Ben Swann - San Francisco Slams ‘Security State’ With Facial Recognition Ban

[PAF]

Published on May 29, 2019


In San Francisco, local lawmakers are pushing for a new ban on the use of facial recognition software in the state of California, as their own municipality will become the first to prohibit police from using this technology without a warrant. Investigative journalist Ben Swann joins In Question to discuss.

[PAF]

If San Francisco can do this, why aren't other cities/states, such as where YOU live, doing this too?

[DamianTV]

Its become pretty obvious that the elected "leaders" no longer reflect the will of the people. Or maybe they do. They all seem highly willing to trade everyone elses Rights and Liberty in exchange for Temporary Security.

So what happens when the exact opposite happens? When people arent arrested just by what they say, but by what they DONT say? What happens if people are being arrested for not hating Trump enough? All these facial recognition cameras are gonna enable just that world, and everything else we cant yet even imagine. Mark my words, this will end badly beyond anyones wildest nightmares.

[Anti Federalist]

If San Francisco can do this, why aren't other cities/states, such as where YOU live, doing this too?

NH already did...and reversing that is on the agenda of the New Bolsheviks in Concord.

[PAF]

NH already did...and reversing that is on the agenda of the New Bolsheviks in Concord.

Awesome. Unfortunately you have more work cut out for you.

[RJB]

If San Francisco can do this, why aren't other cities/states, such as where YOU live, doing this too?

Many cities simply didn't put up with that crap in the first place.

[Anti Federalist]

Awesome. Unfortunately you have more work cut out for you.

Right now all we can do is a "holding" action.

A very pro liberty state government was swept away in the woke flood of 2018.

The only bulwark against it right now is the governor, Sununu.

Going to do everything possible to keep him in office in 2020.

[Brian4Liberty]

“Get yer freedumb right here in San Francisco...”

San Francisco poised to become first U.S. city to ban e-cigs

The city of San Francisco is expected to impose a blanket ban on e-cigarettes this week -- which would make it the first city to outlaw the sale, distribution and manufacturing of vaping products.
...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-fra...outlaw-vaping/

[RJB]

“Get yer freedumb right here in San Francisco...”

Due to their love of protest, this is simply a broken clock is correct twice a day. Tomorrow, they will forget this and protest to end hate speech, the Second Amendment, or promote the sacred right for bums to deficate on a business owner's doorstep.

[Brian4Liberty]

If San Francisco can do this, why aren't other cities/states, such as where YOU live, doing this too?

San Francisco is not doing this to protect liberty, privacy or innocent people.

This is done to protect criminals. A Police state that wants to be arbitrary, to hide crimes and crime statistics, and to allow criminals to run free does not want video evidence, especially of political violence (think Antifa).

Imagine this more as a Police Department and Union that does not want body cams.

[eleganz]

Don't get it twisted, they are just protecting ANTIFA from being identified and tracked.

[jmdrake]

Published on May 29, 2019


In San Francisco, local lawmakers are pushing for a new ban on the use of facial recognition software in the state of California, as their own municipality will become the first to prohibit police from using this technology without a warrant. Investigative journalist Ben Swann joins In Question to discuss.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again.

[PAF]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again.

Perhaps @Brian4Liberty and @eleganz should read the Bill of Rights to know what is in it, and (re)watch the video if they have not already. Oh, and the Site Mission, too.

I wonder what Ron Paul’s position would be on tracking and cataloguing every citizen without a warrant

Grrrrrrrrr

[Swordsmyth]

Perhaps @Brian4Liberty and @eleganz should read the Bill of Rights to know what is in it, and (re)watch the video if they have not already. Oh, and the Site Mission, too.

I wonder what Ron Paul’s position would be on tracking and cataloguing every citizen without a warrant

Grrrrrrrrr

Maybe you should read what they wrote again, they didn't say government should do it.

They said Frisco had ulterior motives that weren't pro-liberty.

[eleganz]

Perhaps @Brian4Liberty and @eleganz should read the Bill of Rights to know what is in it, and (re)watch the video if they have not already. Oh, and the Site Mission, too.

I wonder what Ron Paul’s position would be on tracking and cataloguing every citizen without a warrant

Grrrrrrrrr

Huh? Did I advocate for that position?

I gave you the reason. You can disagree with the reason I gave but don't lump me into the surveillance happy crowd. Just about everyone that is still here on RPF understands the libertarian principles.

Don't be so basic like that, its petty and moronic to try and one up each other on who is more libertarian, very 2008 of you.

[PAF]

Huh? Did I advocate for that position?

I gave you the reason. You can disagree with the reason I gave but don't lump me into the surveillance happy crowd. Just about everyone that is still here on RPF understands the libertarian principles.

Don't be so basic like that, its petty and moronic to try and one up each other on who is more libertarian, very 2008 of you.

I merely read the words that you took the time to write:

Don't get it twisted, they are just protecting ANTIFA from being identified and tracked.

Nothing in that statement supported banning blanket facial recognition without a warrant.

Please be careful with your wording next time around, words are very important to the reader.

No hard feelings ;-)

[PAF]

Maybe you should read what they wrote again, they didn't say government should do it.

They said Frisco had ulterior motives that weren't pro-liberty.

I took it how they wrote it. Just because there may be ulterior motives does not negate that this is a fantastic win for liberty. Must you always pick on me when my Freedom Index Score = 100 ?

[Swordsmyth]

I merely read the words that you took the time to write:



Nothing in that statement supported banning blanket facial recognition without a warrant.

Please be careful with your wording next time around, words are very important to the reader.

No hard feelings ;-)

Nothing inn that statement approved of blanket facial surveillance without a warrant.

Please be careful with your reading next time around, words are very important.

Don't play stupid games.

[Swordsmyth]

I took it how they wrote it.

No you didn't, you twisted their words into support for blanket facial recognition without a warrant.

Just because there may be ulterior motives does not negate that this is a fantastic win for liberty.

Did anyone say it did?

Must you always pick on me when my Freedom Index Score = 100 ?

LOL

Keep on dreaming.

[PAF]

Nothing inn that statement approved of blanket facial surveillance without a warrant.

Please be careful with your reading next time around, words are very important.

Don't play stupid games.

Nothing disapproved of it either. I am just here to set records straight. If that bothers you, well, that is par for the course. Perhaps the only winning move for you is not to play.

[Champ]

Good for them. California has at least talked about enacting their constitutional right to secede in recent years, whether a bluff or not, and is right on this issue.

Maybe there is still hope for them, *glances at nearest road*..



..or maybe not.

[Swordsmyth]

Nothing disapproved of it either. I am just here to set records straight. If that bothers you, well, that is par for the course. Perhaps the only winning move for you is not to play.

You are making a fool of yourself.

The only winning move for you is to not play.

[PAF]

You are making a fool of yourself.

The only winning move for you is to not play.

This coming from a guy who supports politicians in the 70-80 percentile, while I only support those in the 90-100%.

LOL

[Swordsmyth]

This coming from a guy who supports politicians in the 70-80 percentile, while I only support those in the 90-100%.

LOL

I will get much more done for liberty than you will.

[RJB]

Oh yeah? Well I only support those with a 101% minimum.

[PAF]

I will get much more done for liberty than you will.

Agreed... right down the tubes.

[Swordsmyth]

Agreed... right down the tubes.

Your rhetoric is getting weak.

[Brian4Liberty]

Perhaps @Brian4Liberty and @eleganz should read the Bill of Rights to know what is in it, and (re)watch the video if they have not already. Oh, and the Site Mission, too.

I wonder what Ron Paul’s position would be on tracking and cataloguing every citizen without a warrant

Grrrrrrrrr

I merely read the words that you took the time to write:



Nothing in that statement supported banning blanket facial recognition without a warrant.

Please be careful with your wording next time around, words are very important to the reader.

No hard feelings ;-)

You intentionally twisted what we said. Questioning the motives of what happens in the city of San Francisco in no way supports Big Brother surveillance. The point is more that you better watch out who you align yourself with. Just because you might agree with Lindsey Graham and Bill Kristol on some occasion does not call for some grand alliance with neoconservatives, unless you really are a neoconservative and want to come out of the closet.

Do you live in SF? Anywhere near SF? What do you know about local politics?

[PAF]

You intentionally twisted what we said. Questioning the motives of what happens in the city of San Francisco in no way supports Big Brother surveillance. The point is more that you better watch out who you align yourself with. Just because you might agree with Lindsey Graham and Bill Kristol on some occasion does not call for some grand alliance with neoconservatives, unless you really are a neoconservative and want to come out of the closet.

Do you live in SF? Anywhere near SF? What do you know about local politics?

I used to live in Cali and still frequent it very often, including having relatives and friends there. I am not naive to what goes on there.

My response was to the following:

San Francisco is not doing this to protect liberty, privacy or innocent people.

This is done to protect criminals. A Police state that wants to be arbitrary, to hide crimes and crime statistics, and to allow criminals to run free does not want video evidence, especially of political violence (think Antifa).

Imagine this more as a Police Department and Union that does not want body cams.

To a visiting reader this could be construed the way that I read it, as if it was an excuse to not ban the program. In any event I am glad that you cleared that up, that is what debate is all about.

[Swordsmyth]

I used to live in Cali and still frequent it very often, including having relatives and friends there. I am not naive to what goes on there.

My response was to the following:




To a visiting reader this could be construed the way that I read it, as if it was an excuse to not ban the program. In any event I am glad that you cleared that up, that is what debate is all about.

There is nothing in that quote that implies an excuse not to ban the program.