SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the with-beards,-sun-glasses-and-false-nose dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1337
Homeland Security wants airport face scans for US citizens
Homeland Security is joining the ranks of government agencies pushing for wider use of facial recognition for US travelers. The department has proposed that US citizens, not just visa holders and visitors, should go through a mandatory facial recognition check when they enter or leave the country. This would ostensibly help officials catch terrorists using stolen travel documents to move about. The existing rules specifically exempt citizens and permanent residents from face scans.
It won't surprise you to hear that civil rights advocates object to the potential expansion. ACLU Senior Policy Analyst Jay Stanley said in a statement that the government was "reneging" on a longstanding promise to spare citizens from this "intrusive surveillance technology." He also contended that this was an unfair burden on people using their "constitutional right to travel," and pointed to abuses of power, data breaches and potential bias as strong reasons to avoid expanding use of the technology.
Via: TechCrunch
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Codesmith on Tuesday December 03 2019, @04:13PM (11 children)
Whaaaa?
It's pretty much a given that the biometric scans are part of governement big data, but I cannot seem to make the leap from a change regarding security theatre to laws regarding safe operation of a motor vehicle.
Pro utilitate hominum.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @04:34PM
You can fight against this stuff all you want, and you might win this time. But it always moves in one direction, one small step at a time. If it gets turned away this time, it will come up again, more silently next time. Government and big companies have learned that you can get anything you want as long as you do it in small enough steps.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday December 03 2019, @04:59PM (6 children)
I understand what Runaway means. You're tying the two too tightly. He's just making an analogy. I make analogies, and people get too specific and mix the two. Don't do that.
The point is called "incrementalism". Slowly but surely the govt. will get more and more into our lives and businesses.
Read "1984". I fear that such books numb many people. Kind of, "just accept it, you can't stop it". We CAN stop it if we write to our congress representatives. We see in the news that cities (Portland, OR), states (CA), countries (much of EU), are passing personal privacy laws, protecting citizens.
The 4th Amendment to the USA's Constitution says we can not be subjected to unreasonable search. "...[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,..."
MY interpretation is simple: in 1789 (or whenever it was) they obviously didn't have digital anything, barely lightning rods. The 4th amendment includes everything a person would have had, including their information: "papers, and effects", so nothing should be searchable by the govt. without proper "due process". If they had digital "stuff", biometric data, etc., in 1789, they would have included that too.
That said, I'm all for getting the "bad people", but not at the expense of harming innocent people in any way.
If the US People, through the Congress, want to amend the Constitution and Bill of Rights (amendments), then they may do so. But so far, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are being violated criminally (IMHO).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @08:20PM (3 children)
If you're all for getting the bad people here's the question, then.... What is the harm of having facial recognition? Who is actually being harmed in the process and how? What is the value of that harm against what potential benefit to society? The latter is often the test the Supreme Court uses when considering whether such matters are illegal.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @10:15PM (1 child)
Likewise, what is the ‘harm’ in reading someone’s diary, searching someone’s house, or any other unreasonable search?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 04 2019, @03:32AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday December 04 2019, @02:22PM
In pre-Hitler Germany I guess there were plenty of people thinking: "What is the harm in letting the authorities know that I'm Jew?"
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Codesmith on Tuesday December 03 2019, @09:09PM
Oh I get that Runaway is making an analogy, but it's a very poor one.
One is continual goverment creep into areas they don't need to go, the other is a realisation that humans are poor judges of risk and therefore an adjustment of law is for the societal good.
Pro utilitate hominum.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday December 04 2019, @01:35AM
The ,key word is unreasonable. Just need the Supreme Court to rule that all searches are reasonable and your 4th amendment can join the others that have been changed by the court.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @07:14PM (2 children)
"laws regarding safe operation of a motor vehicle."
worry about your own safety, you fucking state socialist authoritarian bootlicker.
(Score: 1, Troll) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 03 2019, @09:31PM (1 child)
It amazes me sometimes how many morons manage to blunder their way onto the Internet, despite their obvious inability to think properly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @10:47PM
I blame AOL.