> the police “are not going to appreciate it to begin with.”
Maybe it's time to reuse the old argument but now in the opposite direction:
"If the police is not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear."
Maybe it's time to reuse the old argument but now in the opposite direction:
"If the police is not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear."
This is a tough issue.
On the one hand, what about undercover cops?
On the other, it's known that the framers of the Constitution meant for the people to have access to arms partly as a hedge against governmental use of arms against the people. If facial recognition is a tool that the government will use against the people, then the framers clearly envisioned restricting the government's ability to prevent people from using facial recognition.
By default I tend to side with the Constitutional order, so I favor the people having unrestricted access to facial recognition tech. That said, I do see the chaos facial rec will bring. Not only for police, but frankly, for everyone else as well. Better start finding a side door out of that hotel tryst with your secretary fellas. Hypothetically, the wife could use some popular new facial rec service that runs against all the public photo or video upload sites for the day. You could be busted if you go out the front door of the hotel just when some college girl is snapping a selfie to share with the world. Or some dad thinks sharing a picture of his son's football team, taken at just that instant, would be really cool. All of which show you and your secretary exiting the hotel in the background.
That's not known. Radiolab did a great piece on the 2nd amendment's history: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radio...
TL;DL: The idea that U.S. citizens should arm themselves to defend against a tyrannical government appears to be a relatively new idea. The text of the 2nd amendment is vague and unclear:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The original intentions are shrouded in a historical fog of obscurity.
So really, like most of the Constitution, the meaning is up to the people and the courts. That's why we established the Supreme Court, to help us establish the living meaning behind the Constitution ... oh wait:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi...
The Supreme Court is also a modern day construction, also originally an object of constitutional obscurity.
I guess the real summary of the U.S. Constitution can be summed up as ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The framers considered the military to be the only arm of force the government held. The police force wasn't a thing at the time. The 3rd Amendment says the government shall not quarter forces with the people, more or less. This seems to imply that the military shouldn't be deployed amongst the population as a means of applying the force of the government, which has a monopoly on force. Understanding the 3rd Amendment in this context provides a very clear picture of the 2nd Amendment. The people should have a well-regulated militia, with which they police themselves.
Here's a video that does a decent job of highlighting what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI
The real question though is if that is a tenable strategy in the long term. Like that hatebreed song goes, “fight fire with fire and you’ll see everyone is burning”
Your argument about public spaces works just as well for private spaces. If this trend continues there will be no reasonable expectations of privacy at all.
Americans do.
"The 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, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I am not twisting that, i am just saying the same applies to "in your home"
Always an option. :P
I get your point, just poor example.
The parent comment was giving an easily-imagined example of how facial recognition can impact an everyday person. You don't have to be in the spotlight to be affected - you could be affected by facial recognition even if you're trying your best to go unseen, which the parent comment does a great example of demonstrating.
She is going to be feel hurt, but she wont be lied to anymore.