3 ms·
Do the facial recognition, then throw out that data if it turns out the face in question isn't in the whitelist of consenting users. Computers aren't like huma
by Ajedi32 7y ago
Do the facial recognition, then throw out that data if it turns out the face in question isn't in the whitelist of consenting users.
Computers aren't like humans. They have the ability to permanently and irreversibly forget certain information, and they always do exactly what they're programmed to. A local, on-device facial recognition programmed to immediately discard information on unrecognized faces has exactly zero privacy impact. (See also: smart speakers listening for a hotword.)
- tjoff 7y agoFalse positives. (See also: smart speakers listening for a hotword.)
- Ajedi32 7y agoWhich is, ironically, a problem that is solvable by improving the accuracy of voice/facial recognition technology.
- tjoff 7y agoIronically how? Facial recognition isn't banned. Research isn't banned. Another problem is that the risk of abuse is too great, even if the accuracy was flawless.
- Ajedi32 7y agoI find it ironic because that's one particular privacy problem where better facial recognition technology is the solution, not the cause. If the accuracy were flawless then there would be zero false positives, and the aforementioned issue wouldn't exist at all.
- tjoff 7y agoYou can't seriously believe that better facial recognition technology will result in better privacy - in any imaginable future. We live in a universe where Facebook and Google exist and people in adtech can justify their actions. Yet perfect facial recognition will lead to better privacy? Oh, and it is hardly the only issue.
- Ajedi32 7y agoYou're taking my statement out of context. Better facial recognition would fix the one particular privacy issue that you brought up. (False positives.) I've said nothing about adtech, Google, Facebook, or any of the other topics you're just now bringing into this discussion.
- tjoff 7y agoFair enough, I just don't find that solving one edge-case at the same time as creating countless new major issues is particularly helpful.
- cryptoz 7y ago> A local, on-device facial recognition programmed to immediately discard information on unrecognized faces has exactly zero privacy impact. (See also: smart speakers listening for a hotword.) This just isn't true, though. Hotword detection fails frequently for me with Siri, Google Home, and Alexa. I haven't tried the others. They all pick up unrelated sounds and record them as if the hotword was spoken when it definitely was not. Not even a similar sounding set of words. There are absolutely privacy implications for technology that does automated scanning and recognition of its environment. They are buggy, as all programs are, and they are hackable, as all programs are. Being both potentially buggy, potentially hackable, and constantly alert and running algorithms on their environment is absolutely a valid and real privacy concern.