>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.
replies(3):
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".
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.