Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: St Louis Police Try to Boost Community Relations by Fingerprinting Ferguson Children [View all]DhhD
(4,695 posts)24. Unreasonable search and seizure of fingerprint or DNA without due cause, is against the law.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/facial-recognition-databases-privacy-laws
snip
Fingerprints and DNA data are protected under US supreme court law, providing a possible precedent for face-prints. If a fingerprint or DNA test is collected without due cause, it can't be used in court as evidence it constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure, outlawed by the Fourth Amendment.
The supreme court is just this week embroiled in debate over whether or not search and seizure of social media and cellphone data should require a warrant. While we grapple with today's dominant technologies, we should also be looking forward to tomorrow's, regulating the Fourth Amendment's application to futuristic technologies like CreepShield and Google Glass, which has banned facial recognition for now but might not forever.
Laws should allow us to control which businesses and government entities have access to our faces and when. Individuals might opt in to facial recognition for interactive marketing campaigns or to be tracked in a retail store, but choose to be left out of unwarranted public government surveillance.
snip
Fingerprints and DNA data are protected under US supreme court law, providing a possible precedent for face-prints. If a fingerprint or DNA test is collected without due cause, it can't be used in court as evidence it constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure, outlawed by the Fourth Amendment.
The supreme court is just this week embroiled in debate over whether or not search and seizure of social media and cellphone data should require a warrant. While we grapple with today's dominant technologies, we should also be looking forward to tomorrow's, regulating the Fourth Amendment's application to futuristic technologies like CreepShield and Google Glass, which has banned facial recognition for now but might not forever.
Laws should allow us to control which businesses and government entities have access to our faces and when. Individuals might opt in to facial recognition for interactive marketing campaigns or to be tracked in a retail store, but choose to be left out of unwarranted public government surveillance.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
St Louis Police Try to Boost Community Relations by Fingerprinting Ferguson Children [View all]
Garion_55
Sep 2014
OP
Terrible idea. Why didn't they set up a basketball league for boys and girls?
snappyturtle
Sep 2014
#4
Because the police fingerprinting the little kids before they become teenagers...
MohRokTah
Sep 2014
#5
I'm surprised they didn't go for DNA testing too, you know, just handy in their
RKP5637
Sep 2014
#12
This was done during my kid's time. Only the people who were fingerprinting
Baitball Blogger
Sep 2014
#17
So they are doing this in the well-to-do white neighborhoods, yes? Aren't they?
jtuck004
Sep 2014
#23