San Francisco bans police from using facial recognition tech

San Francisco bans police from using facial recognition tech

Posted by


STUART: SAN FAN IS PLANNING TO BAN GOVERNMENT POLICE FORCES FROM USING FACIAL-RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.>>YOU CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT MY BEEF IS. STUART: WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH FACIAL RECOGNITION.>>NOT MY PROBLEM. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROBLEM. STUART: WHICH IS?>>THIS IS SURVEILLANCE. SURVEILLANCE REQUIRES A WARRANT. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SAYS RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE AND RIGHT TO PREVENT FISHING EXPEDITIONS. ASHLEY: NO, NO. STUART: WAIT, WAIT.>>THE AUDIENCE DOESN’T LIKE IT. WHEN THE LAWS ARE WRITTEN NOT TO PRESERVE LIBERTY BUT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE COPS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS, THAT IS CALLED A POLICE STATE. STUART: OKAY. SUPPOSING — ASHLEY: WELL ISN’T EVERY CCTV THEN AGAINST THE LAW?>>NO. THAT IS PRIVATE. IF FOX WANTS TO HAVE A CAMERA IN THE HALLWAY, WATCH ME — ASHLEY: I MEAN OUT ON THE STREETS?>>IF FOX’S JOB RAND PREROGATIVE. IF FOX WANTS A CAMERA ON OUTSIDE OF ITS BUILDING FOX CAN DO THAT. IT IS GOVERNMENT USE OF IT THAT IS THE PROBLEM. NOT THE PRIVATE USE. NOT ME. THAT IS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. ONLY RESTRAINS THE GOVERNMENT. DOESN’T RESTRAIN PRIVATE USE. STUART: USAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT DEAD BUT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE IS LOOKS LIKE. WALKING DOWN THE STREETS IN SAN FRANCISCO. BOOM, PICKED UP BY FACIAL RECOGNITION BECAUSE WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE GUY LOOKS LIKE. THAT IS TERRIBLE.>>REALISTIC HYPOTHETICAL. STUART: NO IT IS NOT. IT IS VERY REALISTIC. ALL KINDS OF MURDERS AND KIDNAPPERS AND TERRORISTS, WE KNOW WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.>>IF THE COULD BREAK DOWN EVERY DOOR AND STOP AND QUESTION EVERYBODY THEY WANT, WOULD WE LIVE IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT? PROBABLY BUT WOULD WE WANT IT THAT WAY. STUART: NOT A BAD REJOINDER?>>YOU STILL LOVE ME? STUART: THAT’S IT.

87 comments

  1. why are british people so quick to give up freedom? And Varney is even a more freedom loving Brit that the usual… most Brits see him as an extremist

  2. And this shows how stupid people are getting in this country with all these terrorists and these murderers these rapists and pedophiles in this country now they want to do away with facial recognition making it harder to catch these criminals Dear God this country needs an enema.

  3. I am glad to hear this, because I don't think that kind of tech should be deployable against American Citizens without first obtaining a warrant……… but…….. San Francisco is a sanctuary city and is intentionally in violation of Federal Law and therefore should not enjoy the rights and privileges of Cities that abide the law……..

  4. This little butthurt judge still has a job? Why Fox why? I remember when Fox suspended him when he was actually on Trump side. Then they brought him back and he was a never Trumper after he wanted a supreme court nomination from Trump and was turned down. This guy is a joke and is not Supreme Court material. He should not even be on a regular Court. It's okay to strip search everybody before going on a flight yet an unobtrusive camera that can randomly pick out bad people that are walking by is so terrible? If you're not a criminal or a wanted person it would matter very little to you. It's not like they are putting them in your house. You are in a public place. Under his same Theory no one should be allowed to take a picture of anybody in public because somebody else could later look at the picture and see a criminal

  5. It seems the DNC SHOT-CALLERS are getting ready to unleash there trolls, they are protecting them by not allowing the police to do their job. When the good cops leave California bigwig Xavier Becerra will replace them with corrupt ones just like in his homeland of Mexico.
    The police in Mexico bribe everybody. 😂Sarcastic me

  6. THIS ISN'T TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AS THEY MAY CLAIM BUT RATHER DO WHAT THE LIBERAL SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS CRAZIES DO BEST, "PROTECT THE ILLEGAL CRIMINAL IMMIGRANTS, TERRORIST AND DRUG DEALERS , GANGS, HUMAN CHILD TRAFFICKERS, ETC.

  7. As surveillance technology advances, more comprehensive and invasive surveillance methods will be available to government. The more repressive governments, like that of China, will use them to the fullest extent, but governments in the US, including state and local govts, should not use them. We don't want a police state here.

  8. Judge Napolitano is such a flip flopper. He’s mad at Trump for not giving him a seat on the Supreme Court. He’s a swamp 🐀

  9. Wow!! Not sure what to think about this… Whats the DimRats REAL motivation to eliminate what most of us don't like??

  10. Wal-Mart has been using facial recognition for a decade. If you've been to a Wal-Mart, your face is saved in a facial recognition file somewhere

  11. Nobody has security in a police state. Are we safer with police stopping and frisking random people under the guise of suspension? Are we safer with police kicking down doors and searching random peoples homes as with the case with erroneous warrants? The answer is no. Liberty is a requisite for safety and security. If people dont have liberty, theyre under threat of the institution(s) denying that liberty. The hostile threat becomes internal rather than an external one such as a foreign power and invasion.

    Its the protection of the sovereignty of "We The People" and us as the sovereign that gives purpose and legitimacy to law enforcement, the military, and the actions of thereof. At least that was the intention.

  12. Good that garbage mistakes innocent people for the real criminals they are looking for just because they look alike or bone structures are so close….

  13. BS! If anyone has gone into a town, state, or Federal government building you see cameras everywhere. Just like at airports there are cameras everywhere as well. Grow up losers.

  14. Question's: How many criminals have been taken off our streets thanks to these cameras? Aren't those cameras/tec used to keep noncriminals safe by identifying known criminals also people that have over stayed there visit to our country (expired visas) to be taken off our streets?

  15. So they want to protect illegals, murders, muggers, and thieves? … Why does that not surprise me …

  16. Napolitano believes random citizens have a right to avoid unwarranted surveillance unless you are the man who did not appoint him to the supreme court..

  17. They're just doing this to protect the hoards of illegal aliens they have and want in their state. Imagine how easy it would be to pick out illegal aliens versus scanned legal citizens.

  18. FOLKS THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN ALL AGREE ON… LEFT RIGHT… THE RUSSIAN TROLLS ARE KEEN FOR IT. THEY WOULD BE.

  19. Not very reliable. Especially among African Americans. They – municipalities – would use it anyway for a lead.Fake News.We all know there are laws and then there's law enforcement.

  20. Tacitly there's a balance of civility between crime and law enforcement.Lest we become a police state or a complete state of lawlessness.

  21. Don't forget that the police use the technology they're given unlawfully to target and harass innocent people. Where there's one good use there are atleast three evils.

  22. Its not about what good could the government do with power – that's always their argument – its NEVER give them too much power because eventually it ALWAYS corrupts.

  23. THIS IS NANCY PELOSI'S DISTRICT! WERE LOOKING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS HIDING OUT IN YOUR CITY THAT SHOULD BE DEPORTED! IT'S CALLED "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE"! THE JUDGE IS A HACK!

  24. It's not an illegal search if you're in public. It's no different than if a cop saw you walk by and you had warrants

  25. I'm a conservative Republican who supports law enforcement. Cameras invading the lives of Americans is a horrible Big Brother State pile of crap.

  26. In 1791, I'm sure they didn't think cctv and facial recognition would ever be invented in the future…

  27. Surveillance and facial recognition are two different things that overlap but should not be confused with one another. Are they banning facial recognition software on private ed surveillance tape that cops obtained by warrant? Napolitano failed to discuss this aspect.

    Before letting facial recognition software legislation be approved, the politicians need to be on the same page and know exactly what it is.

    That said, I personally have not seen where facial recognition software has been proven to be accurate. To assume the claims of these companies sounds like snake oil salesmanship…

  28. Oh god. If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Catch criminals anyway you can.

  29. good job fucktards… just let the criminals walk freely among us law abiding citizens.. whos gonna know?

  30. Facial recognition security by smart phone is per Ammendment? Finger print security by smart phone is per Ammendment?

    FISA FireEye abuse is per Ammendment?

    Facial recognition will be active under Law and Police enforcement. Physical identity will also be active under Law and Police enforcement.

  31. China has facial recognition from space and tracks every citizen all the time. China brags about it. System is coupled with phone tracking indoors and out. It records audio (full-time) and video (on demand) while the phone appears off. It then stores that information forever. Think China has it but US doesn't? Think again. If US didn't have it, congress would outlaw such universal surveillance, but they haven't. Why? Because US has it and uses it 100% of the time. Step outside and a satellite instantly recognizes your face and tracks you. Trade phones with somebody and they know. (more…) 

    When they want to frame, they know when you have no alibi. When they want to pester, they "parallel construct." Think they don't frame people? They framed Trump, didn't they? And Trump would've stayed framed if it weren't for Admiral Rogers at NSA acting as his guardian angel. Do you have an Admiral at NSA protecting you? I didn't think so.

  32. dear fellow republican/conservatives hating on the ban,

    don't let your political biases blind you into thinking this is a bad thing. you're making the rest of us look like emotional retards that only care about sides.

  33. I personally feel that if you have done something so heinous as to be afraid of being identified by facial recognition, then you should sit in your private cubbyhole, protected from unlawful search. Meanwhile, if you are so bold as to parade around public spaces, which you should reasonably expect to be surveilled for public safety, you should also reasonably expect to be caught by those very cameras. We tend to take what start out as reasonable steps to protect our rights, to extremes that put those very rights at risk. The only one at risk in this scenario is the one who broke the law. That said, we need to prosecute to the fullest any abuses of surveillance and government overreach. The fact that we have allowed some in government to get away with egregious abuses has emboldened many in our government to step up this type of activity. The Trump witch hunt is a perfect example of this. We cannot fix the abuses of the past, but we certainly can start to dissuade any future abuses by fully prosecuting those who engaged in this and other abuses that will hopefully be disclosed by the new Barr probe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *