Sanders, Warren, and Wyden back national facial recognition ban bill(cnet.com)
cnet.com
Sanders, Warren, and Wyden back national facial recognition ban bill
https://www.cnet.com/news/senators-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-and-ron-wyden-back-national-facial-recognition-ban-bill/
11 comments
Any law nerds (or even real lawyers!) here have thoughts on if and how this bill fits with the powers granted to congress by the US Constitution?
Essentially, it doesn't. Congress has no say in how States operate their policing - it only has a say in how the Federal policing operates. But this hasn't stopped congress from overstepping their constitutional powers for the past 6 decades at least. The same goes for the office of the President, where _at least_ the past 10 Presidents (just off the top of my head) have deliberately acted outside their given powers on several occasions. The Judiciary is no better, but their transgressions are more spread out among a much, much, much larger flock of people.
That said, whether individual States are allowed to use facial recognition is another question entirely. I don't think so, because it most likely violates constitutionally protected rights such as liberty. But IANAL.
Probably one justification congress gives for allowing themselves to pass legislation like this is that it attaches them as prerequisites for special funding mechanisms.
I don't think that makes it legal either, but - again - IANAL. I also haven't read the bill in question.
But who's going to stop them?
I believe the main problem in the US is the low voting turnout. You could say the low voting turnout is caused by centuries of bad politicians and lack of hope in the system, but then you're just arguing in circles (chicken/egg). The US elects people all the way down to the city level, and even Sheriffs, Judges, and AGs on the local/town/city level. There are elections each year in the US where turnout is below 1% of the eligible population, and it is never above 65% (even in Presidential elections, which is the one that affects you as an individual the least), if I remember correctly.
Also note the disrepancy between vote tallies and exit polling in many elections in the US is routinely above 8-16% (the margin of error is 4%), which likely means many elections in the US are rigged. And note the over 1000 _convictions_ of criminal election fraud in the US since just the 80s. Not alleged, but prosecuted and convicted.
Contrast this to elections in most European countries, where turnout is rarely below 60% at any level of government. At least in my country. I've not researched it thoroughly, but I have done a bit of reading on this some years ago.
In the end, voting is the only mechanism you have for keeping politicians honest. And elected representatives are supposed to keep the rest of the bureaucracy and government honest.
So if you don't vote, or keep voting for people who don't understand their own system of government - or worse, who don't care about the limitations put on them by the framework - then in the end, revolution is the only thing that can fix it. And you don't want revolution. You'll most likely be killed.
At the extreme, those are your options; vote cleverly and wisely, or die.
Many people choose a 3rd option; ignore politics and live their lives. What that does is it pushes death down the line to your children, or your childrens children, etc.
/rant :-D
That said, whether individual States are allowed to use facial recognition is another question entirely. I don't think so, because it most likely violates constitutionally protected rights such as liberty. But IANAL.
Probably one justification congress gives for allowing themselves to pass legislation like this is that it attaches them as prerequisites for special funding mechanisms.
I don't think that makes it legal either, but - again - IANAL. I also haven't read the bill in question.
But who's going to stop them?
I believe the main problem in the US is the low voting turnout. You could say the low voting turnout is caused by centuries of bad politicians and lack of hope in the system, but then you're just arguing in circles (chicken/egg). The US elects people all the way down to the city level, and even Sheriffs, Judges, and AGs on the local/town/city level. There are elections each year in the US where turnout is below 1% of the eligible population, and it is never above 65% (even in Presidential elections, which is the one that affects you as an individual the least), if I remember correctly.
Also note the disrepancy between vote tallies and exit polling in many elections in the US is routinely above 8-16% (the margin of error is 4%), which likely means many elections in the US are rigged. And note the over 1000 _convictions_ of criminal election fraud in the US since just the 80s. Not alleged, but prosecuted and convicted.
Contrast this to elections in most European countries, where turnout is rarely below 60% at any level of government. At least in my country. I've not researched it thoroughly, but I have done a bit of reading on this some years ago.
In the end, voting is the only mechanism you have for keeping politicians honest. And elected representatives are supposed to keep the rest of the bureaucracy and government honest.
So if you don't vote, or keep voting for people who don't understand their own system of government - or worse, who don't care about the limitations put on them by the framework - then in the end, revolution is the only thing that can fix it. And you don't want revolution. You'll most likely be killed.
At the extreme, those are your options; vote cleverly and wisely, or die.
Many people choose a 3rd option; ignore politics and live their lives. What that does is it pushes death down the line to your children, or your childrens children, etc.
/rant :-D
> But this hasn't stopped congress from overstepping their constitutional powers for the past 6 decades at least
Should this be read as "they do have constitutional power, but I don't like it"?
I mean if it is, in fact, unconstitutional, then surely at some point over "6 decades" the Supreme Court would have gotten liberal or conservative (whichever is necessary here) enough to have put a stop to this.
Should this be read as "they do have constitutional power, but I don't like it"?
I mean if it is, in fact, unconstitutional, then surely at some point over "6 decades" the Supreme Court would have gotten liberal or conservative (whichever is necessary here) enough to have put a stop to this.
Maybe?
If the Supreme Court has made decisions which many people think constitute an obvious, willful misinterpretation of the constitution.
I think it's reasonable to say, if that's your take, that the constitutional authority does not exist.
If the Supreme Court has made decisions which many people think constitute an obvious, willful misinterpretation of the constitution.
I think it's reasonable to say, if that's your take, that the constitutional authority does not exist.
> the Supreme Court has made decisions which many people think constitute an obvious, willful misinterpretation of the constitution
This is a good point, and one that I hadn't considered before my first reply.
However, we're talking about a single issue here - Congress' "say in how States operate their policing." As such, it's a lot harder to argue "willful misrepresentation" when none of the political persuasions or judicial philosophies that have dominated the court over six decades challenge it.
This is a good point, and one that I hadn't considered before my first reply.
However, we're talking about a single issue here - Congress' "say in how States operate their policing." As such, it's a lot harder to argue "willful misrepresentation" when none of the political persuasions or judicial philosophies that have dominated the court over six decades challenge it.
It seems like this removes one of the best tools law enforcement has available for combatting the production of hundreds of thousands of images of child porn on the dark web.
Indeed. However, if the tool is being used improperly [1], can law enforcement be trusted with it? This seems like a very complicated issue, and I'm legitimately not sure what the right path is.
That being said, much like the similar issue with encryption, I would lean on the principle of least privileges and deny LE this capability until we can _effectively_ make sure it won't be abused. (This applies to facial recognition, not encryption. There's no good enough reason to backdoor all encryption.)
[1] https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/
That being said, much like the similar issue with encryption, I would lean on the principle of least privileges and deny LE this capability until we can _effectively_ make sure it won't be abused. (This applies to facial recognition, not encryption. There's no good enough reason to backdoor all encryption.)
[1] https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/
[deleted]
Best tool? Children are disappearing out of ICE detention centers and facial recognition is the best tool to fight human trafficking? I am sorry but I cannot believe that the feds sincerely care about children's well being. Not while our southern border exists in its current state.
Not only is that a canard[0], it's a tiny fraction of the 50,000 annual human trafficking victims incentivized by maintaining lax enforcement of the southern border. [1]
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/us/immigration-refugee-child-...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-border-trafficking/fe...
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/us/immigration-refugee-child-...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-border-trafficking/fe...
Net harm that law enforcement will do with it is much worse. They can’t be trusted and have to be stopped.