NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

Policy vs. “Rights” and Illegality

• Some argue the NYPD simply violated an internal/administrative policy, not a constitutional right, so “bypassed” is more accurate than “broke the law.”
• Others counter that sidestepping democratically established limits on police tech use is effectively a rights violation (privacy, due process), even if not yet codified in higher law.
• There’s concern that such policies exist partly to block real legislation while remaining easy for police to ignore.

Evidence, Misidentification, and Due Process

• Several commenters stress the charges were dismissed with prejudice and the judge noted there was virtually no corroborating evidence beyond a complainant’s word.
• Accusations include doctored DMV photos and failure to obtain potentially exculpatory medical records, seen as serious prosecutorial misconduct.
• Debate: one side emphasizes the alleged rock-throwing as serious assault; the other notes that weak or tainted evidence and illegal methods undermine justice, even if a crime occurred.

Facial Recognition Ban and Loopholes

• Core issue: NYPD used a fire marshal with Clearview AI access to do what they themselves were barred from doing.
• Commenters liken this to “laundering” data requests through adjacent agencies or foreign partners to evade domestic limits.
• Some call for termination or even criminal liability for such end-runs, warning that allowing loopholes makes bans meaningless.

FDNY’s Role and Investigations

• Questioning why fire marshals have facial recognition; suggested justifications include arson investigations, identifying witnesses or victims.
• Others argue crime investigation belongs under tightly regulated police units, not fire departments with looser oversight.
• A counter-view prefers specialized, non-police investigators (including for fires and mental health incidents), to avoid over-centralizing power in police.

Clearview AI, Social Media, and Chilling Effects

• Alarm that a private firm can match faces from protest footage to scraped school and social photos, then tie that to government ID records.
• Even those who avoid posting photos note they can’t control others posting images that later get scraped.
• “Just don’t post photos” is criticized as effectively forcing people to self-censor online expression and assembly—seen as a First Amendment chilling effect, even if current doctrine hasn’t caught up.

Protests, Hate Crime Framing, and Selective Enforcement

• Some think the hate-crime context justifies strong investigative tools; others point out the facial-recognition ban has no such exception.
• Multiple comments view this as part of a broader pattern: aggressive state response to pro‑Palestinian or anti‑war demonstrations, contrasted with more lenient treatment of other causes.
• Historical references (Kent State, MOVE, 9/11-era measures) are invoked to argue that the state reliably escalates surveillance and force against anti‑imperialist movements.

Broader Surveillance-State Concerns

• Many see this case as a warning about ubiquitous facial recognition, data brokers, and AI analysis enabling pervasive tracking and political repression.
• Disagreement exists over whether police should ever have access to such tools; but there’s stronger consensus that if rules exist, police cannot be trusted to police themselves when breaking them.