Portland adopts landmark facial recognition ordinances

Re:Portland adopts landmark facial recognition ordinances by unishark on Thursday September 10, 2020 @06:08AM (#24430728)

Aside from the rather odd argument about hardware, letting authorities decide whether someone's use of photography to record events counts as legitimate journalism sounds rather unsettling.

Also photography can directly be considered a form of speech (e.g. artistic expression).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Portland adopts landmark facial recognition ordinances by jMyles on Thursday September 10, 2020 @06:59AM (#24431037)

I don't think that the argument about hardware is "rather odd", I think it's the crux of the issue in Portland right now.

Our police bureau is terrorizing our citizenry before our eyes. So we brought cameras. So they covered their badges. So we started working on facial recognition. So they banned it.

If our eyes were sufficient to show the world what's happening and to document which cops are the most culpable, there'd be no hardware discussion at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Portland adopts landmark facial recognition ordinances by michaelmrose on Friday September 11, 2020 @04:30PM (#24447015)

I don't think anyone would consider the city or a mall running their security cameras data through facial recognition an artistic endeavor.

I don't think anyone would consider someone taking a picture in public to run afoul of this law.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Portland adopts landmark facial recognition ordinances by unishark on Friday September 11, 2020 @11:20PM (#24449539)

> I don't think anyone would consider someone taking a picture in public to run afoul of this law.

I guarantee you someone will. But my point was about the first amendment being applicable to the topic of photography, not about a state law. And art was an example, not a definition of speech.

[ Parent | on HN ]