NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

>bypassed ban

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.

>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.

Wanna go bypass some burglary laws to take expensive things out of people's houses?

Assuming you're a cop of course, otherwise we'll go to jail.

> 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".

But it's not really a "right". The next police commissioner/mayor could conceivably overturn it if they wanted to. That's not the same as most other "rights", free speech for instance. More importantly to this case, because the police only violated a policy and not a constitutional right, the defense can't apply to have the evidence tossed under the exclusionary rule.

I remember a case (in Eastern Europe) where someone who took a video of their colleagues sleeping during a night shift got in trouble for the usage of phone (which is known to be used BTW), and nothing happened to the ones sleeping through the night shift. We are talking about a facility full of people with dementia and are known to go back and forth the hospital for serious falls and all that (at night, too). So backwards.

I'm not a cop. I'm a politician though, so while we're there lets murder them and traffick their kids. I love being a member of a class to whom the law very blatantly just does not apply.

A secondary question: what rights do you have when someone else does that? What rights _should_ you have in that situation?

Hurling a rock at someone is privacy now?

Which is in some ways similar to the case in this article. The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student. And the article is somehow painting the rock-throwing attacker as a victim, even talking about the attacker's complaints that they were identified and are now receiving hate mail.

Yes?

You should have the same rights as the underlying situation.

If I photograph you in public, where you have no reasonable expectations of privacy, you should have no expectations of privacy over the photograph’s contents nor over my commentary about it.

If I photograph you in a private setting, you should expect that privacy extends to the photographic record of it as well.

This is the classical problem of do the police have the right to violate rules and law in order to bring case or not? The problem is that this open the box of abuse of power and rights of people to become the norm.

Yes?

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.

> The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student.

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.

It's really fortunate that no one is arguing that because you're right, it would be a pretty absurd stance to take. What we're saying is that not doing anything wrong entitles you to privacy and until you're tried and convicted you didn't do anything wrong. I dare say the fact that the case was dismissed with prejudice goes pretty strongly in our favor on this one.

If the police aren't bound by policies they create themselves and voluntarily agree as an organization to be bound by, what are they bound by?

>rock-throwing attacker

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.

You have a right to due process, which means operating within their defined laws and systems

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

This idea about it being a privacy issue is completely false.

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.