.

    10. Re:Reimagined for a new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to prevent this? I think there's an easier way than trying to put the technology genie back in the bottle.

      Just make the data available to everyone, everywhere, all the time. You're in public, so there's no real expectation of privacy anyway, and the only way it really benefits the government more than the people is if only the government controls the data it gathers.

    11. Re: Reimagined for a new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (facepalm)

    12. Re:Reimagined for a new reality by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It's so rare in history that, other than Washington and Cincinnatus, I can't think of any examples!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re: Reimagined for a new reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just going to wear a clown mask.

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Could you perhaps... by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could you perhaps burn-out the CCD's/CMOS sensors with a powerful-enough laser?

    1. Re:Could you perhaps... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      That would certainly bring the hammer down.

    2. Re:Could you perhaps... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Just wear one of those rubber masks of politician's face. Nixon would be fun.

    3. Re: Could you perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer Laughing Man

    4. Re:Could you perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nixon was an amateur.

      If you want the sure-fire get-out-of-jail-free card, you wear the Hillary Clinton mask.

    5. Re:Could you perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, just use this guy. instead.

    6. Re: Could you perhaps... by plover · · Score: 1

      Laughing man would be best, but here in the real world, we'll have to settle for a non-digital solution. I'd vote for the Mr. Robot masks.

      --
      John
    7. Re:Could you perhaps... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Actually, our algorithm is pretty simple, it only looks for people wearing masks or hoods while keeping their face down.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    8. Re:Could you perhaps... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      The really high end masks would fool your crapware

    9. Re:Could you perhaps... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think I'd rather go to prison.

  4. Coincidentally by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It will be used for more than fighting terrorism.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It will be used for promoting terrorism by the ruling class. Stay compliant or else, citizen.

    2. Re:Coincidentally by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      In soviet AmeÐika, government terrorize you!

  5. Welcome to 1780s NYC, Serfs! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Remember, you only have 3/5ths of a vote if you're not a landowning English white male over 35, and only white males are permitted to vote at all.

    Whatever you do, don't wear dazzle masks or shimmer hoodies that defeat such Ubermensch Control devices.

    That would be double plus ungood.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re: Welcome to 1780s NYC, Serfs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your race baiting is uncalled for - focus on the only true issue: LIBERTY VS. TYRANNY - all else is a distraction meant to divide & conquer.

      I recall this tyrant Cuomo a few years back saying " if you are pro 2nd amendment and pro life, get out of NY" - what a disgusting divisive public official who is completely out of touch with American history and values - but who is well versed in the collectivist mentality - this tyrant knows that when the people fear Albany, his power is omnipotent...but when Albany fears the people....true Liberty and prosperity will rule!

  6. Overhead or low placement? by arth1 · · Score: 2

    My father taught me to always wear a hat, so you'll almost never see me without a fedora or trilby, brim low enough that I doubt any cameras above eye height will ever catch my face.

    Where I go is my business. Registering where everyone goes with facial recognition is just a variety of Papieren, bitte.

    1. Re:Overhead or low placement? by just+another+AC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No problem. Cameras can track people by their walk and any other number of ways.

      Unfortunately your mum was right, you ARE a unique snowflake.

    2. Re:Overhead or low placement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they're just tracking the one weird guy that wears hats.

    3. Re:Overhead or low placement? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      No problem. Cameras can track people by their walk

      I foresee a resurgence in a certain ministry.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Overhead or low placement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a lot harder to get a baseline on someone for gait analysis that it is to scoop up a picture of them from a tagged Facebook post. Also it's a lot less conspicuous to obscure the way you walk without someone or something knowing it's been obscured. See Also: Verbal Kint.

  7. War on Freedom by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we are to call it what it is.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:War on Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but but, safety!

    2. Re:War on Freedom by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      No, if it was a war on freedom, we'll end up with more freedom as per the war on drugs, guns, terrorism, etc...

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  8. Re:body cams first by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Informative

    Makes sense but we're a nation of cowards now so we'll let them grab more power without so much as a whimper.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  9. how to find "structurally sensitive points" by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    look for the camera

    1. Re:how to find "structurally sensitive points" by Spaham · · Score: 1

      Actually, never look *at* the camera !

  10. Time by rtkluttz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For ski masks year round from everybody just to say Fuck you very much.

    --
    Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
    1. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      or one of the baseball hats with IR LEDs in the brim

    2. Re:Time by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For ski masks year round from everybody just to say Fuck you very much.

      Watch how quickly we get anti-mask laws if masks actually become popular. Then it will be anti-face paint laws — you can still draw weird patterns on your face to confuse facial recognition sensors. That won't help with gait detection, but that does cost quite a bit more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Watch how quickly we get anti-mask laws if masks actually become popular.

      Plenty of states already have anti-mask laws - http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html. They run the gamut from banning congregating with other masked individuals (unless for approved purposed) to banning masks, etc. that conceal identity.

    4. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's going to be really ironic when everyone starts wearing Burqas to get around restrictions on obscuring your face in public.

  11. Why by Smiddi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The question is "why"? - you have a higher chance of dying from a bee sting or a lightning strike, why not address the higher risks first?

    1. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not?
      good and bad can come out of this..
      but..
      its hard to imagine the good side but bear with us im soon it will..
      wtf man..
      forgive me im appauled but there has to be some sort of regulation that prevents/exempts these establishments.. or is there not?
      carry your own camera and record yourself just to evade the discrimination? does that count? no? well wtf man
      establish a right to record this information (no need) and establish rights to protect ourselves knowngly.. wtf is going on? why are you americans not forming a way to destroy these monitors? why does a politician provide a venue for monitors? why isnt outside company proposing this except for useful reasons? you guys tolerate this now well then soon your going tolerate all sorts of govt penetrations into our lives.. wtf are you seriously gonna let this shit get proposed and tolerated? concern is on your privacy, its not a talk, its not a joke, its a decision right now between your solidified position and your weakend tolerance to respond to such stupor fucking nonsense.. bring yourself to a point where this matters because if you simply tolerate this shit its really your fault and so are the future these concepts extend into.

    2. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA 2017 brings us:
      The War on Bees
      closely followed by ...
      The War on Lightning
      later prequelled by the more than obvious origin myth ...
      The War on Intelligence

      I can hardly wait ...

    3. Re:Why by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question is "why"? - you have a higher chance of dying from a bee sting or a lightning strike, why not address the higher risks first?

      Psychology. The nature of terrorism as a threat is what makes it so efffective towards western populations. I can avoid going out in a lightning storm, and I can for the most part reasonably well avoid bees, but the thing which makes terrorism such a hard issue to tackle is that it's unpredictable and usually there's not much you can do to avoid it if it hits and you happen to be there.

      Same is true with car accidents and a whole host of other issues, but the difference is that this is intentional. People can mostly deal with the old truism of 'shit happens', when you're talking about natural catastrophes and accidents, but when you're talking about people with malicious intent, it's much harder to get people to adopt the notion that this really isn't a big deal. Add to that the fact that so far most strikes post 911 in the west have been small, but all it really takes is one major one again to cause massive panic and outrage: lightning and bee stings are not hoping on getting their hands on biological or nuclear weapons for maximum damage.

      I'm personally not american and I agree that the war on terror (how can you even have a war on terror which usually is a direct consequence of war itself, that is, wars tend to cause terror) is a failure. I don't support draconian monitoring of people or what the intelligence agencies are doing. But I do think comparing terrorism to naturally occurring accidents is not exactly a good comparison because the 2 phenomenon are quite different in that only one of them is driven by conscious intent to harm people - and that matters when it comes to dealing with threats.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    4. Re:Why by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      The question is "why"? - you have a higher chance of dying from a bee sting or a lightning strike, why not address the higher risks first?

      Yes lets kill all the bees :D

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No its not a failure, its a failure to see what the definition of its success was. Wall Street whores and the government they prop up have gained more control through fear mongering. They scare the populace, which does nothing when they make another power grab, how is that a failure?

    6. Re:Why by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      I was referring to its official goal as in controlling terror. Obviously it's benefited other instances and the governments to expand their power but from the standpoint of the citizenry it's been a total failure in every measurable way.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    7. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was referring to its official goal as in controlling terror.

      You're assuming the real goal and the official goal are the same.

      They're not.

    8. Re:Why by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      I never said I assumed so, that's why I differentiated between official reason and actual reason, I get - and agree with - your point.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    9. Re:Why by slashrio · · Score: 1

      it's all about control. If you as a government are afraid of the population, then you want to control it such that the population will be afraid of the government.
      Bye pesky 'democracy'.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  12. Welcome To The End.. Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its time

  13. A New Age Of Trunk Riding by dynamo · · Score: 2

    This is so easily foiled, anyone who wants to hide can just rest under a blanket, lie down, hide in the trunk, etc. Not a good use of money.

    1. Re:A New Age Of Trunk Riding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be sure Thermal technology will be incorporated, as well as a host of other sensors. There are Radiation sensor/detectors in place at most "sensitive" places already, so this is just going further down the slippery slope.

  14. fun fad for New Yorkers by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Make your face look like Hitler's. The software should recognize him yes?

  15. In other news... by BoogieChile · · Score: 2

    80's disco fashions look to be headed back in a big way

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61aBM%2BVAsSL._UX679_.jpg

  16. Burqas to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't that be a thing - everyone has to wear burqas to *avoid* being harassed.

  17. I already don't park at the new parking meters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but having to register my license plate somewhere to park just isn't worth it. What if I have one unpaid parking ticket I don't know about? They could come over and boot my car.

  18. I see clowns by PPH · · Score: 1

    Nothing but clowns.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Homeless have to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that freedom? anyone walking is subject to anything the government wants from marshal law of stop and frisk to this.
    Sad that no political party is about freedom all seem more communist than not.

  20. Verboten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verboten List:
    Hats that hide the face
    Ski Masks
    Cos play equipment
    No IR emitters within 9" of your face
    Size restrictions on eyewear.

    Remember citizens, we are at war.

    1. Re: Verboten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smog or particulate protection masks and sun glasses.

  21. Burkas ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will make a comeback !

  22. This NEVER gets old! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, muican's, how about another preachy lecture about "freedom" and how your the "greatest country in the world".

    1. Re:This NEVER gets old! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Europe and Asia pioneered this kind of surveillance crap, and few people know about it there or care about it.

      In the US, there's a good chance that SCOTUS and Congress put a stop to this. Don't hold your breath for that to happen in Europe.

  23. Re:body cams first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well an army of cowards for sure.

  24. Great way to encourage... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    At each crossing, and at structurally sensitive points on bridges and tunnels, advanced cameras and sensors will be installed to ... test emerging facial recognition software and equipment.

    That sounds like a great way to encourage jaywalking.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Great way to encourage... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      More to the point, it encourages no-one to walk anywhere and drive instead.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re:Great way to encourage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      license plate scanners both work a lot better, and are a lot more ubiquitous then face recognition camera's
      in other words: the stalkers for the powers-that-be like that attitude

    3. Re:Great way to encourage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that license plates only identify a vehicle, while facial recognition identifies an individual.

  25. That's fine, if it's only at "crossing points"... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    That's fine, if it's only at "crossing points"... it'll only end up tracking tourists, since New Yorkers are about half as bad as San Franciscans, when it comes to just walking anywhere they feel like it, rather than in crosswalks.

  26. What A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    King Cuomo, II is such a disgrace to the office of NY governor. Impeachment charges should be brought against him for violating the NY Constitution and the USA constitution. Career criminal gangsta, just like his pop.

    Anyway, all freedom loving New Yorkers, listen carefully: when you use a NYC crossings, be sure to have a big and exaggerated smile on you face because the facial recognition software cannot run your smiling face and match it to your DMV photo that is in its database. So big smile on those crossings! Let your teeth show!

    Second, there is technology that can stop your license plate from being read by a automatic license plate reader(ALPR) AND hidden from photo surveillance. Go to http://www.sunflexzone.com?afmc=2n and buy two (2) anti flash photo license plate covers (1 for front plate & 1 for back plate) to prevent any camera from capturing your plate. Also buy the anti ALPR stealth infrared blocker frame (both front and back) to make your car completely stealth for these authoritarian socialists (i.e. King Cuomo) who want to record & track your every movement.

    Never give up any of your God given freedoms for any alleged security promised by a collectivist who cares nothing about your security and just want to enslave you.

    WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

    WWW.INFOWARS.COM

  27. Brave New York by houghi · · Score: 1

    It is a word play on Brave New World. Now give me my karma!

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  28. Some cameras are designed to be in your face. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Australia in particular shopping malls cameras are placed at areas where people are funnelled into a certain corridor such as an entry/exit, hallway or escalator.

    If they cant put the cameras close they attach more powerful lenses to zoom in to the funnelled point.
    Somewhere like a food court or car park might not yield detailed results but whenever you walk in, out or use escalators a good shot of your face and body shape is captured.

    I walk with my cap and sunglasses on all the time even indoors. I might take my sunnies off after I have entered and passed all the entrance cameras. Any funnel points I look down at my feet. If it wasnt so hot here Id wear one of those cape/coat things like Aiden Peice from Watch_Dogs.

  29. Re:body cams first by houghi · · Score: 1

    Oh, and don't forget to vote for what companies get more power in November.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  30. Funny by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Funny how Fascism in the US only starts creeping in after most of the men and women that fought it (and would recognize all this for what it is) have passed away.

  31. Howl by gridsleep764 · · Score: 1

    This is the first time I have read "lone wolf" to intrinsically mean a criminal. I've been a lone wolf my entire life and would not consider myself a criminal. Is Governor Cuomo planning to enforce group membership as a legal standard? Sheep get a free ride while lone wolves get prosecuted? I foresee class action lawsuits aplenty.

  32. Witness protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how long before facial recognition nullifies the protection of "Witness protection"

  33. Reminds me by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    I have a dinner with Andre

  34. Re:That's fine, if it's only at "crossing points". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, as a tourist, am honored to be added to the NYPD photo album. I'm a beautiful guy. I will win so great, so huge in that album. Bring it on!

  35. So many things wrong by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    NYC doesn't need to test facial recognition cameras, the companies that make the cameras should be responsible for testing them, and then certify them for NYC. Why is NYC doing QA for another company?

    Why would NYC need facial recognition cameras ever?

    Will data be retained or only statistics?

    In TFA they offer no answers and aren't willing to share any plans with the public, which is very damning after publicly announcing they will be spending a ton of taxpayer money installing these at bridges and tunnels. Only at the bottom are we offered the clue that Gov. Cuomo is basically chasing the bogeyman with the taxpayer's money: “In this age of terrorist activity and lone wolves, if you look at points of vulnerability you’ll go to our tunnels and to our bridges. So really they have to be reimagined for a new reality,”

      One recalls the song Riot by Wyclef Jean featuring Serj Tankian of System of a Down: "From the train to the plane, security check, From the bridge to the tunnel, security check"

  36. Birds of a feather by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Corrupt, anti-2nd amendment and proponents of Big Brother often seem to appear together in US politicians.

  37. I have a better idea by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    Instead of throwing money at technology that has side-effect of oppressing and suffocating the privacy of normal citizens, why not put that money toward promoting peace, cooperation and understanding?

    I remember when people around the world loved America because it led by example. Because it was a place people could go that offered more freedom and privacy than the nation they were currently in. Its constitution was followed STRICTLY because the words in it were written specifically by those who literally fought against the kind of thing we're seeing in this article.

    America seems to be losing its way, in the most general sense of the term. If its people don't start realizing this soon and backpedal furiously to restore the integrity it once stood for, it's just going to be another brick in the wall.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  38. threat?= by klek · · Score: 1

    "21st century security threats"... I wonder if those threats would even exist if the US hadn't invaded and weren't still occupying & regularly bombing Iraq and A'stan.

  39. Recognize my ass! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    There's nothing like being tested against a database every couple minutes I always say.

  40. Don't think you can hide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NYC made it a crime last year to obscure your face in public for the purpose of avoiding facial recognition cameras: Class A Misdemeanor punishable by 1 year in prison and $1000 in fines.

  41. My Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My face and my likeness and all data associated to me or the like is my intellectual property, and nobody, including New York, may use it in any capacity.

  42. Re:body cams first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, except for your whimpering comment on slashdot

  43. Afraid of an uprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

    So apparently US officials are afraid of an uprising