Meanwhile airport security is about to get even more stringent at the end of 2020 since now not even a normal driver's license will be considered acceptable ID.
Meanwhile airport security is about to get even more stringent at the end of 2020 since now not even
Not quite. The wording didn't say "including facial recognition technology" but the constitution restricts illegal search and seizure as well as defends the right to privacy and while a person walking down the street might be labeled as in a public place, they themselves still count as private property under the constitution, meaning the government using technology to scan people just walking down the street would count as an invasion of privacy.
It isn't the same thing as a privately owned company having a camera that scans anyone that enters the premesis due to the fact that by law they have to warn people they are being recorded, making said person a willing participant. The arguement could say that city-owned surveilance cameras are unconstitutional in a similar vein.
Not quite. The wording didn't say "including facial recognition technology" but the constitution res
You could try that argument, but then the government gets to decide what is constitutional at the end of the day and there has not been the political will in congress to amend it to make sure there is no room for weaselly shit like claiming that facial recognition technology is not a violation of privacy. The best way to fight it is from the bottom up, the constitution is just a piece of paper that you have to hope the people at the top are going to listen to.
You'll be 'pleased' to hear as well - as I mentioned to someone else - that DHS apparently feels it is within their right to work with massive companies to sell them people's personal data for facial recognition systems.
You could try that argument, but then the government gets to decide what is constitutional at the en
