[subego]

Or as it was described to the Patent Office a, "pre-attack terrorist detection mechanism".

In simpler terms, high-quality facial recognition software meant to deal with the crushing amout of data generated by government operated security cameras.

I have a massive problem with this, yet I see no existing framework by which it can be challenged.

People often discuss what the Founding Fathers foresaw when they were writing the Constitution. Somehow I feel they didn't entertain of the possibility for monitoring every citizen in public at all times.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What's the problem exactly? They could always have you followed using traditional human investigators. This is just an automated way to do that more cheaply. If you don't want to be tracked, you have to watch out for human observers regardless. Now you have to watch out for cameras as well. That doesn't sound like a big change no matter who or what is monitoring that camera.

Certain types of technology allow police to do things that were impossible before (like wiretaps, heat-vision, flight, etc). Other types merely allow them to do the same activities as always more efficiently, like traffic cams and electronic filing. There is a qualitative difference between the two, and honestly I see only improvements coming from the latter.

There is also a distinction between intrusive elevation of police presence (like the TSA), and non-intrusive. This change doesn't interfere with everyday activities, it merely makes police more efficient at what they would have done anyway. Maybe you think the police shouldn't be "too" efficient, but that is another question unrelated to the tools at their disposal. In general, I think that police (and all government functions) should pursue increases in efficiency using automation. It would be a waste of public funds to do otherwise.

People often discuss what the Founding Fathers foresaw when they were writing the Constitution. Somehow I feel they didn't entertain of the possibility for monitoring every citizen in public at all times.

What they foresaw was the unforeseeable. That's what amendments are for. If you can't muster the supermajority needed for an amendment, then you're probably just making a mountain out of a molehill.

[subego]

The fact one has to expend resources to surveil someone acts as a barrier to abuse. Once the resources needed drops to effectively zero (which it absolutely, positively will), you've lost this barrier.

I fully disagree with your assertion something is a molehill until you have the momentum to pass an amendment. Amendments are reactionary. You get the momentum for an amendment long after things reach mountain status.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The fact one has to expend resources to surveil someone acts as a barrier to abuse. Once the resources needed drops to effectively zero (which it absolutely, positively will), you've lost this barrier.

That barrier was arbitrary. If you want a barrier there, I prefer an intentional barrier over one that got there by happenstance.

I fully disagree with your assertion something is a molehill until you have the momentum to pass an amendment. Amendments are reactionary. You get the momentum for an amendment long after things reach mountain status.

Reactionary is better. IOW, let the march of progress also be "innocent until proven guilty." I don't think technology should be outlawed just because someone thinks they're smart enough to predict the future. If the future is really that predictable, then the supermajority will also be able to predict it, and you'll have your amendment.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That barrier was arbitrary. If you want a barrier there, I prefer an intentional barrier over one that got there by happenstance.

Well, I'd prefer lots of things, but a preference for non-arbitrary barrier doesn't mean the arbitrary barrier lacks value.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Reactionary is better. IOW, let the march of progress also be "innocent until proven guilty." I don't think technology should be outlawed just because someone thinks they're smart enough to predict the future. If the future is really that predictable, then the supermajority will also be able to predict it, and you'll have your amendment.

Whoa... who said anything about outlawing?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That barrier was arbitrary. If you want a barrier there, I prefer an intentional barrier over one that got there by happenstance.

Well, I'd prefer lots of things, but a preference for non-arbitrary barrier doesn't mean the arbitrary barrier lacks value.

It does lack value, unless a non-arbitrary barrier is unattainable for some reason. I don't see a reason why that would be.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Reactionary is better. IOW, let the march of progress also be "innocent until proven guilty." I don't think technology should be outlawed just because someone thinks they're smart enough to predict the future. If the future is really that predictable, then the supermajority will also be able to predict it, and you'll have your amendment.

Whoa... who said anything about outlawing?

What do you call it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It does lack value, unless a non-arbitrary barrier is unattainable for some reason. I don't see a reason why that would be.

I don't follow.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What do you call it?

I didn't call it anything.

Is the technology of wiretapping banned, or does it have restrictions on its use?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It does lack value, unless a non-arbitrary barrier is unattainable for some reason. I don't see a reason why that would be.

I don't follow.

Since we are able to enact the "right" barrier to abuse, then an arbitrary barrier to abuse does lack value.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What do you call it?

I didn't call it anything.

What word would you use to describe what you want to happen? What verb is appropriate to summarize your ideal solution for this thread? I'm not trying to make an argument, I just can't communicate if you don't tell me what terms are allowed.

Is the technology of wiretapping banned, or does it have restrictions on its use?

Using it in certain ways is banned (such as "unwarranted" ways). So what? It's just a word, not a value judgement. What word can we use?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Since we are able to enact the "right" barrier to abuse, then an arbitrary barrier to abuse does lack value.

I lack confidence in our ability to enact the right barrier. People don't care enough about civil liberties.

I personally think that attitude is ignorant, but I can't do much about that except to try and educate.

To be clear, I'm not accusing you of being ignorant. You're not. I've had discussions with you.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What word would you use to describe what you want to happen? What verb is appropriate to summarize your ideal solution for this thread? I'm not trying to make an argument, I just can't communicate if you don't tell me what terms are allowed.
Using it in certain ways is banned (such as "unwarranted" ways). So what? It's just a word, not a value judgement. What word can we use?

There is no word to describe what I'd like to happen because I honestly have no idea.

I'm pretty stymied by the lack of legal structure to deal with scenario. The law pretty much says you can be observed by the government in public. End of story.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I lack confidence in our ability to enact the right barrier. People don't care enough about civil liberties.

Maybe you care too much about them. When you find that worrying, in and of itself, about a certain liberty which you can't even manage to puzzle out what it even is, is preventing your pursuit of happiness, then maybe it's about time you try to stop worrying so much. The worrying itself has become the problem.

There is no word to describe what I'd like to happen because I honestly have no idea.

I'm pretty stymied by the lack of legal structure to deal with scenario. The law pretty much says you can be observed by the government in public. End of story.

You would be best served by coming to terms with the fact that you can be observed in public, by government or by anyone else. What they do with that information is outside your control, and always will be. The alternative is to not be in public, which is not a workable solution.

You "should" have a right to privacy. You "should" also have a far lower expectation of what "privacy" means. "Privacy" doesn't mean you can go anywhere in public without being seen, or even without being recognized. You're going to give yourself an ulcer.

Either that, or wear a disguise every day. That might be fun.

[Waragainstsleep]

I want to coin the term 'facetapping'.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Can they ID you from behind too? What do you call that, asstapping?

[subego]

When they bust you with it I'm pretty sure that's grab-ass.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Can they ID you from behind too? What do you call that, asstapping?

+1 here... the historic precedent is that if you're in public, you do not have the expectation of privacy. The only way you're protected in public is to shut down or otherwise ban the use of any visual-collection media in public which of course, cannot be reasonably enforced.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Big Brother is watching, yadda yadda yadda

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Can they ID you from behind too? What do you call that, asstapping?

No, I've done a fair amount of that and it usually only has to do with identification of a person and/or cameras after a fair bit of drinking

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe you care too much about them. When you find that worrying, in and of itself, about a certain liberty which you can't even manage to puzzle out what it even is...

The liberty in question is being free of unwanted and unnecessary intrusion into your affairs by the government.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe you care too much about them. When you find that worrying, in and of itself, about a certain liberty which you can't even manage to puzzle out what it even is...

The liberty in question is being free of unwanted and unnecessary intrusion into your affairs by the government.

What intrusion? Watching is distinctly unintrusive. The TSA, that's intrusive. IRS, that's intrusive. Racial profiling in traffic stops, that's intrusive. But merely knowing where you go... I don't see how that's intrusive until they try to do something intrusive with the information. Is there something to this issue beyond what my initial 30-second search educated me about it? Maybe you can outline a scenario where this sort of information might have a material affect on someone's life (besides being caught for actually breaking laws, of course)?

[subego]

I see racial (or religious) profiling to be high on the list of stuff you could do with such a system.

[subego]

Just wanted to pass along it looks as if TrapWire itself may be more marketing hype (coupled with a well timed DDoS attack) than anything else, however I don't think that negates the discussion. Better to have it sooner rather than later IMO.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I see racial (or religious) profiling to be high on the list of stuff you could do with such a system.

Profiling to what end? If it's profiling for who to do a traffic stop on, or who to frisk in the airport, then it's actually the stop or the frisk that is intrusive. The profiling in and of itself does not actually intrude. How is it intrusive?

[subego]

My apologies here. "Intrusive" wasn't the best choice of term. How's about "meddlesome"?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Doesn't that have the same effect? Step 1 is observation, step 2 is intervention. Anything intrusive or meddlesome falls under step 2. As long as the new policy is confined to step 1, I don't see how it violates anyone's rights(?)

[subego]

I thought meddlesome was "to interest oneself in what is not one's concern". I'd say tracking a person who has been suspected of nothing fits that definition.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I had only known "meddle" by the other listed definitions based on "interfere", "involve", "intrude" or "intervene", not merely "interest." I think that mere "interest" or "tracking" of law-abiding citizens (in their entirely public actions) is ok, or at least if it's not then the IRS and Social Security have already been there and done that.

[subego]

Now I'm genuinely confused (as opposed to my normal state of just confused confused). The IRS has been tasked with taking everyone's money, pretty much against everyone's will. How is where your money is not their concern?

[Uncle Skeleton]

So it's ok if they track you and take your money, but it's not ok if they just track you?

[subego]

I'm assuming your claim isn't the tracking information the IRS acquires is the same information a public security camera acquires, so I'm still confused by your point.

I'm sorry if I'm seeming obtuse. I honestly still just don't get where you're going.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other? What's the relevant distinction between IRS tracking and TrapWire tracking, other than the factor I already mentioned where IRS takes your money and TrapWIre doesn't?

[Snow-i]

AFAIK, the IRS is legally bound not to sell your information to the highest bidder. Trapwire, at least for the time being, has just pinky sworn not to.