Many people are familiar with the term “I.D.,” it’s part of the federal government’s name, I.D., or identification. It’s also a title that we use and are familiar with, but there’s a big difference between the two.
The difference being that I.D. is used to identify a person, while handheld interagency identity detection equipment (H.I.D.) is used to detect people. In both cases, a H.I.D. unit is actually a very high tech device that is used to detect a person’s presence. In fact, the difference between I.D. and H.I.D.
It turns out that H.I.D. is still used in most American police departments. In fact, the ACLU notes in their excellent little book, What the FBI is Up To, that the FBI, like other federal law enforcement agencies, are heavily invested in computerized facial recognition and other identity detection technologies and that they are working with several of the nation’s major law enforcement agencies to develop such technology.
In a sense, this is like the NSA. That is, H.I.D.It’s not as good as it could be, but it’s still a pretty good way to check if your kids are out of the house.
Its not as good as it could be. In fact, its pretty damn bad. The issue, according to the ACLU, is that the technology does not provide a reasonable level of individualized suspicion before it can be used. We have had federal and local law enforcement using this type of technology to identify individuals based on their faces in certain locations. But the technology has failed in a number of situations, and for that reason, the ACLU is calling the technology “mass surveillance.
The technology has been used in public places to identify suspects, including a bar, a mall, a train station, and a park. The city of St. Louis has used this technology to identify a suspect who had been captured in the park and then returned.
The ACLU argues that the technology is being used in ways that go both ways, “reactive and proactive.” The technology is being used in situations where law enforcement can identify people based on their faces in a certain location and then ask for permission to search their homes. This is “reactive” and, if the person refuses, the law enforcement team has a right to search their home. At the same time, they’re also being used in these situations to search people’s homes after identifying them.
The technology is being used to build out of a reactive approach, and at the same time it is being used in proactive ways to identify people.
There are a variety of ways that law enforcement can identify someone using this technology. Some use it to search people’s homes after they’ve identified them, some use it to identify people who are illegally entering the country (for example, to monitor a foreign trip), and some use it to identify people who are breaking into a building.
The problem is that the technology is still being used to search peoples homes for weapons. Just last month police in San Diego were using it to search people’s homes for weapons. They were searching for a gun hidden inside a home. In fact, the police had even built a new house out of this same technology to search for a gun they thought was hidden in it.
