NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester
thecity.nyc
thecity.nyc
Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d...
All because of a protest against a foreign country committing acts of genocide. It's unbelievable when you think about it.
- the fire marshal happened to be the route chosen in this case
- but there are many other routes
- so the fire marshal detail is kindof insignificant.
Is that a correct understanding? If so, I still wonder why the fire marshal has access?
Whether those people use facial recognition software or not isn’t exactly relevant to the law because the police didn’t use it. And it’s legal for other people to use it. As far as the police are concerned, they could have just been the person’s neighbor…
Arson investigation, identifying the people at the scene of a suspicious fire?
The police should be the ones investigating crimes, under extremely strict and limited guidelines (eg. 4th amendment) which in this case include not being allowed to use facial recognition software.
Part of the investigation is determining whether the event is actually a crime. I'd much rather have subject matter experts make the determination of arson vs. act-of-god rather than "every nail needs a hammer" police force.
Again, it's not just "potential suspects" it's potential witnesses, or identification of potential casualties. I don't feel great about state actors of any type using facial ID, but I can think of any number of reasons why a FD might use it in the course of their duties, and I would much prefer they have it over the PD.
Separating out duties to experts is more effective. Let the fire department investigate fires and then pass on the information for the police to secure the suspect/s and follow the justice system. Same with mental health emergency cases. More social workers and experts dealing with a variety of mental disorders will be better to work people in crisis since they are trained for that.
In Germany, we have the same separation. We have solved the issue by having dedicated units for stuff like political crimes, online crimes, fire/arson investigators, organized crime, property crimes, violent crimes, drug units, you name it.
They're all policemen and -women, but at the very least they stay on the unit for many years and learn on the job, or they get additional education, or they get actual professionals (aka, the police officers do the police/bureaucracy side of things, the expert does the forensics).
> Let the fire department investigate fires and then pass on the information for the police to secure the suspect/s and follow the justice system.
Bad idea, there are lots of things to take care about when collecting and securing evidence.
Not a bad idea at all. The people from the fire department investigating arson are highly specialized. The only difference between the two systems is which head organization it falls under. So it would be like your fire/arson investigators working under the fire department instead of the police.
US policing has regularly been used to commit abuse and harassment as well as straight crimes. So having that consolidation of power is not good. This store is a perfect example of why they need to be separated because the police cannot be trusted to use facial ID tech responsibly.
I am 100% sure of this because the government has been 100% consistent and 100% abusive about this, 100% of the time.
Even the Civil War was clearly orchestrated and the people were abused and not just rights, but the very core Constitution was essentially destroyed and nullified, and what we’ve had since is nothing more than an abusive invalidated social contract upheld my sheer force, delusion, and bribing. The delusion and bribery part being what keeps people from realizing that.
Curious why this is downvoted?
You attacked the idea of free speech for the other side in the same comment where you said this. I would assume based on reference to government infringements that you're referring to the first amendment as "free speech" if you hadn't specifically emphasized "idea"; conservatives have no real first amendment case, but they do get censored and suppressed by people with power. The idea of free speech is very much still in play when university admin cancels a guest speaker or a forum moderator only allows left-wing or non-political posts. What am I missing here?
>Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me?
Yes, absolutely. I can name maybe 8, including the both of us.
My comment was targeted at the government/ICE's notorious targeting of anti-Israel protesters broadly. It's absolutely clear that we're giving up rights left and right for this total farce, the same way we did for 9/11. It is imperative to the survival of liberal democracy that this ceases.
I don't consider throwing rocks/bricks at people "free speech". I also don't consider launching fireworks into crowded buildings "free speech" either.
Probably people reading the article title without reading the headline, not realizing that that it's not only literally about shouting in movie theaters.
But tbh most commenters/voters on this site are reflexively imperialist, which is not surprising for a forum run by (and for!) capitalists in the imperial core. That's doubtless a big factor as well.
Like, this guy was identified off video of him throwing a rock at a protester that hit them in the face. By all accounts this is someone who is trying to violently suppress peoples rights. That he got off on police misconduct in the investigation is a loss to society, no matter how many waxing words try to twist him into being a "protester violated in his rights".
I'm actually against parallel construction and feel that is far more dangerous than a lot of other activities in that it literally prevents you from knowing your true accuser in terms of laying out a defense/confrontation in court.
This whole story is just full of bad guys all around to a large extent.
Like I can totally see the potential debate about if this type of ban should be in place. Sure! But the fact is, that's the current situation. The police can't, and shouldn't, just ignore or bypass rules if they feel like they're too limiting. The police should have basically 0 say (a part from voting) in what the rules they have to follow are.
If I start deciding to ignore laws and rules that I don't like, that would probably be a crime. So why should the police be able to do the same?
I get that it's a slippery slope and it is a bit invasive to even establish many of these databases... not to mention the license plate tracking, cell tracking, etc. I also don't like jerks throwing rocks at people.
There's no guarantee they would have done this or that they would have gotten the same answer, though, is kind of salient to the point. There's a chance they wouldn't, because you (hopefully) don't want to make someone look like a suspect to their entire community if their chances of being involved in a crime are low. And even if you do, there's a decent chance you wouldn't have gotten a reply -- especially if their loved ones believe they are innocent. And it would've alerted them and they would've had a higher chance to escape. Which is terrible thing for society if they're a genuine criminal, but a good thing when you're persecuting a non-criminal.
Probabilities and collateral damage matter. If you just treat everything that is "possible" uniformly, then you might as well claim that they COULD generate a random number and just happen to identify the person correctly by sheer luck, so who cares if they do anything to optimize that.
Saying that fruit of the poisonous tree is not admissible is a vast understatement of the complexity of this area of law.
There'a a balance though. I think that allowing police misconduct would be a larger loss to society.
When the state loses winable criminal cases because of police misconduct, it should be motivation at multiple levels to avoid such misconduct in the future.
The 2nd amendment and the notion that we have physical power over the government is going to be whittled away as facial recognition and omnipresent government spying via data brokers gives them all the info they need to spy on every citizen, all the time.
AI means they don't only collect all the data they want for when they need it ala NSA 2008, but they can have a robot army of analysts transcribe photos and phone calls instantly and analyze for sentiment, flag for review.
If we don't demand, as a society, that government stay out of the business of the people, and that the military stay out of the business of civil society (ICE/National Guard/Marines), we are in for true evil.
1. US foreign policy is uniparty. As terrible as this administration is, remember that quashing anti-war protests happened under Biden, too. Columbia, Hind Hall, etc were all under Biden. That being said, moving to deport or denaturalize pro-Palestinian protestors is new; and
2. The state will turn violent to quash anti-imperialist sentiment.
Let me give you some examples:
1. The MOVE bombing. In Philadelphia in 1985 there was a black liberation group called MOVE. After a day-long standoff with police, the police dropped a C4 explosive from a helicotper on the house. The resulting fire killed 11;
2. Kent State. In 1970, there was an anti-war protest at Kent State University in Ohio. The Ohio National Guard had been called in. The protestors were unarmed. The National Guard were at least 100 yards from the protestors. Yet at some point the protestors got scared and fired on the protestors, killing 4; and
3. At a pro-Palestinian protest at UCLA, the encampment was attacked by pro-Zionists. The police stood by and did nothing and the next day used that violence as an excuse to violently break up the protest.
Facial recognition, mass surveillance, social media checks at ports of entry, weaponized deportation, etc. The state simply will not tolerate anti-imperialist protests.
Only in regards to one foreign entity.
> Let me give you some examples:
2 of those 3 directly involve the US and US action. The outlier says a lot.
> The state simply will not tolerate anti-imperialist protests.
The current administration ran on an anti-imperialist platform. You can protest american, russian, french, chinese, british imperialism all you want. You can quote george washington's warning about empires and foreign wars all day long. What you can't protest is israel. Period.
If you believe the government would only use that data for just purposes then you probably wouldn't then believe that there is a 1A issue. But if you think the government would use it to identify persons at a protest and then take adverse actions against them on the basis of their presence alone (which to be clear, seems distinguished from the immediate instance) you would probably think there is a 1A issue.
SCOTUS ruled there are some instances where private use of a service is 1) effectively necessary for modern life and 2) leaks a huge amount of information about the person, then the government cannot utilize it without a warrant even if handed over or sold willingly by the third party.
I am suggesting that we likely need to expand Third Party Doctrine to things beyond cell tower data because 1) we don't have absolute control over how/where our images are used and associated with our names, and 2) the technology to later affiliate our always-on/always-visible identities (like faces, gaits, or fingerprints) with our names is getting better and better.
You're right that today this is not illegal, but I am pointing out that your argument for "what to do instead" is literally the precise argument for why it should be: it chills protected expression.
I don’t, I deleted my social media accounts a decade ago and wasn’t into posting my own photos prior to that anyway. But other people can post photos with me/including me and I can’t control that (and since I don’t use social media I don’t even know when they do that).
Right. Also make sure your friends don't. And your family. Good luck with that.
Broke the law is the phrase we want here. They did an illegal thing. They didn't just scoot past a barrier, they violated people's rights.
Claiming that an administrative policy against using facial recognition as a "right" seems like a stretch.
This is such strange way to describe "right for privacy".
The person hit by the rock is a victim of whomever threw it, be this person or another.
And this person is the victim of the police department's policy violation.
These things can coexist.
Allegedly. The article doesn't mention any evidence that he actually did.
> "Per the record before this court, there is no additional evidence connecting the defendant to the alleged incident — no surveillance video to and from his home, no independent identification by others in attendance."
No evidence.
> "This case is premised on the complainant's word that he was the target of criminal actions by another person, and that other person was the defendant."
Weak evidence (with potential bias.)
> "The NYPD digitally altered the defendant's DMV photograph [...] never sought the metadata which would clearly indicate how, when, and perhaps by whom the photo was doctored."
Manufactured evidence.
> "That statement alone renders these medical records discoverable as possible impeachment material, necessitating their disclosure [...] Yet the People [...] have articulated no efforts to obtain these records"
Withholding evidence from the defence.
All in all, utter bullshit from the prosecution.
did you miss the part of the article where the charges were dismissed with prejudice because this absolutely is not the guilty party? You seem to be arguing as though everyone you're arguing against is on the criminal's side but this person didn't do what they were accused of and still had their rights circumvented.
Firstly, if the police have probable cause, then your privacy can be invaded in order to search for evidence. For instance, Hans Reiser was not convicted at the time his Honda Civic was searched.
Secondly, it is admissible to have an eyewitness identify you. Someone who knows you can testify that you were at a certain time and certain public place. Someone who doesn't know you can testify that someone who looks exactly like you was at a certain time and place. This is not a privacy violation.
Public pictures are not private information.
The reason we don't necessarily want police being able to match faces across databases of public images has nothing to do with privacy concerns. It's the concern that the ability gives too much power to the state, risking the rise of a surveillance state, which can use the technique to identify members of targeted groups. In other aspects it is a very good technique that can help bring wrongdoers to justice.
In other words, it's about managing unintended consequences, not about privacy principles.
That policy exists as a scape-goat to there not getting actual laws passed that would make it flatly illegal. This way they can prevent the real law, still break the rules, and get away with it
Assuming you're a cop of course, otherwise we'll go to jail.
Edit: While I said "duty" I meant that I really hope the that the police investigate all allegations of hate crime assault properly.
i wish there was an oversight group to get rid of wasteful spending like this
Actually neither happened. The article says they were not able to find any identifiable information online. They had to use drivers license instead.
> the fire marshal sent links to Clearview AI face search results, an archive of school play photos and another to an archive of high school formal photos. He said he couldn’t find associated social media but offered to get a driver’s license photo for the detective. “We have access to that,” he wrote.
I read the sequence as,
1. They started with a protest video
2. Clearview provided public images of the same person, but no name. It was certainly more identifiable (e.g., their high school).
3. Then somehow they get the driver's license photo. Do they use the original protest video, or the Clearview images? How does this search even work? Nobody knows. Lazy journalism.
As readers, we have no idea if the Clearview search was actually important, or a dead end.
>A minute later, the detective sent the fire marshal Ahmed’s name, date of birth and driver’s license number. Within five minutes, the fire marshal replied, “Bingo.”
I believe that is supposed to say that the fire marshal sent the detective the license information. The Fire Marshal was clearly able to find identifiable information online, in the form of multiple high school photos, but was unsuccessful getting a match to any social media accounts. So the facial recognition worked and found matches in Clearview AI’s database of scraped school photos, but not their database of scraped social media photos.
Then the Fire Marshal offered to get a driver’s license photo, and says he has access [presumably to the DMV database]. The fact the about a minute later, license information was passed, sounds like a search was run by the Fire Marshal, a match popped up, and he sent it to the detective. But it could be that the detective used high school photos (being higher quality and full front facing) to run a search against the DMV records (which the police have access to with “permission from supervisors”) but according to other articles about the NYPD in general, it doesn't seem like that are able to run facial recognition on DMV records.
Either way, I think the ID came directly from the information the Fire Marshal passed and the Judge said as much.
>The NYPD would not have identified Ahmed but for the FDNY’s Clearview AI search and accessing the DMV photo, the judge indicated in her ruling
You have the judge coming down on the side of privacy, which is good; but the circumstances of the particular case are troubling (allegations of someone throwing a rock at someone else).
I'd be happier gaining ground for privacy rights with cases about, e.g., blanket surveillance, using surveillance for political purposes, surveillance capitalism, etc. Then we figure out where the best lines are for when surveillance actually should or can be used.
(Edit: And ill-considered downvotes is why I'm not going to bother to try to have a meaningful discussion on HN.)
I think accusations of bad faith of other commenters is against HN guidelines.
The system has tools like warrants for this. It appears to me as just sloppy policework.