# Facial Recognition = Rights Violation



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

In most places, you are not required to identify yourself to police unless they have "...a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur." This means the officer must be able to state facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime occurred or will soon.

Filming in a public place does not meet this burden, nor does the open carrying of firearms as long as it's otherwise legal to do so in that jurisdiction. Someone calling in 'suspicious activity" doesn't meet the burden either, unless it leads to a reasonable suspicion of a specific crime.

The use of facial recognition software to bypass this requirement is, plain and simple, an end-around run on your 4th amendment right to protection from unreasonable searches. It violates the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law and should be stopped.

I have seen many cases where the police don't even bother to ask someone for their ID. They simply take a picture and send it to the facial database. Here's one example. Yes, the guy is sort of a jerk and the video is pretty boring. Skip to 1:00...


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Technology will/is the ruin of society. Even if I'm doing nothing wrong, I don't like folks looking over my shoulder. They should mind there own business. jmho. And they think preppers are paranoid!!! HaHa.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> In most places, you are not required to identify yourself to police unless they have "...a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur." This means the officer must be able to state facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime occurred or will soon.
> 
> Filming in a public place does not meet this burden, nor does the open carrying of firearms as long as it's otherwise legal to do so in that jurisdiction. Someone calling in 'suspicious activity" doesn't meet the burden either, unless it leads to a reasonable suspicion of a specific crime.
> 
> ...


Agreed! Same goes for the license plate readers on cop cars. I'm all for making it easier for LEO to get bad guys but NOT at the expense of my freedoms.

The funny part of the video is the security guard asking to get them on "facial recognition", quite loudly I might add. And them him needing to come take a pic of them with his phone. What this tells me is they have no facial recognition in that building and his bluff was called.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I think the guard needed to be punched in the face.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Sasquatch said:


> The funny part of the video is the security guard asking to get them on "facial recognition", quite loudly I might add. And them him needing to come take a pic of them with his phone. What this tells me is they have no facial recognition in that building and his bluff was called.


I think that's an FBI building... they no doubt have the technology. The guard struck me as an old timer who couldn't resist bragging on their new fangled technology. Maybe they couldn't get a good image from inside and needed him to take the pics. Maybe they wanted him to take pics in order to hide the fact that they have such technology. It's hard to say for sure why he took pics but you will notice that they never did ask him for ID... because they didn't need it. They don't exactly want to advertise their capabilities.

A year or so ago I saw a video of this guy who was getting trespassed from Walmart. The guard there said words to the effect of, "and this means all WalMarts. If you try to come back, we will know as soon as you walk through the door, and we will press charges... at any of our stores." As the story goes, they are sharing this info with the powers that be.

As I understand it, the technology was originally developed by security companies that serviced the casino industry as a way of keeping card counters out of the casinos. It's said that FaceBook is part of the collection mechanism too, which is why they demand you use your real name and actual photo. (They wanted me to send in a scan of my driver's license in order to verify my identity. Ummm, no, just close my account, thanks)

APRIL 14, 2014 - FBI Plans to Have 52 Million Photos in its NGI Face Recognition Database by Next Year


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

It will get worse and the time is coming when everyone will be trackable. Piece by piece, little by little, all movement will be tracked some day. 
And it won't matter if everyone is offended, it will happen anyway, society is malleable. And it will be fear and terror, that bring on tracking.:rant:
There will be rights violations and a police state, you won't believe what will happen. Just take those Barney Fife guards as an example and ask yourself--"Am I safer with them?"
No you are not. But the people on this forum don't need the Barneys to begin with, it is the fearful who demand them.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

There is no expectation of privacy in a public area as far as pictures are concerned....


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> There is no expectation of privacy in a public area as far as pictures are concerned....


True, but how you use those photos is another matter. It's really not that simple.

Using photos, even if taken legally, to bypass the restrictions of the "Stop and ID" laws isn't the same as pics taken for personal use. If you legally refuse to ID yourself, they have no right to force the issue by using technological means. As far as I know, this hasn't been tested in court yet, but it will be.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> True, but how you use those photos is another matter. It's really not that simple.
> 
> Using photos, even if taken legally, to bypass the restrictions of the "Stop and ID" laws isn't the same as pics taken for personal use. If you legally refuse to ID yourself, they have no right to force the issue by using technological means. As far as I know, this hasn't been tested in court yet, but it will be.


I would have to see that in court, BUT if we can take a picture of an officer to ID them later... why would they not be able to photo us... PLEASE do not get me wrong - I do not like the idea.... But I am looking at it from a constitutional view


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Courts have ruled that in public you have no expectation of privacy. Perhaps we should get over it. Unless of course you are a criminal


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> I would have to see that in court, BUT if we can take a picture of an officer to ID them later... why would they not be able to photo us... PLEASE do not get me wrong - I do not like the idea.... But I am looking at it from a constitutional view


We can take pictures of them because they are our employees. That's just part of their job. Public officials doing their job in public are not protected by laws designed to protect the privacy of private individuals. Not long ago, Illinois passed a state law making it a felony to tape police in certain circumstances. This law was deemed unconstitutional by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme court refused to review the case, so that law was overturned. (Supreme Court Gives Nod to Citizens Who Record Police)

My point is that the courts have said that police need reasonable suspicion before they can force someone to identify, and this "end-around" run is just another erosion of our civil liberties.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Real Old Man said:


> Courts have ruled that in public you have no expectation of privacy. Perhaps we should get over it. Unless of course you are a criminal


Perhaps we should NOT get over it.

Yeah, only criminals stand up for their rights. I mean, really? Did you really just say that? SMH


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Real Old Man said:


> Courts have ruled that in public you have no expectation of privacy. Perhaps we should get over it. Unless of course you are a criminal


Personally I see technology as a positive enhancement to operational capabilities. The issue exists when that technology is used to victimize people.

While filming in public is legal in the US, there are certain exceptions to that, such as filming for the purpose of espionage or conduct that endangers national security, which may include personel whose identites may be endangered if publically disclosed, such as police informants, undercover agents, etc... Countries such as France do not have the same permissive filming allowance. The concept on "reasonable expectation of privacy" is often considered, which in most public places there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. --- this should equally apply to "individuals personal security or businesses personal security where filming endangers members of the public such as someone under the witness protection program, or a business providing protective services, or essential services, medical care etc.. where there are related reasons to believe footage will endanger peoples safety.

In general though the real problem is when these technologies are abused but these are much like firearms in that in the wrong hands they can be used to victimize people.

Facial recognition is here to stay, it is being phased in across NATO, as time progresses there will be more and more CCTV, and more and more capable systems, databases, etc.. they are already being field tested in Europe, and the United States. At specific points all these databases come together to provide a backbone of real time intelligence. The progression is only one direction. This will be treated no differently than police running a name search.

Police will have no need to request identification to determine who they are, this can of course be used for profiling, and it will be. It will also be used to arrest fugitives, and engage persons of interest.

Ultimately though, this is no different than if you were known to police, so the question is, is it really doing anything other than increasing the capability of the state to know, in ways they could know before.

This is positive technology, the criticism might be, do we have positive government.

Sadly I think that police often do profile people based upon past positions, political motivations and non legally relevant grounds --- i.e. personal biases, slights, etc..

Its this political policing that is the real danger. We need to be aware that policing that goes beyond protecting people from victimizations creates a political police, and political prisoners.

This is just the reality of policing these days, its not just about stopping victimization, it is about "the agenda", it has partisan political goals in mind, and it is for these reasons that people fear the state.

Issues of "widespread" facial recognition could thus endanger people, specifically for instance the witness relocation program.
ex.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2594...ognition_may_be_needed_us_ senator_says.html

Its to the point now this tech can be used to take your picture and use an AI computer assitant to scour the internet - facebook, news sources etc.. and provide all hits on you, regardless of whether that info is true or not. This info goes way deeper than just your FBI file, it is all intelligence that is on the net related to you. This can then be linked to your metadata --- this your phone and internet accounts, all websites you visit, etc.. its not just using your face as your new ID, it is knowing everything about you that passes through the network, this can then be linked to specific institutions - got a employee ID or student ID, now you are linked there, got workplace files, any cameras at work etc.. etc... got neighbours all this is melded into a single fussion point. Will online health records, online banking, online purchases etc.. credit card statements etc.. everything that is "loggable" CCTV footage in areas you travel etc... all known.

This is not "bad" per se, it isn't filming you in your washroom, but it is the future, it is today.

Now where I was a little upset was with my school forcing me to use google, and agree to its terms of use, which required me to allow google to track me, and monitor all my communications and to sell that information to third parties. It is creepy. That stuff normally requires a warrant, but the way they are doing this is that you either agree to be monitored or you can't go to university.

If you don't know what metadata really is or how it can be used to track your movements and activities - you should do some research.

None the less, as I know what is going on, I have no fear of my activities and I make no attempt to hide my identity.

I consider it all a giant police state regardless. Prison planet will not be escaped. If people are hiding in fear voices will not be heard and no one will know what is really happening.

"and this is 'our' government" the free world, imagine our enemies uses, or what they can do with compramised or hacked information, if these databases were breached.

"police is not the highest level of intrusion of government"

lets see how this goes
http://cw33.com/2015/06/02/nsa-now-needs-a-warrant-senate-passes-nsa-reform/

bear in mind cellular metadata is just one type of data. Using a reverse process can yeild the same result --- system to target instead of target to system...

this just a day or two ago
http://tribune.com.pk/story/946925/us-appeals-court-overturns-nsa-metadata-collection-ban/

": 
A US appeals court on Friday threw out a judge's ruling that would have blocked the National Security Agency from collecting phone metadata under a controversial program that has raised privacy concerns. "

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...metadata-in-return-for-nsas-top-spy-software/

I find your lack of faith distrubing.





Now where the crux is "Facial recognition" and a ban on "facial coverings..."

not only is the premise that people can be photo-linked in public but it is illegal to stop facial recognition - the greater violation.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Does anyone think that because big brother has the technology that he would not use it to exert more power and control over us? They will present it, of coarse, as in our best interest. A little at the time they take our privacy and our rights. We are not just slipping down the slope we are in a full tumble.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Prepadoodle said:


> Perhaps we should NOT get over it.
> 
> Yeah, only criminals stand up for their rights. I mean, really? Did you really just say that? SMH


Funny> You don't have anything to say about the first part of the post? And that's the sad part of some of these threads. You all whine and complain about things that you have absolutely no chance to change instead of getting on with your lives and changing things you can. The funny thing is you don't see criminals complaining about facial recognition. Why, they tend to know the laws of our lands (at least the professionals) better than the rest of us.

Again what right are you standing up for?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

You can take pictures of anybody in a public place.... Police officers do not give up their rights when they take the job. They can photo you all day long.

You may not like it but rights work both ways.... 

They are not forcing you to ID when they take your photo...you are allowing them by being in a place that allows picture taking


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

If they are using technology to watch and track us. Who is watching them? I have yet to hear a credible assurance from any agency that at some point they will not use the technology against the population or an innocent person. We the people are rapidly becoming We the watched. I consider spying and collecting data on innocent people perverse.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Perhaps you should look at what is happening in other highly developed countries. You're being watched every single day in almost all big cities overseas like in Japan or Korea or even England


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Real Old Man said:


> Perhaps you should look at what is happening in other highly developed countries. You're being watched every single day in almost all big cities overseas like in Japan or Korea or even England


And we should always allow the same laws that other places have... especially those who deny the rights of their "subjects".
We are supposed to know our rights and we are supposed to use the constitution to limit the power and threat of the federal and state governments. Surveillance of the people goes against all of our rights and is a power not only not granted to governments but specifically denied to them by the fourth amendment.

We, the people who are supposed to be preparing to survive most any event will be the ones who put the pieces back together after a catastrophe. We should in the very least understand our rights and responsibilities under the constitution.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Let's all just wear Holloween masks all the time we're out in public. Will they ban those too??!!


----------



## Dubyagee (Nov 9, 2012)

Just watch the video in The Ring movie.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Paul, you are a very succinct and articulate person. I look forward to your replies. No I am not kissing ass, bozo. Now kiss off!. Just giving credit where credit is due.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

1skrewsloose said:


> Paul, you are a very succinct and articulate person. I look forward to your replies. No I am not kissing ass, bozo. Now kiss off!. Just giving credit where credit is due.


I don't recall making any comments about your intent and I did not accuse you of kissing anything. My comments were targeted at the implications of your statement and were not intended to berate you in any way. 
We have to be the "sheepdogs" and reinforce the document that represents the law of the land. It is our "job" to deny unlawful power to the government and its agencies. If I kiss - it will be family or friends, under appropriate conditions.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

Facial recognition would probably be one of the easiest things to defeat if someone took the time to understand how it works.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

rickkyw1720pf said:


> Facial recognition would probably be one of the easiest things to defeat if someone took the time to understand how it works.


The point is we should not have to defeat it - it is an unlawful act! (that means that somebody is doing it or passed a law to make it legal while it contradicts the constitution).

Know your constitution, know your rights!


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

PaulS said:


> And we should always allow the same laws that other places have... especially those who deny the rights of their "subjects".
> We are supposed to know our rights and we are supposed to use the constitution to limit the power and threat of the federal and state governments. Surveillance of the people goes against all of our rights and is a power not only not granted to governments but specifically denied to them by the fourth amendment.
> 
> We, the people who are supposed to be preparing to survive most any event will be the ones who put the pieces back together after a catastrophe. We should in the very least understand our rights and responsibilities under the constitution.


Maybe I'm reading the wrong Constitution. First you are in a public place. You have absolutely no expectation of privacy, none what so ever. If you are referring to the 4th, then you are hopelessly deluding yourself. Your face is out in Plain View and the courts have ruled many times that no search warrant is required for items (including your face) are out and in Plain View.

As for understanding your rights under the constitution, I think I've had a whole lot more practical experience in dealing with protecting what rights you have than most.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

1skrewsloose said:


> Let's all just wear Holloween masks all the time we're out in public. Will they ban those too??!!


Just remember the last time you had your picture taken at DMV for your license. Remember they said not to smile. So you want to defeat the Facial recognition (at least it was that way a few years ago) walk around with Paul's Avatar's grin plastered to your face and it should work, Course folks are gonna look at you kinda funny


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Taking the picture is not the issue. The issue is the unlawful search to identify you. There is no warrant, there is no probable cause and it is a search of your person.

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be *secure in their persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

Yesterday I found out something interesting I did not know. If you are on federal property, such as a post office or federal building you are not allowed to have a gun in your vehicle. This is not just the building it is also the parking lot, so if you go to post a letter and have a gun in your vehicle you are supposed to park across the street. I guess that most of you know this, I found it interesting.

As far as public places go, no I don't expect to have any privacy on the phone or having my picture taken. Who doesn't know that most stores now have cameras, most streets are monitored, most freeways, highways and busy roads are monitored. Surveillance is everywhere now! The only place I don't expect to be monitored is in my own home or on my property. I know that if I was involved in something illegal they have the right to get a warrant to monitor me. Since I have done nothing or been involved in nothing illegal they do not have that right. If you don't want to be on camera you are going to have to stay home, and that sucks!

It seems the only place that you can have an expectation of privacy anymore is in a restroom and I even have doubts about that now.

Putting on a hard hat and waiting to be verbally pummeled.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

PaulS said:


> Taking the picture is not the issue. The issue is the unlawful search to identify you. There is no warrant, there is no probable cause and it is a search of your person.
> 
> 4th Amendment
> The right of the people to be *secure in their persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.


PLAIN VIEW - The supreme court has ruled again and again that police are not required to turn away from seeing things...

Taken a picture of you in a public area is not searching you or your property... it may be a search on a DATABASE but that database is not yours


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

Auntie said:


> Yesterday I found out something interesting I did not know. If you are on federal property, such as a post office or federal building you are not allowed to have a gun in your vehicle. This is not just the building it is also the parking lot, so if you go to post a letter and have a gun in your vehicle you are supposed to park across the street. I guess that most of you know this, I found it interesting.


Auntie, You were misinformed.
Guns OK in post office parking lots, federal judge rules - CNN.com
In 2013 a federal judge ruled it is ok to have a concealed pistol in the post office parking lot. It is not ok to take the pistol inside the building even if you have a CCW permit.

I'm assuming this means you can also carry in the courthouse parking lot although I'd suggest leaving the gun in the vehicle on any federal government property as I do. My local dump has a "federal gun line" because of the convicts who work there so I try to remember to leave the pistol (pistol is usually in the glovebox) at home although I've forgotten a time or two. I asked the guards once about how much trouble I'd be in if they discovered the pistol in my glovebox (I had removed the pistol for that trip).

The guards told me they kind of work on a "if they don't see it" principal which is good because living in a rural area many people carry in their vehicles (legal to do here in GA even without a CCW permit).


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

PaulS said:


> The point is we should not have to defeat it - it is an unlawful act! (that means that somebody is doing it or passed a law to make it legal while it contradicts the constitution).
> 
> Know your constitution, know your rights!


Oh I agree 100 percent but it doesn't hurt to know how all of this stuff works because I am not sure they can't just use any photo of you from anywhere and you wouldn't even be aware of it. 
Unfortunately even if they made a law about it's use I think they would still use it.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

Darn NRA instructor is behind the times. Yes I got all my paperwork/tests done to send to the local sheriff for my Concealed Carry.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

Auntie said:


> Darn NRA instructor is behind the times. Yes I got all my paperwork/tests done to send to the local sheriff for my Concealed Carry.


I kept putting off getting a CCW permit for about 10 years because I didn't want to give up my fingerprints (never been printed). Finally did it and while I rarely carry in my pocket I feel much better traveling out of state since most states I travel through honor a GA permit.

I figure that if the SHTF ever happens in the early days while the local law is still trying to hold things together having a CCW will go a long way towards keeping me out of trouble as I travel for trade or to check on people.... plus there are so many nutcase shootings in the news now.


----------

