Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
That_Guy

ICE Has Been Mining DMV Databases Using Facial Recognition For Years

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Howsithangin

That’s why he posted it. Those two lines. You think I don’t know by now?

:giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Mine was.

His was his standard and threadbare, “You all are racists” blanket troll dropping. No substance. No independent thought.

 

At least he is admitted that he isn’t engaging in discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

The OP begins with, "Tens of millions of U.S. citizens have had their faces scanned by the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without their knowledge or consent...the use of this unofficial surveillance infrastructure has never been authorized by Congress or any State legislature, and advocates say running facial recognition searches against databases of millions of law-abiding citizens is a serious breach of privacy."

 

My buddy Jerry's takeaway?

 

“You all are racists”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

The OP begins with, "Tens of millions of U.S. citizens have had their faces scanned by the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without their knowledge or consent...the use of this unofficial surveillance infrastructure has never been authorized by Congress or any State legislature, and advocates say running facial recognition searches against databases of millions of law-abiding citizens is a serious breach of privacy."

 

My buddy Jerry's takeaway?

I don’t care. The reality is, the article is about Detroit, well known for its black and Muslim population, and the article says this surveillance disproportionately and unfairly targets those blacks (and Muslims), which is the real reason you posted it. I know this, nothing you say will change my mind, don’t bother trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

That's 2 lines too many

 

Triggered, eh?

 

 

I don’t care. The reality is, the article is about Detroit, well known for its black and Muslim population, and the article says this surveillance disproportionately and unfairly targets those blacks (and Muslims), which is the real reason you posted it. I know this, nothing you say will change my mind, don’t bother trying.

 

The passage you responded to is from the OP, which is not about Detroit.

Just FYI..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco

Triggered, eh?

 

 

 

 

The passage you responded to is from the OP, which is not about Detroit.

Just FYI..

Yea I’m triggered....You couldn’t trigger me if you tried

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

I don’t care. The reality is, the article is about Detroit, well known for its black and Muslim population, and the article says this surveillance disproportionately and unfairly targets those blacks (and Muslims), which is the real reason you posted it. I know this, nothing you say will change my mind, don’t bother trying.

"My buddy" That_Guy thinks that people haven't sussed him out over the years that he has been here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

The passage you responded to is from the OP, which is not about Detroit.

Just FYI..

I’m talking about what That_Guy posted, his link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

For those who aren't familiar with Detroit's connection to the history of America's automotive industry or the classic modern American film canon and cannot get past their own perceptions of the "Motor City," there are other examples of the surveillance state run amok using facial recognition technology and AI. (this is the kind of thing that used to concern the pre-Trump GOP :shrug:)

Edited by That_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

For those who aren't familiar with Detroit's connection to the history of America's automotive industry or the classic modern American film canon and cannot get past their own perceptions of the "Motor City," there are other examples of the surveillance state run amok using facial recognition technology and AI. (this is the kind of thing that used to concern the pre-Trump GOP :shrug:)

 

:yawn:

 

Triggered, eh?

 

 

 

 

The passage you responded to is from the OP, which is not about Detroit.

Just FYI..

 

:crybaby2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

Hmm... mixed emotions here.

 

But doesn't the entire database of photos essentially belong to State Governments and by in large they can use it for law enforcement purposes?

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

For those who aren't familiar with Detroit's connection to the history of America's automotive industry or the classic modern American film canon and cannot get past their own perceptions of the "Motor City," there are other examples of the surveillance state run amok using facial recognition technology and AI. (this is the kind of thing that used to concern the pre-Trump GOP :shrug:)

 

I ask again -- what does this have to do with the government scanning images already taken and possessed by the government for the purpose of extending a legal privilege?? Do you not comprehend the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

For those who aren't familiar with Detroit's connection to the history of America's automotive industry or the classic modern American film canon and cannot get past their own perceptions of the "Motor City," there are other examples of the surveillance state run amok using facial recognition technology and AI. (this is the kind of thing that used to concern the pre-Trump GOP :shrug:)

 

I lived in Detroit metro area 30 years ago and it was a <censored>hole then regardless the cultural and economic significance it once had. Not sure where you get your perspective of Detroit's greatness TODAY but whatever.

 

And back to China's use of this technology? You're worried about how a communist country uses it - why does that matter to us? Get over there and do something about it if it bothers you so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

But doesn't the entire database of photos essentially belong to State Governments and by in large they can use it for law enforcement purposes?

 

"Detroit's $1-million face-scanning system enables police to identify and track residents captured on hundreds of private and public high-definition cameras installed at parks, schools, immigration centers, gas stations, churches, abortion clinics, hotels, apartments, fast-food restaurants, and addiction treatment centers. Police can identify people at any time using databases containing hundreds of thousands of photos, including mug shots, driver's licenses, and images scraped from social media."

 

We can probably agree the government doesn't own any images generated from a private camera or from any of the private establishments/businesses bolded above.

Edited by That_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

"Detroit's $1-million face-scanning system enables police to identify and track residents captured on hundreds of private and public high-definition cameras installed at parks, schools, immigration centers, gas stations, churches, abortion clinics, hotels, apartments, fast-food restaurants, and addiction treatment centers. Police can identify people at any time using databases containing hundreds of thousands of photos, including mug shots, driver's licenses, and images scraped from social media."

 

We can probably agree the government doesn't own any images generated from a private camera or from any of the private establishments/businesses bolded above.

 

Let’s see what political party runs detroit guy? Maybe take it up with your head office next time they issue you your talking points.

Edited by Squirrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

I can't deny being kinda baffled by this whole thing. When you're out in a public place your "privacy" rights are a whole different standard than when you're in your own home.

 

So you're out in a big mall or train station or bus station or a park or beach or anywhere else where you'll find lots of people in a public setting. And they use modern technology to pinpoint people who shouldn't be there.

 

Why, exactly, is this a "bad" thing? I mean, unless you're trying to protect criminals?

 

:scratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

they use modern technology to pinpoint people who shouldn't be there.

 

“They” being the government, you don’t believe there would have to be a reasonable suspicion that a law was broken (or about to be) in order to justify surveillance?

Edited by That_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

“They” being the government, you don’t believe there would have to be a reasonable suspicion that a law was broken (or about to be) in order to justify surveillance?

 

 

I'd have to say living in a Sanctuary City or State may very well qualify. Especially if it's one that's giving licenses to illegals.

Then again just like you don't own the roads that you operate your motor vehicle on you also don't technically own the image either. Doesn't mean any DMV can sell or use your photo for any commercial purpose, but they can use it for law enforcement purposes. And, since it is technically 'their image' they may not need a warrant in the first place.

Besides, when you get on an aircraft do you not have the same government issued photo examined? So to speak both are voluntarily. In driving you choose to drive on the roads and in flying you are a passenger but it's still voluntary. Number of other activities where your info is scanned and shared without your consent or knowledge as well.

 

 

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

"Detroit's $1-million face-scanning system enables police to identify and track residents captured on hundreds of private and public high-definition cameras installed at parks, schools, immigration centers, gas stations, churches, abortion clinics, hotels, apartments, fast-food restaurants, and addiction treatment centers. Police can identify people at any time using databases containing hundreds of thousands of photos, including mug shots, driver's licenses, and images scraped from social media."

 

We can probably agree the government doesn't own any images generated from a private camera or from any of the private establishments/businesses bolded above.

Did you hear? They’re scanning mostly blacks and Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

Hmm... mixed emotions here.

 

But doesn't the entire database of photos essentially belong to State Governments and by in large they can use it for law enforcement purposes?

 

Oki

 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

“They” being the government, you don’t believe there would have to be a reasonable suspicion that a law was broken (or about to be) in order to justify surveillance?

Oh NOW!!! it’s time for innocent until proven guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

“They” being the government, you don’t believe there would have to be a reasonable suspicion that a law was broken (or about to be) in order to justify surveillance?

 

"Reasonable suspicion," which is a legal term for a level of burden of proof required for things, doesn't apply here because there is no expectation of privacy in public. If this were the case, government operated CCTV cameras, red light cameras, police stake outs, gunshot detection devices, automatic licence plate readers, etc wouldn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

“They” being the government, you don’t believe there would have to be a reasonable suspicion that a law was broken (or about to be) in order to justify surveillance?

 

Nope, because these "face recognition" apps are trained on public places, not private residences, and the only "faces" that will trip the app are those who ARE reasonably suspected of having broken laws. It's a very effective tool for law enforcement that violates nobody's rights.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

the only "faces" that will trip the app are those who ARE reasonably suspected of having broken laws.

 

What makes you believe this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Great anouther waste of time reading the thread. So it boils down to protect law breakers. Then goes to giving the goverment the ability to enforce laws is bad. Then moves to the left members complaining of all things about goverment being too big. We follow that with that guy throwing in Detroit? If I'm wrong correct me. If I'm not please explain what laws you on the left want enforced and who gets to pick them? As far as Detroit they made thier bed, please inform me of a few Democrat run cities and states doing well. I'm willing to learn but by all means there are plenty of democrat states and cities I'm sure with mass influx and not exodus. I just must not be getting those news letters.

 

Laws against Republicans, they want us all marked so that they can deprive us of our rights while they themselves enjoy absolute sanction to roam free and do as they wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...