4 ms·

Facial recognition itself isn't the problem. Arresting good people based on bad laws is the problem.

ethbro 7y ago
Where there is a way and profit, someone will have the will.
dmix 7y ago
I've never fully agreed that when you're in public all data collection on you is fair game. These are governments that we are setting up to benefit ourselves, this seems far more in the interest of gov interests than citizens. If they were strictly limited to criminal investigations and required a warrant to scan the images that might be a different story.
- edejong 7y ago
  IMHO, publicly gathered information should automatically be made publicly available. That should give people something to think about.
zaroth 7y ago
Technology itself is always amoral. Even splitting the atom can be used to achieve wonderful and horrific outcomes. So of course “facial recognition” per say is not the problem. But in this particular example, we see how facial recognition combined with a couple hundred million surveillance cameras funneled into a massive government data processing pipeline can be extremely effectively used for persistent tracking and nearly instant geolocation of “suspects”. I’m pretty sure we’ve seen how this movie ends. There’s a reason we don’t implant GPS trackers into babies at birth just because they might get lost one day. Maybe China will use this technology to build a veritable Eden free from crime and lost puppies. Or maybe they are closing the grip on a dystopian nightmare. I think you have to be pretty naive to think it’s not looking startlingly like the latter.
- roenxi 7y ago
  > There’s a reason we don’t implant GPS trackers into babies at birth just because they might get lost one day. What reason are you thinking? I wouldn't support it myself, but I don't usually represent public opinion. GPS didn't really burst into the public imagination before 2007 and the iPhone; in a sense the technology is only about a decade old or so in the public sphere. Prior to 2000 the US government's official position was something like "this is a military technology". As the cost of sensors and radio chips goes down, we might reach the point where we do put a GPS sensor on everybody. Law enforcement would love it and on the small scale it would probably save lives and reduce crime.
  - genera1 7y ago
    >As the cost of sensors and radio chips goes down, we might reach the point where we do put a GPS sensor on everybody. Law enforcement would love it and on the small scale it would probably save lives and reduce crime. GPS chips are already cheap enough (single digit dollars), that it's an issue of policy\public perception, not cost
  - Wellshit 7y ago
    > we might reach the point where we do put a GPS sensor on everybody We're way past that point. We call'em smartphones.
  - mensetmanusman 7y ago
    Unless you can make gps readers that are non-metallic and don’t require battery changes, probably not going to happen...
- pacala 7y ago
  The situation in China is dire. USA is not far behind. Does your neighbor have a Ring camera? Well, that watches the whole street and it is connected to a massive corporate data processing pipeline that is used for persistent tracking of advertisement subjects. Only need to tweak it a little bit for vastly different purposes. Oh, and we work hard to improve our far-field microphones connected to the same pipeline. To offer you a better service [TM]. You make a critical point. Technology itself is always amoral. We are enamored by technology for technology sake, while we drifted away from our moral roots.
salawat 7y ago
Bad laws will always be made or be available for exploitation. That can't be fixed. The facial recognition, in this case, is the right place to intervene. The argument can be made it's a good thing for more people to be arrested for BSfaster to get laws off the books, however, I fear authority will exploit select enforcement to it's fullest extent to ensure they can put a sufficient number of problematic individuals away without stirring up unrest.
austhrow743 7y ago
Bad laws will always exist. The temptation to introduce more bad laws will always exist amongst law makers. It's important that enforcing the law be difficult, expensive, and imperfect.
noonespecial 7y ago
Ah yes, but at this point I'm quite sure it will be used in service of "bad laws" and little else. Its true that thanks to profit motive, someone will build it. Its just not going to be me.
AngryData 7y ago
Maybe im naive but I don't see anything positive coming from facial recognition. Its two main uses are targeted advertising and finding dissidents. It could help find a handful of criminals, but considering the high level of false positives, the inevitable abuse like every other police technology, and the fact that I live in a police state where im unknowingly breaking any number of laws at any given moment, I don't see how it helps more than it hurts. Might as well require people to carry papers at all times and submit to police checkpoints at every street corner.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Face recognition as a technology won’t go away. What’s important is preventing governments and private groups from using face recognition in abusive ways. A legal framework for what is and is not okay must be established.
  - AngryData 7y ago
    The simplest and most effective legal framework would be to just outlaw it. Of course the technology doesn't disappear, none of it ever does, but there are still plenty of technologies that are banned because they are a net negative effect upon the world. I still don't see any positives to allowing it.
rtpg 7y ago
It sure helps not to hand the tools directly to the oppressors. Of course stopping all facial recognition doesn't suddenly make a totalitarian regime disappear. But having it makes some things way easier than it used to be. For what? automatic tagging of faces in your photo library?
pushpop 7y ago
You can’t guarantee good people will always be in charge, even in “good” countries. Public opinion changes, new politicians get votes into power, etc. Which is why I’m against tools like this. Sure, it might mean I’m in favour of a few bad people getting away with crimes but privacy laws are about protecting everyone because one day it might be the “good guys” that depend on privacy and we might find it’s already too late.

Where there is a way and profit, someone will have the will.

dmix 7y ago

I've never fully agreed that when you're in public all data collection on you is fair game. These are governments that we are setting up to benefit ourselves, this seems far more in the interest of gov interests than citizens. If they were strictly limited to criminal investigations and required a warrant to scan the images that might be a different story.

edejong 7y ago
IMHO, publicly gathered information should automatically be made publicly available. That should give people something to think about.

zaroth 7y ago

Technology itself is always amoral. Even splitting the atom can be used to achieve wonderful and horrific outcomes. So of course “facial recognition” per say is not the problem. But in this particular example, we see how facial recognition combined with a couple hundred million surveillance cameras funneled into a massive government data processing pipeline can be extremely effectively used for persistent tracking and nearly instant geolocation of “suspects”. I’m pretty sure we’ve seen how this movie ends. There’s a reason we don’t implant GPS trackers into babies at birth just because they might get lost one day. Maybe China will use this technology to build a veritable Eden free from crime and lost puppies. Or maybe they are closing the grip on a dystopian nightmare. I think you have to be pretty naive to think it’s not looking startlingly like the latter.

roenxi 7y ago
> There’s a reason we don’t implant GPS trackers into babies at birth just because they might get lost one day. What reason are you thinking? I wouldn't support it myself, but I don't usually represent public opinion. GPS didn't really burst into the public imagination before 2007 and the iPhone; in a sense the technology is only about a decade old or so in the public sphere. Prior to 2000 the US government's official position was something like "this is a military technology". As the cost of sensors and radio chips goes down, we might reach the point where we do put a GPS sensor on everybody. Law enforcement would love it and on the small scale it would probably save lives and reduce crime.
- genera1 7y ago
  >As the cost of sensors and radio chips goes down, we might reach the point where we do put a GPS sensor on everybody. Law enforcement would love it and on the small scale it would probably save lives and reduce crime. GPS chips are already cheap enough (single digit dollars), that it's an issue of policy\public perception, not cost
- Wellshit 7y ago
  > we might reach the point where we do put a GPS sensor on everybody We're way past that point. We call'em smartphones.
- mensetmanusman 7y ago
  Unless you can make gps readers that are non-metallic and don’t require battery changes, probably not going to happen...
pacala 7y ago
The situation in China is dire. USA is not far behind. Does your neighbor have a Ring camera? Well, that watches the whole street and it is connected to a massive corporate data processing pipeline that is used for persistent tracking of advertisement subjects. Only need to tweak it a little bit for vastly different purposes. Oh, and we work hard to improve our far-field microphones connected to the same pipeline. To offer you a better service [TM]. You make a critical point. Technology itself is always amoral. We are enamored by technology for technology sake, while we drifted away from our moral roots.

salawat 7y ago

Bad laws will always be made or be available for exploitation. That can't be fixed. The facial recognition, in this case, is the right place to intervene. The argument can be made it's a good thing for more people to be arrested for BSfaster to get laws off the books, however, I fear authority will exploit select enforcement to it's fullest extent to ensure they can put a sufficient number of problematic individuals away without stirring up unrest.

austhrow743 7y ago

Bad laws will always exist. The temptation to introduce more bad laws will always exist amongst law makers. It's important that enforcing the law be difficult, expensive, and imperfect.

noonespecial 7y ago

Ah yes, but at this point I'm quite sure it will be used in service of "bad laws" and little else. Its true that thanks to profit motive, someone will build it. Its just not going to be me.

AngryData 7y ago

Maybe im naive but I don't see anything positive coming from facial recognition. Its two main uses are targeted advertising and finding dissidents. It could help find a handful of criminals, but considering the high level of false positives, the inevitable abuse like every other police technology, and the fact that I live in a police state where im unknowingly breaking any number of laws at any given moment, I don't see how it helps more than it hurts. Might as well require people to carry papers at all times and submit to police checkpoints at every street corner.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Face recognition as a technology won’t go away. What’s important is preventing governments and private groups from using face recognition in abusive ways. A legal framework for what is and is not okay must be established.
- AngryData 7y ago
  The simplest and most effective legal framework would be to just outlaw it. Of course the technology doesn't disappear, none of it ever does, but there are still plenty of technologies that are banned because they are a net negative effect upon the world. I still don't see any positives to allowing it.

rtpg 7y ago

It sure helps not to hand the tools directly to the oppressors. Of course stopping all facial recognition doesn't suddenly make a totalitarian regime disappear. But having it makes some things way easier than it used to be. For what? automatic tagging of faces in your photo library?

pushpop 7y ago

You can’t guarantee good people will always be in charge, even in “good” countries. Public opinion changes, new politicians get votes into power, etc. Which is why I’m against tools like this. Sure, it might mean I’m in favour of a few bad people getting away with crimes but privacy laws are about protecting everyone because one day it might be the “good guys” that depend on privacy and we might find it’s already too late.