How would you feel if your police started using facial recognition glasses?

https://nypost.com/2018/02/08/chinese-police-using-smart-sunglasses-to-monitor-citizens/

So China seems to be on roll of using smartglasses recently and there have been positive outcomes:

Chinese state media reports that seven suspects — wanted for crimes ranging from hit-and-runs to sex trafficking — have already been arrested using the new technology. Police have also caught 26 people with fake IDs, according to the People’s Daily. The arrests all took place at the train stain in Zhengzhou

on the other hand:

But critics worry this technology is only giving the authoritarian government more power to track its citizens. The sunglasses could be easily used to profile minorities or catch political dissidents.

It feels very authoritarian like but in this day in age, I think it might be needed if it stops threats like domestic terrorism.

@TheShadowLord07:

I personally have no issue with it but I can tell that many corrupt law enforcement will use them for their own selfish desires. It's a good idea but I don't think it would be responsible to give every cop a pair. Only those who prove they can use them responsibly.

No objections. I'm just glad they're finally using smart glasses for things that are actually useful.

Catch sex traffickers?

I'll buy some for the local department.

Why would I feel something about this? Sounds like identity politics. Either something is useful or it isn't and this looks useful. If you're feeling something then stop right there and hug a teddy bear.

A tool isn't authoritarian. It is all in how the tool is used. If they use it to catch rapists, it is made of awesome. If they use it to track down folks with unpopular beliefs so they can club them a bunch, it is monstrous.

@nepu7supastar7: How can they be misused or used selfishly?

Go in halfsies?

That'd be great. They could call me by name lol. It'd be awesome if they could see info in AR form on the person. Public knowledge of course.

Oh you don't? Other countries haven't shown you what they can do when their leaders are left unchecked?

Anyways...

I imagine that it would be similar to fingerprinting.

Their glasses would be used to recognize people that have already be in trouble. Just because they recognize you, doesn't mean they're going to stop and harass you. Cops already visually recognize people that they've encountered in the past.

I'd be OK with that.

I mean they can already pull up everything about you on computers, follow you with city-wide cameras, track you with satellites and drones (if you are a serious threat)...using a more streamlined and faster process for on-the-ground ID seems to be taking this to it's logical, less-expensive, and more effective conclusion.

My only qualm with this is that the next thing you know, they will install special cameras at the DMV that can capture the needed detail required for these glasses. Next thing you know, instead of being on a "prior-offender" list like you are when you get your fingerprints, suddenly everyone is on the list and everyone can be tracked.

I'd only be OK with this if the people that could be tracked had priors or whatever it's called.

Best just to go off the grid at this point if someone wants to avoid being "tracked" by anything. If you are connected to the internet, you are being tracked in some way, even if it's just your location via IP.

believe me, going off the grid is a dream of mine. Not so much for privacy reasons (though that is a perk!), but more for self-sustaining reasons. Would love to find a nice plot of land, have a well for water, grow most of my own stuff, solar panels/wind turbines for energy.

I'd still have internet, of course, so it would not be totally off the grid, but it'd be damn close.

Would require a lot of money, though. I might just hermit it out and go legitimately off the grid. But that'd require survival training haha

This seems right.

I guess I could be OK with it if it is used solely to track people that are already wanted.

Mandatory body cameras first that the officer cannot turn off. Then add this.

I don't really like this. There are some expectations of privacy even when you are in public such as the content of your phone and where you are throughout the day. I don't know, but this seems to be a step too far, especially when you consider that one of the sources of data with hidden value that tech companies are currently trying to collect for free is your face. Having police officers walking around with devices like this would incentives companies like Apple either give or sell that data to the government and I'm already tired of them collecting other types of data from myself without providing compensation.

The idea itself seems okay but it’s being used by the Chinese government. They make the “Russian threat” look like kindergarten class.

@joebones5000: ...and you went from police officers having facial recognition glasses to fear of 'the gubmint'.

Indeed. If society is being watched then so should those doing the watching. With civilian oversight.

I agree. Thinking more about it, how far will this surveillance go?

well I am not how their smart glasses work, but if it's like their high-end security camera's then everyone is being watched rather they are walking or in their car.

@TheShadowLord07: Wow, that is way over doing it. I know you should expect to filmed a lot of places these days, but like that, that is way overdoing it. Tracking every damn step you make, saving it all in their big database. "only" using it when needed. Well I guess that is technically right, but when is it really needed?

Is it really required?
Wouldn't a PDA with access to the suspect database be sufficient for police officers to determine whether the person they have taken notice off is wanted or not?

I actually do not.

I made the same ridiculous statement, but in reverse. You equated 'not wanting cops to have facial recognition glasses' to 'the government is raping my rights!'.

I equated allowing them to have glasses to 'we're leaving the government unchecked!'

..........did you read the rest of my original post or did you just latch on to the first two sentences?

Great idea and hopefully America and the rest of the western world will soon follow suit.

And those who may yell about their rights being violated is just talking a lot of nonsense.

It sure is, chief.

@joebones5000: You must have a reading disability. Your first post assumed that anyone pushing against cops having facial recognition glasses, is afraid of the big, bad government trampling on their rights. Your post also insinuates that our government isn't capable of such things. Which of course b.s.

Then I went on to say that I personally I have no problem with police officers using facial recognition glasses.

You don't care about your rights?

I'm not butthurt at all. I feel like I'm explaining something to a 5 year old who eats crayons.

......you're not 5 are you?

Of course but no rights are violated if the police start to use those glasses.

It´s no more a violation than a traffic cam or a normal security cam in a public place.

Except those are stationary, these are highly mobile.

And? police today have mobile body cams and most cop cars have onboard cams.

If this can help catch criminals, which it can if you remember the test they ran earlier last year, where they found a bunch of wanted criminals. I am 100% for it.

Perhaps you could explain how making cameras mobile constitutes a violation of someone's rights?

I guess it is not. On the other hand do I not like this development in more and more surveillance.

Do you have something to hide? because considering the amount of "surveillance" you voluntary agree to today and the amount private and the government have put in place, cops with facial scanning glasses seem like a bit minuscule to get upset over.

Take off your pants, snap a picture of your genitals, and post it on here for all to see please.

I'm guessing you don't want to do that, and it's not because your genitals are hiding anything, but because you don't wish to expose yourself and have it documented simply because they aren't hiding anything.

Now this is just dinky as heck. No one is talking about letting the cops put cameras in people's home, only in public. If you don't want cops with cameras to record your genitals, don't waggle them about in public. If you do choose to waggle your genitals in public, people are going to see them, and heck they even have the right to record it with a camera.

People are very much entitled to keep private things private. It is just silly to expect them to stay private if you whip them out in front of the cops.

The same way I feel about them using military-grade equipment, squat teams, and implementing stop and frisk policies, i.e. not great.

Do I need something to hide to dislike surveillance?

Even the police in Norway have been horrible at deleting old records they were required to delete by law. The Chinese are at least more open about just storing it in a big databank.

Perhaps you could explain, specifically, what the problem is then? It would also be nice if you explained if you think your preference should have any impact on policy. It is sort of problematic to engage with someone who asks very leading, often dishonest questions, but seems to have an allergy taking a firm position. Incorrect assumptions are sort of a natural consequence.