4 ms·

While I think there are legitimate concerns about how this technology will be used I also think that there is a bit of FUD here: > losing your social security

• csydas 9y ago
  I'm glad you quoted the second point, as it combined with this part is what I think the EFF finds concerning: > These agencies aren’t just collecting biometrics for their own use; they are also sharing them with other agencies like the FBI and with “private partners” to be used in ways that should concern travelers. This is be big crux of it for me - that the data gets shared outside of the Government, and I'm honestly a bit iffy on it even within Government agencies. Already the false positive rate for many of the identifying methods used in such investigations is too high; a lot of research is being done as to the validity of most forensic analysis regarding fingerprinting (as well as other traditional forensic evidence) and how the justice system is not doing due diligence in their case research, is not being honest with their findings when presenting to court, and public belief in such myths created by TV dramas has dramatically altered jurors' understanding of such evidence. Basically, such data getting shared out that makes it that much easier for law enforcement to concoct a case is disconcerting, to say the least, and I'm not even part of the population that would be most heavily affected by it. If this was just being used in one agency or area of focus (Border Control/TSA), it would be a little less disconcerting. It's not great still, but I suppose it's better than the current passport system for figuring out who you are. (As an expat, my biggest fear is losing my passport and proving who I am in a completely foreign country, much less returning to my own country). To be able to shift my means of identification to something I cannot lose or have stolen from me would be very reassuring, as long as it required multiple live samples to verify. But the fact that this information leaks out by design into a very dangerous world of Law Enforcement that doesn't care to make sure they've got the right guy is frightening. I've dealt with this indirectly as a certain State in the union decided that I was overdue for multiple vehicle violations, even though I had been out of the country for the last 3 years when the incidents took place; it just so happens I share the same name as someone else who is not a very good driver. It took a lot of talking on the phone and finding a way to fax flight information and passport stamps to convince them to stop bothering my parents with letters and phone calls, since their address is my mailing address. I was lucky enough to be able to tell them to "go fuck themselves" with indisputable proof that I was not in the country; others would not nearly be as lucky, that that's pretty frightening.
• AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > Is their theory that someone is going to use a mission impossible face mask to impersonate me and then get me put on a terrorist watch list? Biometrics are basically useless, but they're useless in two separate contexts. Using them for access control is useless because of this: > Last time I checked anyone can take my picture any time I am in public. Lifting someone's fingerprints or face/iris scan is easy, and fooling an automated scanner is not very expensive. Which makes it terrible access control any time gaining access is worth more than e.g. $50. > If anything the machines will be more accurate That is definitively false. Face recognition is one of the things humans evolved to do as a prerequisite to survival. We're really, really good at it. The only reason anyone wants to use machines at all is that they're cheaper and scale better. They are not more accurate. At best they may become as accurate, but that is only a headache because it makes their false positives undesirably convincing. Which brings us to the second context in which biometrics are useless. Trying to match random people off the street to people on some kind of watch list. Because the false positive rate is a few percent, which is several orders of magnitude higher than the ratio of people on the watch list to people in the general population. So the vast majority of people the machine flags will be innocent. Worse, the people the machine thinks look like someone on the list, it always thinks that. So you implement something like this and it ruins the lives of anyone who looks enough like someone on the list for the machines to consistently flag them.
  • saas_co_de 9y ago
    > That is definitively false. We're really, really good at it. machines [are] cheaper and scale better. I am taking the "cheaper and scale better" part into account when I say that machines will be more accurate. If you want to pick a face out of thousands in a crowd or match a single face to a list of thousands of targets facial recognition is going to outperform humans at the same cost. > the false positive rate is a few percent The false positive rate is whatever you configure it to be. The confidence level for flagging someone is a parameter and you can adjust it to whatever false positive rate is acceptable. > the vast majority of people the machine flags will be innocent Every single flag will be reviewed by a human who will decide whether or not to take action based on it. This is no different than a human looking at a list of suspects and then watching for matches, except that the computer can use a much larger suspect list, and give the human hints. > Worse, the people the machine thinks look like someone on the bad list, it always thinks look like them Every time a person is flagged that must be reviewed by a human. If the human marks the flag as a false positive then the algorithm learns from its mistake. The idea that people will be repeatedly flagged is FUD unless they look a lot like the target, which is a problem with humans too: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-identical-twins-murder-confession-met-20160922-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-identic...