San Francisco bans police from using facial recognition tech

Posted by


STUART: SAN FAN IS PLANNING TO BAN GOVERNMENT POLICE FORCES FROM USING FACIAL-RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.>>YOU CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT MY BEEF IS. STUART: WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH FACIAL RECOGNITION.>>NOT MY PROBLEM. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROBLEM. STUART: WHICH IS?>>THIS IS SURVEILLANCE. SURVEILLANCE REQUIRES A WARRANT. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SAYS RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE AND RIGHT TO PREVENT FISHING EXPEDITIONS. ASHLEY: NO, NO. STUART: WAIT, WAIT.>>THE AUDIENCE DOESN’T LIKE IT. WHEN THE LAWS ARE WRITTEN NOT TO PRESERVE LIBERTY BUT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE COPS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS, THAT IS CALLED A POLICE STATE. STUART: OKAY. SUPPOSING — ASHLEY: WELL ISN’T EVERY CCTV THEN AGAINST THE LAW?>>NO. THAT IS PRIVATE. IF FOX WANTS TO HAVE A CAMERA IN THE HALLWAY, WATCH ME — ASHLEY: I MEAN OUT ON THE STREETS?>>IF FOX’S JOB RAND PREROGATIVE. IF FOX WANTS A CAMERA ON OUTSIDE OF ITS BUILDING FOX CAN DO THAT. IT IS GOVERNMENT USE OF IT THAT IS THE PROBLEM. NOT THE PRIVATE USE. NOT ME. THAT IS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. ONLY RESTRAINS THE GOVERNMENT. DOESN’T RESTRAIN PRIVATE USE. STUART: USAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT DEAD BUT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE IS LOOKS LIKE. WALKING DOWN THE STREETS IN SAN FRANCISCO. BOOM, PICKED UP BY FACIAL RECOGNITION BECAUSE WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE GUY LOOKS LIKE. THAT IS TERRIBLE.>>REALISTIC HYPOTHETICAL. STUART: NO IT IS NOT. IT IS VERY REALISTIC. ALL KINDS OF MURDERS AND KIDNAPPERS AND TERRORISTS, WE KNOW WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.>>IF THE COULD BREAK DOWN EVERY DOOR AND STOP AND QUESTION EVERYBODY THEY WANT, WOULD WE LIVE IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT? PROBABLY BUT WOULD WE WANT IT THAT WAY. STUART: NOT A BAD REJOINDER?>>YOU STILL LOVE ME? STUART: THAT’S IT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *