Practice Op-Ed – givemeclouttokens

Facial recognition inappropriately invades our privacy and thieves all of our information for militaristic and evil uses. The development of facial recognition is stripping the fourth amendment of innocent American citizens who deserve to keep their privacy. Facial recognition is literally taking the identities of innocent people and viciously using their information for a police lineup. In the article, “your in a police lineup” it describes how our privacy is deeply in danger if we lay submissive to the government taking our identity. The government can track everything we do online with facial recognition, and can use this information against us. These types of police lineups can intrude on innocent people’s lives, accusing them safely and destroying lives.

The thieving of our information is an evil act that is made more efficiently with face recognition. Face recognition robs innocent law abiding citizens of their identity. It is being used to control citizens and pressure them into giving up their rights as people. This is an evil act of manipulation used against people for personal gain by companies such as microsoft

This entry was posted in givemeclouttokens, Practice Op-Ed. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Practice Op-Ed – givemeclouttokens

  1. davidbdale says:

    All conclusion and no argument as noted in your feedback of November 20. No revisions since that time.


  2. davidbdale says:

    Tokens, your essay is ALL CONCLUSION and NO ARGUMENT.

    Allow me to illustrate.
    An argument would go like this:
    —Our right to privacy is protected by the fourth amendment.
    —While there is some room to argue what privacy means, we can often agree when it’s violated.
    —For example, when we have our photos taken for a driver’s license, we expect that photo to be used by the motor vehicle agency and law enforcement to pursue traffic violators.
    —We don’t expect our likenesses to be placed into a massive national database that can track our every move throughout society.
    —When we walk past a Wal-Mart and are scanned by an outdoor security camera, we have already sacrificed some of our privacy.
    —But when police use the evidence that we were outside the Wal-Mart to justify detaining us for questioning about some socks that were shoplifted from that Wal-Mart because they matched the security camera footage to our driver’s license photo, we feel completely violated.

    See what I mean?
    I didn’t jump from “my face has been digitized” to “the state is viciously persecuting me.” I’m building a case that the state has violated my rights by blurring the lines of their rightful oversight responsibilities. I’m much more likely to persuade my readers to agree with my point of view if I can demonstrate the path I took to reach my conclusions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s