5 ms·

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2020/01/were_banning_facial_.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2020/01/were_bannin... These bans have good

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2020/01/were_banning_facial_.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2020/01/were_bannin... These bans have good intentions, but won't solve the actual root of the issues, and does more harm than good.

Seenso 7y ago
> Regulating this system means addressing all three steps of the process. A ban on facial recognition won't make any difference if, in response, surveillance systems switch to identifying people by smartphone MAC addresses. The problem is that we are being identified without our knowledge or consent, and society needs rules about when that is permissible. It sounds like the ban needs to be broader, and extend to ban any technology used to automatically identify individuals without their consent using surveillance sensors.
- OrgNet 7y ago
  yes, license plate readers, wifi/bluetooth scanners/loggers, TPMS loggers, facial recognition, etc... all fall in the same category.
- prophesi 7y ago
  Yeah. Facial recognition by itself is fine, but let them be in hot water if they use it for identifying others. It's similar to how GDPR and similar laws operate. Collecting the data is fine, but you'll get in trouble if you process & distribute that data without clearly notifying your users.
  - tjoff 7y ago
    Who else are they going to identify, themselves?
    - prophesi 7y ago
      I don't know what you're trying to say. We're talking about corporate/state surveillance and privacy violations here.
    - ReverseCold 7y ago
      Maybe they're talking about something like Face ID on an iPhone? You can use it to identify yourself.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
tjoff 7y ago
I don't see how it isn't a fantastic start. It signals intent.
tastroder 7y ago
Schneier doesn't seem to make the point that they do harm in that article. He also specifically closes by extending the bans on facial recognition with a warning against focusing on facial recognition too much. Which is of course correct. The specific critique about smartphone tracking as a fallback wouldn't be valid in the geopolitical context of this thread, which is specifically Europe. In the US that's of course still the case.
- prophesi 7y ago
  The obvious harm in outright bans (I know this specific case is only banning it in public areas) are that it stifles innovation where the technologies are used to empower society. The reference to smartphone tracking before the one I believe you're referencing in that article details the myriad other of ways to track people: financial transactions, license plates, MAC addresses, heartbeat, gait, etc. You can substitute those in for the fallbacks.
  - tastroder 7y ago
    > The obvious harm in outright bans (I know this specific case is only banning it in public areas) are that it stifles innovation where the technologies are used to empower society. Fair enough but I've just asked this somebody in another thread here: What innovation? This seems completely hypothetical, facial recognition is neither hard, nor complex. Neither is image clustering and other backend stuff required to use this for malicious purposes. If innovation means use cases like clearview I don't really care. Surely the privacy of millions should be valued higher than a few startups with smart photo album technology or whatever that will likely fail anyway for completely untechnological reasons. The EU seems to be, quite surprisingly, relatively specific with this call for a ban. > The reference to smartphone tracking before the one I believe you're referencing in that article details the myriad other of ways to track people; financial transactions, license plates, MAC addresses, heartbeat, gait, etc. Don't see how that changes my argument, in the EU none of those are treated like they might be in the US. Especially after the introduction of GDPR that's already mostly illegal tracking, no matter the specific technological implementation, and should satistfy the critique Schneier brings in his article.

Seenso 7y ago

> Regulating this system means addressing all three steps of the process. A ban on facial recognition won't make any difference if, in response, surveillance systems switch to identifying people by smartphone MAC addresses. The problem is that we are being identified without our knowledge or consent, and society needs rules about when that is permissible. It sounds like the ban needs to be broader, and extend to ban any technology used to automatically identify individuals without their consent using surveillance sensors.

OrgNet 7y ago
yes, license plate readers, wifi/bluetooth scanners/loggers, TPMS loggers, facial recognition, etc... all fall in the same category.
prophesi 7y ago
Yeah. Facial recognition by itself is fine, but let them be in hot water if they use it for identifying others. It's similar to how GDPR and similar laws operate. Collecting the data is fine, but you'll get in trouble if you process & distribute that data without clearly notifying your users.
- tjoff 7y ago
  Who else are they going to identify, themselves?
  - prophesi 7y ago
    I don't know what you're trying to say. We're talking about corporate/state surveillance and privacy violations here.
  - ReverseCold 7y ago
    Maybe they're talking about something like Face ID on an iPhone? You can use it to identify yourself.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

tjoff 7y ago

I don't see how it isn't a fantastic start. It signals intent.

tastroder 7y ago

Schneier doesn't seem to make the point that they do harm in that article. He also specifically closes by extending the bans on facial recognition with a warning against focusing on facial recognition too much. Which is of course correct. The specific critique about smartphone tracking as a fallback wouldn't be valid in the geopolitical context of this thread, which is specifically Europe. In the US that's of course still the case.

prophesi 7y ago
The obvious harm in outright bans (I know this specific case is only banning it in public areas) are that it stifles innovation where the technologies are used to empower society. The reference to smartphone tracking before the one I believe you're referencing in that article details the myriad other of ways to track people: financial transactions, license plates, MAC addresses, heartbeat, gait, etc. You can substitute those in for the fallbacks.
- tastroder 7y ago
  > The obvious harm in outright bans (I know this specific case is only banning it in public areas) are that it stifles innovation where the technologies are used to empower society. Fair enough but I've just asked this somebody in another thread here: What innovation? This seems completely hypothetical, facial recognition is neither hard, nor complex. Neither is image clustering and other backend stuff required to use this for malicious purposes. If innovation means use cases like clearview I don't really care. Surely the privacy of millions should be valued higher than a few startups with smart photo album technology or whatever that will likely fail anyway for completely untechnological reasons. The EU seems to be, quite surprisingly, relatively specific with this call for a ban. > The reference to smartphone tracking before the one I believe you're referencing in that article details the myriad other of ways to track people; financial transactions, license plates, MAC addresses, heartbeat, gait, etc. Don't see how that changes my argument, in the EU none of those are treated like they might be in the US. Especially after the introduction of GDPR that's already mostly illegal tracking, no matter the specific technological implementation, and should satistfy the critique Schneier brings in his article.