5 ms·

How is selling to law enforcement any worse than selling facial recognition tech to companies that are also use it to invade my privacy and use the technology t

How is selling to law enforcement any worse than selling facial recognition tech to companies that are also use it to invade my privacy and use the technology to try and squeeze money out of me? Where do you draw the line on ethical usage? In my mind, if you're concerned about the ethics of facial recognition tech, you shouldn't be working in that field at all. It's fundamentally anti-privacy.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Where do you draw the line on ethical usage? One can put me in a box. The other one can’t.
- stryk 8y ago
  Say the government doesn't have it. They can just ask/force/coerce/pressure the tech company that does for your data. Or steal it from them.
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    But it’s more difficult.
    - stryk 8y ago
      Is it? I don't think it would be. In fact, extortion and coercion are fairly easy because there are no rules (this I can attest to from both sides of the equation). The easiest weakness to exploit is always going to be the humans involved, especially in a legitimate business. The only true way to protect data like this is to have it not exist in the first place. Once the data is created - forget it, you might as well assume if Big Bro really wants it, they're going to get it -- because they will, if they don't already have it. It's not a case of if, but when.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    Indeed, and there are a number of tech companies who have fought back against those things (I can think of notable examples where Apple and Google have pushed back against LE/government pressure/attack), and the ubiquity of suing the government to not disclose information compelled by an NSL suggests they aren't the only ones. That's not to say that that's a perfect situation, but (if your threat model is the government) a government which has to take data from unwilling companies is weaker than one that need not do so, because they have the capability to collect the data themselves.
- JackCh 8y ago
  Anything goes, so long as they don't put you in a box? That's very permissive of you.
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    - Scooty 8y ago
      That was literally his whole argument.
- ams6110 8y ago
  One of them is constrained by federal and state constitutions. The other is not.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    One is constrained by laws and the courts and the cops and civil society. The other has a monopoly on violence. I’m not saying one side is good and the other is not. But if we’re drawing lines, the side that can punch me is the one I’m more scared of.
- hueving 8y ago
  >One can put me in a box. The other one can’t. Uber put someone in a box in Phoenix recently.
odbol 8y ago
Companies don't have guns and prisons. Invading your privacy is a little different than being shot or thrown in jail.
Zigurd 8y ago
"How is selling to law enforcement any worse than selling facial recognition tech to...?" is the template of whataboutism. Start somewhere. Go ahead and criticize where they started, but do so by telling us what you think will be more effective start. Otherwise the message is "don't oppose the surveillance state."

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Where do you draw the line on ethical usage? One can put me in a box. The other one can’t.

stryk 8y ago
Say the government doesn't have it. They can just ask/force/coerce/pressure the tech company that does for your data. Or steal it from them.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  But it’s more difficult.
  - stryk 8y ago
    Is it? I don't think it would be. In fact, extortion and coercion are fairly easy because there are no rules (this I can attest to from both sides of the equation). The easiest weakness to exploit is always going to be the humans involved, especially in a legitimate business. The only true way to protect data like this is to have it not exist in the first place. Once the data is created - forget it, you might as well assume if Big Bro really wants it, they're going to get it -- because they will, if they don't already have it. It's not a case of if, but when.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Indeed, and there are a number of tech companies who have fought back against those things (I can think of notable examples where Apple and Google have pushed back against LE/government pressure/attack), and the ubiquity of suing the government to not disclose information compelled by an NSL suggests they aren't the only ones. That's not to say that that's a perfect situation, but (if your threat model is the government) a government which has to take data from unwilling companies is weaker than one that need not do so, because they have the capability to collect the data themselves.
JackCh 8y ago
Anything goes, so long as they don't put you in a box? That's very permissive of you.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
  - Scooty 8y ago
    That was literally his whole argument.
ams6110 8y ago
One of them is constrained by federal and state constitutions. The other is not.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  One is constrained by laws and the courts and the cops and civil society. The other has a monopoly on violence. I’m not saying one side is good and the other is not. But if we’re drawing lines, the side that can punch me is the one I’m more scared of.
hueving 8y ago
>One can put me in a box. The other one can’t. Uber put someone in a box in Phoenix recently.

odbol 8y ago

Companies don't have guns and prisons. Invading your privacy is a little different than being shot or thrown in jail.

Zigurd 8y ago

"How is selling to law enforcement any worse than selling facial recognition tech to...?" is the template of whataboutism. Start somewhere. Go ahead and criticize where they started, but do so by telling us what you think will be more effective start. Otherwise the message is "don't oppose the surveillance state."