[HN Gopher] Live facial recognition cameras may become 'commonpl...
___________________________________________________________________
Live facial recognition cameras may become 'commonplace' as police
use soars
Author : c-oreills
Score : 101 points
Date : 2025-05-24 17:03 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| Teever wrote:
| This is unavoidable and the only way to mitigate the negatives is
| sousveillance.[0]
|
| I reject claims by law enforcement that this will lead to making
| their lives less safe and that they will need to take steps to
| mitigate it including wearing masks and not giving out their
| names.[1]
|
| In small towns of old every knew the police and judge, where they
| lived and which schools their children attended because their
| kids may have even sat next to them in class. This was fine and
| served as a moderating force for the worst impulses of law
| enforcement.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance [1]
| https://calgaryherald.com/news/calgary-police-service-doxing...
| swayvil wrote:
| Who gets to be anonymous and who doesn't? Cops or regular
| people? Mods or users?
|
| And there's the separation between public and private
| conversation too. Where do we draw that line?
|
| I had a post removed the other day. The moderator's identity
| (or psuedoidentity) remained hidden. Mine didn't of course. The
| conversation over his motive and actions remained hidden from
| public view too.
|
| And that seems bad to me.
|
| So ya, that line.
| perching_aix wrote:
| The sousveillance GP suggests seems to address exactly that
| kind of asymmetry, if even just partially. Or do I
| misunderstand what you're getting at?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| This was true of pretty much everyone in small towns of old, or
| even in city neighborhoods of old. Everyone knew each other, or
| at least knew a stranger when they saw one. People saw who was
| talking to whom, and gossiped about it.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| People will be more likely to carry surveillance capitalism
| devices than devices that store data for some idea of public
| good.
|
| This world being us closer to the solution: build ecosystems
| where data is stored in s way that is owned by the community
| rather than a company.
| perching_aix wrote:
| In Russia of all places, internet companies maintain the city
| webcams and locals can tune in on-demand. Had a Discord mate
| show it to me. Although from a hosting and technical
| standpoint, this is still squarely in the centralized
| ownership terroritory, but the idea is there.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Not sure how well that would work.
|
| When Yugoslavia disintegrated, and old ethnic hatreds flared
| up, neighbors for decades, would suddenly rat out or attack
| their neighbors. Same with Rwanda.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| I don't think sousveillance will do a thing to avoid the
| following scenario:
|
| The criminal underclass becomes even more 'under' as fairly
| large numbers (integer percentage of the population) of people
| are forced to avoid known camera locations. All of a sudden
| someone's kid can't take the bus to work/school because they
| have a failure to appear warrant stemming from apprehension in
| a flashmob or participation in a sideshow or some other
| 'lifestyle' crime associated with certain ethicities, which
| inevitably adds to the political spice level. Essentially
| everyone in certain areas will start wearing shiesties/masks,
| which is unlikely to ease tensions. Involvement with the
| criminal justice system will now carry even more of a 'weight'
| as being flagged by the system can happen anywhere, not just in
| traffic stops.
|
| You'll have massive complaints when accountability comes
| crashing down on the significant population of Americans who
| are frequent fliers with the criminal justice system. This will
| be true even if cameras only alert on known faces in preloaded
| databases (e.g. active warrants), something that's going to be
| pretty hard to argue against with most of the standard
| arguments used against license plate readers -- hard to argue a
| violation of privacy if it only alerts on known bad guys and
| doesn't keep any history.
|
| And in terms of sousveillance, plenty of people would happily
| stand up and claim credit for a system that alerts only on
| known 'bad guys,' so deanonymizing them won't work. Further,
| it's really hard for politicians argue against it when the
| counterargument is "you literally want to protect known
| murderers, kidnappers, and child molesters from being
| apprehended."
| Oarch wrote:
| Will they ban all types of face coverings? I couldn't imagine
| this happening in the UK, it's too culturally sensitive.
|
| In which case, what good does it do?
| n8cpdx wrote:
| Plenty of criminals don't bother covering their faces. Even
| when they plan their crime in advance and know there are
| cameras.
| FredPret wrote:
| What about gait recognition
| ris wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_of_Silly_Walks
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/1105/
| titzer wrote:
| Yes, except "law" enforcement. In scare quotes because there
| will be no law.
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| This will make murder mystery shows harder to write. Even now
| they usually put in some line about how they don't have traffic
| camera coverage in the critical area, and they ignore getting
| location data from suspects' phones.
| tough wrote:
| AI generated deepfakes solve this you can't trust the cameras
| footage now
| cortesoft wrote:
| I have always thought that futuristic police state movies and
| shows underestimate how oppressive a fully capable, automated
| surveillance apparatus could be.
|
| Movies like Minority Report try to show the surveillance state
| as being a struggle to overcome, but it is still always too
| easy. Computers don't get distracted, scale perfectly, and can
| run 24-7. You can't just sneak away with your head down,
| because the machines would have tracked you into a place, would
| know exactly who is in every building, and would be able to
| associate the person exiting a building with the person who
| went in. They wont forget.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Look at how quickly the cops tracked Luigi Mangione. It's not
| clear how much face recognition (as opposed to manual search)
| contributed to that, but even for a person who wore a mask,
| all it took was a slip up where he took the mask off in one
| place.
|
| I am not saying this is a bad thing in the case of a pre-
| planned murder. But it does make it obvious how hard it might
| be to evade notice in the future, assuming you are doing it
| for more legitimate privacy reasons.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you go into a building and change clothes, they will not
| remember. Of course, we're assuming that the place you went
| into does not have cameras accessible to the system. At some
| point, building codes/permits will start requiring cameras
| specifically to feed into this system.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Changing clothes does nothing against gait recognition.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Change your shoes with a rock/tack in one of them. Tie
| your laces together. There's all sorts of ways to change
| your gait
| cortesoft wrote:
| Well, then the system could flag you because it doesn't
| know who you are. Someone walks out of a building with a
| gait that doesn't match the gait of anyone known to have
| entered the building. It would follow the person to the
| next building and the next, until it figures out who they
| are via the process of elimination (or if it see you go
| back to your normal gait). Then, the system would note
| (and store forever) that you have multiple gaits, and
| would never fall for the trick again.
| dylan604 wrote:
| you have way more confidence in AI than I do. "never fall
| for the trick again" bwahahaha. it can't even tell the
| same answer twice, or tell you the correct answer the
| first time for everything.
| cortesoft wrote:
| This wouldn't have to be AI. I think you are
| underestimating how good tracking systems already are,
| and will continue to improve, and become cheaper and
| cheaper to deploy.
| cortesoft wrote:
| If the system sees someone exit a building and that person
| does not match someone the system saw enter the building,
| the person could be flagged and tracked as possibly being
| someone else who entered the building. Once the system
| accounts for everyone else who entered the building (by
| seeing when they exit), the system would be able to
| correlate that the unknown person who exited is the same as
| the only unaccounted for person who exited
| dylan604 wrote:
| If that building in an apartment building? Someone from
| an apartment building might not enter before leaving on
| the same day. How far back in the camera's history does
| the system look for that person entering?
| cortesoft wrote:
| This is the point... computers can watch 24/7 and never
| forget or get distracted. The system could look weeks
| back, and will never forget a person.
| dylan604 wrote:
| until someone finds that certain cameras are unavailable,
| or that something has obstructed the view for a
| significant enough time to cause reasonable doubt
| anjel wrote:
| In Los Angeles, a firebug sets a morning fire. 4 hours later
| and 50 miles away, they set another fire. The firebug is
| apprehended late in the afternoon. Good policework, I wonder
| how they did that. /s
| masfuerte wrote:
| A similar thing happened with automatic number place recognition.
| With no public debate the police built a nationwide network of
| ANPR cameras. The Information Commissioner opined that it was
| probably illegal. But rather than recommending prosecutions, he
| recommended that the law be changed to legitimise the police law
| breaking.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| How are you harmed by it?
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| The neat thing about these databases is that you'll never
| know. Can a lender buy access to them? How about your abusive
| ex, who knows and/or is a cop? The stalker who somehow knew
| just where that woman would be when he killed her, was that
| just bad luck or did he slip someone a few hundred bucks or
| buy the data from a data broker?
|
| There's a version of an answer to this where access to search
| these systems is so tightly logged that we never need to
| wonder about the answer to these questions. I doubt most of
| the systems being deployed worldwide are anywhere near that
| standard.
| allthenopes25 wrote:
| > Can a lender buy access to them?
|
| In the UK (as in the case we're discussing)? No.
|
| > How about your abusive ex, who knows and/or is a cop?
|
| Like all other PNC access, this gets logged. Police
| genuinely do get disciplined and fired for abusing the PNC.
| Random officers cannot randomly look up plates on ANPR:
| only traffic police or more senior officers can and it,
| like every other access, gets logged.
|
| The Data Protection Act allows us to find out who has been
| disciplined, demoted or fired, and the Met for example
| answer those.
|
| > The stalker who somehow knew just where that woman would
| be when he killed her, was that just bad luck or did he
| slip someone a few hundred bucks or buy the data from a
| data broker?
|
| Data brokers do not get PNC data in the UK. And you're
| imagining an unnecessarily fantastical, conspiratorial
| explanation of a stalker who "somehow knew where" some
| woman would be, when stalkers clearly manage this
| adequately by, like, ordinary stalking skills (and are
| rarely unknown to their victims in the first place; they
| usually have knowledge that was volunteered or was acquired
| firsthand). Women don't need this imaginary scenario to
| feel fear: old-fashioned hiding in a car and waiting will
| do it. More high-tech: hiding an AirTag will do it.
| Following on Facebook will do it.
|
| Also imagining third party violence that happens due to
| police data access is irrelevant: police officers
| themselves commit violence. Probably start there.
|
| > There's a version of an answer to this where access to
| search these systems is so tightly logged that we never
| need to wonder about the answer to these questions. I doubt
| most of the systems being deployed worldwide are anywhere
| near that standard.
|
| They are in the UK.
|
| Are face recognition cameras a bad thing in the hands of
| the UK police? Probably sometimes yes. But these
| conspiratorial hypotheses don't need airing.
|
| FWIW, I still think the US perception of the UK
| "surveillance state" is largely misplaced and is based on
| poor journalism about simple numbers of cameras that has
| never been adequately put into context.
|
| These facial recognition cameras cannot be instantly used
| on some big national police surveillance mechanism because
| in essence no such system exists: the vast majority of CCTV
| cameras in the UK are not operated by police at all.
|
| Most cameras are operated by local and regional councils
| (access for which the police would need to issue warrants
| or make detailed subject/time requests) or private
| businesses (ditto).
|
| And most of the huge number of cameras the police imagine
| aren't connected to anything more complex than Ring. Even
| with Ring footage, British police find that if they want to
| use doorbell camera footage, it is faster to arrange a time
| to visit the owner or at best knock on the door of the
| householder and ask for it to be emailed or copied to an SD
| card. They do not have broad instant access, much less
| broad, instant, warrantless access.
|
| The biggest risk is not outright abuse but
| malfeasance/misfeasance overuse, much more dull-witted,
| instant and humdrum: for example some of the operators
| perceive the desire not to walk past one of them to be
| evidence of criminal intent, and they use that as a
| justification for a stop and search.
| terribleperson wrote:
| In the U.S., law enforcement misusing their access to
| existing surveillance technologies is already reality.
| Enlarging the capabilities they have access to, when
| they're proven to misuse what they have, isn't ideal.
| kotaKat wrote:
| > Can a lender buy access to them? How about your abusive
| ex, who knows and/or is a cop? The stalker who somehow knew
| just where that woman would be when he killed her, was that
| just bad luck or did he slip someone a few hundred bucks or
| buy the data from a data broker?
|
| Good news! Basically... yes! https://drndata.com
|
| Lenders are already buying that data by the boatload along
| with everyone else throwing cameras up.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Religious registries were a harmless little census thing in
| Germany... well until 1933 at least. Once the system is in
| place and the data collected you need very strong
| institutions to protect the people
|
| The 23 and me fuck up is also a good example, data is
| forever, laws and morales are very temporary
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I don't know for sure since we don't know who has access to
| that data, but if I were an auto insurance company, I would
| love to know which of my customers tend to go out in
| inclement weather, or after midnight when the roads are
| statistically more dangerous.
|
| Took me less than a minute to think of that example. I'm sure
| there's more ways that information could be used against my
| interests.
| allthenopes25 wrote:
| But you don't need access to ANPR for this, particularly.
|
| You just ask the customer to tell you, perhaps with one of
| those driving monitoring apps/devices that people use to
| lower premiums. Pretty commonplace now.
|
| FWIW, having worked on car insurance applications, most
| insurance companies do not much care about microtargeting
| consumers in this way. Beyond looking at their claims
| history and the kind of car they are driving, it is a
| large-scale numbers game, and the way you know which
| customers, for example, tend to go out more at night when
| it is dangerous is to look at their age (more likely very
| young) and gender (more likely male). And then you just
| make them all pay more. There's no particular reason to get
| any more forensic than that; it's more costly and it
| probably doesn't deliver much extra value.
|
| And if young drivers complain, "hey, I am an excellent safe
| driver, I've done my advanced test, and I don't take
| risks", you say: "Great. Use one of our driving monitoring
| apps or devices, prove it and we'll happily give you lower
| premiums!"
|
| I could tell you a couple of horror stories I am not going
| to repeat on the internet because they are old news now and
| times have changed, but I really must say, it's not
| necessary to imagine what government data could be used for
| in the hands of insurance companies: it's much more likely
| that insurance companies will simply incentivise customers
| to hand over the data. People who want lower premiums will
| jump through all sorts of hoops to get them.
| neumann wrote:
| https://www.9news.com.au/national/brett-johnson-court-
| update...
|
| Pretend you are in op sec for personal information and you'll
| quickly come up with a dozen examples. Ranging from
| individuals abusing access for nefarious reasons [1],
| institutions using it to reward hack kpis to what's happening
| in America with illegal ICE arrests.
| galacticaactual wrote:
| What say all of you who worked on the AI that powers this?
| kunzhi wrote:
| "When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead
| and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after
| you have had your technical success."
|
| - Robert J. Oppenheimer
| nxm wrote:
| If they didn't, others would have.
| beloch wrote:
| We may need laws that treat these cameras as something like a
| wiretap. They can be there streaming their data to data stores,
| but accessing that data would require warrants that are limited
| in scope. The data could be used for answering specific, legally
| justifiable questions, not for everyday surveillance and
| profiling.
|
| e.g. It would be valid to use these cameras to answer who was at
| a crime scene, when, and where did they go that day. It would not
| be valid to reconstruct a web of everyday associations stretching
| back months for someone just because an officer didn't like the
| way they look.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| I think we need to understand and accept that this stuff is
| inevitable as the technology gets cheaper. If the cops don't do
| it themselves, private industry will do it for them and sell it
| or hand the data over as a "public service." The only way out
| of this is to make an affirmative series of laws that make the
| construction of anything resembling a tracking database illegal
| and heavily-fined, but we're not there. Even privacy-friendly
| Europe isn't close to putting those restrictions on its police.
| dylan604 wrote:
| No private industry will do anything without it being
| profitable. Handing it over as a public service would mean
| they are making money with that data in other ways. What
| would be those other ways? I can't think of anything that's
| not dystopian hell, so maybe to make that not legal???
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| The answer is that these databases are hugely valuable for
| targeted advertising and marketing, and if they're
| relatively cheap to build then that makes everything even
| easier. Law enforcement gets access because in most
| countries the law allows them to make data requests to
| existing companies, and "we aren't going to help the cops
| solve a murder" is bad PR when you've already collected the
| relevant data.
| BirAdam wrote:
| Sufficient tax breaks would likely do it.
| bbarnett wrote:
| This has already happened, and the police and others pay
| for access.
| cluckindan wrote:
| > private industry will do it for them and sell it
|
| This is already how it works in many cities.
| causality0 wrote:
| One of the inevitable consequences of the legal conceit that
| images belong to the person who owns the camera, not the
| person who owns the face.
| ghaff wrote:
| People do have publicity rights for their image being used
| in some contexts such as an advertisement. But not sure
| what rights to your image would even look like in the
| context of random public photographs or video in general.
| pilingual wrote:
| First, in the US this type of thing violates the fourth
| amendment as the Institute for Justice will prove in court
| with ALPRs. It _could_ be set up such that it does not, but
| for whatever reason these companies are greedy and make it
| broad rather than narrow in scope.
|
| Second, I just won't patronize your establishment, shopping
| center, or municipality if you do. I'd like to go to the UK,
| but because of this policy I will not. Menlo Park pushed back
| against ALPRs: I'll go there. I went to a different ski shop
| because the one closest to me has an ALPR. And so on.
| microsoftedging wrote:
| Genuine question, what's wrong with ALPR? (Coming from
| someone in the UK)
| alasarmas wrote:
| So, this may be different in the UK, but in the US a
| large majority of travel occurs in private cars, so
| omnipresence of ALPRs is close to collecting data on
| everybody and knowing what everybody is doing at all
| times.
|
| One might assume from a game-theoretical perspective that
| this is no different from living in a village where
| essentially everyone knows everyone's business, and the
| knowledge that that knowledge is mutual prevents people
| from acting badly with the information that they have.
| However, in the situation where a small minority of
| people have knowledge about everyone else, and not vice
| versa, this can give that minority unearned power over
| everyone else.
|
| In practice, it doesn't feel great. I hope this answered
| your question.
| like_any_other wrote:
| That was the NSAs legal theory, wasn't it? That they can
| collect all the data they want, but it only counts as
| "wiretapping" when a human looks at it.
|
| It's a theory that turns my stomach, frankly.
| vladms wrote:
| Let's not ignore though that there are some people with some
| control. These systems do not appear because of a small
| conspiracy but because a lot of people think they are OK and
| don't bother to understand the issues and organize to fight them.
|
| I know an ex-policemen that is a good man but hated working in
| the police because the "public" was aggressive and were
| challenging them constantly (would not name the country or
| specific stories). From their point of view "automatization"
| would make police job safer and easier, and convincing them of
| the contrary has few chances.
|
| The more "not-connected" is the society (with people not having a
| friend that is "a policeman", "a firefighter", "a teacher", etc),
| the more problems we will have no matter the technology...
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Why would I want to be friends with someone who murders with
| impunity? Who considers "the public" someone to control? Who
| considers themselves above question?
| blooalien wrote:
| > Why would I want to be friends with someone who murders
| with impunity? Who considers "the public" someone to control?
| Who considers themselves above question?
|
| Because they're not _all_ that way, and some of them still do
| genuinely try to "Protect and Serve"? And then you have the
| others mentioned "fire fighters", "teachers", etc, again
| _many_ of whom are just tryin ' to do some good in the world.
| Hunt all those _good_ ones down and hold them up as
| _examples_ of how the rest _should_ be trying to do their
| jobs. Just complaining about the bad ones and acting like
| they 're the _only_ ones certainly doesn 't make the
| situation any better for them _or_ us.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| The Unites States just approved what, 20 billion, to build
| infrastructure for a new national police people identification
| unit? Just like the patriot act after 9/11, the giant new 'ICE'
| budget is going to transform America, and not in a good way. And
| that 20 billion additional for internal policing is never going
| away, just look at the TSA. And mission creep will set in, just
| look at FISA courts and 'parallel reconstruction' now being the
| norm and no one cares.
|
| I tell my kids this isn't normal, this isn't what the US used to
| be like, but they don't know any different, so to them giving up
| just a little bit of this (like we did with the Patriot Act)
| isn't a big deal.
| blooalien wrote:
| > I tell my kids this isn't normal, this isn't what the US used
| to be like, but they don't know any different, so to them
| giving up just a little bit of this (like we did with the
| Patriot Act) isn't a big deal.
|
| That's why books like "1984" used to be _required_ reading in
| grade-school Literature class (fully supported policy by the
| History and Civics class teachers), and the "messier" bits of
| our nation's history were taught openly as "mistakes to be
| learned from so that we _never_ repeat them " way back when I
| was a kid and dinosaurs still roamed the Earth...
|
| The idea was (as one teacher explained to me) that we would
| learn the dangers to watch out for, and as good little
| patriots, we'd always be ready to defend the freedoms of our
| great nation whether threatened from without or within.
| amelius wrote:
| What is this slippery stuff on this slope?
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Technology seems destined to bring everything to light. My only
| wish is that those in positions of power are the first to be
| dragged into the light.
| ivape wrote:
| So, are you thinking what I'm thinking? Bodycams on
| congressmen/women and senators? If you're on the job, the
| bodycam stays on.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Public facial recognition and ALPRS database. It would be
| chaos.
| latentsea wrote:
| Power is protected.
| smcin wrote:
| The US's first "Cop City", the $117m Atlanta Public Safety
| Training Center, officially opened April 29, 2025, despite years
| of opposition and a suppressed effort to get a referendum against
| it on the ballot. [0] Did not get any discussion here on HN at
| all. [1] characterizes it as "a massive, militarized police
| training compound in the Weelaunee Forest in the southeast
| outskirts of Atlanta" and lists its security partners as Flock
| Safety (automated license plate reader (ALPR) vendor, #58
| fastest-growing company) and Motorola Solutions. [1] lists its
| Corporate and Nonprofit Foundation Donors and Sponsors: finance,
| real-estate companies, Acuity Brands, AT&T, Cushman & Wakefield,
| KPMG, McKesson, Invesco, Rollins, Synovus and others, Arthur
| Blank Foundation, The Bierenbaum Family Foundation, Connolly
| Family Foundation, The Goizueta Foundation, of Atlanta, Robert W.
| Woodruff Foundation, of Atlanta, O. Wayne Rollins Foundation, of
| Atlanta, J. Bulow Campbell Foundation and others.
|
| (FYI the parent Guardian article is about England and Wales, not
| the US. There is a similar level of surveillance cameras but
| comparing use of force to the US, police in England and Wales
| only fatally shot 2 people in 2023/24 [2], 24 deaths in or
| following police custody and a further 60 fatalities defined as
| other deaths during or following police contact. for which [2b]
| is a report with demographics.)
|
| [0]: "Atlanta's controversial 'Cop City' training center opens
| after years of fighting" https://www.the-
| independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/at...
|
| [1]: "The Companies and Foundations behind Cop City"
| https://afsc.org/companies-and-foundations-behind-cop-city
|
| [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/319287/deaths-during-
| or-...
|
| [2b]: https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/our-work/research-and-
| stati...
| octo888 wrote:
| This will achieve 3 things:
|
| 1. No reduction in crime
|
| 2. A huge chilling effect on the innocent population, further
| subduing people and paving the way for more authoritarianism.
|
| 3. Large amounts of profit for a private company
| smegma2 wrote:
| How would it chill things that aren't crimes without deterring
| actual crimes? This seems like a convenient set of assertions
| if you're a priori against surveillance. You're also missing
| the aspect of _catching_ crime rather than deterring it.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| Perhaps not coincidentally, that's the same thing that
| generally happens with gun control laws.
|
| They're all built on a flawed principle - that criminals don't
| have and will not use workarounds. In reality, only law-abiding
| people have no workarounds.
| latentsea wrote:
| Well... as someone living in a country with strict gun
| control laws who marvels at the dumb shit that goes on in
| America, I can say for certain that at least here the average
| run of the mill crazies don't have access to firearms and
| thank bloody goodness.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Tyranny can always come. All you can do is be ready for it to
| come to you.
| caditinpiscinam wrote:
| Cities are banning face coverings too.
|
| https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-ski-mask-ban-bala...
|
| At this rate they should just make everyone wear a big QR code
| containing our names and social security numbers on our shirts. A
| sort of license plate for people. Would save on processing power
| at least.
| tippytippytango wrote:
| False positives for this tech is absurdly high and law
| enforcement treats it like it's perfect. That's enough of a
| reason to make it illegal.
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| too bad im not a female who wears a burka.
|
| closest thing we have workable day to day are gaiters (balaclavas
| imo don't work outside cold winter months, gaiters you can where
| in hot weather too - get it wet, it'll shed heat)
|
| still doesn't help with the eyes. or your gait. and face masks
| have people rolling their eyes at you and likely will for the
| next 5-10 years, despite sorta working if you're sick.
| hd4 wrote:
| https://archive.is/2wkD0
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-24 23:00 UTC)