Dang, most of the pixels didn’t even go.

Pirate keys for sure. Not using one is just asking for a stranger to grab your booty.

It is time to fill your role in the family business, Wishbone.

I used to work for a company that did various kinds of biometric recognition. I unfortunately was paraded past these cameras many times for testing purposes, so my face was compromised many moons ago.

We had two kinds of products we installed in airports. When looking at large crowds most airports wanted cameras that would monitor the flow of traffic, determining if there were any bottlenecks causing people to arrive at their gate (or baggage claim) after their luggage.

The other product was facial recognition for identification purposes. These are the machines you have to stand right next to. There are various legal reasons airports did not want to use any crowd-level cameras for identification. They hadn’t obtained consent, but also, the low resolution per face would lead to many more false positives. It was also too costly.

But we did have high def cameras installed in strategic locations at large music halls. These private companies were less concerned with privacy and more concerned with keeping banned individuals out of their property. In those cases, we registered faces of people who were kicked out for various reasons and ignored all other faces.

My point I guess is twofold: first, you might not be facially tracked in as many places as you think you are. Second, eventually you will be and there’s not a whole lot we can do to stop it. For many years, Target has identified people with their payment card, used facial recognition to detect when they return to the store, and used crowd tracking to see where in the store you go (and sometimes they have even changed ad displays based on the demographics of people standing nearby).

Mostly, you will be identified and tracked when there is financial incentive to do so.

Thank you for clarifying which point you are making. The reason I asked is I’m not sure the two terms are being used interchangeably here. Right now, we’re in a situation where a second Trump term may be decided by whether we stick with an evidently senile candidate. And the way to prevent that would be for the DNC to organize an event specifically to option the idea of picking a new candidate. So at this point in time, it seems appropriate to point ire not at the Democratic Party broadly like we might do when Democrats in office behave poorly, but at the DNC apparatus itself. It’s possible that was the original commenter’s intent.

Are you saying people should not refer to the Democratic Party as the party representing democracy, or are you suggesting as your text literally reads that we should emphasize a distinction between the DNC and the party the DNC controls?