dagblog - Comments for "N.Y.P.D. Adds Children as Young as 11 to Facial Recognition Database" http://dagblog.com/link/nypd-adds-children-young-11-facial-recognition-database-28758 Comments for "N.Y.P.D. Adds Children as Young as 11 to Facial Recognition Database" en This decision is a http://dagblog.com/comment/270437#comment-270437 <a id="comment-270437"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/nypd-adds-children-young-11-facial-recognition-database-28758">N.Y.P.D. Adds Children as Young as 11 to Facial Recognition Database</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">This decision is a significant step forward in the fight against the harms of face recognition.<a href="https://t.co/juc4K2kww1">https://t.co/juc4K2kww1</a></p> — ACLU (@ACLU) <a href="https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1159950481264762885?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> </div></div></div> Mon, 12 Aug 2019 02:48:13 +0000 artappraiser comment 270437 at http://dagblog.com There's that French guy http://dagblog.com/comment/270255#comment-270255 <a id="comment-270255"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/270201#comment-270201">There a lot of this or at</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>There's that French guy flying over the Chunnel again - so much for Brexit, the Frogs keep arriving by land &amp; by sea.<br /> Build a WallE!??</p> </div></div></div> Mon, 05 Aug 2019 05:25:58 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 270255 at http://dagblog.com There a lot of this or at http://dagblog.com/comment/270201#comment-270201 <a id="comment-270201"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/270196#comment-270196">The Military-Style</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>There a lot of this or at least something similar here at the border. Border control drones often fly over my house and even spend a couple of hours hanging out in the area scanning the mountains and washes.</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 04 Aug 2019 05:08:52 +0000 ocean-kat comment 270201 at http://dagblog.com The Military-Style http://dagblog.com/comment/270196#comment-270196 <a id="comment-270196"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/nypd-adds-children-young-11-facial-recognition-database-28758">N.Y.P.D. Adds Children as Young as 11 to Facial Recognition Database</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/08/military-style-surveillance-air-often-legal/595063/">The Military-Style Surveillance Technology Being Tested in American Cities</a></p> <p><em>In the eyes of the law, there’s no difference between a photo taken by a smartphone through an airplane window and one taken by an ultrapowerful camera in a helicopter hovering over your backyard.</em></p> <p>By Arthur Holland Michel @ TheAtlantic.com, Aug. 3</p> <blockquote> <p>[....]  the airspace over America falls into the same legal category as other public spaces, such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and beaches—and it isn’t illegal to take photographs of private property, or private citizens, from public space. As a result, we have no expectation of privacy from above [....]</p> <p>Capitalizing on this gap, as some might call it, in standing privacy law, wide-area-camera manufacturers and users often turn the all-seeing eye on peacetime populations in the United States and elsewhere without their knowledge. PV Labs, a Canadian firm, has flown a “persistent surveillance” camera over various <u>U.S.</u> cities, including Charlotte and Wilmington, North Carolina. The Australian Department of Defence has tested a wide-area camera in exercises over <u>Adelaide</u> and <u>Montreal</u>. The Air Force has spent hours <u>recording</u> Ohio State University’s campus in Columbus.</p> <p>Such flights continue to this day. In the summer of 2017, the Air Force 427th Special Operations Squadron’s top-secret WAMI airplane <u>spent more than 50 hours</u> flying orbits over Seattle, in some cases loitering over a single neighborhood (Bellevue and Renton were favorites) for four or five hours at a time.</p> <p>When it comes to law enforcement, police are likewise free to use aerial surveillance without a warrant or special permission. Under current privacy law, these operations are just as legal as policing practices whereby an officer spots unlawful activity while walking or driving through a neighborhood. Say an officer sees marijuana plants through the open window of a house. Because the officer is in a public space—a road or sidewalk—he or she doesn’t need permission to see the illicit plants, or a warrant to photograph the scene [....]</p> </blockquote> </div></div></div> Sun, 04 Aug 2019 04:02:14 +0000 artappraiser comment 270196 at http://dagblog.com