8 ms·

If you build a system you can query for any face and get the identity, it will not take very long for someone asking for it to be used to identify violent crimi

by cm2187 7y ago

If you build a system you can query for any face and get the identity, it will not take very long for someone asking for it to be used to identify violent criminals. Then terrorists at airport gates. Then demonstrators. etc.

seszett 7y ago
The "system" (an NFC passport) is already used at airport gates, though. Violent criminals and demonstrators are rarely identified through their passports because these events don't make it easy to check people's passports, but ID documents are sometimes used, the photo is just checked by policemen rather than an app on the user's phone.
laumars 7y ago
This app doesn't provide the government any new information (it uses ID the government already issue) nor invent any new technology (face recognition already exists). If French government - or any government for that matter - wished to do what you described then this app wouldn't be the proverbial gateway drug to that point. In fact, the entire point of passports is to identify people at airport gates and other national borders.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > This app doesn't provide the government any new information > wished to do what you described then this app wouldn't be the proverbial gateway drug to that point. It's not about "gateway drug" - it's about taking small, incremental steps to get from point A to point B such that you don't realize it, and each action is a small change from the previous. This is widely known as Salami Slicing[0], though I like to call it "slow boiling a frog." This is the same tactic I use to slowly bring errant teams and projects up-to-code at work, start off slow with a build server, add in pass-fail rules, add in style rules, add in test requirements, add in code review to ensure these things are up to snuff and before you know it we have a nice compliant project, whereas if I walked in on Day 0 and laid down the law there is guaranteed revolt. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing
  - icebraining 7y ago
    But it's not an incremental step. The French government already had that database. This is just using the data they already had in a new way.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > But it's not an incremental step. The French government already had that database. This is just using the data they already had in a new way. Yes, it is a new, small, incremental step! This is introducing a new procedure, a procedure they can change later to move the needle forward. This is the whole point, doing small incremental steps. Each of which appears rather banal and unobjectionable. That you don't care is proof it works!
      - icebraining 7y ago
        Anything can change later, even removing a procedure could be a prelude to adding a new, more invasive one. An incremental step requires an increment. Nothing gets incremented here. The French government already had this data, and already used it to biometrically identify people. The only thing this inches toward is to a reduction in the number of public functionaries. This is the automated checkout system for State services, nothing more.
        mieseratte 7y ago
        > Nothing gets incremented here. People's expectations and willingnesses are moved forward. Overton Window. > This is the automated checkout system for State services, nothing more. Look beyond the superficial, at larger issues. Anyone can shoot any idea down by reducing it to a simple, innocuous sounding concept to make the other look ridiculous. Claiming "there's nothing here" is wrong, saying "I recognize the potential for bad, but choose to accept that risk" is a different story.
        icebraining 7y ago
        > People's expectations and willingnesses are moved forward. No, they aren't. > Look beyond the superficial, at larger issues. I'm looking at the larger issues. I just disagree with you. I don't think you have made your case.
raverbashing 7y ago
> If you build a system you can query for any face and get the identity True, but you can't. Facebook can't. That's (one of the reasons) they suggest tagging amongst your friends, not amongst all of FB people. You can identify one person (with a certain degree of certainty) against a certain range of candidates. Or you can search for one person on a small sample of images (100s or 1000s of images). So yes you can have a db of "persons of interest" and that will be searchable when someone appears at an airport. But if the number of people in that DB increases you're going to have more false positives and lower confidence.
- cm2187 7y ago
  True, but that's not different from fingerprints. Fingerprints have collisions. That doesn't mean that it isn't a highly effective tool.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    Yes, the analogy is valid. Hence why fingerprints are "good"/"very good" at making sure the person presenting the fingerprint is who they claim they are, but for other purposes, not so much. But they be better than face recognition at "search at a DB" tasks (especially if you have multiple fingers)
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      The current system is that a human being looks at you then at your passport/ID card, and then concludes that the document is genuine and that you are the same person as in the picture. So the question is: how good at this is a facial recognition system compared to a human being?
bb123 7y ago
I'm okay with identifying terrorists at airport gates. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Which is fine and dandy until the day you're a target. Power is a sword that cuts both ways.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    you can always be the target to border or airport controls regardless of how much technology is involved, and policing was no less crude before we introduced facial recognition checks. I've been checked at airports before and I have no problem with airport security either. Terrorism or crime are real threats and police without technology is just as biased if not more so then machine aided ones. The minority report fears every time technology is introduced to policing is an abstract and slightly silly complaint given that most police brutality and abuse of power occurs in impoverished, low tech areas, where if anything police has fewer tools and force available than in public airports and surveilled neighbourhoods.
    - lifty 7y ago
      The problem is that these kind of automated system give governments more leverage than policing using people, and it enables them to do systemic oppression. Also, people have a moral compass that can prevent them from doing bad things, while machines don't. But everything is fine as long as the government is ok. I come from one of the eastern EU states which were under communist rule, and I am naturally more skeptical towards these systems. edit: I understand that in this particular example the data is stored only on the phones, so your face is used only used to generate a unique signature, which I don't find that bad. But it's important that this is kept in check and that the system is not extended later to centralise all this data.
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago

by cm2187 7y ago

seszett 7y ago

The "system" (an NFC passport) is already used at airport gates, though. Violent criminals and demonstrators are rarely identified through their passports because these events don't make it easy to check people's passports, but ID documents are sometimes used, the photo is just checked by policemen rather than an app on the user's phone.

laumars 7y ago

This app doesn't provide the government any new information (it uses ID the government already issue) nor invent any new technology (face recognition already exists). If French government - or any government for that matter - wished to do what you described then this app wouldn't be the proverbial gateway drug to that point. In fact, the entire point of passports is to identify people at airport gates and other national borders.

mieseratte 7y ago
> This app doesn't provide the government any new information > wished to do what you described then this app wouldn't be the proverbial gateway drug to that point. It's not about "gateway drug" - it's about taking small, incremental steps to get from point A to point B such that you don't realize it, and each action is a small change from the previous. This is widely known as Salami Slicing[0], though I like to call it "slow boiling a frog." This is the same tactic I use to slowly bring errant teams and projects up-to-code at work, start off slow with a build server, add in pass-fail rules, add in style rules, add in test requirements, add in code review to ensure these things are up to snuff and before you know it we have a nice compliant project, whereas if I walked in on Day 0 and laid down the law there is guaranteed revolt. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing
- icebraining 7y ago
  But it's not an incremental step. The French government already had that database. This is just using the data they already had in a new way.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    > But it's not an incremental step. The French government already had that database. This is just using the data they already had in a new way. Yes, it is a new, small, incremental step! This is introducing a new procedure, a procedure they can change later to move the needle forward. This is the whole point, doing small incremental steps. Each of which appears rather banal and unobjectionable. That you don't care is proof it works!
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Anything can change later, even removing a procedure could be a prelude to adding a new, more invasive one. An incremental step requires an increment. Nothing gets incremented here. The French government already had this data, and already used it to biometrically identify people. The only thing this inches toward is to a reduction in the number of public functionaries. This is the automated checkout system for State services, nothing more.
      - mieseratte 7y ago
        > Nothing gets incremented here. People's expectations and willingnesses are moved forward. Overton Window. > This is the automated checkout system for State services, nothing more. Look beyond the superficial, at larger issues. Anyone can shoot any idea down by reducing it to a simple, innocuous sounding concept to make the other look ridiculous. Claiming "there's nothing here" is wrong, saying "I recognize the potential for bad, but choose to accept that risk" is a different story.
        icebraining 7y ago
        > People's expectations and willingnesses are moved forward. No, they aren't. > Look beyond the superficial, at larger issues. I'm looking at the larger issues. I just disagree with you. I don't think you have made your case.

raverbashing 7y ago

> If you build a system you can query for any face and get the identity True, but you can't. Facebook can't. That's (one of the reasons) they suggest tagging amongst your friends, not amongst all of FB people. You can identify one person (with a certain degree of certainty) against a certain range of candidates. Or you can search for one person on a small sample of images (100s or 1000s of images). So yes you can have a db of "persons of interest" and that will be searchable when someone appears at an airport. But if the number of people in that DB increases you're going to have more false positives and lower confidence.

cm2187 7y ago
True, but that's not different from fingerprints. Fingerprints have collisions. That doesn't mean that it isn't a highly effective tool.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Yes, the analogy is valid. Hence why fingerprints are "good"/"very good" at making sure the person presenting the fingerprint is who they claim they are, but for other purposes, not so much. But they be better than face recognition at "search at a DB" tasks (especially if you have multiple fingers)
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    The current system is that a human being looks at you then at your passport/ID card, and then concludes that the document is genuine and that you are the same person as in the picture. So the question is: how good at this is a facial recognition system compared to a human being?

bb123 7y ago

I'm okay with identifying terrorists at airport gates. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

mieseratte 7y ago
Which is fine and dandy until the day you're a target. Power is a sword that cuts both ways.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  you can always be the target to border or airport controls regardless of how much technology is involved, and policing was no less crude before we introduced facial recognition checks. I've been checked at airports before and I have no problem with airport security either. Terrorism or crime are real threats and police without technology is just as biased if not more so then machine aided ones. The minority report fears every time technology is introduced to policing is an abstract and slightly silly complaint given that most police brutality and abuse of power occurs in impoverished, low tech areas, where if anything police has fewer tools and force available than in public airports and surveilled neighbourhoods.
  - lifty 7y ago
    The problem is that these kind of automated system give governments more leverage than policing using people, and it enables them to do systemic oppression. Also, people have a moral compass that can prevent them from doing bad things, while machines don't. But everything is fine as long as the government is ok. I come from one of the eastern EU states which were under communist rule, and I am naturally more skeptical towards these systems. edit: I understand that in this particular example the data is stored only on the phones, so your face is used only used to generate a unique signature, which I don't find that bad. But it's important that this is kept in check and that the system is not extended later to centralise all this data.
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago