3 ms·

But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), it doesn't sound like facial recognition was the problem h

by jfk13 8y ago

But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), it doesn't sound like facial recognition was the problem here. The issue was that someone (presumably) used his ID, thus associating his identity with a crime; this led to the police coming for him. The police may not have been quick enough to recognise that the person they found didn't match the arrest warrant they held, but that's not the fault of some camera in an Apple store.

drcongo 8y ago
I have Safari set up to automatically use reader mode on any Oath sites I might want to read, which admittedly isn't many as they're almost all terrible anyway.
dngray 8y ago
> But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), I didn't need to allow oath that to read that. I have my browser configured like so https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-party-scripts-everywhere-by-default https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-par... For that page all I had was: https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png you can clearly see oath was not enabled. It would appear you do need to allow 1st-party JavaScript to allow the <script type="application/ld+json"> portion to load which contains the "articleBody": ....." I am connected through my VPN, currently in NL, so yeah, GDPR.
- jfk13 8y ago
  Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic.
  - dngray 8y ago
    My point is that if you don't allow, the two requests, the page still loads and you don't have to answer any questions. www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmp.js 3p www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmpStub.min.js 3p > Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. Sadly that's the world we live in. > It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). It shouldn't yet, it does . > If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic. With media that's a pretty safe assumption.
candiodari 8y ago
Exactly, essentially neither Apple nor the police bothered to check if the name they got from an ID card was actually realistic before acting on this information with violence. They searched for the wrong face into facial recognition software ... which did it's job perfectly. This is akin to the police arresting someone because their name matched a name a criminal left behind. Happens all the time, and I'm sure that more than a few wrongful convictions happen this way. This is 99% the fault of the police. Perhaps there's an argument that facial ID lowers the bar slightly for this to happen, but that's about it. When push comes to shove, neither Apple, nor the police did their work properly before resorting to heavy handed tactics ...

by jfk13 8y ago

drcongo 8y ago

I have Safari set up to automatically use reader mode on any Oath sites I might want to read, which admittedly isn't many as they're almost all terrible anyway.

dngray 8y ago

> But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), I didn't need to allow oath that to read that. I have my browser configured like so https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-party-scripts-everywhere-by-default https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-par... For that page all I had was: https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png you can clearly see oath was not enabled. It would appear you do need to allow 1st-party JavaScript to allow the <script type="application/ld+json"> portion to load which contains the "articleBody": ....." I am connected through my VPN, currently in NL, so yeah, GDPR.

jfk13 8y ago
Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic.
- dngray 8y ago
  My point is that if you don't allow, the two requests, the page still loads and you don't have to answer any questions. www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmp.js 3p www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmpStub.min.js 3p > Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. Sadly that's the world we live in. > It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). It shouldn't yet, it does . > If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic. With media that's a pretty safe assumption.

candiodari 8y ago

Exactly, essentially neither Apple nor the police bothered to check if the name they got from an ID card was actually realistic before acting on this information with violence. They searched for the wrong face into facial recognition software ... which did it's job perfectly. This is akin to the police arresting someone because their name matched a name a criminal left behind. Happens all the time, and I'm sure that more than a few wrongful convictions happen this way. This is 99% the fault of the police. Perhaps there's an argument that facial ID lowers the bar slightly for this to happen, but that's about it. When push comes to shove, neither Apple, nor the police did their work properly before resorting to heavy handed tactics ...