3 ms·

Buzzfeednews does ok sometimes but I'd have to disagree with this. Even as a staunch privacy advocate facial recognition could do wonderful things to benefit so

Buzzfeednews does ok sometimes but I'd have to disagree with this. Even as a staunch privacy advocate facial recognition could do wonderful things to benefit society, is not the real problem overzealous governments and wideranging police powers lauded over innocent citizens? Maybe there really needs to be a discussion about how intrusive we are going to allow them to be and the dangers that poses. It's a silly kneejerk response to say "we should only allow human beings to stare at cctv cameras, not an algorithm" The cat's out the bag, the technology isn't the problem, tech is amoral, it's the people using it we need to solve.

jdnenej 7y ago
Sometimes the tech is so dangerous and the legitimate uses so minor in comparison that it should be largely banned or regulated.
- umvi 7y ago
  So we should ban the human brain for doing illegal facial recognition and other privacy violating acts?
  - jdnenej 7y ago
    There are countless things that our brains can do that are illegal to do with computers because our brains are so bad at it. Recording a phone call without notifying is illegal even though our brains remember it. Posting someone else's nudes without consent is illegal even though you can describe them from memory legally. My eyes can't instantly recognise hundreds of strangers on the street and sync that data up with the global adtech database.
- solveit 7y ago
  Ah yes, the argument from personal lack of creativity. I cannot think of a legitimate use therefore there must be no downside to banning it.
  - cf498 7y ago
    Instead of going ad hominem you could also give a counterexample
  - vangelis 7y ago
    Could you provide an upside?
    - solveit 7y ago
      You could use it to find the lost kid in a crowded stadium. Or find lost people with dementia anywhere.
      - solveit 7y ago
        But my point would still stand even if I couldn't provide an example either. The burden of proving that a technology has no significant benefits should fall on the people trying to ban it.
        pintxo 7y ago
        You do realize that proving non-existence is rather ... difficult?
      - cf498 7y ago
        You can simply equip those people with a tracker. Then it also works if they leave the stadium. Put them in their shoes and you dont need their cooperation either. If they dont have any just put the persons picture on the stadium screens.
jammygit 7y ago
Counterpoint from the article: > The threat that facial recognition poses to human society and basic liberty far outweighs any potential benefits. It’s on a very short list of technologies — like nuclear and biological weapons — that are simply too dangerous to exist, and that we would have chosen not to develop had we had the foresight.
- easytiger 7y ago
  > like nuclear ... simply too dangerous to exist False equivalence aside, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of civilisation there
- dijksterhuis 7y ago
  Here’s a great idea - let’s invent a time machine to enable us to have that foresight! Oh wait, hold on, now we can see what that person is going to do next Tuesday. Let’s stop him doing that thing. Same problem, different hypothetical technology.
smt88 7y ago
> is not the real problem overzealous governments and wideranging police intelligence agency powers lauded over innocent citizens? Yes, they're the real problem. That doesn't mean it's futile to take away a powerful tool for them to use. > tech is amoral Tech is not amoral. It doesn't exist in a vacuum -- it has a context of who created it and what human actions it facilitates. For example, ransomware is amoral. Sure, the tools used to build it are neutral, but that's true of anything if you zoom out far enough (e.g. steel is amoral, but CIA drones aren't). > it's the people using it we need to solve You can't "solve" people. There will always be selfish, stupid, and shortsighted people in the world. All you can do is make sure that they don't have concentrated, unilateral power over others. Technology gives people that kind of power, and we can at least make sure that law enforcement in liberal countries doesn't misuse it.
- dijksterhuis 7y ago
  > Tech is not amoral. > For example, ransomware is amoral. Errrrr. Foot. Shot. In the.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  ITYM ransomeware is immoral?
  - smt88 7y ago
    Yes, I did. Too late to edit now. Thanks for catching that typo.
notzuck 7y ago
Guns are also amoral but still manage to leave a bad taste in my mouth. I think the reality is, this technology will be used against the public in negative ways. It's easier to get something banned than it is to change the nature of people. I don't know where I stand on this to be honest. You are right that the real issue is "overzealous governments and wideranging police powers lauded over innocent citizens" but I don't know what the fix is.
- logicchains 7y ago
  The fix is laws that limit the power of governments/police. If governments are not willing to pass these laws, they probably won't be willing to pass laws preventing them using facial recognition to spy on citizens either.

jdnenej 7y ago

Sometimes the tech is so dangerous and the legitimate uses so minor in comparison that it should be largely banned or regulated.

umvi 7y ago
So we should ban the human brain for doing illegal facial recognition and other privacy violating acts?
- jdnenej 7y ago
  There are countless things that our brains can do that are illegal to do with computers because our brains are so bad at it. Recording a phone call without notifying is illegal even though our brains remember it. Posting someone else's nudes without consent is illegal even though you can describe them from memory legally. My eyes can't instantly recognise hundreds of strangers on the street and sync that data up with the global adtech database.
solveit 7y ago
Ah yes, the argument from personal lack of creativity. I cannot think of a legitimate use therefore there must be no downside to banning it.
- cf498 7y ago
  Instead of going ad hominem you could also give a counterexample
- vangelis 7y ago
  Could you provide an upside?
  - solveit 7y ago
    You could use it to find the lost kid in a crowded stadium. Or find lost people with dementia anywhere.
    - solveit 7y ago
      But my point would still stand even if I couldn't provide an example either. The burden of proving that a technology has no significant benefits should fall on the people trying to ban it.
      - pintxo 7y ago
        You do realize that proving non-existence is rather ... difficult?
    - cf498 7y ago
      You can simply equip those people with a tracker. Then it also works if they leave the stadium. Put them in their shoes and you dont need their cooperation either. If they dont have any just put the persons picture on the stadium screens.

jammygit 7y ago

Counterpoint from the article: > The threat that facial recognition poses to human society and basic liberty far outweighs any potential benefits. It’s on a very short list of technologies — like nuclear and biological weapons — that are simply too dangerous to exist, and that we would have chosen not to develop had we had the foresight.

easytiger 7y ago
> like nuclear ... simply too dangerous to exist False equivalence aside, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of civilisation there
dijksterhuis 7y ago
Here’s a great idea - let’s invent a time machine to enable us to have that foresight! Oh wait, hold on, now we can see what that person is going to do next Tuesday. Let’s stop him doing that thing. Same problem, different hypothetical technology.

smt88 7y ago

> is not the real problem overzealous governments and wideranging police intelligence agency powers lauded over innocent citizens? Yes, they're the real problem. That doesn't mean it's futile to take away a powerful tool for them to use. > tech is amoral Tech is not amoral. It doesn't exist in a vacuum -- it has a context of who created it and what human actions it facilitates. For example, ransomware is amoral. Sure, the tools used to build it are neutral, but that's true of anything if you zoom out far enough (e.g. steel is amoral, but CIA drones aren't). > it's the people using it we need to solve You can't "solve" people. There will always be selfish, stupid, and shortsighted people in the world. All you can do is make sure that they don't have concentrated, unilateral power over others. Technology gives people that kind of power, and we can at least make sure that law enforcement in liberal countries doesn't misuse it.

dijksterhuis 7y ago
> Tech is not amoral. > For example, ransomware is amoral. Errrrr. Foot. Shot. In the.
dredmorbius 7y ago
ITYM ransomeware is immoral?
- smt88 7y ago
  Yes, I did. Too late to edit now. Thanks for catching that typo.

notzuck 7y ago

Guns are also amoral but still manage to leave a bad taste in my mouth. I think the reality is, this technology will be used against the public in negative ways. It's easier to get something banned than it is to change the nature of people. I don't know where I stand on this to be honest. You are right that the real issue is "overzealous governments and wideranging police powers lauded over innocent citizens" but I don't know what the fix is.

logicchains 7y ago
The fix is laws that limit the power of governments/police. If governments are not willing to pass these laws, they probably won't be willing to pass laws preventing them using facial recognition to spy on citizens either.