Question for a future (2026?) dystopia: if our faces aren't secret or private for 4A/5A purposes, can we start making them secret/private by walking around in public with a balaclava?

New norms go both ways.

The Netherlands has a law that makes it illegal to cover your face. Officially this is to help the police but its also a great tool against religion. Constitution>god

God wants our faces covered?

Some religions say their God wants some people covered, like women.

We now know why people had such weird makeup/facial modification attachments in dystopian sci-fi.

Luckily we have libertarians, 1990s Republicans, and Hannity and Infowars fans that will fight vehemently to stop this sort of face scanning. It is all of theirs' nightmare scenarios way past all their red lines up there with Walmarts turned into relocation camps.

But until they sort it out is it possible to make temporary tattoos (or just stickers) with patterns that make facial scanning unfeasible?

It used to be cv dazzle [0] is 15 years young. But its questionable if it works anymore. Theres also a bunch of of digital camo, most seem to target IR cameras [1] here's a homebrew version.

[0] https://adam.harvey.studio/cvdazzle

[1] https://www.macpierce.com/the-camera-shy-hoodie

> It used to be cv dazzle [0] is 15 years young. But its questionable if it works anymore.

I fed all the CV Dazzle demo pictures into some free Amazon facial recognition demo a few years ago. It was a pretty shitty demo, but the makeup didn't even slow it down. It had no trouble at all finding the faces, assigning ages or genders, or locating facial features. And once you've located the features, you're going to have no trouble identifying the person if they're in the database.

That makes sense, the CV dazzle styles for designed for a specific algorithm that went out of use around a decade ago.

There have been some updated styles for CNN based models, but never tried them, the originals did work back in the day

Totally forgot this gem [0].

Done hide. Overwhelm.

[0] https://adam.harvey.studio/hyperface/

Agreed there are definitely a lot of Libertarians and Republicans that definitely object to random use of facial recognition as presented.

As I mentioned in another comment, I'd like to see any clarifying statements from ICE/DoJ on this before jumping to conclusions as framing often cuts off portions of video or otherwise warps framing of events. Not to mention, I don't recall seeing any mention of a request for comment in the article.

Libertarians and 90s republican are about as politically impotent as the democrats these days.

The Hannity and Infowars fans will be written off as crazy when no longer useful.

I'm assuming the joke is that what remains of them seem to be entirely on board with this.

The people who like mass surveillance also like laws against public face covering.

What about using technology to scan and identify faces of those who oppress?

Related and recent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45734369

(Not scanning faces, but continuously monitoring yourself to prove innocence. Depressing.)

The supreme court has effectively removed all of the possible mechanisms to sue ICE or DHS and hold them accountable, with the sole exception of having the DOJ prosecute them on your behalf, which is of course never going to happen. The only remaining possibility to hold them accountable for crimes appears to be within the states judicial systems- but most are currently setup to not allow this, deferring to the federal mechanisms which only very recently stopped existing.

This Vox article and the podcast with the same name does a good job of explaining how it is now effectively impossible to hold ICE accountable to the law: https://www.vox.com/politics/464962/supreme-court-ice-no-law

Beyond this, state law may not supersede federal authority. This will likely go to the Supreme Court before it's actually decided, short of congressional action (unlikely).

I'm not sure if these requests are only made if other ID isn't available or a refusal to present id happens. That said, I'm not sure how this qualifies as reasonable suspicion in terms of stopping someone without evidence of some other crime in progress or as part of a warranted raid activity. Though stops on highways within 100 miles of a border is very much permitted for identification, unsure if this would fall under those provisions.

While I absolutely support deportations, this appears at first glance to be over the top... but I'd like to see any clarifying statements from ICE, which I don't recall seeing in the article.

Why would you believe any clarifying statements they'd give?

They'd just tell you they are only going after pedo-terrorists.

What are we going to do? Call them liars? They don't care.

Because it's pay off journalistic integrity to at least try to get and reflect a statement from all parties involved.

Without it I have to look at any reporting as unduly biased and likely from an activist lens.

I have a healthy distrust of both the govt and journalists.