3 ms·

A face, or a fingerprint, or a social security number, is like a username, not like a password. Separately, simple facial recognition cameras can be fooled wit

by jwatte 10y ago

A face, or a fingerprint, or a social security number, is like a username, not like a password. Separately, simple facial recognition cameras can be fooled with printed photographs. Will 3d printing in elastomers let us fool whatever countermeasures are being developed against that? Separately, we need to get started on building a society where we all are comfortable and safe without privacy, because privacy is dying. Trying to save it is like trying to provide subsidies for horse carriage manufacturers in the age of the car.

maxander 10y ago
I don't see how your first two points are relevant to the article- it never discusses face detection use as a password, only as a means of indexing into social networks. ("Only.") Regarding your third point, sadly, such a society is still so far away as to be essentially inconceivable. Most people don't trust their governments, and only the most forward-thinking segments of society are even tolerant of the range of cultural, sexual, and religious lifestyles that real humans live. We're going to have to find ways to subsidize those horse carriages for a long time to come.
woodman 10y ago
> ...we need to get started on building a society... Well the "comfortable" part of that makes it impossible, because of the whole chilling effect thing surround private thoughts and activities necessary for building a basic personality. The "safe" part is certainly doable though, but fans of government prosecution will be disappointed. I don't care if the Girl Scouts of America have a copy of my browser history, because they can't do anything with it - but an agent of the state certainly can. Not because there is anything presently illegal in the browser history, but the simple combination of information + uncertainty + power = bad time for the lesser-thans.
- xapata 10y ago
  But if the Girl Scouts also have a copy, that could help protect you if a state agent accuses you of something. The danger is a state monopoly on information.
  - woodman 10y ago
    > The danger is a state monopoly on information. While the monopoly makes the situation worse, what you are suggesting depends on the state being subject to some form of universal justice - which isn't the case. States pull that sort of crap all the time and rarely are there any consequences for bald-faced lying to the public.
existencebox 10y ago
"... privacy is dying ..." Even without discussing the merits of the idea, this is one of the most defeatist sentiments I've heard lately, and I'm an eternal pessimist. Privacy will not be dead so long as I have any say in how I live my life. Call me a tin foil hatter, but anonymizing/removing my internet/societal fingerprint, preferring higher anonymity when performing transactions, and taking steps to minimize my overall public profile are all actions I can, will, and do take until the day I die to sustain my personal privacy, and I will take any opportunities I have to impact change to support privacy on a broader scale. Again, while the intrinsic benefits of privacy are discussed at length by those far more able to eloquently defend it than I, I instead make a far more tractable statement: My quest privacy will be dead when I am, and if that makes me isomorphic to a Luddite, I readily accept that hypocrisy. (Being progress seeking in almost any other domain I can think of.) There is too much benefit to privacy given the current power asymmetries, social climate, and frank human nature for me to ever give it up, for myself and others. (as a postscript, your statement re: biomentrics as UID is absolutely right, albeit a bit repeated ad nauseum within HN nowadays, I just wanted to enunciate my distaste for any sentiment suggesting we accept a loss of privacy)

by jwatte 10y ago

maxander 10y ago

I don't see how your first two points are relevant to the article- it never discusses face detection use as a password, only as a means of indexing into social networks. ("Only.") Regarding your third point, sadly, such a society is still so far away as to be essentially inconceivable. Most people don't trust their governments, and only the most forward-thinking segments of society are even tolerant of the range of cultural, sexual, and religious lifestyles that real humans live. We're going to have to find ways to subsidize those horse carriages for a long time to come.

woodman 10y ago

> ...we need to get started on building a society... Well the "comfortable" part of that makes it impossible, because of the whole chilling effect thing surround private thoughts and activities necessary for building a basic personality. The "safe" part is certainly doable though, but fans of government prosecution will be disappointed. I don't care if the Girl Scouts of America have a copy of my browser history, because they can't do anything with it - but an agent of the state certainly can. Not because there is anything presently illegal in the browser history, but the simple combination of information + uncertainty + power = bad time for the lesser-thans.

xapata 10y ago
But if the Girl Scouts also have a copy, that could help protect you if a state agent accuses you of something. The danger is a state monopoly on information.
- woodman 10y ago
  > The danger is a state monopoly on information. While the monopoly makes the situation worse, what you are suggesting depends on the state being subject to some form of universal justice - which isn't the case. States pull that sort of crap all the time and rarely are there any consequences for bald-faced lying to the public.

existencebox 10y ago

"... privacy is dying ..." Even without discussing the merits of the idea, this is one of the most defeatist sentiments I've heard lately, and I'm an eternal pessimist. Privacy will not be dead so long as I have any say in how I live my life. Call me a tin foil hatter, but anonymizing/removing my internet/societal fingerprint, preferring higher anonymity when performing transactions, and taking steps to minimize my overall public profile are all actions I can, will, and do take until the day I die to sustain my personal privacy, and I will take any opportunities I have to impact change to support privacy on a broader scale. Again, while the intrinsic benefits of privacy are discussed at length by those far more able to eloquently defend it than I, I instead make a far more tractable statement: My quest privacy will be dead when I am, and if that makes me isomorphic to a Luddite, I readily accept that hypocrisy. (Being progress seeking in almost any other domain I can think of.) There is too much benefit to privacy given the current power asymmetries, social climate, and frank human nature for me to ever give it up, for myself and others. (as a postscript, your statement re: biomentrics as UID is absolutely right, albeit a bit repeated ad nauseum within HN nowadays, I just wanted to enunciate my distaste for any sentiment suggesting we accept a loss of privacy)