Dozens of advocacy organizations are urging the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the growing police use of facial recognition software, which the groups say violates civil liberties and disproportionately impacts people of color.
While it clearly has the feel of "Big Brother is watching you," aren't the police protected by the First Amendment, for the same reasons that Amy Goodman and Deia Schlosberg should be protected, for the same reasons that we expect to film the police during arrests?
Why should we expect privacy when in public?
What we should have is full access to the information and records of filmed police officers, as well, and their activities. This would be "democratic" in the classic, Greek definition with full disclosure to the public (the Greeks invented "democracy").
This information is paid for by the public, it belongs to the public.
There is no tolerance for confidential official information in a free society, no matter the excuse.
Hmmm- Brings to mind the German Stasi Police official that had A vast library of human scents/ swatches of cloth encapsuled in small bottles- with arrestees scent on them/ carefully catalogued in his vast Library to select an individual living in Berlins underground city, let the dogs get A good whiff and turn them loose to capture his prey-
Yes, this really happened....
I think you should walk around with all of your contact information, your political affiliations, your job location, the name of your sister and where she lives, and everything else about your life plastered on a sandwich sign board, since you have zero expectations of privacy once you leave your door.
The issue here, isn't whether the sun is shining on your face and that reflected light is being read by the collective eyes of community, rather what a particular powerful group of individuals as part of governance can do relative to demanding that you identify yourself without cause or your consent, and then go on some random investigation based solely on grabbing your identity walking down the street.
That is wholly unconstitutional.
Equating the role of cops filming to that of journalists filming, absurd on the face of it.
Last I checked, journalists can't arrest you.
I am sensitive to electricity. SOME OF THE STUFF COMING OUT OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS, PHONE CAMERAS, MONITORING DEVICES, DAMME, IT HURTS.
So you're saying that the citizen film of the shooting of Walter Scott should be thrown away, and the charges of murder against Officer Michael Slager should be dropped?
Yet, only because it betrays what you claim.
East German (DDR, GDR). Good post, your post is very much on to something.
How could you possibly arrive at that conclusion based on my argument?
What betrays what I claim?