This article is about a 700 unit building where the landlord is installing one camera in the entrance.
Anything beyond that simple fact is a fever-dream of a self-professed "privacy advocate" that couldn't wait for an actual violation of their privacy to spin their dystopian fantasies here on Slashdot...
You're literally asking for state surveillance of people coming and going from their homes
No, you failed to read the first line of the article summary - the facial recognition system is being installed on a camera in the 700 unit building entrance, not in front of every door or hallway. Such a system would be incapable of tracking/correlating "people coming and going from their homes".
Did you even bother to read the very first line of The Fine Summary - I quote:
A Brooklyn landlord plans to install facial recognition technology at the entrance of a 700-unit building
How, exactly, will the landlord connect anyone that walks in the entrance of the 700 unit building with a particular apartment to charge your imaginary "guest/kid fee"?
Your landlord has no legal right to know who you have over for dinner.
Who said they did?
Installing facial recognition in the lobby doesn't tell the landlord who's visiting your apartment, it tells them who is on their property. They probably have a legal right to know that.
That's a great argument - can we apply it to gun rights? Lets see, there are 300 million guns in America, and several thousand (give or take) are used in crimes during the year - so why infringe everyone's rights to own a gun because of a few bad apples?
I don't think the issue is Airbnb, I think it has to do with rent subsidies/rent control.
As long as you're not violating occupancy laws, your landlord has absolutely no right to know who, what, or when people or things are going to or from your flat.
Of course, like nearly every other poster below, you ignored the fact that this is installed in the building entrances, not on every apartment entrance.
The landlord has an interest in knowing who enters the building, especially if the apartment is rent-subsidized, and the recipient never enters the building.
Why doesn't she put forth legislation to that effect? If she waits till elected President, she'll have to convince someone in either chamber of Congress to put the bill forward.
Put yourself in Mueller's shoes. If he issued an indictment of Trump, the right-wing nuts would froth at the mouth...well, more so than they already do.
You mean like the Democrats have been for the last 22 months?
And his boss has already declared Presidents are above the law.
No, the DOJ has, for decades BEFORE Trump took office was of the opinion that a sitting President could not be indicted - if a crime is committed by the President, the first step is the Congress impeaches the President and unseats them, THEN the DOJ can charge the former President.
So now Barr has to contend with the rank and file knowing what a sleeze Trump is and attempt to bottle up those investigations.
Trump supporters knew exactly what they were getting in Trump, you just seem to have a problem accepting they preferred Trump over your preferred candidate in 2016.
If we were to make the Senate work like the House, high-population states would have more control. Guess what? This flips, obviously. A majority of the US has control over the rest.
If you "make the Senate work like the House" then what the hell is point of the Senate? The Senate was created to represent the states, the Congress was created to represent the population.
And guess what? In the past couple of elections, Republicans should have taken neither the presidency nor control of the House. You know why? That's exactly how the votes went. The US as a whole didn't [want] the Republican party to take anything.
Oddly, the number of Republican Senators increased in the 2018 election, yet you ignore that fact and focus on the smaller than average increase the Democrats enjoyed in the House.
Well, Steve Bannon did say at the beginning that Trump was too stupid to collude with his own campaign so him colluding with Russia was a ridiculous idea since that would exceed his extremely limited mental capabilities.
And countless Democrats would likely agree with that assessment, and STILL insisted Trump colluded with the Russians.
37 indictments, 6 guilty please, and one conviction. That doesn't sound like a fail to me.
"please"?
So a detective, driving to a murder scene, stops and writes someone a speeding ticket. The Detective never closes the murder case - that's a fail. Mueller was investigating collusion and obstruction of justice, he found none of either - so yes, fail.
If you want to talk about failure, look at the R's obsessive investigations of Hillary before the 2016 election. E-mails? zero indictments.
Take a look at the folks that got immunity in the email case, that explains no convictions.
On the other hand, if a campaign co-ordinates with foreigners to engage in activities aimed at influencing an election (such as, oh say, hacking your opponent's email servers) then that is collusion.
Yeah, but Mueller stated, and Barr reported, that they found NO evidence (zip, nada, zilch) evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign ever coordinated anything with the Russians, despite the Russian's repeated explicit attempts to do just that.
And if a foreign government handed a campaign unsolicited information about its opponent, then that would be an illegal campaign contribution
But if you pay for the information from the same foreign government it's OK?
Trump used his money to payoff his mistress, the campaign wasn't involved.
John Edwards paid off his pregnant mistress while his wife was dying of cancer, all during his Presidential campaign, and SCOTUS said it was NOT a campaign finance violation.
The parts of the confidential report the Special Counsel can and can't be released are clearly outlined in the law Democrats passed after the Special Investigator law (the one in effect when Ken Starr dragged Clinton's private business through the media) - but Democrats know that, despite their attempts to feign ignorance of that simple fact.
Team Blue is demanding the ENTIRE report because they know they can't get the entire report, and when they can't get the ENTIRE report they can call it OBSTRUCTION. According to the Special Counsel law Team Blue passed after watching the Special Investigator Ken Starr drag President Clinton's dirty laundry through the media, they said the report needs to be CONFIDENTIAL and that certain elements can't be made public.
It's genus - they pass a law that makes it illegal to release the entire report, then demand the entire report be released!
Of the thirty-some indictments, a few resulted in guilty pleas, a few folks have been sentenced to prison, for crimes ranging from process crimes (lying to an investigator about a meeting the investigator has a transcript of, for example) or cheating on your taxes years before the election, and over two dozen "never gonna result in convictions" charges against Russians that spewed misinformation on the internet.
Wow. Don't see any collusion. Don't see Obstruction of Justice.
Democrats think meeting with a woman that offers opposition research on Hillary is collusion with a foreign state, yet see no issue with funneling campaign money to a law firm, mis-reporting that payment as for "legal advice", and having the lawyers hire a research firm, which in-turn hires a former foreign intelligence officer who in-turn meets with and pays officials in the Kremlin for opposition research on Hillary's opponent Trump.
Apparently opposition research from foreign sources is only illegal if they offer it for free - by paying for it, it suddenly becomes "OK".
Slashdot Mirror
This article is about a 700 unit building where the landlord is installing one camera in the entrance.
Anything beyond that simple fact is a fever-dream of a self-professed "privacy advocate" that couldn't wait for an actual violation of their privacy to spin their dystopian fantasies here on Slashdot...
You're literally asking for state surveillance of people coming and going from their homes
No, you failed to read the first line of the article summary - the facial recognition system is being installed on a camera in the 700 unit building entrance, not in front of every door or hallway. Such a system would be incapable of tracking/correlating "people coming and going from their homes".
I would sleep better knowing my neighbors are not rapists or murderers.
Isn't that the purpose of the landlord's background check before renting the apartment?
Did you even bother to read the very first line of The Fine Summary - I quote:
A Brooklyn landlord plans to install facial recognition technology at the entrance of a 700-unit building
How, exactly, will the landlord connect anyone that walks in the entrance of the 700 unit building with a particular apartment to charge your imaginary "guest/kid fee"?
As noted in the very first line of The Fine Summary - I quote:
A Brooklyn landlord plans to install facial recognition technology at the entrance of a 700-unit building
They aren't interested in who's going in which apartment, they are identifying who is on the property, who passed through the entrance .
You apparently missed the very first line of The Fine Summary - I quote:
A Brooklyn landlord plans to install facial recognition technology at the entrance of a 700-unit building
How, exactly, will the landlord connect anyone that walks in the entrance of the 700 unit building with a particular apartment?
Your landlord has no legal right to know who you have over for dinner.
Who said they did?
Installing facial recognition in the lobby doesn't tell the landlord who's visiting your apartment, it tells them who is on their property. They probably have a legal right to know that.
That's a great argument - can we apply it to gun rights? Lets see, there are 300 million guns in America, and several thousand (give or take) are used in crimes during the year - so why infringe everyone's rights to own a gun because of a few bad apples?
I don't think the issue is Airbnb, I think it has to do with rent subsidies/rent control.
As long as you're not violating occupancy laws, your landlord has absolutely no right to know who, what, or when people or things are going to or from your flat.
Of course, like nearly every other poster below, you ignored the fact that this is installed in the building entrances, not on every apartment entrance.
The landlord has an interest in knowing who enters the building, especially if the apartment is rent-subsidized, and the recipient never enters the building.
Polls of Iowa voters show Warren beating Donald Trump in a head-to-head election.
Big deal - anybody could have beaten Trump in 2016... except Hillary, of course!
Why doesn't she put forth legislation to that effect? If she waits till elected President, she'll have to convince someone in either chamber of Congress to put the bill forward.
She's not helpless, she needs to step up.
This argument might be persuasive if Trump hadn't just seized the power of the purse from Congress.
Wow, your analysis is so insightful!
President Trump is only doing what Congress said he could - re-allocate certain funds for a declared emergency
So far $1BN has been re-assigned, out of a $3.5TN budget - that's hardly seizing "the power of the purse from Congress."
That's why Reagan signed COBRA benefits into law back in 1985.
Put yourself in Mueller's shoes. If he issued an indictment of Trump, the right-wing nuts would froth at the mouth...well, more so than they already do.
You mean like the Democrats have been for the last 22 months?
And his boss has already declared Presidents are above the law.
No, the DOJ has, for decades BEFORE Trump took office was of the opinion that a sitting President could not be indicted - if a crime is committed by the President, the first step is the Congress impeaches the President and unseats them, THEN the DOJ can charge the former President.
So now Barr has to contend with the rank and file knowing what a sleeze Trump is and attempt to bottle up those investigations.
Trump supporters knew exactly what they were getting in Trump, you just seem to have a problem accepting they preferred Trump over your preferred candidate in 2016.
If we were to make the Senate work like the House, high-population states would have more control. Guess what? This flips, obviously. A majority of the US has control over the rest.
If you "make the Senate work like the House" then what the hell is point of the Senate? The Senate was created to represent the states, the Congress was created to represent the population.
And guess what? In the past couple of elections, Republicans should have taken neither the presidency nor control of the House. You know why? That's exactly how the votes went. The US as a whole didn't [want] the Republican party to take anything.
Oddly, the number of Republican Senators increased in the 2018 election, yet you ignore that fact and focus on the smaller than average increase the Democrats enjoyed in the House.
Funny how you keep insisting on âoeproofâ to prove âoefaithâ. Kinda like you missed the definition of âoefaithâ.
Well, Steve Bannon did say at the beginning that Trump was too stupid to collude with his own campaign so him colluding with Russia was a ridiculous idea since that would exceed his extremely limited mental capabilities.
And countless Democrats would likely agree with that assessment, and STILL insisted Trump colluded with the Russians.
37 indictments, 6 guilty please, and one conviction. That doesn't sound like a fail to me.
"please"?
So a detective, driving to a murder scene, stops and writes someone a speeding ticket. The Detective never closes the murder case - that's a fail. Mueller was investigating collusion and obstruction of justice, he found none of either - so yes, fail.
If you want to talk about failure, look at the R's obsessive investigations of Hillary before the 2016 election. E-mails? zero indictments.
Take a look at the folks that got immunity in the email case, that explains no convictions.
Benghazi? zero indictments.
Congratulations, incompetence isn't a crime.
And what were they convicted of (and your incarceration number is a bit high, but why quibble)?
Process crimes, crimes that occurred before trump was a candidate, tax evasion, failing to register as foreign lobbyist, etc.
No one charged, no one convicted, no one incarcerated for "collusion".
All Mueller proved with the convictions is that if you press long enough, you can likely find SOME crime to charge anyone with.
On the other hand, if a campaign co-ordinates with foreigners to engage in activities aimed at influencing an election (such as, oh say, hacking your opponent's email servers) then that is collusion.
Yeah, but Mueller stated, and Barr reported, that they found NO evidence (zip, nada, zilch) evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign ever coordinated anything with the Russians, despite the Russian's repeated explicit attempts to do just that.
And if a foreign government handed a campaign unsolicited information about its opponent, then that would be an illegal campaign contribution
But if you pay for the information from the same foreign government it's OK?
Trump used his money to payoff his mistress, the campaign wasn't involved.
John Edwards paid off his pregnant mistress while his wife was dying of cancer, all during his Presidential campaign, and SCOTUS said it was NOT a campaign finance violation.
I wish the government would shut down all the 24 hour news channels by revoking their license
As cable channels they do not have "licenses" - they do not have transmitters, they do not broadcast.
The parts of the confidential report the Special Counsel can and can't be released are clearly outlined in the law Democrats passed after the Special Investigator law (the one in effect when Ken Starr dragged Clinton's private business through the media) - but Democrats know that, despite their attempts to feign ignorance of that simple fact.
Team Blue is demanding the ENTIRE report because they know they can't get the entire report, and when they can't get the ENTIRE report they can call it OBSTRUCTION. According to the Special Counsel law Team Blue passed after watching the Special Investigator Ken Starr drag President Clinton's dirty laundry through the media, they said the report needs to be CONFIDENTIAL and that certain elements can't be made public.
It's genus - they pass a law that makes it illegal to release the entire report, then demand the entire report be released!
Of the thirty-some indictments, a few resulted in guilty pleas, a few folks have been sentenced to prison, for crimes ranging from process crimes (lying to an investigator about a meeting the investigator has a transcript of, for example) or cheating on your taxes years before the election, and over two dozen "never gonna result in convictions" charges against Russians that spewed misinformation on the internet.
Wow. Don't see any collusion. Don't see Obstruction of Justice.
Democrats think meeting with a woman that offers opposition research on Hillary is collusion with a foreign state, yet see no issue with funneling campaign money to a law firm, mis-reporting that payment as for "legal advice", and having the lawyers hire a research firm, which in-turn hires a former foreign intelligence officer who in-turn meets with and pays officials in the Kremlin for opposition research on Hillary's opponent Trump.
Apparently opposition research from foreign sources is only illegal if they offer it for free - by paying for it, it suddenly becomes "OK".
Got it.