Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock
Facial recognition cameras, while obviously a great source of information that can bring people identified as criminals to justice, is also a major source of consternation for me from a privacy perspective. It's too damned big brother for me, quite honestly.
Perhaps it can be used in very specific areas/circumstances, but widespread use seems to be a severe violation of the right to privacy.
Aaron (Glowrock)
|
You know what else was regarded as a huge violation of privacy? License plates. "You mean the police can just track my car?!" Same story with social security numbers. "What if I just want to leave my family and get a new job with a new name in California. Now I can't do that!"
There's no reason to conflate cameras that track Glowrock wherever he goes all day all time with ones that simply act as eyes on the street that can be investigated retroactively in the event that a crime has occurred. Imagine that Chicago has an officer walking around the same block all day who knew most of the people in the neighborhood. If the officer saw one of those people break a car window and then called in his name to the station, that extremely effective policing method would be a state invasion of privacy in the same way that having a camera there would be.
The best system would involve something like a warrant. If there was a high-res camera floating on a blimp 90,000 feet above the city, it would be an invasion of my privacy to create a report of where my car traveled all day everyday. It would not be an invasion of privacy to get a warrant to check the video to see where the car involved in a hit and run drove to and parked.