Microblog Memes

6024 readers

1866 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
Be nice.
No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1139

Banning masks means banning (a subset) of disabled people from public places without great risk to their health (lemmings.world)

submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

198 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Ah thanks for clarifying I was like wait I’m schizo?

np, and just between the two of us, yeah you are :)

I’d say the right to privacy would be covered under the right to not be searched without a warrant.

it depends on the specifics i think, but from what i can understand the primary legal argument against it right now is actually "unreasonable search and seizure" and "illegal evidence collection" rather than, warrant specific things, though im sure that's sort of adjacent.

The problem right now is that none of our laws explicitly protect things like forcing people to use face ID in order to unlock their phone, because it isn't technically "extracting" information from someone unwillingly. Similar issues with collecting evidence from the trash, or using AI facial recognition. There just aren't any clear laws, and the police are taking advantage of it while they can.

The facial recognition on every corner is an unreasonable search IMO and society has just accepted it? Morons with well I’ve got nothing to hide…

i think for facial recognition, i would argue it's a violation of right to privacy, rather than unreasonable search and seizure, because they aren't searching for anything, or seizing anything, necessarily. I think i would rather have stronger privacy laws after the fact anyway.

Also, facial recognition is mostly a problem with using cameras in public, rather than police using cameras in public, putting this under unreasonable search and seizure limits it to police activity explicitly, i would much rather not be facially recognized at all, when outside. Private entity, or not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago

There is no right to privacy which is why I think it should fall under the right against unreasonable search and seizure. They’re using your face and searching it against a database for no reason other than treating everybody like they’re a criminal to comfort rich peoples fee fees.