I hope you then also disagree with the MPAA rating system. Especialy the porn part of it. We all know it is fake, so kids should also be able to see this, right?
Yes. The MPAA rating system is puritan garbage that any intelligent society would have discarded long ago.
Ignoring, for the moment, your grossly crass and inappropriate usage of the term "retarded," I will point out that there are a lot of people out there who, in fact, cannot reasonably separate fantasy from reality.
I don't think my usage of the term was "grossly crass" or "inappropriate" at all. Then you go on to list an example from the *real world* that has nothing to do with video games. I maintain that people can tell the difference between video games and reality, and your examples are nonsensical for this reason. Those are real-world issues that impact people in the real-world, and unless you have concrete, overwhelmingly-accepted scientific evidence that people can't tell the difference between video games (or movies, etc.) and reality, I have no reason to believe they can't.
The evidence indicates that either A) that is a false statement based on a particular belief and not the facts of the matter (meaning that you, yourself, fall into the "not-normal" category), or B) you don't know what "normal" actually means, in terms of human behavior.
Or I guess it could be C) you can't accept that your delusion isn't actually reality.
Nope. Normal people who can tell the difference between fantasy and reality (i.e. nearly everyone). Not being mentally retarded is actually quite a low bar, and it doesn't take an inflated ego to believe you can at least distinguish between video games and real life, even as a kid.
Bullshit. That's like saying not jumping off a building is cowardly; if you want to risk being stalked, being harassed in real life, not being hired/being fired at a future job, or any number of other things, then go ahead, but don't call the rest of us cowardly for not being fucking suicidal. For instance, being on the 'wrong' side in a child porn debate can get you labeled a pedophile, and without anonymity, you may very well find yourself surrounded by an angry mob - literally.
The First Amendment just established the right of free speech, not that you shouldn't suffer the consequences of that speech.
Are you suggesting that the government get involved here? If so, that would be a violation of the first amendment. Removing messages or punishing people for not saying something you'd like them to say in your message (in other words, reveal their identity) is definitely unconstitutional. The constitution simply does not give the government the power to do such a thing.
And were that logic true, what would the point of the first amendment be, if not to protect you from the government punishing you for your speech? That would mean every country on Earth has the same amount of free speech; after all, you're technically free to speak... you may just be murdered for it, depending on where you live. No, the point of the first amendment is to protect you from government punishment. It may not protect you from others criticizing you for that speech, and property owners may kick you off their property, but it does protect you from the government.
If you were saying something entirely different, then I'm honestly not sure why you brought up the first amendment.
If you admit they're trolls, then you're basically admitting that you don't think that their threats are serious, indicating there's no need to waste resources on something that is unimaginably unlikely.
Well, I'm pretty sure there's no way to say they aren't a church, at least. People of those religions might not want to associate with them, and might interpret that magical sky daddy books a bit differently, but they can't just decide they're not a church.
Wrong. Free speech is the notion that you can speak freely. The first amendment (and things like it) deals with the government specifically. It may be a property owner's right to suppress free speech on their own property, but that's still what they're doing.
Except that it probably won't work. Idiots will usually continue to be idiots whether or not they're anonymous, and I'm not even necessarily referring to genuine trolls here. I've seen countless inflammatory comments from people using their real names, and Facebook is, from what I've seen, a cesspool of stupidity.
Pro Religion, Pro Microsoft, Anti GNU, Anti Linux, Pro DRM.
Maybe they just hope those people are trolls. How can someone be pro-DRM? "That's so mind-bogglingly stupid that I'm just going to assume they're trolls so I can feel better about the human race." Something like that, maybe.
That's a good way to prevent everyone from posting. I know I don't want to spend money for the 'privilege' of posting on some website, and I sure as hell don't want to surrender my financial details in order to do so.
Why would the police ever get involved with such a thing? That's a pretty draconian 'solution' to something that isn't even really a problem. Not only would that be a waste of police resources, but it would be anti-free speech (of the government variety); unacceptable.
It's a false dichotomy, anyway. There are plenty more alternatives than that.
You can't honestly believe this could work, do you?
I do. We can place any restriction on the government that we damn well please. If we want to say they can't perform facial recognition on people's passport photos, that's perfectly valid. That's already a rule, actually, since this deals with people's private information. No random searches to check criminality allowed.
Yes. The point is that they spell out *why* the constitution was written the way it was, and what they sought to prevent. If any of the government's activities are similar to what they sought to prevent, then whether or not they could envision that specific violation happening is irrelevant. Courts itself also sometimes use a "What would the founders have done here?" test and uses those documents to try to figure it out, even though the founders had nothing specific to say about these situations.
Otherwise they are interpretations of what they meant and therefore opinion.
You *always* interpret what you read, and all interpretations are therefore opinion. But some opinions are more correct than others.
Both are the creation of text and transmission to another person. The mechanism is irrelevant.
The mechanism is very much relevant, since the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned it. What you're saying is completely subjective and arbitrary, and yet you're pretending like it's some intelligent standard.
Sorry you missed it. To put it as clearly as I can. There is nothing in the Forth Amendment that specifically outlaws the use of facial recognition from the passport database to identify suspects.
It does *not* need to be specific. Plenty of the constitution is rather vague, and it's called a "living document" for a reason. And yet, in this very specific instance, you have a problem with that. General warrants are unconstitutional. These people don't even have a warrant, and yet they somehow have the constitutional ability to search everyone's photos using facial recognition technology? That's just nonsense. The idea that the founding fathers would have allowed things to get this far, especially if it was used against them, is absolute nonsense. They would have taken measures to prevent the government from doing this nonsense of this scale just like they did for general warrants, warrantless searches, soldiers being quartered in homes, etc.
And besides the fourth amendment, if you're going to play that "There is nothing in the constitution that gives you right X!" game, the constitution also doesn't specifically grant the government the power to perform facial recognition technology on these photos. Therefore, anyone who says they do is interpreting the constitution and is therefore spouting an opinion.
The only opinion that matters is the SCOTUS.
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.
The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary org
Look, you're free to disagree with me, but history shows what sort of government you'll end up with if you trust them with all this power. If you like that sort of thing, may I just suggest North Korea? There's no way you're going to convince me of anything, and it looks like there's no way I'll convince you of anything, so that's the fastest possible way to get what you want (or to get the government you deserve).
And unless you you can speak to the founding fathers neither do you.
There are numerous historical documents that lay out what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution. Saying, "But you can't talk to them directly!" is such a laughable argument, but nothing surprising coming from you.
Writing something on a piece of paper and mailing it, which the founding fathers could do, is not very different than typing and sending on a computer.
"The Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1792. They did not even have photography back then." They didn't have computers back then, either. Why don't you stop moving your bullshit goalposts and being a hypocrite? The fact is, they don't *need* to have had such technology back then.
And I assure you that sending data over the Internet is far different from writing something on a piece of paper and mailing it. You can find some similarities, but that is all.
Where in the constitution does is state anything about looking into government files and/or facial recognition?
It doesn't need to. It constitutes as a search, and no, the government doesn't own a damn thing. Searching everyone because some people are criminals is clearly a violation of the fourth amendment. Again, get a warrant.
Trying to apply the Fourth Amendment is an interpretation and therefore open to opinion. It all revolves around the phrase "unreasonable searches". Again, what is or is not "unreasonable" is opinion.
Do you have a goddamn point? Everything you read is open to interpretation. You can't understand what is being wrote unless you interpret. And you know my opinion already. So you say that my opinion is an opinion. And? Are you going somewhere with this bullshit? You're not going to convince me to accept your illogical garbage by telling me that the 4th amendment must be interpreted.
As opposed to the opinion of one person on the internet.
I have a problem with that and it has been covered by a court ruling as there is an expectation of privacy withing the walls of one's own home.
You have a problem with that? Whatever for? Just because a court ruled it's bad? Nothing physical is happening to you, so what's the problem?
I see no expectation of privacy on a DL or passport database considering it can be accessed by thousands of authorized personnel around the world.
Lots of people can access it, so there is no privacy? Privacy laws can say whatever we want them to, and we can put whatever restrictions upon the government that we want. I see no issue here. The number of people that can access a database is irrelevant.
Where we draw the line as to what is acceptable will always be arbitrary.
With some lines being more moral than others.
The Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1792. They did not even have photography back then.
Oh, fuck off. It's obvious you don't understand the spirit of the constitution. They couldn't have conceived of computers, either, and yet the ridiculous posts you're sending using them are clearly free speech.
Most rights are codified in documents such as the United States Bill of Rights
The constitution is not just a list of rights. Anything the constitution does not give the government the power to do, it can't do.
Also, even that is a mere opinion, just an opinion by those who write laws.
To me a database search is not intrusive while a cavity search is.
So you must have no problem with the NSA, then. Well, I and others who have studied history know that nothing good can come of it when you give the government access to too much information.
You don't believe in emotional harm? What if someone invented a technology to see through your walls and recorded your every move? You'd have no problem with that? Where does your arbitrary nonsense end?
Where is your evidence that it is a " violation of people's fundamental liberties"?
The fourth amendment, because they have no business looking at this data in this way without a warrant. I know you're going to disagree with that interpretation and ignore the spirit of the fourth amendment, but there it is. Besides that, the idea that people shouldn't have privacy from facial recognition software merely because they want to travel is absolutely absurd. Get a warrant, you fucks.
Without such evidence it is merely opinion.
All rights are. You think people should not be prosecuted for criticizing the government? That's an opinion.
Running my DL picture does not require physical contact and is therefore very different than a cavity search.
Irrelevant. You acted as if them checking to see if you're a criminal is treating you as a law abiding citizen. Were that true, that logic could be used with anything; whether it happens physically or not does not matter.
It is an attempt to get you out of your narrow focus and see the broader picture from a different point of view.
I have never heard of not being identified by the police as a fundamental freedom.
Then you might need to check again, because performing facial recognition on people's pictures without a warrant is a violation of people's fundamental liberties, regardless of whether or not they have such data.
The way to fight unjust laws is to get them changed. Making just laws unenforceable is not the solution.
How many people have to be sacrificed to the government before the laws get changed? That's not something anyone should want.
And actually, making them unenforceable is one way to get them changed.
So catching criminals is oppressing the people.
It may very well be, depending on who qualifies as a "criminal"; besides that, the point you keep missing is that all of these capabilities allow them to oppress people even more easily.
I would consider having my picture use in facial recognition as being treated like a law abiding citizen.
Would you also think so if the police decided to perform cavity searches on you just to check if you're a criminal, no evidence required?
You would say something different if you or someone close to you was a victim of a serious crime.
What a dumb, trivially debunked argument. What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation than I am now is irrelevant to whether or not my arguments are correct; that's just an ad hominem. I might also say something different if I murdered someone and was convicted of doing so: That it shouldn't be illegal to murder. Therefore, laws against murder are bad. Have you ever heard of something called "bias"? The "victims" aren't anymore right or wrong than anyone else.
Then why do we have any laws at all?
Because it's a necessary evil, and there are different kinds of freedoms. Fundamental freedoms are not something we can give away for petty safety. I also like how you compare not being able to perform facial recognition techniques on people's pictures with complete anarchy.
Catching criminals is much higher on the list for law abiding citizens.
Nice guilt by association, there. That is, if the implication was that I'm not a law abiding citizen.
Because people do not walk around with their names on their chests but their pictures are captured during crimes.
So you even listed a difference yourself. You do something the government doesn't like (perhaps break an unjust law) and they managed to capture a picture of you (probably by using all the surveillance you people encourage), and when you go to use your passport, you're fucked.
If you can not explain what the difference is then there is no difference.
Those opportunities are? Yet again you bring up vague arguments with no basis.
Are you that fucking dense? Obviously, if it was the facial recognition software that caught this person, there *is* a difference; names can be faked. Adding in facial recognition makes it easier to catch people unless they also disguise their appearance. It's just another way to oppress people.
Sorry but passports are also used as general identification.
They can be if you choose. Can you choose to not have them treat you like a criminal by using facial recognition software on your picture?
I disagree 100%. All you are doing is letting criminals get away.
Fine with me. I'd rather have freedom and privacy than safety. Catching criminals is far from my prime concern.
Again, what is the difference between doing facial recognition vs doing a text search on name or Social Security Number?
Why would they need facial recognition if they could just search a name or SSN? Obviously there is a difference. Facial recognition creates many more opportunities to oppress people, even if they manage to hide their names.
Then again, I'm not one for "Papers, please." to begin with, and I think you shouldn't be harassed like this at all. Name? SSN? Leave me the fuck alone.
Every tool of law enforcement is subject to corruption.
Some far more than others. You seem to be saying, "All things are subject to corruption, so everything is equally subject to corruption." Automated surveillance and performing facial recognition on someone just using a passport is far more subject to corruption (and harder to prevent) than many other things. People have a right to privacy, and that can include a right to not have your information used in certain ways by the government.
In this case the person gave identification information to the government and the government used that information to identify him.
Gave identification for a specific purpose: To facilitate travel to other countries. That's what passports should be about. But you seem to think (despite that you say) that the government should be able to do whatever it wants with your data merely because some part of the government has the data; that's horrible for freedom. I don't think passports should be used in this way, and I don't think drivers licenses should be used in this way. Get a warrant.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you then also disagree with the MPAA rating system. Especialy the porn part of it. We all know it is fake, so kids should also be able to see this, right?
Yes. The MPAA rating system is puritan garbage that any intelligent society would have discarded long ago.
Okay.
Ignoring, for the moment, your grossly crass and inappropriate usage of the term "retarded," I will point out that there are a lot of people out there who, in fact, cannot reasonably separate fantasy from reality.
I don't think my usage of the term was "grossly crass" or "inappropriate" at all. Then you go on to list an example from the *real world* that has nothing to do with video games. I maintain that people can tell the difference between video games and reality, and your examples are nonsensical for this reason. Those are real-world issues that impact people in the real-world, and unless you have concrete, overwhelmingly-accepted scientific evidence that people can't tell the difference between video games (or movies, etc.) and reality, I have no reason to believe they can't.
The evidence indicates that either A) that is a false statement based on a particular belief and not the facts of the matter (meaning that you, yourself, fall into the "not-normal" category), or B) you don't know what "normal" actually means, in terms of human behavior.
Or I guess it could be C) you can't accept that your delusion isn't actually reality.
D) None of the above.
Nope. Normal people who can tell the difference between fantasy and reality (i.e. nearly everyone). Not being mentally retarded is actually quite a low bar, and it doesn't take an inflated ego to believe you can at least distinguish between video games and real life, even as a kid.
Only men are drafted, and only some men at that. That's far from "every American."
Yes, as an adult, you realize that. But would you have realized it as a child?
Yes. I would. Not everyone is mentally retarded.
In a lot of cases, it's cowardly.
Bullshit. That's like saying not jumping off a building is cowardly; if you want to risk being stalked, being harassed in real life, not being hired/being fired at a future job, or any number of other things, then go ahead, but don't call the rest of us cowardly for not being fucking suicidal. For instance, being on the 'wrong' side in a child porn debate can get you labeled a pedophile, and without anonymity, you may very well find yourself surrounded by an angry mob - literally.
The First Amendment just established the right of free speech, not that you shouldn't suffer the consequences of that speech.
Are you suggesting that the government get involved here? If so, that would be a violation of the first amendment. Removing messages or punishing people for not saying something you'd like them to say in your message (in other words, reveal their identity) is definitely unconstitutional. The constitution simply does not give the government the power to do such a thing.
And were that logic true, what would the point of the first amendment be, if not to protect you from the government punishing you for your speech? That would mean every country on Earth has the same amount of free speech; after all, you're technically free to speak... you may just be murdered for it, depending on where you live. No, the point of the first amendment is to protect you from government punishment. It may not protect you from others criticizing you for that speech, and property owners may kick you off their property, but it does protect you from the government.
If you were saying something entirely different, then I'm honestly not sure why you brought up the first amendment.
If you admit they're trolls, then you're basically admitting that you don't think that their threats are serious, indicating there's no need to waste resources on something that is unimaginably unlikely.
Well, I'm pretty sure there's no way to say they aren't a church, at least. People of those religions might not want to associate with them, and might interpret that magical sky daddy books a bit differently, but they can't just decide they're not a church.
Wrong. Free speech is the notion that you can speak freely. The first amendment (and things like it) deals with the government specifically. It may be a property owner's right to suppress free speech on their own property, but that's still what they're doing.
Are they not a real church, or what?
Except that it probably won't work. Idiots will usually continue to be idiots whether or not they're anonymous, and I'm not even necessarily referring to genuine trolls here. I've seen countless inflammatory comments from people using their real names, and Facebook is, from what I've seen, a cesspool of stupidity.
Pro Religion, Pro Microsoft, Anti GNU, Anti Linux, Pro DRM.
Maybe they just hope those people are trolls. How can someone be pro-DRM? "That's so mind-bogglingly stupid that I'm just going to assume they're trolls so I can feel better about the human race." Something like that, maybe.
That's a good way to prevent everyone from posting. I know I don't want to spend money for the 'privilege' of posting on some website, and I sure as hell don't want to surrender my financial details in order to do so.
Why would the police ever get involved with such a thing? That's a pretty draconian 'solution' to something that isn't even really a problem. Not only would that be a waste of police resources, but it would be anti-free speech (of the government variety); unacceptable.
It's a false dichotomy, anyway. There are plenty more alternatives than that.
You can't honestly believe this could work, do you?
I do. We can place any restriction on the government that we damn well please. If we want to say they can't perform facial recognition on people's passport photos, that's perfectly valid. That's already a rule, actually, since this deals with people's private information. No random searches to check criminality allowed.
Were they written by the founding fathers.
Yes. The point is that they spell out *why* the constitution was written the way it was, and what they sought to prevent. If any of the government's activities are similar to what they sought to prevent, then whether or not they could envision that specific violation happening is irrelevant. Courts itself also sometimes use a "What would the founders have done here?" test and uses those documents to try to figure it out, even though the founders had nothing specific to say about these situations.
Otherwise they are interpretations of what they meant and therefore opinion.
You *always* interpret what you read, and all interpretations are therefore opinion. But some opinions are more correct than others.
Both are the creation of text and transmission to another person. The mechanism is irrelevant.
The mechanism is very much relevant, since the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned it. What you're saying is completely subjective and arbitrary, and yet you're pretending like it's some intelligent standard.
Sorry you missed it. To put it as clearly as I can. There is nothing in the Forth Amendment that specifically outlaws the use of facial recognition from the passport database to identify suspects.
It does *not* need to be specific. Plenty of the constitution is rather vague, and it's called a "living document" for a reason. And yet, in this very specific instance, you have a problem with that. General warrants are unconstitutional. These people don't even have a warrant, and yet they somehow have the constitutional ability to search everyone's photos using facial recognition technology? That's just nonsense. The idea that the founding fathers would have allowed things to get this far, especially if it was used against them, is absolute nonsense. They would have taken measures to prevent the government from doing this nonsense of this scale just like they did for general warrants, warrantless searches, soldiers being quartered in homes, etc.
And besides the fourth amendment, if you're going to play that "There is nothing in the constitution that gives you right X!" game, the constitution also doesn't specifically grant the government the power to perform facial recognition technology on these photos. Therefore, anyone who says they do is interpreting the constitution and is therefore spouting an opinion.
The only opinion that matters is the SCOTUS.
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.
The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary org
What is moral is also arbitrary.
Look, you're free to disagree with me, but history shows what sort of government you'll end up with if you trust them with all this power. If you like that sort of thing, may I just suggest North Korea? There's no way you're going to convince me of anything, and it looks like there's no way I'll convince you of anything, so that's the fastest possible way to get what you want (or to get the government you deserve).
And unless you you can speak to the founding fathers neither do you.
There are numerous historical documents that lay out what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution. Saying, "But you can't talk to them directly!" is such a laughable argument, but nothing surprising coming from you.
Writing something on a piece of paper and mailing it, which the founding fathers could do, is not very different than typing and sending on a computer.
"The Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1792. They did not even have photography back then." They didn't have computers back then, either. Why don't you stop moving your bullshit goalposts and being a hypocrite? The fact is, they don't *need* to have had such technology back then.
And I assure you that sending data over the Internet is far different from writing something on a piece of paper and mailing it. You can find some similarities, but that is all.
Where in the constitution does is state anything about looking into government files and/or facial recognition?
It doesn't need to. It constitutes as a search, and no, the government doesn't own a damn thing. Searching everyone because some people are criminals is clearly a violation of the fourth amendment. Again, get a warrant.
Trying to apply the Fourth Amendment is an interpretation and therefore open to opinion. It all revolves around the phrase "unreasonable searches". Again, what is or is not "unreasonable" is opinion.
Do you have a goddamn point? Everything you read is open to interpretation. You can't understand what is being wrote unless you interpret. And you know my opinion already. So you say that my opinion is an opinion. And? Are you going somewhere with this bullshit? You're not going to convince me to accept your illogical garbage by telling me that the 4th amendment must be interpreted.
As opposed to the opinion of one person on the internet.
What, you?
I have a problem with that and it has been covered by a court ruling as there is an expectation of privacy withing the walls of one's own home.
You have a problem with that? Whatever for? Just because a court ruled it's bad? Nothing physical is happening to you, so what's the problem?
I see no expectation of privacy on a DL or passport database considering it can be accessed by thousands of authorized personnel around the world.
Lots of people can access it, so there is no privacy? Privacy laws can say whatever we want them to, and we can put whatever restrictions upon the government that we want. I see no issue here. The number of people that can access a database is irrelevant.
Where we draw the line as to what is acceptable will always be arbitrary.
With some lines being more moral than others.
The Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1792. They did not even have photography back then.
Oh, fuck off. It's obvious you don't understand the spirit of the constitution. They couldn't have conceived of computers, either, and yet the ridiculous posts you're sending using them are clearly free speech.
Most rights are codified in documents such as the United States Bill of Rights
The constitution is not just a list of rights. Anything the constitution does not give the government the power to do, it can't do.
Also, even that is a mere opinion, just an opinion by those who write laws.
To me a database search is not intrusive while a cavity search is.
So you must have no problem with the NSA, then. Well, I and others who have studied history know that nothing good can come of it when you give the government access to too much information.
You don't believe in emotional harm? What if someone invented a technology to see through your walls and recorded your every move? You'd have no problem with that? Where does your arbitrary nonsense end?
Where is your evidence that it is a " violation of people's fundamental liberties"?
The fourth amendment, because they have no business looking at this data in this way without a warrant. I know you're going to disagree with that interpretation and ignore the spirit of the fourth amendment, but there it is. Besides that, the idea that people shouldn't have privacy from facial recognition software merely because they want to travel is absolutely absurd. Get a warrant, you fucks.
Without such evidence it is merely opinion.
All rights are. You think people should not be prosecuted for criticizing the government? That's an opinion.
Running my DL picture does not require physical contact and is therefore very different than a cavity search.
Irrelevant. You acted as if them checking to see if you're a criminal is treating you as a law abiding citizen. Were that true, that logic could be used with anything; whether it happens physically or not does not matter.
It is an attempt to get you out of your narrow focus and see the broader picture from a different point of view.
I have never heard of not being identified by the police as a fundamental freedom.
Then you might need to check again, because performing facial recognition on people's pictures without a warrant is a violation of people's fundamental liberties, regardless of whether or not they have such data.
The way to fight unjust laws is to get them changed. Making just laws unenforceable is not the solution.
How many people have to be sacrificed to the government before the laws get changed? That's not something anyone should want.
And actually, making them unenforceable is one way to get them changed.
So catching criminals is oppressing the people.
It may very well be, depending on who qualifies as a "criminal"; besides that, the point you keep missing is that all of these capabilities allow them to oppress people even more easily.
Catching criminals is much higher on the list for law abiding citizens.
Also, what kinds of criminals? Potheads? Laws aren't always just.
I would consider having my picture use in facial recognition as being treated like a law abiding citizen.
Would you also think so if the police decided to perform cavity searches on you just to check if you're a criminal, no evidence required?
You would say something different if you or someone close to you was a victim of a serious crime.
What a dumb, trivially debunked argument. What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation than I am now is irrelevant to whether or not my arguments are correct; that's just an ad hominem. I might also say something different if I murdered someone and was convicted of doing so: That it shouldn't be illegal to murder. Therefore, laws against murder are bad. Have you ever heard of something called "bias"? The "victims" aren't anymore right or wrong than anyone else.
Then why do we have any laws at all?
Because it's a necessary evil, and there are different kinds of freedoms. Fundamental freedoms are not something we can give away for petty safety. I also like how you compare not being able to perform facial recognition techniques on people's pictures with complete anarchy.
Catching criminals is much higher on the list for law abiding citizens.
Nice guilt by association, there. That is, if the implication was that I'm not a law abiding citizen.
Because people do not walk around with their names on their chests but their pictures are captured during crimes.
So you even listed a difference yourself. You do something the government doesn't like (perhaps break an unjust law) and they managed to capture a picture of you (probably by using all the surveillance you people encourage), and when you go to use your passport, you're fucked.
If you can not explain what the difference is then there is no difference.
Those opportunities are? Yet again you bring up vague arguments with no basis.
Are you that fucking dense? Obviously, if it was the facial recognition software that caught this person, there *is* a difference; names can be faked. Adding in facial recognition makes it easier to catch people unless they also disguise their appearance. It's just another way to oppress people.
Sorry but passports are also used as general identification.
They can be if you choose. Can you choose to not have them treat you like a criminal by using facial recognition software on your picture?
I disagree 100%. All you are doing is letting criminals get away.
Fine with me. I'd rather have freedom and privacy than safety. Catching criminals is far from my prime concern.
Again, what is the difference between doing facial recognition vs doing a text search on name or Social Security Number?
Why would they need facial recognition if they could just search a name or SSN? Obviously there is a difference. Facial recognition creates many more opportunities to oppress people, even if they manage to hide their names.
Then again, I'm not one for "Papers, please." to begin with, and I think you shouldn't be harassed like this at all. Name? SSN? Leave me the fuck alone.
Every tool of law enforcement is subject to corruption.
Some far more than others. You seem to be saying, "All things are subject to corruption, so everything is equally subject to corruption." Automated surveillance and performing facial recognition on someone just using a passport is far more subject to corruption (and harder to prevent) than many other things. People have a right to privacy, and that can include a right to not have your information used in certain ways by the government.
In this case the person gave identification information to the government and the government used that information to identify him.
Gave identification for a specific purpose: To facilitate travel to other countries. That's what passports should be about. But you seem to think (despite that you say) that the government should be able to do whatever it wants with your data merely because some part of the government has the data; that's horrible for freedom. I don't think passports should be used in this way, and I don't think drivers licenses should be used in this way. Get a warrant.