Facialized: US to Force Mugshots From All Citizen Travelers
https://papersplease.org/wp/2019/12/02/dhs-plans-to-require-mug-shots-of-u-s... https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201910&RIN=1651-AB22 https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/02/homeland-security-face-recognition-airport... https://yro.slashdot.org/story/19/12/02/2326235/dhs-wants-airport-face-recog... You choice for 1984 in effect... DHS plans to require mug shots of U.S. citizen travelers Buried in the latest Fall 2019 edition of an obscure Federal bureaucratic planning database called the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is an official notice from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that: To facilitate the implementation of a seamless biometric entry-exit system that uses facial recognition … DHS is proposing to amend the regulations to provide that all travelers, including U.S. citizens, may be required to be photographed upon entry and/or departure [to or from the U.S.]. According to the “Unified Agenda”, the DHS plans to publish a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (NPRM) in approximately July 2020 to make mug shots mandatory for U.S. citizens leaving or returning to the U.S. The laws cited in the “Unified Agenda” as providing the statutory basis for the proposed rule pertain to searches of aliens (non-U.S. citizens) and the obligation for U.S. citizens entering or leaving the U.S. to have U.S. passports (a requirement of questionable and largely untested Constitutionality). It’s not obvious how the DHS will twist this into purported authority to require mug shots of all U.S. citizens who travel internationally. The DHS has already given notice of its intention to solicit bids for systems to capture photos of all air travelers, including U.S. citizens, and is working with airlines and airports on schemes to share the photos, so that airlines and airports will be able to use data collected under government coercion for their own commercial business-process-automation and price-personalization purposes. In November 2019, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) component of DHS declared that its “test” of facial recognition on travelers crossing the US-Mexico border on foot had become a “permanent fixture” at certain pedestrian border crossings. Meanwhile, the DHS continues to try to reassure travelers by claiming that U.S. citizens can and will be able to opt out of being photographed at airports or land border crossings — even though we continue to get reports, as we have told DHS officials directly, from travelers who were told by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers and/or by line-minders at airports and borders that photography is mandatory . Can you opt out? All current statutory and regulatory provisions for biometric entry and/or exit are explicitly applicable only to non-U.S. citizens. They provide no legal basis for photography of U.S. citizens leaving or returning to the U.S. But current law also provides no guarantee of a right for U.S. citizens to opt out, and no specification of procedures for opting out or for redress for U.S. citizens who aren’t allowed to opt out. That will all become moot if the DHS succeeds in promulgating regulations requiring all travelers to submit to mug shots, the courts uphold them, and travelers acquiesce. Just say no.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90436355/portlands-proposed-facial-recognition-b... Oregon locality tries to say nope, will end up traptured. As the federal government plods along on developing privacy laws, some cities are taking matters into their own hands -- with facial recognition technology at the top of the list. Now, Portland, Oregon, has plans to ban the use of facial recognition for both the government and private businesses in the city, a move that could make Portland's ban the most restrictive in the United States. The proposed ban comes after cities including San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley in California, and Somerville in Massachusetts, have already banned the use of facial recognition by their city government agencies, including police departments. But Portland's ban goes a step further by expanding to private businesses -- if it makes it into law and takes effect in spring 2020, as planned. It could be a preview of what to expect across the country. "I think we're going to start to see more and more [private sector bans]," says ACLU of Northern California attorney Matt Cagle, who helped draft the San Francisco legislation that later served as the model for Oakland and Berkeley. "People are really concerned about facial recognition use and the tracking of their innate features by governments and private corporations."
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 07:26:20 PM PST, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.fastcompany.com/90436355/portlands-proposed-facial-recognition-b...
Oregon locality tries to say nope, will end up traptured.
As the federal government plods along on developing privacy laws, some cities are taking matters into their own hands -- with facial recognition technology at the top of the list. Now, Portland, Oregon, has plans to ban the use of facial recognition for both the government and private businesses in the city, a move that could make Portland's ban the most restrictive in the United States. The proposed ban comes after cities including San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley in California, and Somerville in Massachusetts, have already banned the use of facial recognition by their city government agencies, including police departments. But Portland's ban goes a step further by expanding to private businesses -- if it makes it into law and takes effect in spring 2020, as planned. It could be a preview of what to expect across the country. "I think we're going to start to see more and more [private sector bans]," says ACLU of Northern California attorney Matt Cagle, who helped draft the San Francisco legislation that later served as the model for Oakland and Berkeley. "People are really concerned about facial recognition use and the tracking of their innate features by governments and private corporations."
I find this planned Portland rule foolish and highly improper, at least in regard to how it controls "private corporations". (Governments are presumably entitled to restrict their own use of such a practice, so I do not dispute that aspect of the rule.) As a lifetime libertarian, I believe in the NAP (Non Aggression Principle, which I prefer to call the NIOFP, the Non-Initiation of Force Principle, lest this be misinterpreted as some variant of Pacifism. ). Do you recall the saying, "The rights of your fist end at my nose"?. It's not at all clear how a private business' use of facial recognition technology somehow initiates aggression against somebody else. (It's equivalent to hiring a person who recognizes everybody in Portland. That's not illegal...yet. ) Absent this, why should it be prohibited? And I note that this restriction does not purport to name ordinary people, for example ordinary citizens, as being prohibited from using facial recognition systems. Is that because such a prohibition is next? Is the City of Portland avoiding mentioning prohibiting ordinary people from using facial recognition because they are planning a "divide-and-conquer" campaign? Or, why are they not prohibiting that, too? Are we to suppose that this targeted prohibition is merely a convulsion of anti-business sentiment typical for Portland's super-progressive politics? There is a practical reason for this improper development: In the last few years, Portland has been wracked by riots by left-wing people, often going under the label "Antifa". Yes, they are seemingly triggered by demonstrations by Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys, but that doesn't justify the initiation of a riot merely because one's political opponents put on a demonstration. (Does it? Really?!?) It is widely suspected that the Portland Police have been instructed by Portland government to go easy on the violent rioters, and they have indeed done so. Do a Google search for 'Portland riot antifa assault journalist'. One result is: https://www.wsj.com/articles/antifa-attacks-a-journalist-11562021361 Another is: https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/why-a-journalist-was-attacked-by-antifa-i... What would be the effect of Portland businesses using facial recognition software? It would mean, quite simply, that more of the rioters would be identified, caught, prosecuted, and jailed. Or, if the Portland government failed to prosecute, it would become even more clear on what side the Portland government really is. That eventuality no doubt alarms the Portland 'riot-class', as well as the government that supports them. Is it the proper business of the City of Portland to protect rioters from being identified by prohibiting businesses from using facial recognition? Because that's what they are effectively proposing to do. Jim Bell
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 10:35:17 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 06:26:16 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I find this planned Portland rule foolish and highly improper, at least in regard to how it controls "private corporations".
spoken like the typical corporate fascist posing as 'libertarian'
A "corporation" is merely a fictional 'person', acting as a business. I see no reason that a government (such as the City of Portland) should be allowed to prohibit "corporations" from using of facial recognition, yet not have the power (if the City government so chose) to prohibit ordinary citizens from likewise using facial recognition. What's the difference? Which is it? A Statist wants 'government' to do anything it wants. Require anything. Prohibit anything. Control everything. Jim Bell
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 07:02:29AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 10:35:17 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 06:26:16 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I find this planned Portland rule foolish and highly improper, at least in regard to how it controls "private corporations".
spoken like the typical corporate fascist posing as 'libertarian'
A "corporation" is merely a fictional 'person', acting as a business. I see no reason that a government (such as the City of Portland) should be allowed to prohibit "corporations" from using of facial recognition, yet not have the power (if the City government so chose) to prohibit ordinary citizens from likewise using facial recognition. What's the difference? Which is it? A Statist wants 'government' to do anything it wants. Require anything. Prohibit anything. Control everything.
As you say corporations are fictional. If corporations, fictional entities, are imposed upon us and granted actual "rights" (limited liability, right to appear in court, etc), then "the people" have the right to curtail the rights of the fictional entity, to the extent the people so choose, and certainty to any and every extent that corporations step into (affect) the rights of humans. Humans come first. One basic human right, is the right to privacy. If we uphold the rights of corporations to collect any biometric data about humans that they choose ("because we must not stop capitalism"), then we are encouraging the violation of the the human right to privacy. Except that information identifying me is allowed to be private, my right to privacy does not exist. This is so for travel, for example on the public roads by vehicle, and also on public footpaths by foot or bicycle. The human must be put first. Our basic human rights must be upheld in the face of those who would collect, sell and otherwise abuse our data and privacy.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 07:02:29 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which is it? A Statist wants 'government' to do anything it wants.
hey jim tell us about the patents that the american nazi government has 'granted' you. Oh wait. You are a fraud who believe in 'intelectual property' while posing as 'libertarian' AND you asked the american nazi government for protection. so what were you vomiting about 'statists', again? Do you need a mirror?
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 11:33:35 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 07:02:29 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which is it? A Statist wants 'government' to do anything it wants.
> hey jim tell us about the patents that the american nazi government has 'granted' you.
Oh wait. You are a fraud who believe in 'intelectual property' while posing as 'libertarian' AND you asked the american nazi government for protection.
Nope. I see no INHERENT contradiction between "intellectual property" and libertarianism. I file for, and obtain, a patent because I happen to live in a nation that has a directive to provide a patent-type system written into the Constitution. That does not mean that I believe that every action of government here is 'proper'. A patent-type system could be implemeted by a system of voluntary agreements between all people in society. I've mentioned this before, but not recently. Suppose that there are two classes of people and organizations: "Cooperators" and "non-Cooperators". The former agree to protect the rights of people who own intellectual property. The latter do not. The former agree not to sell, give, loan, etc, intellectual property items to any "non-Cooperator". A "non-Cooperator" can only buy items in stores that are not covered by what would be called "the patent system". A "Cooperator" can buy anything. A person can choose which group he will be in. If anybody violates this agreement, he is violating the agreement he freely agreed to. This has nothing to do with the existence of a government.
so what were you vomiting about 'statists', again? Do you need a mirror?
Read what I just wrote. A non-governmental basis for a 'patent system'. One that you presumably couldn't have imagined. Jim Bell
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 08:31:21 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which is it? A Statist wants 'government' to do anything it wants.
> hey jim tell us about the patents that the american nazi government has 'granted' you.
Oh wait. You are a fraud who believe in 'intelectual property' while posing as 'libertarian' AND you asked the american nazi government for protection.
Nope. I see no INHERENT contradiction between "intellectual property" and libertarianism.
that is because you are an intelectual fraud. You are willing to murder people in the name of 'property' and now you are willing to violate all personal rights (including property!) in the name of the ultra-statist PRIVILEGE called 'intelectual property'. And it seems you ignored my previous message where you were asked to 'justify' murder. I'll be waiting for your to further embarrass yourself and show that you are just a run-of-the-mill corporate fascist, not a 'libertarian'.
I file for, and obtain, a patent because I happen to live in a nation that has a directive to provide a patent-type system written into the Constitution.
yes, you are a USA nationalist who doesn't understand at all what the USA cunstitution is : a criminal agreement betweeen slave states. Oh yes, you call it the Constitution, with a capital C. Hilarious. you live in a 'nation STATE' - one of the most toxic creations of statism. But hey, political philosophy isn't your strong suit is it.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2019, 08:25:33 AM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 08:31:21 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which is it? A Statist wants 'government' to do anything it wants.
> hey jim tell us about the patents that the american nazi government has 'granted' you.
Oh wait. You are a fraud who believe in 'intelectual property' while posing as 'libertarian' AND you asked the american nazi government for protection.
Nope. I see no INHERENT contradiction between "intellectual property" and libertarianism.
that is because you are an intelectual fraud. You are willing to murder people in the name of 'property' and now you are willing to violate all personal rights (including property!) in the name of the ultra-statist PRIVILEGE called 'intelectual property'.
> And it seems you ignored my previous message where you were asked to 'justify' murder. I'll be waiting for your to further embarrass yourself and show that you are just a run-of-the-mill corporate fascist, not a 'libertarian'. "Murder" is a form of "killing which the government deems to be against the law". So you have inadvertently stepped into the same cow-pie that you seem to be claiming I did, too. It presumes the existence of a government, and of laws, etc. You seem to be suggesting that 'self-defense' is inherently illegitimate, or at least is artificially limited to some amount. I believe that you said that "proportionality" is "self-evident". Well, maybe the concept of proportionality seems basic, but I point out (again) that to actualy quantity "proportionality" isn't nearly so obvious., YOUR definition of "proportional" isn't necessarily the same as mine, or anyone else's. I contend that even if the concept of "proportionality" is assumed to be valid, if a person discovers somebody else trying to take his property, he is entitled to use whatever amount of force is necessary to stop that theft/burglary/robbery. Up to an including lethal force, if that's what it takes. Even for 'mere property'. You, apparently, are trying to claim that there can be, and is, some sort of artificial barrier to use of this self-defense concept. That at some point, a person must allow his property to be taken. Who invented that silly rule?
I file for, and obtain, a patent because I happen to live in a nation that has a directive to provide a patent-type system written into the Constitution.
yes, you are a USA nationalist who doesn't understand at all what the USA cunstitution is : a criminal agreement betweeen slave states. Oh yes, you call it the Constitution, with a capital C. Hilarious.
I pointed out, which you have not admitted, that "intellectual property" can exist absent a government. In fact, you erased my point, which is intellectually dishonest. You are falsely assuming the opposite, without at least admitting that there exists a counter-argument.
you live in a 'nation STATE' - one of the most toxic creations of statism. But hey, political philosophy isn't your strong suit is it.
Well, that is REALITY, at least for now. Unlike you, I have proposed an idea to fix it. Jim Bell
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:01:53 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Murder" is a form of "killing which the government deems to be against the law".
No. Murder is killing against NATURAL LAW. Do not confuse liberal law, natural law, personal rights, common sense morality, or whatever name you want to use, with arbitrary government dictates.
So you have inadvertently stepped into the same cow-pie that you seem to be claiming I did, too. It presumes the existence of a government, and of laws, etc.
Not at all. You seem to be oblivious to the concept of natural rights, personal rights and natural law.
You seem to be suggesting that 'self-defense' is inherently illegitimate,
I didn't do that, either. I stated the fact that if self-defense violates personal rights then it's not self-defense anymore. It is agression.
or at least is artificially limited to some amount.
Not artificially at all. It is naturally limited by natural rights. Look, if Mr. Smith owes you $10, then he OWES YOU TEN DOLLARS. You can't go burn down his house and kill him if he doesn't pay. Is that too hard for you to understand?
I contend that even if the concept of "proportionality" is assumed to be valid, if a person discovers somebody else trying to take his property, he is entitled to use whatever amount of force is necessary to stop that theft/burglary/robbery. Up to an including lethal force, if that's what it takes.
yes, you've made that baseless claim many times. So what. It remains a baseless claim that is clearly advocating the violation of personal rights.
Even for 'mere property'. You, apparently, are trying to claim that there can be, and is, some sort of artificial barrier to use of this self-defense concept. That at some point, a person must allow his property to be taken. Who invented that silly rule?
liberals. A category to which you do not belong. And by liberal I of course mean to use the original sense of the word. People who base their legal theory on natural/personal rights and so reject ANY form of statism. Example : "NO TREASON. No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority. BY LYSANDER SPOONER. BOSTON: 1870." https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/spooner/NoTreason/
I pointed out, which you have not admitted, that "intellectual property" can exist absent a government. In fact, you erased my point, which is intellectually dishonest.
No. I ignored your sophistry. I've no incentive to refute it because in turn you simply ignore arguments that you can't counter. But I'll mention that it's not the first time you try to play the trick of pretending that crass forms of statism can be 'voluntary'. I remember well all the garbage you spewed defending the anti-open-borders 'policy' of the orange monkey aka trump, claiming that in your 'private' tyranny there would be 'private' borders so the borders of the current americunt 'nation' were valid. Hilarious. And you're trying to pull the same bullshit here. Making up a 'libertarian' patent system which doesn't exist and can't work, and then pretending that such imaginary system makes the patents granted to you by the american nazis, legitimate. Please.
you live in a 'nation STATE' - one of the most toxic creations of statism. But hey, political philosophy isn't your strong suit is it.
Well, that is REALITY, at least for now. Unlike you, I have proposed an idea to fix it.
And here's another feature of reality : you're using the statist patent system of that nation state.
Jim Bell
On 12/4/19, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> raged from his cage:
snip
Being an angry asshole raging all day about what people can't do and how stink their shit, is of no help without showing them what alternatives they *can* do. Tell them how to defend from inbound fists. How to repel thugs trespassing in real time to damage and steal. How to reclaim $10 owed but refusing to pay. How to build the roads. How to "justice". How to get on without govt taxes, welfare, healthcare, military. How to actually get rid of all the Govt Facial Force and other Squads, or even just how to voluntary, without getting caged, impoverished, killed in the process.
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 15:05:46 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/4/19, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> raged from his cage:
snip
Being an angry asshole raging all day about what people can't do and how stink their shit, is of no help without showing them what alternatives they *can* do.
Explaining the fucking A of the ABC is of fundamental importance. So fuck you as well.
Tell them how to defend from inbound fists. How to repel thugs trespassing in real time to damage and steal. How to reclaim $10 owed but refusing to pay.
nah. I'm not a social engineer nor I'm going to give detailed explanations to solve every single problem real, or imaginary. That is obviously NOT how a system based on freedom and self-organization works.
How to build the roads. How to "justice".
but that's exactly what I did. I explained some fundamental concepts regarding 'justice' and yet you're complaining? ha
How to get on without govt taxes, welfare, healthcare, military. How to actually get rid of all the Govt Facial Force and other Squads, or even just how to voluntary, without getting caged, impoverished, killed in the process.
so aparently you're expecting a random guy on the interweb to solve most of the world's problem. You seem to believe that people need to BE TOLD what to do. But if anything, people need to be told what NOT to do. Like, don't go around murdering people in the name of 'property' like Jim Bell is proposing.
so aparently you're expecting a random guy on the interweb to solve most of the world's problem. You seem to believe that people need to BE TOLD what to do. But if anything, people need to be told what NOT to do. Like, don't go around murdering people in the name of 'property' like Jim Bell is proposing.
Yes it is often important to identify what not to do. If someone does not see a cliff they are walking towards, it may be useful to their continued existence if someone lets them know there's a cliff in front of them.
On 12/5/19, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
murdering people in the name of 'property'
Most people are not going to jump straight to kill for approaching in form to steal, or walking off with the goods, or to effect a recovery (even of 10 eggs)... they will escalate levels including through forcible ones to cause them to leave, or to drop the goods, or to effect reclaim. Most people don't see any different way, unless they do not believe in personal property rights, and or are socialist / communalist / etc... so if you do, and or are not, and or have different ways, you should be suggesting a variety. Because most people will not change one bit until they see both A) what is wrong, and B) some ways to do right, some other pastime besides fucking you Doing the first is required for you to be free from them. Doing the second will get you there much faster. As would letting statists walk off cliffs.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-billion-surveillance-cameras-forecast-to-be-w... The world, you, are all so completely fucked. As governments and companies invest more in security networks, hundreds of millions more surveillance cameras will be watching the world in 2021, mostly in China, according to a new report. From a report: The report, from industry researcher IHS Market, to be released Thursday, said the number of cameras used for surveillance would climb above 1 billion by the end of 2021. That would represent an almost 30% increase from the 770 million cameras today. China would continue to account for a little over half the total. Fast-growing, populous nations such as India, Brazil and Indonesia would also help drive growth in the sector, the report said. IHS analyst Oliver Philippou said government programs to implement widespread video surveillance to monitor the public would be the biggest catalyst for the growth in China. City surveillance also was driving demand elsewhere. https://betanews.com/2019/12/04/biometric-data-by-country/ When it comes to the extensive and invasive use of biometric data, the USA is one of the worst offenders in the world, faring only slightly better than China. According to research conducted by Comparitech, which rated 50 countries according to how, where and why biometrics were taken and how they are stored, the U.S. ranked as the fourth worst country. Topping the list is China, followed by Malaysia and Pakistan. While Comparitech did not look at every country in the world, its study did compare 50 of them. To give a country a rating out of 25, each was rated out of five in four categories (storage, CCTV, workplace, and visas) according to how invasive and pervasive and the collection and use of biometrics is. Five questions were also applied to them, with each answer in the affirmative resulting in one point. [The five questions are available in the report.] The U.S. was assigned a score of 20/25 for its heavy use of biometrics, including growing use of facial recognition, without there being specific laws to protect citizens' data. There was concern at the growing use of biometrics in the workplace. At the other end of the league are Ireland and Portugal, both praised for their small or non-existent biometric databases. Both scored 11 points.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03687-x Corporations selling DNA-profiling technology are aiding human-rights abuses. Across the world, DNA databases ... used for state-level surveillance are steadily growing. The most striking case is in China. Here police are using a national DNA database along with other kinds of surveillance data, such as from video cameras and facial scanners, to monitor the minority Muslim Uyghur population in the western province of Xinjiang. Concerns about the potential downsides of governments being able to interrogate people’s DNA have been voiced since the early 2000s1 by activist groups, such as the non-profit organization GeneWatch UK, and some geneticists. Now the stakes are higher for two reasons. First, as technology gets cheaper, many countries ... want to build massive DNA databases. Second, DNA-profiling technology can be used in conjunction with other tools for biometric identification — and alongside the analysis of many other types of personal data, including an individual’s posting behaviour on social networks. Last year, the Chinese firm Forensic Genomics International (FGI) announced that it was storing the DNA profiles of more than 100,000 people from across China (FGI, known as Shenzhen Huada Forensic Technology in China, is a subsidiary of the BGI, the world’s largest genome-research organization). It made the information available to the individuals through WeChat, China’s equivalent of WhatsApp, using an app accessed by facial recognition.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmjp53/how-ring-went-from-shark-tank-reje... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21705982 by Caroline Haskins Dec 3 2019, 3:59pm How Ring Went From ‘Shark Tank’ Reject to America’s Scariest Surveillance Company Amazon's Ring started from humble roots as a smart doorbell company called "DoorBot." Now it's surveilling the suburbs and partnering with police. This is the first of a three-part series, where we’ll explore how Ring transformed from start-up pitch to the technology powering Amazon's privatized surveillance network throughout the United States. When police partner with Ring, they are required to promote its products, and to allow Ring to approve everything they say about the company. In exchange, they get access to Ring’s Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal, an interactive map that allows police to request camera footage directly from residents without obtaining a warrant. shinobi, zoneminder
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 03:50:39 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Amazon's Ring started from humble roots as a smart doorbell company called "DoorBot." Now it's surveilling the suburbs and partnering with police.
yeah that's what Jim Bell's corporations do. But god forbid, I mean the ayn randroid cunt forbid that the god given 'property' 'rights' of corporations be curtailed in any way.
by Caroline Haskins Dec 3 2019, 3:59pm How Ring Went From ‘Shark Tank’ Reject to America’s Scariest Surveillance Company Amazon's Ring started from humble roots as a smart doorbell company called "DoorBot." Now it's surveilling the suburbs and partnering withpolice. This is the first of a three-part series, where we’ll explore how Ring
On Friday, December 6, 2019, 12:52:01 AM PST, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmjp53/how-ring-went-from-shark-tank-reje... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21705982 transformed from start-up pitch to the technology powering Amazon's privatized surveillance network throughout the United States. When police partner with Ring, they are required to promote its products, and to allow Ring to approve everything they say about the company. In exchange, they get access to Ring’s Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal, an interactive map that allows police to request camera footage directly from residents without obtaining a warrant. Interesting rhetorical question: Could/Is this system set up to allow the owner of the camera to have absolute veto power over whether that camera's output can be used in an investigation and/or prosecution? Or perhaps even more, veto power over the use of that information against specific people being prosecuted, and not others? Jim Bell
On 12/6/19, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Could ... Ring allow veto
No Amazon won't let that happen. It's a gold mine for them, and they're currently deeply ganged up in it with Govt two to one against you.
Is this system setup to allow ... veto
Unlikely... it's cloud, and hardly likely to be encrypted with any owner-only semantics. So cops and spooks will just scrape Amazon for all cams in area with an illegal general warrant just like they do cell phones.
veto
Govt doesn't want people to have their right to broker their own data. Though you can set up your own fully encrypted, even cloud stored system, if you want. They'll just rubberhose you for it.
The rights of your fist end at my nose
Similar, humans natural reaction to being filmed / surveilled as documented on youtube, even peoples own reactions... appears to be quite defensive. Same for humans natural response to other active inbound threats... murder, assault, theft, etc. By conducting a variety of tests, one could collate the ones that produce such defensive responses into that category. This appears to be part of Natural Law from which morality is said to derive. Don't do those things. It could be said that surveillance thus goes against NAP, morality, etc. At least when operated by who have immorally granted themselves rights over, and that their subject humans do not have, even to figure out how to continue immoral position spying manipulating away rightful preemption. Then consider more delicate situation of strictly among and between equal parties... a resident, a shopkeep, even persons in public... if better to use private encrypted system, or shit like Amazon Ring that secretly shares feeds to govt and does all sorts of other secret things with it that would otherwise raise such defenses if known. There are even a good number of youtubers consciously and respectfully camera steering away from, informing, or blurring out other parties, such as passerbys to a street interview, "license" plates, etc. Here are some things with lenses... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkTaMyatsTo https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spy+satellites https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=long+range+target+shooting https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cornered+animal+attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law Surveillance Camera Man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5ZVPwP7bg https://www.youtube.com/user/SurveillantCameraMan/videos Camera Drones Enable Immoral Actors and Actions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=750BD72Od7s https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=drone+strikes+civilians Boy Camera Face https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upimuCPmiDY And some people getting biblical with it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast https://www.openbible.info/topics/privacy https://www.catholicstand.com/privacy-in-the-bible/ http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/privacy.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-confidentiality.html
participants (4)
-
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness