This from the Oakland Privacy Working Group list (which has been merged with the Bay Area Civil Liberties Coalition list).
A disturbing development – but of course you knew this was coming, right? Facial Recognition cameras are why the freedom to go masked in public or wear other enhancements that foil facial recognition software must be upheld!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
The “freedom” to be masked in public or wear other enhancements that foil facial recognition software is a criminals’ paradise. Robbers, rapists and murderers will have field day.
I remember when I was in high school (way back in the early 60s) the civics teacher said that he would rather have a thousand criminals be let go than one innocent person be imprisoned. I remember thinking to myself that the streets would be a very dangerous place. Perhaps it might be safer to be in prison, if concern for liberty were so overriding.
Les
Les,
Imagine if we lived in a society where most people over 16 had easy access to powerful, self-controlled, machines weighing several tons and capable of speeds over 100 miles per hour and being manipulated with the flip of a wrist so as to suddenly change direction and cause nearly instant injury or death to innocent others.
Why, it would be a field day for those wanting to commit murder and mayhem.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. – I don't understand what you mean by, "Perhaps it might be safer to be in prison, if concern for liberty were so overriding."
People do not usually drive powerful several ton machines (I assume you are referring to cars here) in order to commit crimes, but one of the principal purposes to going masked in public is to commit crimes without being identified.
“Perhaps it might be safer to be in prison……” I thought this was rather obvious. If the teacher’s remark were taken literally, there would surely be many more criminals on the streets than in prison. '
I would like to include my two cents, if I may. Indeed, people do not usually operate several-ton machines like cars, buses, or forklifts in order to kill or injure. However, there are those who are horribly irresponsible and operate those machines while drunk, high, or just plain idiotically, often resulting in death or injury. That is why there needs to be some mechanism to keep those folks from operating the machinery. Licensing is what we are stuck with right now. Regarding masking one's face -- yes, most people who do, have the purpose of committing crimes and avoiding identification. A small minority mask for religious/political reasons. How do we sort one from the other? The traditional saying "better a 100 criminals go free than one innocent person be jailed" is total balderdash, coming from people who have not experienced the viciousness of criminals. Vicious realities need to be dealt with using more than feel-good sound bites. Regarding the original idea of the post as to how Libertarians might feel about facial-recognition cameras, my view is that if challenged, the practice would not (or should not) pass judicial muster on the basis that individuals are being placed into a database without probable cause. Marcy ______________________________________________________________________From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.comDate: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 04:12:45 +0000Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] San Francisco to acquire Facial-Recognition capable traffic cameras
People do not usually drive powerful several ton machines (I assume you are referring to cars here) in order to commit crimes, but one of the principal purposes to going masked in public is to commit crimes without being identified. “Perhaps it might be safer to be in prison……” I thought this was rather obvious. If the teacher’s remark were taken literally, there would surely be many more criminals on the streets than in prison. 'Sent from Windows MailFrom: Sam Sloan samhsloan@gmail.com [lpsf-discuss]Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 6:07 PMTo: Sam Sloan samhsloan@gmail.com [lpsf-discuss]
Yes, I was referring to cars and other motor vehicles. They are frequently used in the commission of crimes. What percentage of people who drive on freeways and city streets do you think knowingly and deliberately exceed the posted speed limits?
"One of the principal purposes to going masked in public is to commit crimes without being identified." Tell it to Batman! 
Of course I'm kidding since he's a fictional character, but Batman and other masked crime-fighting superheroes are illustrative of the fact that there can be many different reasons for publicly wearing a mask or disguise, many of them valid and good.
The extent to which it may be true that committing crimes is one of the main reasons for going masked seems kind of irrelevant to me. I am advocating for people asserting and practicing their right to go masked in public for purposes of protecting privacy and stopping an Orwellian police state. Someone else might advocate or practice it for a religious reasons, to celebrate a holiday or festival (like Halloween or Carnivale), attend a party or other event, because it's very cold out, because they are or have been or are going to be riding a motorcycle, or even because they like to assume the role of a real-life superhero (if you haven't read about it, there is actually a kind of subculture of people who are into this!).
But one area where I agree with you is that members of law enforcement should not publicly wear masks on duty (except perhaps when on motorcycles, in which case their names and badge numbers should be otherwise prominently indicated). These individuals are supposed to be working for us, and are being paid with our stolen tax dollars – we have a right to be able to identify them. And in many cases, such as when they are engaging in SWAT raids or suppressing protests, I suspect their mask-wearing is indeed intended in part to keep them from being identified when they commit crimes! Just look at how police departments often delay disclosing or refuse to disclose the identities of officers involved in illegal or questionable behavior.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - By the way Les, do you have any idea why my previous email to you below appears to show Sam as the author? I've noticed this before, but I think only in messages from you. I'm presuming it is happening automatically, perhaps due to something with how your address book is set up, but was just wondering if you're aware of it.
Marcy,
I've experienced the viciousness of criminals. I've been violently mugged twice (actual street muggings, not the less direct government kind), assaulted, etc. And I still agree with the maxim that better 100 actual criminals go free than one innocent person be jailed! This isn't simply about consistently opposing the initiation of force, although that is I would argue a good enough reason. There's also the fact that incarceration is neither the only nor perhaps the best response to crime. In addition to the high cost to taxpayers, the destruction of families, and the loss to society of productivity, there is its seemingly chronic ineffectiveness at rehabilitating people and the evidence that prisons serve as incubators or breeding grounds for criminals.
I think the mechanism to keep people from irresponsibly using dangerous machinery is common sense, plus the law of natural selection as parodied by the darkly humorous "Darwin Awards". Government laws supposedly intended to promote "safety" have too many dangerous side effects (or malevolent purposes, depending how cynical you are about the motivations of those who enact and enforce these statutes). They are themselves unsafe.
I certainly agree with you that people should not be placed in government databases without probable cause. But that is of course what licensing does! Saying it is "what we are stuck with right now" seems to be suggesting a greater degree of acceptance of the status quo than I personally feel is warranted.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Thanks for sharing your difficult experience, Starchild. What comes to my mind is that I am the one who claims to be "religious," but need to face the reality that no way I am able to turn the other cheek. Nor will I ever understand rich liberals voting Democrat, willing to squander their hard-earned cash in taxes.
Goodness, totally agreed that today's prison system is insane at best. Even more insane is the system of dysfunctional families, an economy prompted by central planning rather than the free market, entrenched bureaucracies, etc. Again, the best way to solve the mess is to face realities, which it seems, yours are oh so different than mine.
Regarding my faulty use of "database," obviously, there are all types of database. The database of members of the LPSF is not the same as a database of drivers who happened to be driving through the intersection of 19th and Sloat.
Yes, we are all stuck with a lot that is not ideal, until we all figure out better systems.
Marcy