> 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.

▲

Spooky23 a day ago | parent | next [-]

The private entities share the data willy nilly. You can do near realtime tracking of cars now with the LPRs mounted on tow trucks, parking garages, etc. Landlords are already engaged in scaled abuses through scaled blacklists and price fixing.

Abuse of this technology is a pox on society. But don't assume that only the government has the ability to abuse.

	▲	spwa4 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The issue is that if we can't even get the government to behave, to not be openly deceptive about the rules they implement ... then that has massive, massive consequences. Until the cameras come down, why even bother with landlords?

▲

lazide 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Practically, I never had a chance - I walked up to passport control, and they’d already scanned me.

▲

Telemakhos 2 days ago | parent [-]

If you had a passport, they already had your face from back when you submitted your passport photo to your government for inclusion in your passport. They had scanned you years before you walked up to the camera in the airport.

▲

lazide 2 days ago | parent [-]

Same with everyone who has a drivers license. Still, it would be a bit of a shock if when you’d normally pull it out at a traffic stop, the cop instead waves it off and says ‘No need Bob, we already know you were just heading home. Go slower next time eh?’.

Brave new world, etc? Certainly can’t be a Jason Bourne in this situation!

▲

Spooky23 a day ago | parent [-]

That’s not how it works today. See: https://aamva.org/topics/facial-recognition

Drivers licenses mostly use solutions from off the shelf prefers like Idemia with pretty limited capability. Basically they aim to detect duplicate faces and flag for audit and investigation. The photos aren’t a particularly high standard.

Passport and visa photos are better pictures with more strict standards wrt lighting snd size.

	▲	lazide 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It doesn’t work that way today because citizens in states would freak out - and the federal gov’t just went ‘we don’t care’. Passport photos were way lower resolution than the high res digital photo I last took for my drivers license. My US passport has a photo on it a decade+ old. Still worked fine. There are plenty of options states could take if they want - and now that the fed is doing what it’s doing, I bet it won’t take long.