▲ | Spooky23 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You had more than you think. The airport stuff gives the feds and police a high trust indexed representation of your face that will be used in all sorts of contexts in the future. In 2025, when DOGE agents casually committed multiple felonies by exfiltrating sensitive data to god knows who, that should be really disturbing to you. Although, you see to be casually ok with some goomba landlord maintaining a dossier on anyone entering your apartment, so I guess it would be. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | spwa4 2 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Although, you see to be casually ok with some goomba landlord maintaining a dossier on anyone entering your apartment, so I guess it would be. That might be because the goomba landlord is trying to rent you something while DOGE is part of our government who deported US citizens, completely against their own laws, to be imprisoned in a private prison, without trial, without access to family. Therefore the goomba landlord is a small annoyance that can evolve into a small problem, and the other ... The problem is always the same: governments see themselves as above the rules. This is why facial recognition was a big deal in the UK, until the police started to violate on a very large scale what people THOUGHT were the rules they voted in. They had failed to notice the "and violations will be checked by an independent board, so independent it's controlled by the same people controlling the police" part of the law. The government had granted itself, retroactively, without involving parliament, "an exception" (exception that covers like 98% of all facial recognition cameras in the UK) and implemented it on a large scale. PLUS from the locations and view of the cameras it is very obvious the goal is to clamp down on protests, not to stop crime. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|