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

> This headline is extremely misleading because it leads you to believe that they are IDing this person because they are a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester".

It read like a privacy issue. Then I read your comment, and was confused.

> More proper would be "NYPD Bypassed Facial Recognition Ban to ID Rock-Throwing Assailant"

This is inaccurate. The charges were dismissed. At best, it's an alleged rock-throwing assailant.

> In the end, this is not a free speech issue except tangentially; it is a privacy issue.

That's what the original headline suggested to me on first reading. Why did you think the headline was a free speech issue?

That being said, the threat of a government disobeying its own rules and policies is a deterrent to free speech.

Indeed. Enhancements are used too freely. They should only be an option in egregious cases, otherwise just charge people with the actual crime they committed.

I don’t like how enhancements are distributed like candy.

  "This is right and proper"

They literally banned the use of the technology!

Here I am referring to their desire to find a person who committed what appeared to be a criminal act.

I am not excusing their use of the technology, only that the state and specifically the police have a compelling interest to find people who commit crimes. There are lots of limitations on their powers to accomplish this end, but we do want police to investigate crimes.

The trouble is that depending on the political affiliations of the people receiving the enhancement, you'll get different groups of people reflexively supporting or denouncing the system.

You are definitionally excusing their use of the technology.

The definition of "excusing": "attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify."

Feels like a real life shiri’s scissor[0] in how many different factors collide to stop rational discussion and “shortcut” thought to existing worldviews past nuance.

To engage in this discussion, you have to avoid falling into at least 4 major schisms where you can assume the other person is wrong about everything and dangerous to you, from Israel/Palestine, US privacy rights, US first amendment rights to protest, and US attitudes on policing.

[0] fiction about ml writing controversial news stories that tear communities apart https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

Really didn't look like a rock in the video and the target was uninjured.

> it leads you to believe that they are IDing this person because they are a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester"

It is likewise misleading to imply that the fact they are a student protester is irrelevant. They are trying very hard to make an example out of these people.

> why mention that he was a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester"? That does not seem relevant at all

Because it seems highly unlikely that if I were to walk out of my apartment right now, walk down to the waterfront, and throw a rock at a group of people sitting at Marsha P Johnson park that the NYPD would even respond to the call. Never mind getting a fire marshal involved to run my photo through a facial recognition program. They've got more important things to deal with. (I'd also, of course, never do this).

This was a protest movement that was a national story and included congressional hearings, so it does seem relevant to have the context.

Laws need to apply to the govt, too.

> If it is a privacy issue, why mention that he was a "Pro-Palestinian Student Protester"? That does not seem relevant at all;

It provides context. The US has an extensive history of illegal/unconstitutional/questionable surveillance of protesters. This could be seen as either another example of exactly that or, at the very least, as a warning that the police in NY are willing to illegally use facial recognition when it suits their interests.

Why did you call this innocent person a "perp"? Is it because of your pro-police political beliefs?

And they were applied. The evidence wasn’t allowed.

seems like a pipedream. US politicians wont even ban or stop insider trading by themselves.