I think arguments may be made against this law for other reasons, but I don’t see how the 4th Amendment is implicated. The 4th only comes into play where there is an expectation of privacy, and as others have mentioned, there is no expectation of privacy in public places or on another’s property.
Even if there were an expectation of privacy, the 4th Amendment addresses actions by the state - they may not *invade that privacy. Here, the state and its agents are taking no action - they aren’t ripping the mask off, they are saying you can’t wear it in the first place.
I guess you’re right, Sua. And thanks.
I initially saw a parallel between being compelled to remove a mask and having to, say, open the trunk of your car.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no real desire to wear a mask in public. Nor do I have a huge problem with this law. Just seems a little pushy is all.
I do know that a cop can, without cause, require you to remove your sunglasses. Same thing, I guess.
Still, it annoys me.
Peace,
mangeorge
How can you say that they are taking no action? If someone violates this law, won’t that person be arrested? Sure sounds like action to me. (And presumbably the mask would be taken off during the arrest. Somehow I doubt that the police would allow you to wear a mask during a mug shot.
By this logic, would a law requiring that all houses be constructed from transparent materials have no Fourth Amendment problems?
Thank’s spoke-, but that challenge was based on the First. Here’s the Fourth;
One would think that “secure in their persons” would include the face. And I don’t think there’s any probable cause for a warrant, which is what that law amounts to.
I’m a member of the SPLC and the ACLU, and I’m with them on this one. You can’t single out a group, no matter how heinous their views, to abridge their rights.
What’s next? ID badges, prominently displayed? Talk about your ‘slippery slope’.
If a cop has probable cause to unmask an individual, well then, that’s another matter.
The more I think about this video thing, the more it stinks.
Peace,
mangeorge
Well I’m with you, but I fear that we may be in the minority (judging from the lack of outrage in this thread and in the surveillance thread).
And by the way, there has been no 4th Amendment (or 9th Amendment) challenge to Georgia’s mask law. I don’t think I would hold out much hope, though, for a successful challenge on those grounds.
Particlewill’s post brought up the idea that it would be pretty easy to fool the cameras with relatively simple accessories; sunglasses, beards, simple temporary facial prosthetics, etc.
If this is the case, doesn’t it seem that any criminals wanted on serious charges would take these precautions when out in public? Wouldn’t that effectively reduce the usefulness of the surveillance system significantly?
What we’d be left with would be another means of identifying petty criminals with insignificant charges against them, whose arrests do more to tie up the justice system than to insure the security of society.
In other words, if you’ve got a felony manslaughter charge against you, you’ll spend five minutes changing your facial appearance before going out. If you’ve got overdue parking tickets, you’re nailed.
Seems like a small result for such an elaborate, invasive system.
There are already very many situations here where your face is being recorded as you conduct your every day activities - bus and train station, the majority of shops, automatic telling machines etc. In addition, many known trouble spots now have surveillance cameras which constantly record what’s happening in the street.
These cameras don’t seem to act as a major deterrent to the commission of crimes - although you’d think, logically, that the knowledge that your actions are being recorded would be something of a deterrent. What does seem to have happened, however, is that police have been able to access them and use them to piece together quite rapidly the series of events around crimes committed in view of the camera. This has been particular important in several cases or abduction, murder, or severe assault here.
If you’re a wanted criminal, police generally have the right to make public through the media your general description and a photograph - I can see no good reason why they should not have the right to use facial recognition software to locate you.
The greyer area is whether use of this software should be allowed in order to locate people who are suspected of having committed a crime, or who are possible witnesses to a crime. My feeling is slightly in favour of the position that if they would normally be allowed to use the media in order to try to locate you, then they should be able to use facial recognition software. I don’t think the potential for mistaken identification is any greater than that which occurs when eyewitnesses to crimes give descriptions of the alleged offender, or when the general public provides the name or address of someone they believe matches the description or photograph of a suspect published in the media.
As far as the mask issue goes - does the US have places where you must remove a motorcycle helmet before entering?
I don’t really have an objection to the use of facial recognition software to identify someone, but what I am uncomfortable with is having cameras everywhere watching you. Some places need higher security, like airports, so I don’t really object to cameras there.
On the other hand, imagine if we actually had the resources to place a police officer on every street corner (literally). Even though it would definitely reduce crime rates, I’d be uncomfortable and it would feel like I was living in a police state, whether or not the government was oppressive. Same thing if we had cameras everywhere. The difference is that we might actually have the resources to put cameras everywhere.