What Will Dictator Trump Do with Your Facial Recognition Data? Do NOT Submit to TSA Scan at Airport This Travel Season it is OPTIONAL

[Concerned American]

Do you favor full face pictures on drivers licenses or other ID?

So you think that justifies more intrusion by an unrelated agency? You don't have a problem with them putting a camera in your bedroom do you?

 

[buckeye]

So should they be tracked, or just be free to riot?

They should be arrested while rioting and charged with whatever is their crime.

 

[mudwhistle]

Joy Reid is a very stupid racist.

She needs to be fired.

She's not an American.

She needs to be sent back to her home country.

 

[jwoodie]

So you think that justifies more intrusion by an unrelated agency? You don't have a problem with them putting a camera in your bedroom do you?

I prefer binary (yes/no) questions, which require a definitive answer. I asked you if you favor full face pictures on drivers licenses. Instead of answering this question, you replied with two indefinite questions, which I will attempt to answer:

1. I think that facial recognition is less intrusive than most other means of personal identification (such as finger printing or blood/dna sampling), regardless of the particular agency using it.

2. I don't have a problem with surveillance of public places, but I oppose surveillance of private places unless there is an overriding health or safety issue (such as a suicide watch or a warrant for a criminal investigation).

 

[jwoodie]

They should be arrested while rioting and charged with whatever is their crime.

Facial recognition is a primary means of identifying a suspect. How else would you know who to charge?

 

[Concerned American]

I asked you if you favor full face pictures on drivers licenses.

As it is already a fact that they exist throughout the US, I figured that your obvious "gotcha" deserved no response. However, you are deflecting quite nicely. Now answer the obvious extrapolation of what you are trying to defend. Surveillance is out of hand and should be reduced. I am already producing a REAL ID with a pic on it that is tied to a database. I don't need another disjointed intrusion into my rights.

1. I think that facial recognition is less intrusive than most other means of personal identification (such as finger printing or blood/dna sampling), regardless of the particular agency using it.

I disagree. Fingerprinting is the most positive and it could be done just as easily as drivers licenses. Put your finger on the reader and you are identified. Could be used for voter ID as well. For crying out loud, people use it to secure their phones.

 

[22lcidw]

Global ID and Real ID Identification Cards as the noose tightens.

 

[jwoodie]

As it is already a fact that they exist throughout the US, I figured that your obvious "gotcha" deserved no response.

Ask me a yes/no question and I will give you a yes/no answer.

However, you are deflecting quite nicely.

What, exactly, is my "deflection?"

Now answer the obvious extrapolation of what you are trying to defend.

An extrapolation is not a question.

Surveillance is out of hand and should be reduced.

I agree that the FISA system was corrupted by the FBI and should be reformed.

I am already producing a REAL ID with a pic on it that is tied to a database. I don't need another disjointed intrusion into my rights.

To what "disjointed intrusion" are you referring?

I disagree. Fingerprinting is the most positive and it could be done just as easily as drivers licenses.

I said that fingerprinting is more intrusive than facial recognition.

Put your finger on the reader and you are identified. Could be used for voter ID as well. For crying out loud, people use it to secure their phones.

So you are opposed to facial recognition but in favor of fingerprinting everyone? I disagree.

 

[munkle]

I prefer binary (yes/no) questions, which require a definitive answer. I asked you if you favor full face pictures on drivers licenses. Instead of answering this question, you replied with two indefinite questions, which I will attempt to answer:

1. I think that facial recognition is less intrusive than most other means of personal identification (such as finger printing or blood/dna sampling), regardless of the particular agency using it.

2. I don't have a problem with surveillance of public places, but I oppose surveillance of private places unless there is an overriding health or safety issue (such as a suicide watch or a warrant for a criminal investigation).

24/7 search without warrant, using your own tax money to do it, is not Constitutional. Trump will find anyone who protested him and send them to gulag.

 

[Concerned American]

What, exactly, is my "deflection?"

I asked you if you would be OK with gov't cameras in your bedroom. A question that you chose to ignore. I don't know how it could be any more yes or no than that.

An extrapolation is not a question.

LOL, deflecting again. The question is repeated above ^^^. Yes or No?

To what "disjointed intrusion" are you referring?

If you want to continue a discussion you are going to have to be less obtuse.

I said that fingerprinting is more intrusive than facial recognition.

And I disagreed.

So you are opposed to facial recognition but in favor of fingerprinting everyone? I disagree.

You are fingerprinted for your first drivers license in CA. You are finger printed when you join the military and you are finger printed when you apply for TSA pre check along with anytime you are booked into jail.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A group of senators including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are apparently concerned about what someone like Trump will do with your face scan or "video selfie" which will allow the regime to follow you wherever you go. A letter to TSA just before the busiest travel time of the year that asks what will be done with all this intimate biometric data is signed by Republicans also.

Tech magazine Gizmodo:

“While the TSA claims facial recognition is optional, it is confusing and intimidating to opt out of TSA’s facial recognition scans, and our offices have received numerous anecdotal reports of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) becoming belligerent when a traveler askes to opt out, or simply being unaware of that right,” the senators wrote. They added that in some airports the signage instructing flyers to step in front of a camera is prominently displayed while signs advising passengers of their right to opt out of face scan is “strategically placed in inconspicuous locations.”

In an earlier letter sent by many of the same senators to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the senators said that the TSA has not produced any evidence in response to congressional inquiries showing that the implementation of facial recognition has led to the discovery of more fraudulent identity documents. Meanwhile, the TSA has said the systems have a three percent false negative rate—how often they fail to properly match a person to their image in the database—which would equate to 68,000 failures daily if the technology was spread across all airports."


Illegal 24/7 Search Without a Warrant Facial Recognition Surveillance in UK. People Disappeared for No Apparent Reason

Biden would fail this TSA scan

 

[Marchimedes]

What Will Dictator Trump Do with Your Facial Recognition Data?​

We are gonna come get you. It's all true. We know all. So, the next time you buy multiple Mascare sets at Wal-Mart, we know about that. I might get the word to type at you. And you thought you had a place to hide.

 

[jwoodie]

I asked you if you would be OK with gov't cameras in your bedroom. A question that you chose to ignore. I don't know how it could be any more yes or no than that.

THIS was your "question:"

You don't have a problem with them putting a camera in your bedroom do you?

Given its faulty construction, a yes or no answer would not be definitive. However, I did reply with the following:

I don't have a problem with surveillance of public places, but I oppose surveillance of private places unless there is an overriding health or safety issue (such as a suicide watch or a warrant for a criminal investigation).

A bedroom is a obviously a private place, so it should not be surveilled (e.g., with a camera) unless exceptional circumstances are involved. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

P.S. A single finger print is required for a CA drivers license. As such, it is merely a means of verifying one's identity for the purpose of certifying the information on the application. I think that requiring the physical act of fingerprinting someone is more "intrusive" than passive camera surveillance in public places, but you are free to disagree.

 

[munkle]

THIS was your "question:"

Given its faulty construction, a yes or no answer would not be definitive. However, I did reply with the following:

A bedroom is a obviously a private place, so it should not be surveilled (e.g., with a camera) unless exceptional circumstances are involved. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

P.S. A single finger print is required for a CA drivers license. As such, it is merely a means of verifying one's identity for the purpose of certifying the information on the application. I think that requiring the physical act of fingerprinting someone is more "intrusive" than passive camera surveillance in public places, but you are free to disagree.

Anyone who doesn't have their computer camera lens taped over is crazy.

 

[Marchimedes]

Anyone who doesn't have their computer camera lens taped over is crazy.