Facial recognition, NY Children R the test subjects - Page 2

Facial recognition, NY Children R the test subjects

This is a discussion on Facial recognition, NY Children R the test subjects within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I think you realize it depends in huge measure on who needs to be surveilled, and why. I don't think you really believe that, for ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 28 of 28
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: Facial recognition, NY Children R the test subjects

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,117
    I think you realize it depends in huge measure on who needs to be surveilled, and why. I don't think you really believe that, for instance, someone putting together a 10,000 pound ammonium nitrate truck bomb in the garage next door to your home should not be watched by law enforcement because that would somehow violate the Constitution.

    History teaches that there has never been a time in the history of this republic (or almost any other society) when evil has not deserved a response. If that is a "mark of the beast", then it has been there for a very, very long time.

    Sir, I have a whole different take on these panicking parents. If folks have so many children they canít be responsible for thenm then they need to put them up for adoption. I have no use nor am I tolorant of lame people that expect others to put up with children they are not mentally capable of raising.
    And I feel silly asking you, but would you be willing to go explain that to some parents who have had a child abducted and murdered?
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  2. #17
    Member Array Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    I think you realize it depends in huge measure on who needs to be surveilled, and why. I don't think you really believe that, for instance, someone putting together a 10,000 pound ammonium nitrate truck bomb in the garage next door to your home should not be watched by law enforcement because that would somehow violate the Constitution.

    History teaches that there has never been a time in the history of this republic (or almost any other society) when evil has not deserved a response. If that is a "mark of the beast", then it has been there for a very, very long time.



    And I feel silly asking you, but would you be willing to go explain that to some parents who have had a child abducted and murdered?
    1: Police and the Government can do legitimate surveillance. As long as they follow existing laws and policies and they are not contradictory to the 1,2,4,and 5A's.

    2: Throwing the emotion flag is great for public speeches and politicians. It does not sway my opinion. Emotions and politicians and agendas are what got the Nazi party in power, remember.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array Sister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    🇰🇵
    Posts
    4,180
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    I think you realize it depends in huge measure on who needs to be surveilled, and why. I don't think you really believe that, for instance, someone putting together a 10,000 pound ammonium nitrate truck bomb in the garage next door to your home should not be watched by law enforcement because that would somehow violate the Constitution.

    History teaches that there has never been a time in the history of this republic (or almost any other society) when evil has not deserved a response. If that is a "mark of the beast", then it has been there for a very, very long time.
    ^^^Still not seeing where this has anything to do with implementation of facial recognition in the NY elementary school?u

    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    And I feel silly asking you, but would you be willing to go explain that to some parents who have had a child abducted and murdered?
    Glad to clear this up, my best friend did see her son murdered. They had lived with me for a while, I was close to him and miss him terribly.

    Again, what does this have to do with facial recognition? Why do they ďneedĒ to do this?

    As far as having kids for financial reasons to get money Iíve seen this all to much - had a family member that I dont care for keep a stepchild just so she could keep the money...grrrr.

    if you canít watch YOUR CHILDREN (in general, not directed at you) then those kids should be put up for adoption. Lots of fine folks want them, so let them have the kids - Everybody Happy! 👍🏻😃
    Please relax, take a deep breath....
    Trust the Lord God with all your heart, and He will direct your path.
    Jesus loves you, you will be okay.
    ❤️

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,117
    I said this:

    While I understand, and support, the Constitutional arguments, I don't know how many who make such arguments have ever been on the receiving end of calls from frantic parents about their child who has been abducted (kidnapped and much worse). Any tool that aids in the rapid recovery of that child is worthwhile. And of course, it goes without saying that data from that search should not be stockpiled for the wrong reasons.
    You said this:

    Sir, I have a whole different take on these panicking parents. If folks have so many children they canít be responsible for thenm then they need to put them up for adoption. I have no use nor am I tolorant of lame people that expect others to put up with children they are not mentally capable of raising.

    Raise them or sell them itís not my responsibility AND others donít need this eye-in-the-Sky nanny state that is trying to be imposed AND USING CHILDREN....thatís just SOCIALIST, we have folks that are running for that now - this is flat out communism !
    Here is what it has to do with it. IF...and since we are getting an accurate(???) report from a source in the UK via Facebook about the opinion of one man in NY that indicates this is an abuse of government power, that is a HUGE IF. I hardly think that is the whole sum total of the story. Might there be another side?

    Suggestions have been made for years about getting kids photographed and even fingerprinted just in case the worst happens and those resources might help in an investigation. Obviously, IF such data is misused, I don't think there is any disagreement that it IS being misused and should be curtailed.

    There is another possibility. IF the system is being used to alert the school or law enforcement when a sexual predator or other miscreant with a record tries to enter a school grounds, then I don't see the issue. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

    And this is as far as I will go on this subject. A lot of folks are looking for the devil behind every bush. From going on 40 years of dealing with the subject I can tell you exactly where he lurks 99% of the time. He isn't out frightening people on Halloween, or helping write horror stories. He is sitting right beside a lot of folks in church on Sunday morning. How can that be? Because they are his biggest enemy. They are the threat. If he can get them distracted, he can do a lot of damage. And one of his best lies, whispered in the ears of those faithful, is that he is out there hiding behind every activity. IF we succumb to his lies and go off the straight and narrow, he reaps the harvest.

    Now the issue of emotion @Osprey Maybe emotion doesn't enter into your life when it comes to your children or family. That is your choice. However, you should let all the rest of us make our own decisions. Many of us have a lot more life experience than you and we're well equipped to understand our lives - and you are not.

    And I'm done here with this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  5. #20
    Member Array Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post

    Now the issue of emotion @Osprey Maybe emotion doesn't enter into your life when it comes to your children or family. That is your choice. However, you should let all the rest of us make our own decisions. Many of us have a lot more life experience than you and we're well equipped to understand our lives - and you are not.

    And I'm done here with this.
    ???!!!!???

    That is not even close to what I posted at all. And you do not have a clue to my life experience. If you decide to come back to this thread, try doing it without assumptions.
    Sister likes this.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array Sister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    🇰🇵
    Posts
    4,180
    @Osprey ; I got what you were saying, sorry what happened. Iím letting it go.

    I owned a toy store for over 20 years, most of the things were collectible and behind glass. We specialized in European Dolls.
    Expensive things, dolls from $100.- $2,000. They were hand painted, human hair, beautiful. We sold other things that were beautiful and well made.

    For over 20 years you can guess what all we saw, but the most of it were parents wanting my employees to ďbabysitĒ their kids while they shopped the mall!

    It was unreal how many parents walked off and left them? So NO, NO I donít think a lot of parents give a flip about the kids.
    In the store we called security and let them deal with the kids.

    Facial Recognition is flat out communist control and I find it terrible they are doing this to kids if their parents want them or not - that will live with them a lifetime and not fair to the children if we really do want to consider what is best for them!

    This cannot be undone later in life - can the kids sue the parents later for imposing this on them? Very dangerous ground this falls on.
    Osprey likes this.
    Please relax, take a deep breath....
    Trust the Lord God with all your heart, and He will direct your path.
    Jesus loves you, you will be okay.
    ❤️

  7. #22
    Senior Member Array Blades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Posts
    801
    Mask and face paint may not work. I read an article a long time ago on technology they were developing that "read" your skull shape to identify you.
    --Jason--

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,017
    I agree that we should be skeptical of the motives of government, but I'm not sure what great benefit anonymity gives to liberty.
    Psycho41 likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  9. #24
    Member Array Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    I agree that we should be skeptical of the motives of government, but I'm not sure what great benefit anonymity gives to liberty.
    Let me an example. A slightly altered hypothetical of a situation I ran into. But use your imagination on possible scenarios.

    A person is jogging (obvious with running gear, pace, clothes, etc.) and gets stopped by LEO because there was a break-in in the neighborhood. The person refuses to ID because they are not required by law. Police now use facial recognition or other "non-invasive" biometrics to ID the person anyway (mind you, still not accused or even suspected of a crime). Police not only check for a warrant, but man's past criminal history. They find out he was convicted of Burglary 8 years ago.

    Now the police have an "aha" moment. They now suspecting he is the BG and says he is suspicious as well because it is not normal for a person to ID. (same thing they say if one is OC'ing in and are where people do not OC) i.e not normal or using your rights = suspicious.

    Now, they have enough to detain him further which IMO is affecting liberty.

    These biometric technologies would negate the purpose of the laws that allow a person to refuse ID. They will be pretty much thrown out the window.

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
    Let me an example. A slightly altered hypothetical of a situation I ran into. But use your imagination on possible scenarios.

    A person is jogging (obvious with running gear, pace, clothes, etc.) and gets stopped by LEO because there was a break-in in the neighborhood. The person refuses to ID because they are not required by law. Police now use facial recognition or other "non-invasive" biometrics to ID the person anyway (mind you, still not accused or even suspected of a crime). Police not only check for a warrant, but man's past criminal history. They find out he was convicted of Burglary 8 years ago.

    Now the police have an "aha" moment. They now suspecting he is the BG and says he is suspicious as well because it is not normal for a person to ID. (same thing they say if one is OC'ing in and are where people do not OC) i.e not normal or using your rights = suspicious.

    Now, they have enough to detain him further which IMO is affecting liberty.

    These biometric technologies would negate the purpose of the laws that allow a person to refuse ID. They will be pretty much thrown out the window.
    I don't see the purpose of those laws in the first place, unless being forced to ID oneself is seen as self-incrimination. If that's the idea, then being identified by technology without any action on the part of the person identified is not in the scope of the law.

    If a person was convicted as in your example, it's a matter of public record. If they're out in public, they could be identified by sight by any number of people they interact with - the original biometric technology. So what's the harm in being identified by electronics?

    There are things to which a right to privacy applies, but I don't get the concept that a person has a right to be in public without anyone knowing their identity.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  11. #26
    Member Array Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    I don't see the purpose of those laws in the first place, unless being forced to ID oneself is seen as self-incrimination. If that's the idea, then being identified by technology without any action on the part of the person identified is not in the scope of the law.

    If a person was convicted as in your example, it's a matter of public record. If they're out in public, they could be identified by sight by any number of people they interact with - the original biometric technology. So what's the harm in being identified by electronics?

    There are things to which a right to privacy applies, but I don't get the concept that a person has a right to be in public without anyone knowing their identity.
    I just to be clear on this: The Supreme Court and other courts have ruled one does not have ID oneself to a LEO unless they are under arrest or certain other things like traffic stops. And you disagree with this.

    So if a LEO was to stop a person for doing a lawful act, you think they should legally be forced to comply and show ID, whether it is passive or not? Kinda of like Nazi Germany if you ask me.

  12. #27
    Distinguished Member Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    1,948
    Quote Originally Posted by osprey View Post
    i just to be clear on this: The supreme court and other courts have ruled one does not have id oneself to a leo unless they are under arrest or certain other things like traffic stops. And you disagree with this.

    So if a leo was to stop a person for doing a lawful act, you think they should legally be forced to comply and show id, whether it is passive or not? Kinda of like nazi germany if you ask me.
    show me your papers!
    Osprey likes this.

  13. #28
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    949
    There is no expectation of privacy while in public. That has been decided by the judicial branch time and again. Based on that alone, this would fall into being legal/allowed. But, technology pushes the boundaries (and sometimes shatters) what is considered normal/possible to the point that our entire concept of something must change. Then again, there are times when we have a knee-jerk reaction because of something that doesn't align with what we "know".

    I don't think most people would have a problem with cameras in schools with a human monitoring those cameras. That person could identify people in the school based on his knowledge of what they looked like. If he sees a student do something out of line, he could identify who it was. Or, if someone was in the building who he had never seen before, he could take action accordingly. All this technology really adds is more efficiency to the process which a human could perform anyway. Unless you are against cameras being used in schools at all, there really isn't any unique privacy problem - in that specific scenario.

    That is one side of the coin. The other side, where I do have concerns, is the government amassing and consolidating data on us. With this technology the data regarding who is present when and where can be stored. Of course, a person monitoring cameras could document what they see, so that is not new. In fact, the schools in my town do document anyone entering the school who is not a student or faculty. I'd guess there may be some schools that require students and faculty to scan in and out as well. So, does facial recognition really do anything different - other than make the process more efficient. Probably not, but I am concerned with this data being consolidated with any and all manner of cameras used throughout our lives. First it will be government building, then cameras used out in public, and maybe even to private cameras (malls, home cameras, etc.). There are already "programs" with Nest or Ring doorbells to share your camera footage with authorities to held solve crimes. Once you opt in, they don't need your permission (from what I understand). So, there could be calls to willingly share camera footage in the interest of making us safer and many will comply. Or, authorities may tab into such footage surreptitiously. IN the end, they could construct a vast database from all these sources which documents a history of ever place a person goes throughout their day. I'm sure there would be laws passed that proclaim the government is not to store such information, but the government is good at not following it's own laws.

    But, here's the thing. The technology is already here. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. Unfortunately, I think we will eventually end up where most of our lives will be documented and available. It is just a matter of how quickly we get there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
    A person is jogging (obvious with running gear, pace, clothes, etc.) and gets stopped by LEO because there was a break-in in the neighborhood. The person refuses to ID because they are not required by law. Police now use facial recognition or other "non-invasive" biometrics to ID the person anyway (mind you, still not accused or even suspected of a crime). Police not only check for a warrant, but man's past criminal history. They find out he was convicted of Burglary 8 years ago.
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think the argument could be that it would be no different than if one of the officers recognized the jogger and knew his past. But then (as you state) it turn the whole concept of not having to ID yourself on its head. Sure, the citizen doesn't have to ID themselves, but there would be nothing preventing the authorities from instantaneously identifying someone from "publicly" available information.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •