0
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)
0 readers
0 users here now
founded a long while ago
Worse, DOJ certainly had them before Congress so it makes no sense.
This is the dumbest part about this whole thing. It's just grandstanding.
Edit: He's already recanted it. Instead saying they are blurring to protect their identities from the public.
Meanwhile, any little suspect from small time crime gets their face plastered all over local news anyways.
Its grandstanding and posturing.
But there is actually a good argument. Someone who the DOJ have decided wasn't worth the hassle to properly investigate might still be identified and reported by a co-worker or neighbor. Which then begins to force the DOJ's hand (they are still cops so they might ignore it but...). I personally think everyone who crowded outside the building deserves to be locked up, but I can see an argument that only people who entered the building or who actively caused damage should be charged.
Because yes, facial recognition and DMV databases are already a thing. But, much like with a red light ticket, a decent lawyer can work wonders to argue out "a robot claims that I commit a crime". Whereas having a human in the loop removes that gotcha. Hell, if my cousin is any indication, you don't even need a lawyer to argue against a red light camera or an automated speed trap and just need to care enough to show up to the courthouse for a few hours.
Also, regardless, this is indeed (attempted) obstruction of justice to protect insurrectionists.
Or people think they recognize faces in the crowd, and we get a whole slew of Richard Jewells and Sunil Tripathis
Only if they're black or hispanic. There's a narrative to push, don't you know.
It’s theater for their deep state struggle fundraising. Gotta shake down the marks for the cash. You think he’s got a sugar daddy? He’s not a Supreme Court justice………