WTF I love commiefornia now

WTF I love commiefornia now

Also isn't this technology highly unethical given that China uses it for surveillance?

techcrunch.com/2019/05/14/san-francisco-facial-recognition-ban/

Attached: san fran.png (677x869, 172K)

They’re only doing this because they realized it would lead to an increase in the number of shitskins arrested for crimes.

broken clock user, you know it would be used for ulterior motives - the NSA and CIA spying on citizens

>Also isn't this technology highly unethical given that China uses it for surveillance?
Why would that specifically make it unethical? It's far worse if the USA uses it for surveillance, right?

Silly nationalism aside, the technology is unethical because it lends itself to abuse by those with access to the data generated.
But actually it's about "only" as dangerous as centrally tracking cellphones and other devices, vehicles, money transactions, internet usage, and so on.

We need a whole lot more boards of supervisors banning government and companies from recording and tracking everything.

Sure. But I’m just saying that’s not what motivated this ban, I guarantee they were more concerned with the fact that Jamal could more easily be identified while committing his many crimes.

>he thinks the NSA and CIA aren't spying on him regardless
>he thinks the NSA and CIA don't have access to face recognition tools beyond the law
oh to be young again

>would be

user, there's nothing to prevent it. No state law will have a real effect such a government agency behind closed doors. Now how do you think CITY level laws will affect them?

>Placation law

Nice to hear, but ultimately worthless.

The mental gymnastics flyovers go through

>he doesn’t know the lengths San Francisco will go to to hide nigger criminality.

Attached: 8CA216B8-568A-4D52-92ED-4613F6A648DA.jpg (500x367, 41K)

The NSA does far worse stuff and yet they didn't ban NSA, what's the actual reason for this ban?

this is probably partially correct.
i suspect part of the reason is that private facial recginition (banks, whole foods) is so omnipresent that there is no need for it, and just saves costs.
dont attribute to good intentions what could be adequately explained by incompetence or deliberate outsourcing.

This.

That's not commie. The public is banning the government using facial recognition tech. You pay taxes, of course you should have a say in what your government can and can't do. Too bad you're in still in debt and spending billions each year on your army to blow up tents.

>and just saves costs.
>commies
>save tax money
HAHAHAHA

>They’re only doing this because they realized it would lead to an increase in the number of shitskins arrested for crimes

Attached: 1556778041463.png (645x729, 58K)

Attached: 1538494840721.png (1066x600, 310K)

Nice spin.
+20 bonus points for not mentioning da joos

Attached: 1529096591487.png (900x729, 131K)

Criminals suffer punishment, how is that unethical?
You either review your laws or punish more criminals.
California hates punishment, responsibility and ethics.
Soon it will not matter as phones will be used to do the same as face recognition only better.
The data doesn't require a picture at all for identification.
You don't even need to own a phone, use a phone just be near someone who does.

They did this because SF is a training ground for field level intelligence agents/assets, on top of being a hive of elite/intelligence agency family members. Can't have your deep cover assets getting arrested, nor can you have a low level government agent recognizing that guy who walks down the street without security is secretly worth billions. They already use such facial recognition and shit there, just not in low level government.

My thoughts exactly

Attached: 1548669531633.png (638x558, 130K)

facial recognition doesn't do any good when all criminals look the same.

samefag

great, now lets get state, federal, and private to stop too.

>private
i hope you mean making it illegal for fuckwits to take pictures and video of me and upload it to the web without my consent. i'm so sick of zoomer faggots thinking this is acceptable behavior. what a shit generation they're turning out to be.

>a governmental body willingly reducing their own power
Legitimately impressed, even at city level that's pretty significant
Props to that guy, even if he does live in SF

I believe he was talking about private sector (companies).
>making it illegal for fuckwits to take pictures and video of me and upload it to the web without my consent
Where I come from, this is already illegal. It is however legal to film or photograph an event and publish the material.

For governments. Limited government power to punish people.

...

>70967673

Attached: 1552679803710.jpg (620x581, 92K)

The one city that actually needs it. So many homeless tweakers 3rd world country status.

>hurr durr i would rather be surveilled than be around black people

Attached: 1547833096952.jpg (326x294, 18K)