4 ms·

Is it at all possible to have this feature work in a way that still protects privacy? Say, only store a non-reversible hash derived from facial features - that

• raxxorrax 7y ago
  Definitely possible if standards are defined, but that is not the problem. The real one is that we now have a security industry that needs to apply tech to dangers that in reality don't really exist in the first place or are so minuscule that you need sales people to market these. The security hysteria of the last decade is laughable, if it didn't cost us that much... I seriously avoid flights. They already have my data a thousand times but I am just sick of these perverse boarding processes. Wasn't good for the environment anyway.
  • maxheadroom 7y ago
    >...to dangers that in reality don't really exist in the first place or are so minuscule that you need sales people to market these. The security hysteria of the last decade is laughable, if it didn't cost us that much... I don't believe that this is true. For example, the world wasn't a "safer" place to be in between 7 Dec 1941 and 11 Sep 2001, just as it's not a "safer" place now. The danger was ever-present, as the Munich Massacre (1972) clearly demonstrated (and the entire world witnessed). Instead, what's happened is the ongoing implication that your safety is paramount and any concessions to privacy are an ultimately necessary byproduct to keep you safe from that "new" danger; however, it wasn't a "necessary evil" for the preceeding six (seven, including the oughts?)decades and the danger - certainly - ins't new, right?