Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The State of Facial Recognition

* * * * * 1 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
22 replies to this topic

#1
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts
In a single second, law enforcement agents can match a suspect against millions upon millions of profiles in vast detailed databases stored on the cloud. It’s all done using facial recognition, and in Southern California it’s already occurring. Imagine the police taking a picture: any picture of a person, anywhere, and matching it on the spot in less than a second to a personalized profile, scanning millions upon millions of entries from within vast, intricate databases stored on the cloud. It’s done with state of the art facial recognition technology, and in Southern California it’s already happening. Though that pool of potential matches could include millions, the company says that by using the “best available facial recognition algorithms” they can scour that data set in a fraction of a second in order to send authorities all known intelligence about anyone who enters a camera’s field of vision. “Live high definition video enables FaceFirst to track and isolate the face of every person on every camera simultaneously,” the company claims on their website.

http://rt.com/usa/ne...ecognition-908/

#2
udx

udx

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts
There goes privacy. Imagine what would happen if they use this technology for commercial purposes. All your daily activities could be tracked to better advertise to you.

#3
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,587 posts
theyve had this for awhile, I mean seriously, dont you watch CSI and NCIS? LOL

#4
OneLight

OneLight

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,106 posts
I removed the posts that are derailing this thread. Please keep it on subject.

#5
Peace Maker Tony

Peace Maker Tony

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 108 posts
And all the while, most of the masses sleep, clueless, and mostly happily-so, as to why everything is being rapidly digitized, and that their rights and freedoms are rapidly disappearing!
Safety over freedom = tyranny

#6
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts
And which Churches in America have a spine to speak against tyranny in the government?

#7
Peace Maker Tony

Peace Maker Tony

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 108 posts

And which Churches in America have a spine to speak against tyranny in the government?


Well, I'm certain none of the cozy, comfy, IRS-approved mainstream churches.

#8
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts


And which Churches in America have a spine to speak against tyranny in the government?


Well, I'm certain none of the cozy, comfy, IRS-approved mainstream churches.


well the IRS-approved Churches are more than 95% of all Churches (correct me if i'm wrong) and that them church leaders are not allowed to speak against the government (correct me if i'm wrong) sort of like the fear of the Jewish elders again

#9
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,343 posts



And which Churches in America have a spine to speak against tyranny in the government?


Well, I'm certain none of the cozy, comfy, IRS-approved mainstream churches.


well the IRS-approved Churches are more than 95% of all Churches (correct me if i'm wrong) and that them church leaders are not allowed to speak against the government (correct me if i'm wrong) sort of like the fear of the Jewish elders again


It's called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution...


The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to each state. This was done through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has also recognized a series of exceptions to provisions protecting the freedom of speech.



Read More: http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution



But what are the restrictions on churches?

See also this site: http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

A little history...

Should churches (defined as churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt?


US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.

A little history...

Did You Know?
2. The law against churches intervening in political campaigns was passed by the US Congress in 1954. Since then, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been successful in using the law to revoke the tax-exempt status of only one church: the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, NY, which had placed an advertisement in USA Today and the Washington Times rebuking Bill Clinton four days before the 1992 presidential election.

Interesting to note regarding authentic and fraudulent faiths...


6. The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties.[8] In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations," charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars." [28]

The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," [29] was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes." [30]


However, as a tax-exempt entity churches have to abide by the following...



11. "The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it prohibits pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates. [1] As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, "when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place."






So in conclusion yes you are wrong IMO. Churches cannot technically promote any one candidate. However, they can and do speak out against aspects of the law that go against the Bible.


Hope this helps.


God bless,

GE



#10
bornagain2011

bornagain2011

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
My church speaks out against laws that are unbiblical.

I had a nice little talk with my classmates the other day, trying to explain to them that just because something is legal now doesn't make it morally right or biblically right. The wheels in their heads turned a bit, was interesting watching the synapses work.

#11
Peace Maker Tony

Peace Maker Tony

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 108 posts

My church speaks out against laws that are unbiblical.


You're lucky you are in a countrywhere you are able to do that. In Canada and other places they have criminal "hate laws" against that sort of thing.

#12
His Ambassador

His Ambassador

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts



And which Churches in America have a spine to speak against tyranny in the government?


Well, I'm certain none of the cozy, comfy, IRS-approved mainstream churches.


well the IRS-approved Churches are more than 95% of all Churches (correct me if i'm wrong) and that them church leaders are not allowed to speak against the government (correct me if i'm wrong) sort of like the fear of the Jewish elders again


Churches that have been granted non-profit status by the IRS risk losing the non-profit status if they encourage their congregations to vote for a particular political candidate from the pulpit.

And what's with all the paranoia about having your picture taken even without you're knowledge? I have no fear about having the government tracking me wherever I go. It might be a little embarrassing in the restroom. To assume you will lose your freedom because you have your photo shot is an unjustified fear (unless your freedom includes unlawful activity).

#13
messiahfollower

messiahfollower
  • Members
  • 39 posts




And which Churches in America have a spine to speak against tyranny in the government?


Well, I'm certain none of the cozy, comfy, IRS-approved mainstream churches.


well the IRS-approved Churches are more than 95% of all Churches (correct me if i'm wrong) and that them church leaders are not allowed to speak against the government (correct me if i'm wrong) sort of like the fear of the Jewish elders again


Churches that have been granted non-profit status by the IRS risk losing the non-profit status if they encourage their congregations to vote for a particular political candidate from the pulpit.

And what's with all the paranoia about having your picture taken even without you're knowledge? I have no fear about having the government tracking me wherever I go. It might be a little embarrassing in the restroom. To assume you will lose your freedom because you have your photo shot is an unjustified fear (unless your freedom includes unlawful activity).


In my opinion, it has nothing to do with fear, but about wisdom. This technology can, and most likely, will be extremely abused in the end.

#14
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,807 posts





And which Churches in America have a spine to speak against tyranny in the government?


Well, I'm certain none of the cozy, comfy, IRS-approved mainstream churches.


well the IRS-approved Churches are more than 95% of all Churches (correct me if i'm wrong) and that them church leaders are not allowed to speak against the government (correct me if i'm wrong) sort of like the fear of the Jewish elders again


Churches that have been granted non-profit status by the IRS risk losing the non-profit status if they encourage their congregations to vote for a particular political candidate from the pulpit.

And what's with all the paranoia about having your picture taken even without you're knowledge? I have no fear about having the government tracking me wherever I go. It might be a little embarrassing in the restroom. To assume you will lose your freedom because you have your photo shot is an unjustified fear (unless your freedom includes unlawful activity).


In my opinion, it has nothing to do with fear, but about wisdom. This technology can, and most likely, will be extremely abused in the end.


what technology won't be abused in the end...... we can't go back to the stone age even for you can throw those.

#15
Peace Maker Tony

Peace Maker Tony

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 108 posts

And what's with all the paranoia about having your picture taken even without you're knowledge? I have no fear about having the government tracking me wherever I go. It might be a little embarrassing in the restroom. To assume you will lose your freedom because you have your photo shot is an unjustified fear (unless your freedom includes unlawful activity).


If I was following you and/or your kids around 24/7 and taking pictures of them, and/or demanded to know every minute detail about them, would that make you paranoid, or should only people involved in unlawful activity be concerned in such a scenario? And if I was involved in such behavior, why should I not be trusted to do so, but your government (that doesn't trust you) should be?

Edited by Peace Maker Tony, 05 December 2012 - 01:00 AM.


#16
messiahfollower

messiahfollower
  • Members
  • 39 posts






And which Churches in America have a spine to speak against tyranny in the government?


Well, I'm certain none of the cozy, comfy, IRS-approved mainstream churches.


well the IRS-approved Churches are more than 95% of all Churches (correct me if i'm wrong) and that them church leaders are not allowed to speak against the government (correct me if i'm wrong) sort of like the fear of the Jewish elders again


Churches that have been granted non-profit status by the IRS risk losing the non-profit status if they encourage their congregations to vote for a particular political candidate from the pulpit.

And what's with all the paranoia about having your picture taken even without you're knowledge? I have no fear about having the government tracking me wherever I go. It might be a little embarrassing in the restroom. To assume you will lose your freedom because you have your photo shot is an unjustified fear (unless your freedom includes unlawful activity).


In my opinion, it has nothing to do with fear, but about wisdom. This technology can, and most likely, will be extremely abused in the end.


what technology won't be abused in the end...... we can't go back to the stone age even for you can throw those.

Fair enough. But regardless, this is furthering a loss of privacy, which I think, is a loss of freedom. And freedom is better than worse for the common person.

#17
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,369 posts
I guess as a mass action one could arrange for a crowd to arrive at a point where on of these camera's is installed with everyone wearing a paper bag over their head? It would freak everyone out.

Here's my point.

It would freak me out to see a few people walking around with paper bags over their heads in an airport.

So what are we objecting to? Our privacy, or that of others? Is it OK for someone else to make the statement? What it actually says is that these cameras make us feel safer.

#18
His Ambassador

His Ambassador

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts


And what's with all the paranoia about having your picture taken even without you're knowledge? I have no fear about having the government tracking me wherever I go. It might be a little embarrassing in the restroom. To assume you will lose your freedom because you have your photo shot is an unjustified fear (unless your freedom includes unlawful activity).


If I was following you and/or your kids around 24/7 and taking pictures of them, and/or demanded to know every minute detail about them, would that make you paranoid, or should only people involved in unlawful activity be concerned in such a scenario? And if I was involved in such behavior, why should I not be trusted to do so, but your government (that doesn't trust you) should be?


Your scenario is not the same a placing security cameras in buildings or on street corners. Nobody is or proposes that I or anyone else be followed 24/7 or demand every detail about their life. I think you are being a bit silly.

#19
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,587 posts
no one is yet ambassador, no one is yet. keyword there. yet.

#20
Peace Maker Tony

Peace Maker Tony

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 108 posts

Your scenario is not the same a placing security cameras in buildings or on street corners. Nobody is or proposes that I or anyone else be followed 24/7 or demand every detail about their life. I think you are being a bit silly.


Well, it only sounds silly to those who are uniformed about the government's goals and actions. And if you are fine with cameras on every corner, Britian would be your dream come true, with their several million and growing for their tiny country. Not to mention, my scenario IS the same, because everything digitial - smart cards, biometric licenses, smart roads, rfid-chipped credit cards, etc. can and is tracked 24/7, which is the same as having a real person following you around invading your privacy. With digital technology you just don't see anyone following you around, so you accept the illusion that they are not, all the while suggesting that people who don't believe the illusion are paranoid. Please educate yourself about the reality of our post-911 society and what the price of loss of freedom is. You can't be part free, you either are or you aren't.




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network