4 ms·

What is the problem with a new photo being taken? You say it like it is obvious but you haven’t actually made your thinking known. Wasting taxpayer money in ph

by sunir 7y ago

What is the problem with a new photo being taken? You say it like it is obvious but you haven’t actually made your thinking known. Wasting taxpayer money in photo storage is a laugh. That isn’t the same category of argument as the idea that is is “overreach.”

pixelbash 7y ago
I think the issue here is not where we are at but the risks inherent. It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator, he might think he is doing everything for the benefit of the people - and he might even be right. This situation is fine, the issue is what happens when that dictator dies. Similarly with mass surveillance, if used with restraint and for the right reasons it could be completely fine. The problem is what happens if the situation changes, there is now a massively powerful tool available with little recourse for change. I think the issue is not the situation as it is _now_, it's the risk potential it inherently has that is terrifying.
- xnyan 7y ago
  >It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator You lost me at this straw man. You are tossing around nebulous and vague concerns. Would it be fair to say your concern is potential abuse of your photos by a government entity?
  - pixelbash 7y ago
    I'd call it an analogy rather than a straw man. The formula is [now thing] is safe in [now context] but [future context] != [now context] so is [future thing] safe? It's fair to say my concern is potential abuse of any system in a fluctuating context.
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Not the person you are asking, but as someone who shares a similar feeling of distrust to authority, I'll provide you with my point of view: It's not just the picture, it's the databases and the veracity of mass data base mining that can come from it. To better explain: Right now powerful entities have files on me. My actives. And yours. The collection, use and sharing of these files between these powerful entities violate our rights, even if only in intent (though arguably more) Right now these files are mostly loosely created, probabilistic based associations. If you've ever used any ID verification systems, you'd understand this (think lexisnexis) So, they sort of know, but don't fully. Good. Even if these entities have shown the desire to violate my rights, they can't do it well because of issues related to data collection. I like that. So the way I see these advancements is... great, now these entities are getting mass fed pictures that are 99.999% a correct association. This could be used for facial recognition software tie ins to say, CCTV systems. As stated, you need more than one picture to increase accuracy. I don't want them to have it. Right now, their interest (in violating my rights for profit and power) and my interest (in staking claim to the rights my forebearers fought for) are oposite.
- sunir 7y ago
  They aren’t violating your rights. At least not in an obvious way. The government’s use of your photo ID is not controllable with the non-existent privacy law the US has not enacted. However your concern about building a face database is valid. Note that China somehow can do it with only your Wechat profile. Maybe they are better at ML than the US. They are already automatically fining jaywalkers by face ID. And I assume worse.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    > They aren’t violating your rights. At least not in an obvious way. Easy to say. How about evidence. I offer all the evidence from Snowden and other whistle blowers to beg the contrary. To me, it's very obvious unless you are intentionally not wanting to see it. Notice I said if only in intent, I'm not here to split hairs on legalese. Intent in things like the Fourth Amendment to me is very clear. I live in an area where when I go for weekend drives, I have to stop at border patrol check points where I am forced to stop and answer officer's questions. I'm not even traveling between states and I'm over 50 miles from the boarder in those points. Trust me, I understand the legalese they use to justify it. They define a border zone that I think goes a hundred or two miles in land, which means it covers something like 70% of major American metro areas and allows the gov to basically conduct illegal searches by creating a loop hole. But that is the point. My rights are routinely violated with impunity. People who have stood up to this get literally crushed. Clear whistle blowers are declared spies. It's them working to undermine my rights. Rights that people literally died so I could have. I think it's wrong to let those rights go. It's why I support things like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

by sunir 7y ago

pixelbash 7y ago

I think the issue here is not where we are at but the risks inherent. It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator, he might think he is doing everything for the benefit of the people - and he might even be right. This situation is fine, the issue is what happens when that dictator dies. Similarly with mass surveillance, if used with restraint and for the right reasons it could be completely fine. The problem is what happens if the situation changes, there is now a massively powerful tool available with little recourse for change. I think the issue is not the situation as it is _now_, it's the risk potential it inherently has that is terrifying.

xnyan 7y ago
>It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator You lost me at this straw man. You are tossing around nebulous and vague concerns. Would it be fair to say your concern is potential abuse of your photos by a government entity?
- pixelbash 7y ago
  I'd call it an analogy rather than a straw man. The formula is [now thing] is safe in [now context] but [future context] != [now context] so is [future thing] safe? It's fair to say my concern is potential abuse of any system in a fluctuating context.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

Not the person you are asking, but as someone who shares a similar feeling of distrust to authority, I'll provide you with my point of view: It's not just the picture, it's the databases and the veracity of mass data base mining that can come from it. To better explain: Right now powerful entities have files on me. My actives. And yours. The collection, use and sharing of these files between these powerful entities violate our rights, even if only in intent (though arguably more) Right now these files are mostly loosely created, probabilistic based associations. If you've ever used any ID verification systems, you'd understand this (think lexisnexis) So, they sort of know, but don't fully. Good. Even if these entities have shown the desire to violate my rights, they can't do it well because of issues related to data collection. I like that. So the way I see these advancements is... great, now these entities are getting mass fed pictures that are 99.999% a correct association. This could be used for facial recognition software tie ins to say, CCTV systems. As stated, you need more than one picture to increase accuracy. I don't want them to have it. Right now, their interest (in violating my rights for profit and power) and my interest (in staking claim to the rights my forebearers fought for) are oposite.

sunir 7y ago
They aren’t violating your rights. At least not in an obvious way. The government’s use of your photo ID is not controllable with the non-existent privacy law the US has not enacted. However your concern about building a face database is valid. Note that China somehow can do it with only your Wechat profile. Maybe they are better at ML than the US. They are already automatically fining jaywalkers by face ID. And I assume worse.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  > They aren’t violating your rights. At least not in an obvious way. Easy to say. How about evidence. I offer all the evidence from Snowden and other whistle blowers to beg the contrary. To me, it's very obvious unless you are intentionally not wanting to see it. Notice I said if only in intent, I'm not here to split hairs on legalese. Intent in things like the Fourth Amendment to me is very clear. I live in an area where when I go for weekend drives, I have to stop at border patrol check points where I am forced to stop and answer officer's questions. I'm not even traveling between states and I'm over 50 miles from the boarder in those points. Trust me, I understand the legalese they use to justify it. They define a border zone that I think goes a hundred or two miles in land, which means it covers something like 70% of major American metro areas and allows the gov to basically conduct illegal searches by creating a loop hole. But that is the point. My rights are routinely violated with impunity. People who have stood up to this get literally crushed. Clear whistle blowers are declared spies. It's them working to undermine my rights. Rights that people literally died so I could have. I think it's wrong to let those rights go. It's why I support things like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.