←back to thread

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

(www.thecity.nyc)
291 points dataflow | 1 comments | 18 Jul 25 13:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.445s | source
Show context
computegabe ◴[18 Jul 25 14:23 UTC] No.44604945[source]▶
The company used, Clearview AI, collects publicly available imagery. It would be different if the government was providing it. Here's an idea: maybe don't post your photos on social media. Still scary nonetheless.
replies(6): >>44605165 #>>44605186 #>>44605314 #>>44605681 #>>44605697 #>>44609451 #
sorcerer-mar ◴[18 Jul 25 14:40 UTC] No.44605165[source]▶
“Don’t post your photos on social media” is precisely describing a chilling effect on people’s expression, i.e. the exact thing the First Amendment is designed to protect against.
replies(1): >>44605353 #
computegabe ◴[18 Jul 25 14:56 UTC] No.44605353[source]▶
If a user is willingly uploading their photos to a private company to be publicly shared, how does 1A apply?
replies(2): >>44605625 #>>44606087 #
1. kopecs ◴[18 Jul 25 15:16 UTC] No.44605625[source]▶
I think the suggestion is that the government use of that public data could be such as to create a chilling effect. That is, the upload and interaction of the user with the private company is almost irrelevant: it is just part of the antecedent to the government's conduct.

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.