12 ms·
It's just another use-case for them I suppose. Interesting to see how, as tech companies become bigger, they go the same way as companies in all the other ind
by tinktank 8y ago
It's just another use-case for them I suppose. Interesting to see how, as tech companies become bigger, they go the same way as companies in all the other industries. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.
- alexnewman 8y agoStupid question. I actually am a big fan of no borders but what's wrong with this? Seems like America entering the new millennium. Edited also why was this downvoted?
- stonecraftwolf 8y agoBecause constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused. And because next is using facial recognition to monitor other groups — LGBT, activists, political opponents. That is extremely frightening coming from an administration that is increasingly using violent and elimitionist language to levy completely made up charges at immigrants, LGBT, and particularly political opponents.
- Bahamut 8y agoSomething that doesn’t get publicized but is as onerous is that Amazon is recruiting engineers to work on facial recognition tech that was implied to be used for their warehouse workers[0]. [0] Amazon recruiter emails that coworkers and I have gotten from Amazon. These emails had a very heavy implication that that particular group was using the facial recognition tech for this purpose.
- alexnewman 8y agoWhy does it matter that this is automated? Is your issue the automation?
- noobermin 8y agoDo people have a right to not be identified in public? In public, your right to privacy doesn't protect you from having your picture being taken. Then, what if someone identifies you from your picture? How about if they use a CV system to speed it up? What's the argument here? BTW, as I expand upon below, I'm against surveillance of private communications, I think we all are. As far as I understand it, this is not surveillance, this is identification technology, which is different.
- taurath 8y agoIt’s one thing for you to go out in public, it’s another thing when “public” follows you around like a private investigator snapping photos of you everywhere. The right to privacy is the right to be able to go about your business unimpeded. It’s a core idea on which the bill of rights was founded. It’s not written of course, but I’d argue it’s a fundamental human right.
- philwelch 8y agoThe Bill of Rights was written in an era when most Americans lived in small towns where everyone was recognized everywhere. The anonymity of urban and metropolitan life is perhaps a happy accident, but it wouldn’t have been perceived as a fundamental right to people living in a predominantly rural country.
- m741 8y agoThe Bill of Rights was also written in an era without systematic government ID or national police system, when you could live or travel in near perfect anonymity if you just left the small town where everyone knew you. So I think the perception goes both ways.
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoAdditionally, the bill of rights was written in an era when there were no laws about immigration to the US at all. The US had completely open borders at that time, anybody could move there if they chose.
- alexnewman 8y agoGuess what this is happening every time you walk into a big store , casino or mall. Americans live in a fantasy where they allow large corporations unlimited power but want to keep law enforcement stuck in the 90s because of this administration. Enjoy your fantasy
- jkestner 8y agoThat's a broad assertion about a whole country. Plenty of us don't want any large institutions with unchecked surveillance power. Up to a point you can choose not to patronize such places, but where do we draw the line? I'm curious as to any legal arguments other than "You don't have a right to privacy in public." You can't opt out of society.
- alexnewman 8y agoI agree it sucks,but this is everywhere and trivial to implement . These cameras were already in the airports and borders under obama
- TuringNYC 8y agoAlso, because false positives dont matter when it affects "other people"
- noobermin 8y agoIf this technology is worse than ICE agents indiscriminately asking latinx people for their papers then it adds no value. The hope is it is better at identifying people.
- TuringNYC 8y agoI see I need to start adding /sarcasm tags. Apparently scare quotes dont work. To clarify...I definitely think false positives are a big issue, though decision makers will often think otherwise as decisions are often not made by minorities.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago> ...constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused... I'm interested in how you would define systematic abuse vs. just plain abuse. Police forces have adopted new technology for many decades now (e.g. radio, high-speed police cars, helicopters with search lights, RDBMSs, body armor, DNA sampling and matching, speed measuring radar, tasers ...) and, while it is probably true that all of these technologies have been abused by the police at times, can we also say that they have been "systematically abused?" What does that mean?
- tinktank 8y agoI'd be less opposed to it if it was equally applied to everyone and not just immigrants. It becomes another tool to disenfranchise, disable and disadvantage a subset of society.
- paxys 8y agoGovernment monitoring everyone via facial recognition isn't cool either.
- _iyig 8y agoIllegal immigrants are by definition disenfranchised. They are not citizens, so they do not get the franchise, which is the right to vote. That’s as it should be according to the U.S. Constitution, and the basic law of (nearly?) every democracy.
- noobermin 8y agoEvery human has rights under the law and international law. Just because someone can't vote doesn't mean they have inalienable rights that states can disrespect.
- AngryData 8y agoWhere does it say that foreigners can't vote in the constitution? Up until the 20th century the only requirement to vote in most states was residency, not citizenship. Many places only required 6 months stay to vote no matter who or where you were from, others required a commitment to long-term residency. It wasn't until women's and black's voting rights started becoming a popular issue that voting was redefined to mean only citizens. And the only purpose of such a thing was to suppress the voice of these people for the benefit of those already in power.
- tinktank 8y agoWow, that's an interesting point. The UK will still allow commonwealth and EU citizens to vote in some elections but the Turdy's (Tory's) are trying to get the laws changed to prevent that for precisely the same reason you state.
- sergiotapia 8y agoI downvoted because open-borders is one of the stupidest mainstream ideas I ever heard. Right up there with flat earth. Of course you want to keep people that don't share your value system out of your country.
- rorykoehler 8y agoThat statement is incoherent. I know for a fact that 90% of the population of my country don't share my values in a material way. I am perfectly happy sharing my country with them.
- alexnewman 8y agoWas just about to say this
- alexnewman 8y agoI also think nations and tribes are outdated. Glad to know people will down vote because they differ politically. May I ask why you support nations?
- elejo 8y agoNobody here will ever complain about illegal aliens because they are wealthy programmers, etc and won't be affected by their unfair competition. Just look at this tweet I saw a few hours ago from the editor of boingboing: https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1054816681699139584 https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1054816681699139584 Imagine her shock when she learns that most people can't afford to hire someone to mow their lawns, mop their floors, or raise their kids! Talk about living in a bubble. Some people here are like her and would never understand the troubles of the working class. And others are terrified of being called racist.
- danenania 8y agoSpeaking of fairness, why exactly should we have more concern about the job prospects of someone who happens by random chance to be born on one side of a border than someone who happens to be born on the other? If anything, isn’t it less fair if the person who previously lucked into being born in the wealthier country gets the job? My point isn’t to diminish the very real problems facing the US working class. I just don’t see why working class people from Mexico or El Salvador are any less deserving of my sympathy.
- rsync 8y ago"Edited also why was this downvoted?" I downvoted you because you talked about your downvotes. Please don't interrupt the discussion to meta-discuss the scoring system.
- profalseidol 8y agoHorray for Free market!
- ohthehugemanate 8y agoSo this means you're gonna start voting with your wallet? You can always host on Azure; Microsoft takes an ethical stance against this stuff. They have an AI ethics review board that vetoes projects like this.