Journalist Spots Fugitive Terrorist Using Facial Recognition Software (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0183471364
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/05/30/2125244/journalist-spots-fugitive-terrorist-using-facial-recognition-software
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/30/germany-defeat-red-army-faction-lessons-fight-terrorism
> A German court this week sentenced a member of the Red Army Faction — a far-left terrorist organisation that operated in West Germany in the 1970s and 1980s — to jail. [67-year-old Daniela Klettewas was sentenced to 13 years for armed robberies, [2]according to the Guardian , and "she also faces trial for alleged involvement in three attacks in 1990 and 1994: a failed bombing in front of a bank, a shooting at the US embassy in Bonn and a 1993 bombing at a prison.".] She had remained hidden for decades, and the German police hadn't deployed facial recognition software to catch her. But according to the article a journalist did, to good effect.
>
> Is the ban on the police using it a good thing? Is it good that a journalist was able to track her down using it?
[1] https://slashdot.org/~Bruce66423
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/30/germany-defeat-red-army-faction-lessons-fight-terrorism
"Is the ban on the police using it a good thing?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, just ask [1]Angela Lipps [cnn.com]. And there are other, similar examples of law enforcement misusing facial recognition software.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/29/us/angela-lipps-ai-facial-recognition
Re: (Score:2)
> . And there are other, similar examples of law enforcement misusing facial recognition software.
What is the logic there? How do you get from "police have misused it" to "police should be banned from using it"? I feel a few steps are missing.
Are you going to ban everything that has ever been misused? I'm looking to see somebody make a better argument that that. Or is "truthiness" enough?
Insufficient and misleading data (Score:3)
If you want to make the case that government should use facial recognition, you'll need some real data.
* One success ... how many false positives -- how many people were wrongly tagged? How many false negatives -- how many times was this woman seen but not tagged? Was she a hermit and this was her first public appearance in 40 years?
* How recent were the pictures of her which were the basis of her being tagged? Do you really want us to believe the only success story you have is based on artificially aging her photograph by 40 years?
No, this is not a good thing (Score:1)
Facial recognition will get abused if legal. What that journalist does is highly problematic and probably illegal as well. Or it may just be legal because Klette is a "public figure". But allow this for general use and they will start doing profiles on everybody. A large part of a free society is that it is hard to find out what individual people do.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize a large part of a journalists job is to investigate, don't you? It's not illegal to track someone down, no matter how long it's been.
Re: (Score:1)
GDPR.
Re: (Score:2)
> GDPR.
Could fall under the significant public interest exemption, and relevant EU/German law.
Re: (Score:2)
> You realize a large part of a journalists job is to investigate, don't you?
This is true. But the police are restricted from using some of the tools that journalists (at least this one) used. That's backwards. I voted for the local sheriff. I didn't vote for some journalist who may be working with an agenda*. We have a principle of equal protection under the law. Not equal protection at the hands of the press.
*In this case, it appears not to be so.
Re: (Score:2)
No such thing as sheriffs in Germany.
Screw Pokémon Go (Score:4, Interesting)
Place public bounties on fugitives. Create a private app that constantly scans faces. Profit.
Why do Leftists always lose? (Score:2)
Damien Walters has argued they don't play to win, they are too wimpy, too intellectual, fail to engage effectively with the existing "map of power"; the structures of institutional politics. To change the system, one must first learn the rules, master the position, material, and initiative, and defeat the opponent at their own game before being able to dismantle it. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Well this Red Army Faction certainly was not too wimpy and kudos to the reporter, such a good deed, about as
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXoRVAEwLqU
Whats wrong with living in a small town? (Score:2)
The fundamental argument for visible, public facial recognition is not about creating a dystopian surveillance state; it is about recreating the high-trust environment of a small town on a larger scale.
In a traditional small town, people leave their front doors unlocked, shops don’t have security screens, and bus drivers don’t sit behind bulletproof glass. This layout thrives not because small towns are magically free of people with criminal intent, but because of a simple
Yes, the ban on police using it is a good thing (Score:1, Informative)
Next question.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Is it good that a journalist was able to track her down using it?
On the one hand, it is good that justice was finally served.
On the other:
-Vigilante Justice: taking the law into ones own hands when the police/government can't deliver justice is a cool trope in film, but harmful to society in reality.
-Outsourcing actions that the police/government are forbidden from taking to private citizens/corporations is the wrong solution. If a thing is important to do, we should re-examine why we forbid the government/police from doing it -not simply find a workaround where someone
It depends on whether she was still active (Score:2)
> Is it good that a journalist was able to track her down using it?
It depends. Was she repentant, inactive, and not causing trouble these days?
Or was she active in recruiting and training of today's radical provocateurs or operatives, other otherwise involved in their direct actions?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Next question.
What multiple of that 13 year sentence should the journalist get for violating the privacy of that poor terrorist?
Re: (Score:3)
> Also funny that the alpha males always go straight to the police and government when they feel harmed or at risk. And they fall over themselves to give government and police limitless power at the slightest provocation. Curious!
I'm not sure if that's true, but it would make sense if it was. Alpha males (ignoring there is no such thing) are the most restricted by laws, because they are the most likely to get their way if there was no enforcement of laws (through the natural law of might makes right). So it shouldn't be surprising that they'd be the least likely to let something slide without getting the police involved to get the same outcome they could have done themselves if the laws allowed them to use their own physical force.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's alpha vs. non-alpha here.
I think alpha males are bold. They are inclined to action, and to being assertive. Whether the law can help them or not (and possibly whether the law is even on their side) is less of a concern than driving the action forward.
On the other hand, men who go to the police when they feel they are wronged could be one of two kinds, neither of which seem exclusively "alpha" to me. They could simply be civilized, wishing to avail themselves of peaceful means of addressing
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a bot. I meant what I wrote sincerely, without a desire to display satire.
And I'm almost always on your side, rsilvergun. Not this time, apparently.
Even one's friends disagee with one sometimes. Nothing to be embarrassed about.
Re: (Score:2)
> for a 67 year old woman living in hiding
Suspected terrorist. Yes.
> Also funny that the alpha males always go straight to the police and government
With great power comes great responsibility. I don't think you'd like living in a society where might equals right.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't recall any mention of sacrificing all of anyone's privacy or freedom. Why are you going to such lengths to defend a violent terrorist? And bringing up "alpha males" as if that weren't some twisted right-wing fantasy based on a misunderstanding of wolf behavior.
Re: (Score:1)
And no, it's not good that a journalist was able to track her down using it. Or at least, regulations that prevent police from using it should also prevent them from using it by proxy via some third party. The facial recognition should be thrown out as inadmissible in court.
Re: (Score:2)
> The facial recognition should be thrown out as inadmissible in court.
Lucky we got an anonymous tipoff
- the police.
Re:Yes, the ban on police using it is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
A surveillance state is too big a price to pay for catching a few bad apples here and there. As history has proven again and again, the purpose of the surveillance state is the good apples.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a surveillance state if we are doing it to ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The ban on private individuals is a bad idea...
Private individuals, PI's, Skip Tracers and reporters SHOULD be able to use such software freely. Police, and the Government NEED to provide reasonable suspicion to a court and get a writ.
This kind of tool can be incredibly useful, or incredibly invasive. The real question is who(m?) do you trust as the gate keeper. I'd nominate the EU data protection people but there is no agency or entity in
the US I'd trust not to monetize the data regardless of law.