Comment by mikkupikku

Comment by mikkupikku 13 hours ago

3 replies

Honestly the number of people who get arrested for nothing more than obstinately refusing to give their name is huge. Refusal is pointless since they're going to get your name after taking you in, by refusing you're just delaying the inevitable. This is one of the many little ways that the system fucks over people who don't understand the system and/or have poor impulse control or excessively stubborn attitudes, low IQ people generally.

Basically, the laws requiring people to identify themselves are a trap set to snap on low IQ people. It's a cruel status quo, it doesn't need to be this way. Arguably the best solution would be to change the laws which require people to identify themselves. The obvious counter-argument is that this would greatly inhibit catching people who have outstanding warrants.

Face scanning tech could have the effect of disarming this trap. Instead of arresting everybody who refuses to give a name, the police can get your name through an app, learn that you have no warrants, and then tell you you're free to go instead of arresting you for no reason other than your stubborn attitude.

Overall though, I disapprove of this technology for it's potential to be scaled into massive comprehensive dragnet surveillance, very similar to what is already happening with license plate detection and traffic cameras.

wvenable 13 hours ago

In the US, whether you're legally required to identify yourself depends on the situation and the state:

"Stop and identify" states: If police have reasonable suspicion that you're involved in a crime, you can be required to state your name. Refusal can result in arrest.

Non–stop-and-identify states: You generally don't have to provide your name unless you're lawfully detained or arrested.

It's not illegal everywhere to refuse, but, as you said it can escalate the situation.

However, from a civil liberties perspective, people do explicitly choose to refuse in order to assert their rights and/or protest unlawful stops. You can certainly choose to be a high-IQ person, always give your name, and contribute to the eroding of your own rights over time. Face scanning tech just removes that option and automatically eliminates those civil liberties.

  • Bender 12 hours ago

    I was curious about this so I looked it up. Here are the states that do not require one to identify.

    Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, plus Washington D.C.

    and then

    - You must be detained on reasonable suspicion; a casual chat (“consensual encounter”) never triggers the duty.

    - Verbal name only—no law forces you to carry or hand over a card.

    - Driving is separate—every state requires a license on traffic stops.

    - Lying is illegal everywhere (false ID to police is usually a misdemeanor).

    - Filming police is protected nationwide; identifying yourself is unrelated.

verdverm 13 hours ago

> it's potential to be scaled into massive comprehensive dragnet surveillance

that potential has become kinetic, we're living it right now