←back to thread

291 points dataflow | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
andrewla[dead post] ◴[] No.44605920[source]
[flagged]
jasonlotito ◴[] No.44606018[source]
> 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.

replies(1): >>44606122 #
andrewla[dead post] ◴[] No.44606122[source]
[flagged]
1. mtalantikite ◴[] No.44607604[source]
> 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.