5 ms·

I know that this might be an unpopular opinion, but if privacy really is dead, why don't we just make this data public? I know there's significant risks, but I

I know that this might be an unpopular opinion, but if privacy really is dead, why don't we just make this data public? I know there's significant risks, but I feel like it's a better step forward than having this technology developed and deployed in secret.

mjparrott 7y ago
The ultimate "f&#$ it" move. It's true ... your thoughts, words and actions are all going to be documented and preserved to be later audited and evaluated into perpetuity. The train is too far down the tracks to do anything about it.
WaitWaitWha 7y ago
why do you think privacy is dead? Where I travel, (digital and otherwise) privacy is quite alive and well. (This is definitely outside of highly populated first-world cities.)
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  My point is that if corporate surveillance with creepy camera technology and facial recognition is going to be rolled out everywhere (for the real safety benefits) then isn't it better for us all to spread the power out as much as possible rather than it being concentrated in the hands of a few giant entities?
  - pixl97 7y ago
    The AWS effect will make sure its concentrated on a few giant entities anyway.
- mjparrott 7y ago
  Which way are things trending where you are today? The cost to surveil is going down at a tremendous rate so it is just a matter of time before someone decides to pay to surveil you and then sell their insights or take advantage of them. I don't think it's possible for politicians to keep up with the rate of tech advancement. Did you ever watch a congressional hearing in the US on any technology realated subject? It's a comedic bit.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >Did you ever watch a congressional hearing in the US on any technology realated subject? It's a comedic bit. This comment could be straight out of 1870 when things were industrializing rapidly. We'll figure it out eventually. Hopefully without any serious oppression and/or bloodshed in the process.
    - xvector 7y ago
      As long as the geriatrics in Congress remain in Congress, no change will happen. We need new people so we can actually make progress.
      - WaitWaitWha 7y ago
        This is nearly identical attitude of the younger generation, no matter how far we go back. :D I _do_ agree that the US Congress could use term limits.
        mjparrott 7y ago
        So because it is the same attitude it is dismissed? What’s the point of this argument?
jMyles 7y ago
I'm not convinced privacy is dead. But I do agree with you. We can't stop eyes (biological and electronic) from seeing faces. We can't stop memory banks (biological and electronic) from storing the likenesses of faces. Better than trying to craft legislation that we know the state will secretly violate is to make all of this data public and make the world's human facial lexicon part of our shared understanding. This is the most ideal solution for an optimistic society.
wpietri 7y ago
I'd be ok with that if we also a) make public every time the data is accessed, including who is doing it, and b) require that anybody accessing the data have at least as much data public as they are accessing. I think the worst problems here are around asymmetries. If I secretly have all your data but you don't know that and have none of mine, there's a power imbalance. But if we have equal amounts of data and know when each is looking at the other, that seems far more reasonable to me.
- prawn 7y ago
  Wouldn’t people just obfuscate data access through intermediaries and flooding with junk queries?
  - alwaysdoit 7y ago
    Charge an increasing amount for the API and subsidize our taxes with it?
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Depends on how it's done, but if penalties are sufficiently large for that, hopefully not. Especially if we give big awards to bounty hunters and whistleblowers who find malfeasance.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
Yes, transparency for all, and I mean all, is the only other way to balance the scales of power. It's either privacy for everyone, or transparency for all, but this in between is the worst where some entities get leverage over others because they have access to information that others don't have about them.
- heavenlyhash 7y ago
  Right, so then we'll just have balanced power between everyone who can afford the AWS or other compute service bill do to the facial recognition matches against all those millions (and later, hundreds of millions, then billions) of records. That'll be... Oh. Hm. Maybe "privacy for everyone" is a better point to aim for. The alternative seems to be no privacy as a baseline and then still results in an everybody-loses arms race to top it off.
izzydata 7y ago
People will start walking around with masks on at all times.
- mlindner 7y ago
  V for Vendetta becoming real.
- rhcom2 7y ago
  Then make masks illegal and you can arrest everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws
- jammygit 7y ago
  Canada made it illegal to take part in a public protest while concealing your face under the Harper government...
  - craftyguy 7y ago
    NYC is not in Canada. In the US, the 1st amendment would likely protect citizens from any such law like this.
    - chachachoney 7y ago
      You should take a look at New York Penal Law 240.35(4). Also, 1st amendment challenges only protect you if the supreme court is sympathetic.
drawkbox 7y ago
We still have our thoughts, for now. We should at least know when our face is being accessed on demand and in some ai process. Same with our data. We'll get there eventually but there will be lots of issues along the way.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  Dissent is useless if you can't give voice to it, and that's exactly what these systems seek to do -- make it dangerous to do anything the state doesn't want you to do. From speaking in public to peaceful protest these databases will eventually be used to identify anyone who has ever peacefully participated in a democratic society. This was what the FBI wanted in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and now, 70 years later, they finally have it.
- jammygit 7y ago
  Facebook is apparently researching brain-machine interfaces
whyenot 7y ago
Because these are all pictures of juveniles. Not even children who were convicted of a crime, those who were arrested. Children should be able to make mistakes and to learn and recover, without a bad decision following them for the rest of their lives. That's not only good for the child, it's good for society. It's why juvenile records are usually sealed and/or expunged and why data like this should never ever be public, even if "privacy is dead."
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
aasasd 7y ago
A real answer: because I personally don't want to make job easier for crazies. Your comments stick around on the web instead of evaporating in thin air. Among hundreds who may read them, there may occur a couple angry people with skewed priorities. I don't want such people to easily know how I look and where I live.

mjparrott 7y ago

The ultimate "f&#$ it" move. It's true ... your thoughts, words and actions are all going to be documented and preserved to be later audited and evaluated into perpetuity. The train is too far down the tracks to do anything about it.

WaitWaitWha 7y ago

why do you think privacy is dead? Where I travel, (digital and otherwise) privacy is quite alive and well. (This is definitely outside of highly populated first-world cities.)

cameronbrown 7y ago
My point is that if corporate surveillance with creepy camera technology and facial recognition is going to be rolled out everywhere (for the real safety benefits) then isn't it better for us all to spread the power out as much as possible rather than it being concentrated in the hands of a few giant entities?
- pixl97 7y ago
  The AWS effect will make sure its concentrated on a few giant entities anyway.
mjparrott 7y ago
Which way are things trending where you are today? The cost to surveil is going down at a tremendous rate so it is just a matter of time before someone decides to pay to surveil you and then sell their insights or take advantage of them. I don't think it's possible for politicians to keep up with the rate of tech advancement. Did you ever watch a congressional hearing in the US on any technology realated subject? It's a comedic bit.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Did you ever watch a congressional hearing in the US on any technology realated subject? It's a comedic bit. This comment could be straight out of 1870 when things were industrializing rapidly. We'll figure it out eventually. Hopefully without any serious oppression and/or bloodshed in the process.
  - xvector 7y ago
    As long as the geriatrics in Congress remain in Congress, no change will happen. We need new people so we can actually make progress.
    - WaitWaitWha 7y ago
      This is nearly identical attitude of the younger generation, no matter how far we go back. :D I _do_ agree that the US Congress could use term limits.
      - mjparrott 7y ago
        So because it is the same attitude it is dismissed? What’s the point of this argument?

jMyles 7y ago

I'm not convinced privacy is dead. But I do agree with you. We can't stop eyes (biological and electronic) from seeing faces. We can't stop memory banks (biological and electronic) from storing the likenesses of faces. Better than trying to craft legislation that we know the state will secretly violate is to make all of this data public and make the world's human facial lexicon part of our shared understanding. This is the most ideal solution for an optimistic society.

wpietri 7y ago

I'd be ok with that if we also a) make public every time the data is accessed, including who is doing it, and b) require that anybody accessing the data have at least as much data public as they are accessing. I think the worst problems here are around asymmetries. If I secretly have all your data but you don't know that and have none of mine, there's a power imbalance. But if we have equal amounts of data and know when each is looking at the other, that seems far more reasonable to me.

prawn 7y ago
Wouldn’t people just obfuscate data access through intermediaries and flooding with junk queries?
- alwaysdoit 7y ago
  Charge an increasing amount for the API and subsidize our taxes with it?
- wpietri 7y ago
  Depends on how it's done, but if penalties are sufficiently large for that, hopefully not. Especially if we give big awards to bounty hunters and whistleblowers who find malfeasance.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Yes, transparency for all, and I mean all, is the only other way to balance the scales of power. It's either privacy for everyone, or transparency for all, but this in between is the worst where some entities get leverage over others because they have access to information that others don't have about them.

heavenlyhash 7y ago
Right, so then we'll just have balanced power between everyone who can afford the AWS or other compute service bill do to the facial recognition matches against all those millions (and later, hundreds of millions, then billions) of records. That'll be... Oh. Hm. Maybe "privacy for everyone" is a better point to aim for. The alternative seems to be no privacy as a baseline and then still results in an everybody-loses arms race to top it off.

izzydata 7y ago

People will start walking around with masks on at all times.

mlindner 7y ago
V for Vendetta becoming real.
rhcom2 7y ago
Then make masks illegal and you can arrest everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws
jammygit 7y ago
Canada made it illegal to take part in a public protest while concealing your face under the Harper government...
- craftyguy 7y ago
  NYC is not in Canada. In the US, the 1st amendment would likely protect citizens from any such law like this.
  - chachachoney 7y ago
    You should take a look at New York Penal Law 240.35(4). Also, 1st amendment challenges only protect you if the supreme court is sympathetic.

drawkbox 7y ago

We still have our thoughts, for now. We should at least know when our face is being accessed on demand and in some ai process. Same with our data. We'll get there eventually but there will be lots of issues along the way.

jschwartzi 7y ago
Dissent is useless if you can't give voice to it, and that's exactly what these systems seek to do -- make it dangerous to do anything the state doesn't want you to do. From speaking in public to peaceful protest these databases will eventually be used to identify anyone who has ever peacefully participated in a democratic society. This was what the FBI wanted in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and now, 70 years later, they finally have it.
jammygit 7y ago
Facebook is apparently researching brain-machine interfaces

whyenot 7y ago

Because these are all pictures of juveniles. Not even children who were convicted of a crime, those who were arrested. Children should be able to make mistakes and to learn and recover, without a bad decision following them for the rest of their lives. That's not only good for the child, it's good for society. It's why juvenile records are usually sealed and/or expunged and why data like this should never ever be public, even if "privacy is dead."

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

aasasd 7y ago

A real answer: because I personally don't want to make job easier for crazies. Your comments stick around on the web instead of evaporating in thin air. Among hundreds who may read them, there may occur a couple angry people with skewed priorities. I don't want such people to easily know how I look and where I live.