Why worry if you have nothing to hide?

[TheSportsPredictor]

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.”

​

 

[Ace]

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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

 

[qtlaw24]

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.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

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

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

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

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

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

 

[JC]

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

 

[da man]

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

It probably helps that she makes it so darn easy.

 

[amraeder]

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?"

 

[Ace]

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.

 

[amraeder]

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

 

[Vombatus]

It probably helps that she makes it so darn easy.

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

 

[Vombatus]

Oh, and facial recognition is being used in airports and big events, like the Super Bowl. Damn right it is legal. If you are walking around in public, what expectation of privacy of your face do you have? If you don't like that prospect, wear a burka.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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 Big Ragu]

Oh, and facial recognition is being used in airports and big events, like the Super Bowl. Damn right it is legal. If you are walking around in public, what expectation of privacy of your face do you have? If you don't like that prospect, wear a burka.

There is a difference between walking in public where there are security cameras recording EVERYONE. ... and being stopped by a cop who then snaps your photo for the specific purpose of seeing if you come up in his database.

The police are supposed to be held to a high standard -- however we want to parse the 4th amendment or try to figure out how technology fits in. Cops don't get to go on fishing expeditions or harass people indiscriminately because their spidey senses are tingling. Probable cause is established by factual evidence, NOT a cop's suspicions or hunches. For good reason. They are supposed to get warrants to do a search. They can briefly detain you for investigatory purposes with reasonable suspicion -to believe that you are committing a crime. But even reasonable suspicion isn't just their hunch. It is established by facts and circumstances. When they do that kind of stop, it doesn't give them a broad right to go fishing or to act on their hunches. They can't search you, for example, without your consent -- that is what the 4th Amendment is there for. It just follows for me that in the spirit of that, they should not be snapping photos of people without their consent to run through a database.

 

[Shropshire Slasher]

8 Ways We Regularly Commit Felonies Without Realizing It

 

[Vombatus]

Ragu,

All good points, but the police can act on anything that is out in plain sight. That includes what they see through the windows of your car, and your face.

What's awkward here is the snapping of a photo, making the detainee aware of it. But this could be done with body cameras, and with lesser resolution, dashboard cameras.

And, while recent complaints may revolve around the current policing narrative, a much bigger issue is using this kind of technology for antiterrorism. This is a huge tool and is not going away, and for the safety of the country, it shouldn't.

 

[The Big Ragu]

All good points, but the police can act on anything that is out in plain sight. That includes what they see through the windows of your car, and your face.

They can act on anything ILLEGAL that they see in plain sight. If they look into your car window and see a bag of coke on the passenger seat, yes, they can then search you and your car. They then have reasonable suspicion. But if they look in your car and don't see anything illegal, they can't rip you out of the car and search you just because they have a hunch or they don't like the way you look. That is why without reasonable suspicion that you were up to something illegal, to my mind, these photos are fishing expeditions that violate the spirt of the 4th amendment.

They didn't envision this kind of technology when they drafted the 4th amendment, but it was clearly put in place to protect us against overzealous policing-- police have to hurdle a high bar before harassing people. It's a great protection that really is the key to our freedom. To search you or your property, they need a warrant, which requires probable cause. Or if it is something happening in the moment, before they search you, they had better be able to make the case that they had reasonable suspicion -- backed with facts and circumstances -- that you were in the act of committing a crime or were going to commit one.

 

[Amy]

I don't know if there are other cases with more comparable facts, but the U.S. Supreme Court found there was no 4th A. violation when a grand jury compelled the production of voice exemplars, stating:

"In Katz v. United States, supra, we said that the Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office. . . ." 389 U.S. at 389 U. S. 351. The physical characteristics of a person's voice, its tone and manner, as opposed to the content of a specific conversation, are constantly exposed to the public. Like a man's facial characteristics, or handwriting, his voice is repeatedly produced for others to hear. No person can have a reasonable expectation that others will not know the sound of his voice, any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world."

U.S. v Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973)

 

[micropolitan guy]

Ragu,

We may disagree about a lot of things, but your last two posts re spot-on.

Now, how about a take on the gas price-gouging underway in the Midwest because of another timely refinery problem? How convenient, at the same time crude prices are cratering!