Author Topic: Privacy and anonymity  (Read 24276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23035
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #245 on: May 01, 2018, 11:53:22 AM »
As long as we're on about people voluntarily forking over evidence for their entire gene pool, let's consider fingerprints, as well. A UK company has patented a process that will perform a drug test on a fingerprint in 30 seconds. I already know how The Court will come down on it, but at a philosophical level do we have a right to privacy to the oil we leave behind when handling a cup at Burger King? The immediate practical upshot of this is that when Johnny takes your driver's license back to his car he can immediately learn if you've used drugs in the last 60 days. Say hello to probable cause.

I think one of the questions we should be considering at this point is if we actually want crime-solving to become so efficient that it's essentially automated. Nobody wants some scumbag rapist to go free, but how much are we willing to give up to insure that doesn't happen? Especially when you consider the trend towards finding profit in the criminal justice system.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 833
  • Gender: Female
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #246 on: May 20, 2018, 12:22:32 PM »
Another previously unsolved crime now solved with the use of a genealogy web site.  I'm glad the rapist/killer was finally caught.  I wonder how his parents feel about knowing that their voluntary submission of their own DNA led to the capture of their son.  Maybe they are glad, I don't know.

I'm happy the family of the victims have some peace of mind now.

I think the gene genie is out of the bottle.  These stories are going to quickly become commonplace. 

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/suspect-arrested-in-1987-deaths-of-young-couple-from-bc/

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 833
  • Gender: Female
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #247 on: June 04, 2019, 09:27:27 AM »
Bumping this thread up with a question.  Does an employer have the right to request or require an employee to post their name and photo on-line on their company website?

If said employee feels pressured into allowing this, e.g., won't be seen as a 'team player' going forward if they don't, what safeguards could they request that would prohibit the employer from using the photo in promotional materials in the future.

And is there any way to ensure that once said employee leaves the company that their photo is removed promptly?

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19513
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #248 on: June 04, 2019, 11:29:32 AM »
Well, you have other very good, very worthy questions, but on a base level, if the employee is an at will employee, any concessions that the employer makes are for morale and marketing purposes only.   There are some protections (through HIPAA by way of example) for personal information - social security number, health issues, etc. - but as for "name and face" there's only so much you can do, in my opinion.   

This is different, I believe, for celebrities.

I go both ways on the crime solving thing; I don't think the criminal code was ever intended to be an objective, absolute thing.  I sort of despise the "harm" argument, since it gets used so cavalierly in so many undeserving ways, but there always was a sort of "harm" element to the criminal code.   It's one thing to pull someone over for DUI in the moment, it's entirely another to start a whole new process of investigation because the guy you happened to stop for rolling the stop sign used blow 24 days ago. 

Offline Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 6859
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #249 on: June 05, 2019, 07:21:15 AM »
Went to six flags recently and I was kind of surprised when the wouldn't let you in the park unless you gave them your fingerprint. Been going there since the early 90's and this was the first time I ever saw this. Apparently there's a lawsuit going on about it.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-six-flags-biometrics-lawsuit-20190125-story.html#

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23035
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #250 on: June 05, 2019, 08:18:04 AM »
Went to six flags recently and I was kind of surprised when the wouldn't let you in the park unless you gave them your fingerprint. Been going there since the early 90's and this was the first time I ever saw this. Apparently there's a lawsuit going on about it.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-six-flags-biometrics-lawsuit-20190125-story.html#
I don't know how recently they've updated it, but their current TOS for biometrics is honestly pretty reasonable. Just a hunch, but my money would be on poorly trained children manning the gates who don't know that people may opt out. Probably so few people do so that they're not up to speed. To be clear I wouldn't play ball and it would piss me off, but it should only be applicable to season pass holders and even for them isn't mandatory. I would thus be unaffected. As for the lawsuit, their problem is that they should have posted their TOS on a 3x6 sign at the entry so people could understand what's going on. Their problem is with information, not implementation.


Quote from: Mr. Six
Six Flags uses a combination of electronic photo IDs and what are called “biometric passes” to secure access into our parks. At parks using photo IDs, we will simply take your photo at the time of your first entry to the park. When you use your pass again, we will present your picture to our employee to validate your identity. We will not scan your facial geometry or landmarks, nor perform any other type of analysis on your image. Pictures will be used only to verify passholder identity and we will encrypt all stored pictures. We will not share the pictures with anyone outside Six Flags.

At parks using biometric passes, we take a scan of your finger to link your card to your unique number. The scan of your finger does not contain enough information to recreate your fingerprint. When you arrive at the park, you’ll simply scan your finger to make sure it matches the record in our system and be on your way. We will only use the scan of your finger to authenticate you as the owner of your Season Pass or Membership and will delete the number following expiration or cancellation of your Season Pass or Membership (including a reasonable period of time to allow you to purchase or renew a lapsed Season Pass or Membership).

You can make a request to access or to change your finger scan by visiting our Contact Us page.

If you do not wish to have a biometric pass, you are not required to. If you feel uncomfortable using our biometric access control system, you may choose to have a traditional Six Flags Photo ID pass instead where we will use a photograph of you to validate your identity each time you visit the park instead of your finger scan. To receive a Six Flags Photo ID, please inform one of our team members when you first arrive at the park who will direct you to the Season Pass Center. An additional waiting time may be required for the Six Flags Photo ID processing at the Season Pass Center.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23035
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #251 on: June 10, 2019, 01:15:49 PM »
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/50505-th-circuit-evidence-found-during-unlawful-drug-raid-still-admissible

This is what happens when you let Bozo the Clown appoint dipshits to federal judgeships. "Eh, they probably would have gotten a warrant at some point." And the problem is that there are already so many ways to get around warrant requirements. Any cop knows how to get around warrants, and this ass-clown is pretty much saying you don't need one anyway. When Trump started appointing judges, qualified or otherwise, I said that Mapp was in greater danger than Roe. I'm not sure if I was right or not, but Mapp is definitely in deep shit.

Quote
“We do not condone this illegal behavior by law enforcement; the better practice is to obtain a warrant before entering a home,” the panel continued. “Ordinarily, the evidence found here would be excluded. But because the government had so much other evidence of probable cause, and had already planned to apply for a warrant before the illegal entry, the evidence is admissible."
Probable cause doesn't get you through a front door.

Quote
“Though the government should not profit from its bad behavior, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied,”
That's the whole fucking point! "Well, the offense shouldn't benefit from an illegal chop-block, but if we took away the touchdown then they'd be even worse off."
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19513
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Privacy and anonymity
« Reply #252 on: June 11, 2019, 08:14:26 AM »
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/50505-th-circuit-evidence-found-during-unlawful-drug-raid-still-admissible

This is what happens when you let Bozo the Clown appoint dipshits to federal judgeships. "Eh, they probably would have gotten a warrant at some point." And the problem is that there are already so many ways to get around warrant requirements. Any cop knows how to get around warrants, and this ass-clown is pretty much saying you don't need one anyway. When Trump started appointing judges, qualified or otherwise, I said that Mapp was in greater danger than Roe. I'm not sure if I was right or not, but Mapp is definitely in deep shit.

Quote
“We do not condone this illegal behavior by law enforcement; the better practice is to obtain a warrant before entering a home,” the panel continued. “Ordinarily, the evidence found here would be excluded. But because the government had so much other evidence of probable cause, and had already planned to apply for a warrant before the illegal entry, the evidence is admissible."
Probable cause doesn't get you through a front door.

Quote
“Though the government should not profit from its bad behavior, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied,”
That's the whole fucking point! "Well, the offense shouldn't benefit from an illegal chop-block, but if we took away the touchdown then they'd be even worse off."

Yeah, that last one is a head-scratcher to be sure.  I haven't read the case, so I don't know if there is more going on here, but I see this one getting some time at the next level of appeal.