SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
San Francisco could become the first U.S. city to ban the use of facial recognition technology, criticized as biased by lawmakers and privacy advocates.
A new bill unveiled on Tuesday, known as the Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance, states that the risks of the controversial technology "substantially outweigh...its purported benefits, and the technology will exacerbate racial injustice and threaten our ability to live free of continuous government monitoring."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
San Francisco Could Ban Facial Recognition Technology, Becoming First US City to Do So
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 44 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's raisins that make Post Raisin Bran so raisiny ...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 03 2019, @11:00PM (2 children)
The "challenge" was having the election rigged out from under him, Takyon. I've only ever voted D because "they're not R," but Jesus, 2016 was the single worst "hold your nose and do it" moment I have ever had at the polls. The Clinton dynasty has done more to shift the Overton Window to the right than anything any Republican candidate could ever have dreamed of, and it's only because of the chaos I correctly predicted was coming with a Trump win that I didn't vote third party or write Sanders in. The worst of it hasn't even started yet, either.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 03 2019, @11:09PM (1 child)
Rigging it may have been, but if Sanders had another 5-10% of support, and Clinton had made more early gaffes, maybe Sanders would have defeated the DNC and become the nominee. But he didn't have enough support.
He didn't overcome the challenge of a rigged playing field, which would only have led to yet another challenge of convincing the American public to vote for a "Democratic Socialist". The same public that ultimately picked Trump over Clinton (popular vote notwithstanding).
I think any damage caused by Trump to this point is repairable. The biggest deal has been his Supreme Court nominations. If he gets one more, that will make a huge difference.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 03 2019, @11:15PM
Ginsburg is effectively already dead, and there's already a 6-3 majority of hard-right neocons on the court. THIS is why I held my nose and voted D; the Judiciary in general, and the SCOTUS in particular, is a massive vulnerability in the US government, in that a successful partisan hijack can cripple the other two branches for decades on end. Even if Trump had turned out to be perfectly capable and principled, I *still* would have voted against him specifically so that he couldn't pack the court. The GOP understands the above very well, and it's why they stalled out Merrick Garland, who himself isn't exactly another Justice Sotomayer...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...