5 ms·

The best way to discourage its use at this point is via the courts. Declare facial recognition inadmissible, and its use will drop off. Not a fan of bench legis

by mises 8y ago

The best way to discourage its use at this point is via the courts. Declare facial recognition inadmissible, and its use will drop off. Not a fan of bench legislation, but keeping this out of widespread use is really, really important.

sgt 8y ago
Will you go ahead and declare it for us?
gruez 8y ago
>Declare facial recognition inadmissible, and its use will drop off. no, they will just use it for parallel construction instead
- mises 8y ago
  But that's at least illegal. If it's inadmissible, they won't likely get funded. And if they try that, it's fruit of the poisonous tree and a good lawyer should be able to ferret that out. I didn't say it's a perfect solution. But it might at least help.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > it's fruit of the poisonous tree Not a thing in England.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > But that's at least illegal. What makes you think that? What do you think about how the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 applies to parallel construction of evidence?
Shivetya 8y ago
We are long past the point of discourage its use. The move now should be to make sure it is properly regulated so that retention duration is public and verifiable. That acting off the images has follow a well defined legal process. Most of it will be forensic in nature and the benefits of the technology far outweigh the horrors that many claim will come. Here's a hint, the governments of this world have already committed gross violations of human rights of the worst kind for centuries, this isn't going to change that for the worse. If anything a trusted system will put the authorities on their toes too. It will provide the ability to not only track those who committed a crime but those in need of emergency services. It will even capture those who enforce the laws. Yes there will be real time applications of this tech in the near future and that is why those who can create this software should damn well be working to make sure it does work and is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them. Its going to happen, make sure if you can participate you do so that the wolves don't have free run of the hen house. So make it work, make it public, make it obvious, regulate it, and regulate those who employ it. That is where we are now. If we keep running from it we give other people the opportunity to do wrong with it
- mises 8y ago
  No. I don't care how long they're keeping it. The problem is that governments have databases of citizens. The problem of governments is that they want to blow a hole in previous ideas of "assumption of privacy". Lots of people around the world have trusted governments in the past. Many of them are dead. If you haven't guessed, I don't trust the government. But I think that's with good reason. I don't believe any regulation can solve this problem. The government itself should regulate its own use of something? Like that's worked before. Keep this away from me. My concern is only secondarily that someone using my data to run ads. My concern is primarily that government should never have access to such a tool.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > those who can create this software should damn well be working to make sure it does work and is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them That work begins with thinking about it seriously, and it's obvious by now this can't be left up to software devs exclusively. I could probably find you dozens of threads on HN about the web being bloated, with hundreds of comments just saying it's "impossible" to make a half-decent website because of what the "boss" or "the marketing dept" tells devs. Like, the web isn't shit because of devs, but because they don't call the shots. And that's just the web. People who can't even stand up to, and face down, people who aren't even cold-blooded killers -- will "make sure" that... "is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them". Oh, so to make it impossible, just not "easy"...? This means nothing, you cannot even commit in a text comment. Because you know it's impossible to make it impossible. It's like saying the scientists who worked on the nuke should have made sure it could not be used for nuclear war. I think it would be more effective to flip the script socially, instead of being so defensive. In practice, for most people, the data generated on them doesn't matter much, yet -- but other data data also gets generated: who is being a snoop, who is working with snoops, who is pushing for mass surveillance, who is rationalizing or belittling it, who ever changed their mind, and who didn't. So much data, and that data might stick around forever, too. How will the future judge it? That data we can and should make matter, and that's purely social, a matter of education and backbone, not technology or money. Though of course it has to be parallel with legal and technical efforts, not in place of them, I think the "social dimension" (which begins with individuals, not groups, groups of people that skipped the "individual" step are empty) it's very important and very underrated, a blind spot even. So I say, step one is realizing that you are not the obedient shadow of a human being, you're not the one creeping in the shadow being a voyeur or even a slave to fascists... and the the pitiful things those see about you really are pitiful in light to what they don't even know about themselves, much less about you. If Gulliver lets himself by hypnotized and put to sleep, sure, then it all goes south -- but otherwise, it's not even a contest. > It doesn't matter whether you hate the spies and believe they are corroding democracy, or if you think they are the noble guardians of the state. In both cases the assumption is that the secret agents know more than we do. > But the strange fact is that often when you look into the history of spies what you discover is something very different. > It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us. -- Adam Curtis I mean, let's ignore actual national security stuff for a second, practice dividing real things from abusive, infantile bullshit by engaging with marketing in a more confident and hostile manner. That also begins in the head. Don't feel degraded by what marketing tells you, realize what pathetic things it says about those putting it in front of you. What kind of secrets, nay, fears would one hide behind such a giant apparatus, be it technical, organisatory, or via systems of bloated and diluted language? How are people who consent to that not weak in turn? Let the "top 10% of the world who cannot say yes" say "no" in unison, and the rest of the world, where 5 people can't even agree with each other, would shake and crumble to dust. 700 million serious people would scare the world shitless. Pleading with doinks means you haven't fully realized they are doinks and should do that first. Considering the weak people the even weaker people in question take orders from, they would so fall in line if the public just so much as collectively cleared its throat. Again, think Gulliver. That just needs to actually happen, and that starts with doing it wherever you are, regardless of what anyone else does. "Be the change that needs to happen in the world for it to not go under", at this point. The thing about tradeoffs is, they only even accumulate insofar as you ever strayed from this path. Otherwise, you just accumulate "not having given in" time on the clock, and might not even be tempted to trade that for some creature comforts and sweaty handshakes from doinks. I don't know what a doink is, but I love that word. It's supposed to be playfully demeaning. Spooks and their "crowd" are just lost, they probably need our help more than anything. But that starts with giving them boundaries instead of power, and that starts with knowing your own worth, trying to be good so that being good can be good to you (which it will). Appeasing abusers does not lead to peace. Study examples in history as well as psychopathology, there's plenty. Mind you, escalation and unfairness doesn't lead to peace or improvements, either... by "appeasing" I mean buying into all of it, being obedient for the hopes of mercy. This does not work, it really achieves the opposite. Be firm but fair, and never fear.
onion2k 8y ago
Declare facial recognition inadmissible, and its use will drop off. The police are well aware of this, and consequently won't use facial recognition data as evidence in criminal cases. That won't stop them using the data to knock on the doors of every person who matched (for some level of confidence) a given facial profile though.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 0db532a0 8y ago
  Are they now legally allowed to use a facial recognition match as grounds for reasonable suspicion?
DanBC 8y ago
> Declare facial recognition inadmissible Does England do that?

by mises 8y ago

sgt 8y ago

Will you go ahead and declare it for us?

gruez 8y ago

>Declare facial recognition inadmissible, and its use will drop off. no, they will just use it for parallel construction instead

mises 8y ago
But that's at least illegal. If it's inadmissible, they won't likely get funded. And if they try that, it's fruit of the poisonous tree and a good lawyer should be able to ferret that out. I didn't say it's a perfect solution. But it might at least help.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > it's fruit of the poisonous tree Not a thing in England.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > But that's at least illegal. What makes you think that? What do you think about how the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 applies to parallel construction of evidence?

Shivetya 8y ago

We are long past the point of discourage its use. The move now should be to make sure it is properly regulated so that retention duration is public and verifiable. That acting off the images has follow a well defined legal process. Most of it will be forensic in nature and the benefits of the technology far outweigh the horrors that many claim will come. Here's a hint, the governments of this world have already committed gross violations of human rights of the worst kind for centuries, this isn't going to change that for the worse. If anything a trusted system will put the authorities on their toes too. It will provide the ability to not only track those who committed a crime but those in need of emergency services. It will even capture those who enforce the laws. Yes there will be real time applications of this tech in the near future and that is why those who can create this software should damn well be working to make sure it does work and is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them. Its going to happen, make sure if you can participate you do so that the wolves don't have free run of the hen house. So make it work, make it public, make it obvious, regulate it, and regulate those who employ it. That is where we are now. If we keep running from it we give other people the opportunity to do wrong with it

mises 8y ago
No. I don't care how long they're keeping it. The problem is that governments have databases of citizens. The problem of governments is that they want to blow a hole in previous ideas of "assumption of privacy". Lots of people around the world have trusted governments in the past. Many of them are dead. If you haven't guessed, I don't trust the government. But I think that's with good reason. I don't believe any regulation can solve this problem. The government itself should regulate its own use of something? Like that's worked before. Keep this away from me. My concern is only secondarily that someone using my data to run ads. My concern is primarily that government should never have access to such a tool.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> those who can create this software should damn well be working to make sure it does work and is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them That work begins with thinking about it seriously, and it's obvious by now this can't be left up to software devs exclusively. I could probably find you dozens of threads on HN about the web being bloated, with hundreds of comments just saying it's "impossible" to make a half-decent website because of what the "boss" or "the marketing dept" tells devs. Like, the web isn't shit because of devs, but because they don't call the shots. And that's just the web. People who can't even stand up to, and face down, people who aren't even cold-blooded killers -- will "make sure" that... "is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them". Oh, so to make it impossible, just not "easy"...? This means nothing, you cannot even commit in a text comment. Because you know it's impossible to make it impossible. It's like saying the scientists who worked on the nuke should have made sure it could not be used for nuclear war. I think it would be more effective to flip the script socially, instead of being so defensive. In practice, for most people, the data generated on them doesn't matter much, yet -- but other data data also gets generated: who is being a snoop, who is working with snoops, who is pushing for mass surveillance, who is rationalizing or belittling it, who ever changed their mind, and who didn't. So much data, and that data might stick around forever, too. How will the future judge it? That data we can and should make matter, and that's purely social, a matter of education and backbone, not technology or money. Though of course it has to be parallel with legal and technical efforts, not in place of them, I think the "social dimension" (which begins with individuals, not groups, groups of people that skipped the "individual" step are empty) it's very important and very underrated, a blind spot even. So I say, step one is realizing that you are not the obedient shadow of a human being, you're not the one creeping in the shadow being a voyeur or even a slave to fascists... and the the pitiful things those see about you really are pitiful in light to what they don't even know about themselves, much less about you. If Gulliver lets himself by hypnotized and put to sleep, sure, then it all goes south -- but otherwise, it's not even a contest. > It doesn't matter whether you hate the spies and believe they are corroding democracy, or if you think they are the noble guardians of the state. In both cases the assumption is that the secret agents know more than we do. > But the strange fact is that often when you look into the history of spies what you discover is something very different. > It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us. -- Adam Curtis I mean, let's ignore actual national security stuff for a second, practice dividing real things from abusive, infantile bullshit by engaging with marketing in a more confident and hostile manner. That also begins in the head. Don't feel degraded by what marketing tells you, realize what pathetic things it says about those putting it in front of you. What kind of secrets, nay, fears would one hide behind such a giant apparatus, be it technical, organisatory, or via systems of bloated and diluted language? How are people who consent to that not weak in turn? Let the "top 10% of the world who cannot say yes" say "no" in unison, and the rest of the world, where 5 people can't even agree with each other, would shake and crumble to dust. 700 million serious people would scare the world shitless. Pleading with doinks means you haven't fully realized they are doinks and should do that first. Considering the weak people the even weaker people in question take orders from, they would so fall in line if the public just so much as collectively cleared its throat. Again, think Gulliver. That just needs to actually happen, and that starts with doing it wherever you are, regardless of what anyone else does. "Be the change that needs to happen in the world for it to not go under", at this point. The thing about tradeoffs is, they only even accumulate insofar as you ever strayed from this path. Otherwise, you just accumulate "not having given in" time on the clock, and might not even be tempted to trade that for some creature comforts and sweaty handshakes from doinks. I don't know what a doink is, but I love that word. It's supposed to be playfully demeaning. Spooks and their "crowd" are just lost, they probably need our help more than anything. But that starts with giving them boundaries instead of power, and that starts with knowing your own worth, trying to be good so that being good can be good to you (which it will). Appeasing abusers does not lead to peace. Study examples in history as well as psychopathology, there's plenty. Mind you, escalation and unfairness doesn't lead to peace or improvements, either... by "appeasing" I mean buying into all of it, being obedient for the hopes of mercy. This does not work, it really achieves the opposite. Be firm but fair, and never fear.

onion2k 8y ago

Declare facial recognition inadmissible, and its use will drop off. The police are well aware of this, and consequently won't use facial recognition data as evidence in criminal cases. That won't stop them using the data to knock on the doors of every person who matched (for some level of confidence) a given facial profile though.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
0db532a0 8y ago
Are they now legally allowed to use a facial recognition match as grounds for reasonable suspicion?

DanBC 8y ago

> Declare facial recognition inadmissible Does England do that?