4 ms·

Because constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused. And because next is using facial recognition to monitor other groups — LGBT, ac

Because 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 ago
Something 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 ago
  Why does it matter that this is automated? Is your issue the automation?
noobermin 8y ago
Do 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 ago
  It’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 ago
    The 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        Additionally, 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.
        philwelch 8y ago
        It should also be pointed out that, at the time, cross-Atlantic travel was expensive and few people in North America outside of the US had any interest in immigrating.[1] Additionally, American independence ended the transportation of British prisoners to the colonies and severely limited the amount of indentured servant immigration. [1] During the colonial era, the bigger problem was the risk of white settlers emigrating to a nearby American Indian community. For example, it's likely that the entire colony of Roanoke did this. Even as late as the 19th century, white children captured and raised by the Comanche almost exclusively chose to continue living as Comanche even after being given the chance to return.
    - 8note 8y ago
      if you moved towns, nobody would know who you are
- ridgeguy 8y ago
  Scale matters. If it were only warm-blooded individual humans identifying you, there wouldn't be much potential for abuse. In the 1960s, your privacy was pretty much preserved even in public spaces. Unless you were a genuine person of interest, worthy of expending costly observational resources. Now? Drive anywhere, walk anywhere - machines log your travels. It's a perfect recipe for abuse. Just scale, is all it takes.
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    The poison is in the dose.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    At one time, rock stars were essentially anonymous and could have relatively normal lives when not on tour. The audience was huge and they were essentially faceless. Then TV, music videos and the practice of having huge screens broadcasting the faces of the band to the audience ruined that. KISS used face paint and that helped protect their identity, but when they got too big, you saw Gene Simmons wearing a mask on dates to try to preserve his privacy, yet everyone knew the masked guy was Gene Simmons.
- alexnewman 8y ago
  Yea but it's yucky, trump is president and I wanna remain morally pure
- ben_w 8y ago
  > In public, your right to privacy doesn't protect you from having your picture being taken. I believe it does in some places, for example France. Rules on the sort of thing are not universal. Europe collectively (continent not union) cares a bit less about freedom of speech, quite a bit more about privacy, compared to the USA.
alexnewman 8y ago
Guess 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 ago
  That'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 ago
    I agree it sucks,but this is everywhere and trivial to implement . These cameras were already in the airports and borders under obama
TuringNYC 8y ago
Also, because false positives dont matter when it affects "other people"
- noobermin 8y ago
  If 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 ago
  I 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?

Bahamut 8y ago

Something 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 ago
Why does it matter that this is automated? Is your issue the automation?

noobermin 8y ago

Do 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 ago
It’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 ago
  The 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Additionally, 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.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        It should also be pointed out that, at the time, cross-Atlantic travel was expensive and few people in North America outside of the US had any interest in immigrating.[1] Additionally, American independence ended the transportation of British prisoners to the colonies and severely limited the amount of indentured servant immigration. [1] During the colonial era, the bigger problem was the risk of white settlers emigrating to a nearby American Indian community. For example, it's likely that the entire colony of Roanoke did this. Even as late as the 19th century, white children captured and raised by the Comanche almost exclusively chose to continue living as Comanche even after being given the chance to return.
  - 8note 8y ago
    if you moved towns, nobody would know who you are
ridgeguy 8y ago
Scale matters. If it were only warm-blooded individual humans identifying you, there wouldn't be much potential for abuse. In the 1960s, your privacy was pretty much preserved even in public spaces. Unless you were a genuine person of interest, worthy of expending costly observational resources. Now? Drive anywhere, walk anywhere - machines log your travels. It's a perfect recipe for abuse. Just scale, is all it takes.
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  The poison is in the dose.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  At one time, rock stars were essentially anonymous and could have relatively normal lives when not on tour. The audience was huge and they were essentially faceless. Then TV, music videos and the practice of having huge screens broadcasting the faces of the band to the audience ruined that. KISS used face paint and that helped protect their identity, but when they got too big, you saw Gene Simmons wearing a mask on dates to try to preserve his privacy, yet everyone knew the masked guy was Gene Simmons.
alexnewman 8y ago
Yea but it's yucky, trump is president and I wanna remain morally pure
ben_w 8y ago
> In public, your right to privacy doesn't protect you from having your picture being taken. I believe it does in some places, for example France. Rules on the sort of thing are not universal. Europe collectively (continent not union) cares a bit less about freedom of speech, quite a bit more about privacy, compared to the USA.

alexnewman 8y ago

Guess 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 ago
That'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 ago
  I agree it sucks,but this is everywhere and trivial to implement . These cameras were already in the airports and borders under obama

TuringNYC 8y ago

Also, because false positives dont matter when it affects "other people"

noobermin 8y ago
If 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 ago
I 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?