
Sanders, Warren, and Wyden back national facial recognition ban bill - jbegley
https://www.cnet.com/news/senators-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-and-ron-wyden-back-national-facial-recognition-ban-bill/
======
mac01021
Any law nerds (or even real lawyers!) here have thoughts on if and how this
bill fits with the powers granted to congress by the US Constitution?

~~~
folknor
Essentially, it doesn't. Congress has no say in how States operate their
policing - it only has a say in how the Federal policing operates. But this
hasn't stopped congress from overstepping their constitutional powers for the
past 6 decades at least. The same goes for the office of the President, where
_at least_ the past 10 Presidents (just off the top of my head) have
deliberately acted outside their given powers on several occasions. The
Judiciary is no better, but their transgressions are more spread out among a
much, much, much larger flock of people.

That said, whether individual States are allowed to use facial recognition is
another question entirely. I don't think so, because it most likely violates
constitutionally protected rights such as liberty. But IANAL.

Probably one justification congress gives for allowing themselves to pass
legislation like this is that it attaches them as prerequisites for special
funding mechanisms.

I don't think that makes it legal either, but - again - IANAL. I also haven't
read the bill in question.

But who's going to stop them?

I believe the main problem in the US is the low voting turnout. You could say
the low voting turnout is caused by centuries of bad politicians and lack of
hope in the system, but then you're just arguing in circles (chicken/egg). The
US elects people all the way down to the city level, and even Sheriffs,
Judges, and AGs on the local/town/city level. There are elections each year in
the US where turnout is below 1% of the eligible population, and it is never
above 65% (even in Presidential elections, which is the one that affects you
as an individual the least), if I remember correctly.

Also note the disrepancy between vote tallies and exit polling in many
elections in the US is routinely above 8-16% (the margin of error is 4%),
which likely means many elections in the US are rigged. And note the over 1000
_convictions_ of criminal election fraud in the US since just the 80s. Not
alleged, but prosecuted and convicted.

Contrast this to elections in most European countries, where turnout is rarely
below 60% at any level of government. At least in my country. I've not
researched it thoroughly, but I have done a bit of reading on this some years
ago.

In the end, voting is the only mechanism you have for keeping politicians
honest. And elected representatives are supposed to keep the rest of the
bureaucracy and government honest.

So if you don't vote, or keep voting for people who don't understand their own
system of government - or worse, who don't care about the limitations put on
them by the framework - then in the end, revolution is the only thing that can
fix it. And you don't want revolution. You'll most likely be killed.

At the extreme, those are your options; vote cleverly and wisely, or die.

Many people choose a 3rd option; ignore politics and live their lives. What
that does is it pushes death down the line to your children, or your childrens
children, etc.

/rant :-D

~~~
coolgeek
> But this hasn't stopped congress from overstepping their constitutional
> powers for the past 6 decades at least

Should this be read as "they do have constitutional power, but I don't like
it"?

I mean if it is, in fact, unconstitutional, then surely at some point over "6
decades" the Supreme Court would have gotten liberal or conservative
(whichever is necessary here) enough to have put a stop to this.

~~~
mac01021
Maybe?

If the Supreme Court has made decisions which many people think constitute an
obvious, willful misinterpretation of the constitution.

I think it's reasonable to say, if that's your take, that the constitutional
authority does not exist.

~~~
coolgeek
> the Supreme Court has made decisions which many people think constitute an
> obvious, willful misinterpretation of the constitution

This is a good point, and one that I hadn't considered before my first reply.

However, we're talking about a single issue here - Congress' "say in how
States operate their policing." As such, it's a lot harder to argue "willful
misrepresentation" when none of the political persuasions or judicial
philosophies that have dominated the court over six decades challenge it.

------
sumguysr
It seems like this removes one of the best tools law enforcement has available
for combatting the production of hundreds of thousands of images of child porn
on the dark web.

~~~
CameronNemo
Best tool? Children are disappearing out of ICE detention centers and facial
recognition is the best tool to fight human trafficking? I am sorry but I
cannot believe that the feds sincerely care about children's well being. Not
while our southern border exists in its current state.

~~~
adamiscool8
Not only is that a canard[0], it's a tiny fraction of the 50,000 annual human
trafficking victims incentivized by maintaining lax enforcement of the
southern border. [1]

[0] [https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/us/immigration-refugee-
child-...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/us/immigration-refugee-child-
missing-hhs-obama-photo-trnd/index.html)

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-border-
trafficking/fe...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-border-
trafficking/fear-drives-forced-labor-underground-along-u-s-mexico-border-
idUSKBN1J7038)

