Hacker News Reader

Comment by saas_co_de | Hacker News Reader

Using facial recognition tech is just common sense. Why would you not use the technology available to you to enforce the law?

Does having a machine analyze your face invade your privacy any more than having humans analyze your face?

View on HN

>Why would you not use the technology available to you to enforce the law?

Because I am a US citizen who under the US constitution is protected against unreasonable search.

Being forced to have my face scanned to leave my country is beyond unreasonable.

I am not sure if it is in the constitution but being able to freely leave the country should be a no-brainer. Leaving the country should involve no paperwork or procedure for US citizens. Entering the country should involve a rubberstamp procedure where they verify you are who you state you are.

I wouldn't mind facial recognition for re-entry if it meant I could scan my passport, get scanned and be through the checkpoint very quickly.

>I wouldn't mind facial recognition for re-entry if it meant I could scan my passport, get scanned and be through the checkpoint very quickly.

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/global-...

freedom of movement is in the universal declaration of human rights

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

So why would the Constitution be a barrier to whatever the government wants to do? It's only a piece of paper unless enforced by the elected and appointment officials and judges. If they choose to ignore it there is nothing you can do other than hope you can vote in someone who does.

Yes. A machine can record that data, and others can look at it later. The issue is not what we can readily see, but storing recordings and and information gleaned from those recordings.

This is the same issue when you replace a person with a surveillance camera that records video.

> Does having a machine analyze your face invade your privacy any more than having humans analyze your face?

Seriously? Yes, of course it does, by a gigantic amount; this should be maddeningly self-evident. Human beings do not, for instance, have instant recall of hundreds of millions of names and faces.

Can you explain? I don't see it as any more invasive than taking a photo of a person.

And you don't have a problem with everyone at an airport being photographed for an undisclosed purpose?

Also, the photo is being analyzed. As in, the photo doesn't just exist, your identity is tied to it. It's not just the same thing as taking a photo.

If the camera is doing the same thing as a human then use humans. Call it a jobs program. If the camera does something else then your argument is invalid. Since they are using the cameras and not more people when I think it is clear we are not talking about the same thing.

Definitely since a person analyzing my face is just looking at it and not flipping through millions of pictures comparing it at the speed of thought and also magically collating that with the rest of me (credit rating, salary, lifestyle markers, etc.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com