Why worry if you have nothing to hide?

Not sure why the firefighter was worried. No criminal record, respected job. Just let the police do what they want, take whatever pictures of you they need, and you're on your way due to your commendable character. Right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/u...s-to-local-police.html?curator=TechREDEF&_r=0

When Aaron Harvey was stopped by the police here in 2013 while driving near his grandmother’s house, an officer not only searched his car, he said, but also took his photograph and ran it through the software to try to confirm his identity and determine whether he had a criminal record.

Eric Hanson, a retired firefighter, had a similar experience last summer. Stopped by the police after a dispute with a man he said was a prowler, he was ordered to sit on a curb, he said, while officers took his photo with an iPad and ran it through the same facial recognition software. The officers also used a cotton swab to collect a DNA sample from the inside of his cheek.

Neither man was arrested. Neither had consented to being photographed. Both said officers had told them that they were using facial recognition technology.

“I was thinking, ‘Why are you taking pictures of me, doing this to me?’ ” said Mr. Hanson, 58, who has no criminal record. “I felt like my identity was being stolen. I’m a straight-up, no lie, cheat or steal guy, and I get treated like a criminal.”

​

 

Surprised the story didn't indicate the races of the guys stopped and photographed.

To me, if you have a legit reason to stop someone, but nothing to charge them on, I can't see using the facial recongition software unless they can't produce an ID.

If your fancy iPad app trumps my driver's license, why do I need to even carry a driver's license?

Oh, and you're not searching my car or taking a swab of my cheek without a warrant.

 

I thought for sure this was going to be about Hillary Clinton.

 

This is the whole basis of the 4th amendment. In our country we start from we presume that everyone is innocent; not what have you got to worry about?

Law enforcement doesn't get a freebie, "hey what have you got to worry about? You're innocent, let us do whatever we want." I think that's one of the biggest problems with law enforcement, "hey, people should want to help us and let us do whatever we want, even if we violate your rights, if we find something good, we gotcha, so ends justify the means."

This is just another example where law enforcement skips the first requirement, probable cause that something happened.

 

Judging by the thread title, I thought it would be about Dick Cheney.

 

Your first post upon returning isn't in this thread? http://www.sportsjournalists.com/fo...eed-or-not-to-smoke-weed.105061/#post-3930076

 

You knew Clinton would be first. It's always Clinton.

 

It probably helps that she makes it so darn easy.

 

So they mentioned in the NY article about a lawyer who gets a couple calls a month about this. But they didn't go into any more info. What does he advise them? That they can do something or that they can't do anything? What does he base his thoughts around? They mention that this is so new there haven't been any cases about this yet, but I guess I was hoping for some idea of how current case laws might be applied to this new technology.
The story started out with a guy who thought his rights had been violated, and I just wished the story delved more into "well, were they?"

 

It's kind of shaky because you don't really know why they stopped those guys and searched or took DNA samples.

If they can't produce ID, I can see using it, but otherwise?

If you looked exactly like a serial killer, you probably wouldn't be a fan of the technology.

 

The 20 percent error rate seems really scary, too. Like, 20% seems like a crazy margin of error.

 

Except for Bill. She probably never gave it up easy for him. And BJs? fuhgeddaboudit