<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>confounded</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;Everyone is a criminal. You commit multiple crimes a day if you&amp;#x27;re like most people.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;More importantly, pretty much everyone has a driver’s license or other government issued ID, and in most states, the police have access to your mugshot from that.&lt;p&gt;The criminality can be figured out later. The problem is real time surveillance of the entire population.</text><parent_chain><item><author>alex_young</author><text>&amp;gt; It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal.&lt;p&gt;Everyone is a criminal.  You commit multiple crimes a day if you&amp;#x27;re like most people.&lt;p&gt;There absolutely should be a clear delineation between what is possible and what is allowed when considering state surveillance.&lt;p&gt;The 4th amendment: &amp;quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s right there.  You have a right to be secure as a person from unreasonable searches.  Massive face recognition of &amp;#x27;criminals&amp;#x27; is a violation of exactly that, and should be prevented without question.</text></item><item><author>chisleu</author><text>They are NOT selling a service that identifies people from data sets other than the police&amp;#x27;s supplied data sets. It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal.&lt;p&gt;The cat is out of the bag and is already something the police could do themselves. The real fear is when they are able to source commercially available information from linked in, facebook, etc to identify everyone&amp;#x27;s whereabouts.&lt;p&gt;Pushing back this early will not have mass appeal and will not help to prevent the future, broader concerns IMHO.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/technology/amazon-facial-recognition.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>kolbe</author><text>I honestly do not see how the 4th amendment&amp;#x27;s text obviously applies to surveillance, especially as it pertains to being identified in public. I don&amp;#x27;t even think it matters whether or not someone is a suspected criminal. It&amp;#x27;s not a search or seizure. And only in case law are there examples of the text being interpreted in favor of things like audio recordings needing a warrant. But this isn&amp;#x27;t one of those amendments whose text is clear on an issue like public facial recognition.</text><parent_chain><item><author>alex_young</author><text>&amp;gt; It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal.&lt;p&gt;Everyone is a criminal.  You commit multiple crimes a day if you&amp;#x27;re like most people.&lt;p&gt;There absolutely should be a clear delineation between what is possible and what is allowed when considering state surveillance.&lt;p&gt;The 4th amendment: &amp;quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s right there.  You have a right to be secure as a person from unreasonable searches.  Massive face recognition of &amp;#x27;criminals&amp;#x27; is a violation of exactly that, and should be prevented without question.</text></item><item><author>chisleu</author><text>They are NOT selling a service that identifies people from data sets other than the police&amp;#x27;s supplied data sets. It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal.&lt;p&gt;The cat is out of the bag and is already something the police could do themselves. The real fear is when they are able to source commercially available information from linked in, facebook, etc to identify everyone&amp;#x27;s whereabouts.&lt;p&gt;Pushing back this early will not have mass appeal and will not help to prevent the future, broader concerns IMHO.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/technology/amazon-facial-recognition.html</url></story>