9 ms·
U.S. Gov Privacy Watchdog Under Pressure to Recommend Facial Recognition Ban
- tictok4 7y agoGood but don't exempt the government. Many local cities are building out vast networks. Including my very own Miami Beach Police Department.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoNah. That's boomer-tier dumbass thinking.
- stevehawk 7y agoIf you're out in public then what privacy are you expecting?
- mehrdadn 7y agoI'd expect the same privacy we were getting before such technology came along.
- TylerE 7y agoWhich is none? Anyone can walk up to you on the street and take your picture.
- mehrdadn 7y agoAnd I'd be fine with that whenever that would happen by a person organically making the decision to do so.
- nitrogen 7y agoNext gig economy job/alternate reality game: public surveillance
- mirimir 7y agoYeah, like Followr in Gibson's Agency.
- ta999999171 7y agoPublic plate scanning as a job into private databases for private investigators, repo men, and the feds to purchase already exists.
- catalogia 7y agoDoing that systematically is called stalking.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoIf you purposely ignore the power of new tech. Might as well say nothing changed with the invention of earth moving machinery because you could have done the same thing with a shovel.
- TylerE 7y agoWay to miss the point. The invention of the bulldozer didn't change property rights.
- caconym_ 7y agoI don't think he's missing the point so much as you're missing his, possibly intentionally. The point is that the degree to which something is possible at scale has an impact on the practical applications of that thing, and therefore on the people subject to its application. Viz., earth moving machinery (and related engineering) has made possible things that would previously have required orders of magnitude more time and/or manpower, likely making them economically infeasible except in rare cases where money was no object. He didn't say anything about property rights. That was you... for some reason.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoOur existing laws and ideas of privacy were build based on the limitations of the current tech. Yes you could take a photo of a random person in public but it wasn't very useful or harmful to do so. Now we have supercharged spyware tech we have the ability to cause a lot of harm without being in violation of any existing laws because such a thing simply wasn't possible previously.
- TylerE 7y agoCitation needed. Current laws predate the invention of such fundamental technology as the camera, never mind video recording.
- scrps 7y agoSaying technological changes don't subvert the underlying structure of a concept is like saying war didn't change after the introduction of gunpowder or flight. These technological changes add additional dimensions, they may not radically change the initial structure but they lead to radically different outcomes than anticipated which society doesn't have to accept.
- Barrin92 7y agoWorthwhile to point out that this applies predominantly to the US. In many countries, public pictures can only be taken with the individuals' consent, Germany for example and many other European countries have a 'right to your own image/likeness' or a concept along similar lines. That said the difference between law enforcement collecting your data and private citizens should also be obvious.
- stubish 7y agoThe camera was invented and this became a problem for public figures. It became more of a problem with digital photography. Much more of a problem with camera phones. And became the privacy nightmare we are now dealing with around the rise of Twitter and Instagram.
- dTal 7y agoThere's a huge quantitative and qualitative difference between the possibility of something happening once, and it actually happening 24/7. It's like the difference between listening to Coltrane in the afternoon, vs operating a 24h trumpet school out of your living room.
- caconym_ 7y ago1. What one expects != what one thinks is right. 2. I suppose you would be ok, then, with a police officer tailing you everywhere you go, recording everything you do, everywhere you go, everything you say, and to whom, peering in the windows of your home if you forget to keep your blinds drawn? Just in case that information happens to be useful to a government at some point in the future?
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoYep, and its also not a reasonable thing to say "If you go outside you accept total surveillance." Since going outside is a requirement for life. I find it acceptable that if I go outside I might get caught on some store security camera and that video sits on a hard drive for a week and then gets written over but I do not find it acceptable that the store camera recognizes my face and stores my presence in an easily searchable internet connected database.
- caconym_ 7y agoYeah, "find it acceptable" is good verbiage. There seems to be a lot of conflation on this subject between "expectation of privacy" in the practical sense and "expectation of privacy" in the legal sense. Like, you'd better fuckin believe I expect not to be followed by cops or secret agents everywhere I go. I expect it on the persistence forecast basis and because I understand that it's practically impossible to allocate manpower in that way, assuming they don't think I've done anything wrong in particular. I also expect that the government, local and federal both, will try to erode my effective privacy in any and every way they can afford and get away with. None of that has much to do with e.g. the fact that legally, if a cop peers in my window and sees bales of cocaine stacked on the floor of my living room, or whatever, he can come in and take them from me and arrest me.
- ta999999171 7y agoWith aerial planes, and facial recognition everywhere, they won't have to. They can sit at home, and watch you, and you yesterday, and if they're really intrigued, you ten years ago!
- dredmorbius 7y agoHelen Nissenbaum, "Toward an approach to privacy in public: Challenges of information technology", Ethics and Behavior 7 (3):207 – 219 (1997) https://nissenbaum.tech.cornell.edu/papers/toward_an_approach.pdf https://nissenbaum.tech.cornell.edu/papers/toward_an_approac... (pdf) https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/privacy-in-public/ https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/privacy-in-public/
- dathinab 7y agoCounter question. Do you expect/are ok with that the moment you leave your house you are constantly followed by a person with a camera recording everything you do. Which shops you visite etc.? Because this is basically what this will sooner or later boil down to, except that's more subtle (i.e. instead of having a person following you you have a innumerable amount of cameras sharing the recording burden, but producing the _same end result_). Also, you might want to say you don't have to hide anything. But consider how "god" the cyber security of the police is (or most times is not). Also consider that there are frequently cases of police misbehaving by e.g. stalking or discriminating. (I mean there is a lot of police and they are human so it would be surprising if there wouldn't be such cases). Lastly consider how long it will take until police stations would want to sell some most likely very badly anonymized data about people in the city to e.g. shops.
- Frost1x 7y agoPeople expect a degree of anonymity in public as well--disappearing into crowds or groups of people. That too will be gone soon when biological recognition services are in the hands of people. I suspect it won't be long until you can arbitrarily pull your phone, grab some video/image and/or audio data, pass a few (hundred) signature markers off to a service and identify people with a variety of metadata associated with them.
- tictok4 7y ago>>Counter question. Do you expect/are ok with that the moment you leave your house you are constantly followed by a person with a camera recording everything you do. Which shops you visite etc.? >>Because this is basically what this will sooner or later boil down to This exists now in Miami Beach, Florida, USA.
- bsenftner 7y agoYou realize your phone is providing everything anyone tracking you needs, without FR, already, TODAY?
- bathtub365 7y ago
- m-p-3 7y agoWould you agree with having a police officer following and watching you everytime you leave your house? You'd expect someone on probation to have that kind of situation.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago"Nothing to hide" is indicative of condoning inverted/actual totalitarianism, until the Chinese-inspired tracking system follows you around every moment of your life and gives you a social credit score that tells you that you can't fly on a plane or take a train. Or looks extra hard for any technicality felonies you commit unwittingly in your professional career as reprisal if you speak out against their abuses. So maybe you might want some privacy now? Also, I guess you won't mind publishing all of your passwords, physical location at all times, never wearing clothes, living in a transparent house and being video and audio recorded 24x7 either. (Yes, it's unreasonably absurd ad infinitum.) Still not wanting any privacy? How about other people can have as much privacy as they want, and stay the heck off my lawn? ;-P
- unhashable 7y agoBoom.
- whydoineedone 7y agohaving a person follow you around is not the same as an AI. you're comparing apples and oranges. I think having laws to control how and when the data is accessed as well as a degree of transparency into that access along with safeguards/oversight is reasonable. to simply say that we shouldn't use the technology is luddite fearmongering. should we have kept filing cabinets full of papers instead of databases for tracking criminals across state lines as well? see? I can make bullshit comparisons too!
- homonculus1 7y ago>should we have kept filing cabinets full of papers instead of databases for tracking criminals across state lines as well? Yes.
- sb057 7y agoIt's less a matter of privacy at any given moment and more of having every given moment and location you're in public logged.
- flattone 7y agoPublix’s privacy expectations aside ... Facial recognition is more like being owned as a result of existing
- tluyben2 7y agoHere in Spain for instance; https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/spains-strict-new-limitations-on-video-surveillance.html https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/spains-strict-new-li... (basically; you cannot film/photograph anyone without their consent, including in public)
- mtgx 7y agoQuite a lot actually. I don't expect having someone or something register everywhere I move within a city or country. I don't expect the government identifying each protest I go to. It seems most people forget that in a supposed democracy, the people can decide how to leave pretty much however they want (caveat: if they can convince their lawmakers of that, at least). You can decide whether there is a death penalty or not. You can decide whether gay people can marry and live together or not. You can decide if the police has the "right" to monitor your movement and have access to all of your digital communications in real-time or otherwise, or not. Isn't that the purpose of a democracy? If the rulers decide everything, then it's no longer a democratic country (and sadly, yes, I don't think the US is currently a democratic country in any way, sadly - at best it's a plutocracy).
- tictok4 7y agoI'm expecting not to be tracked by 50 axis cameras with analytic software the moment I step out my front door and go for a walk or run in my city. To not have my path tracked or reviewed should someone unaccountable decide to do so.
- bsenftner 7y agoYet, you carry your phone.
- thrwaway69 7y agoEvery thread with privacy debates make me more and more curious about what kind of things HN users want/need to hide so bad from the public ;) Maybe they own goog stocks in secret. Edit: this isn't serious.
- kick 7y agoSnowden has a great quote that points out how ridiculous that line of thinking is: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
- t223 7y agoUnfortunately ANPR is becoming ubiquitous - especially around A1A. I’d support banning this as well.
- tictok4 7y agoI might be content with a large warning sign "LICENSE PLATE READER AHEAD" for each location.
- mschuster91 7y agoSo in the end people who don't want to be tracked in their movement by the government only have the option to drive through small back-in-the-woods roads, while the new "highway toll" is to have your data harvested?
- kerkeslager 7y agoTelling people you're doing something, but giving them no other options, isn't good enough. There are roads near me which do "toll by mail" where they snap a picture of your license plate, and then bill you the toll even if you don't have EZ-Pass. There are signs which announce this, but unless you're planning to drive 90 minutes out of your way, those sections of highway aren't avoidable. Even if there are other viable options, the average citizen doesn't really understand the implication of losing their privacy, so they can't make an educated decision about whether to give it up. A simple sign doesn't solve that fundamental problem.
- tictok4 7y agoIt'd inform those that weren't aware at least... Some of which may find it reprehensible. And maybe lobby to change.
- kerkeslager 7y agoSure, it's a step in the right direction, but you said "I'd be content with...", i.e. you're content with stopping there, which isn't nearly a good enough spot to stop.
- boopmaster 7y agoIt would be helpful to have centralized reporting on what entities possess hashes or content that can be used to derive biometric telemetry, and tools that allow opt-in for of-age adults, and that offers accessible, no hassle options to destroy said data + severe penalties for violating said agreements (cannot do business in the region until data is purged to standards, etc.) I’d err on the side of “DELET THIS” ahead of worrying about the identity of the requestor.
- throwaway743 7y agoDoes this pertain specifically to facial recognition or does this also include other biometric markers? If solely facial recognition, then this means jack shit, as people will be identified with other measurements.
- vuln 7y agoYou’re 100% correct banning facial recognition means jack shit. I guess it’s a start though. Chinese ‘gait recognition’ tech IDs people by how they walk https://apnews.com/bf75dd1c26c947b7826d270a16e2658a https://apnews.com/bf75dd1c26c947b7826d270a16e2658a
- ardy42 7y ago> Chinese ‘gait recognition’ tech IDs people by how they walk https://apnews.com/bf75dd1c26c947b7826d270a16e2658a https://apnews.com/bf75dd1c26c947b7826d270a16e2658a An ex-CIA disguise specialist said that you can change your gait by putting a pebble in your shoe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASUsVY5YJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASUsVY5YJ8 Her comments were targeting human recognition, and I speculate that one of the reasons she was allowed to share her disguise techniques is that maybe they're ineffective against automated facial recognition and therefore obsolete.
- trhway 7y agoso, one has to be on a scooter and inside a half transparent balloon. Almost like haut-women of Cetaganda. Naturally it was allowed only for that higher caste.
- hanniabu 7y agoJust wait for the scooter recognition technology...
- bsenftner 7y agoAnd bad journalism gets repeated: 'gait recognition' is fraud now, it was something until proved to be unreliable and easily defeated several years ago. nobody peddling gait recognition is taken seriously - it is almost a line in the sand for technical idiots trying to cash in, not actual members of the security industry, just tech opportunists.
- xupybd 7y agoThis is a good start. We really do need to regulate this stuff. There are far too many ways this can be abused.
- TylerE 7y agoI don't think this sort of thing is constructive. Biometrics is GOING to happen. I'd rather companies be (potentially) honest, rather than move on the next thing and not publicize it.
- tjpnz 7y agoSince when has a for profit corporation been completely honest with the public, especially when it comes to something as controversial as this.
- TylerE 7y agoWell, if it's BANNED we KNOW they'll lie about it.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoThere are processes to punish people and companies if they violate a ban and get found out. Works for theft, murder and other things.
- TylerE 7y agoDoesn't really work for corporations. (See: Dieselgate). They don't get caught for years, if ever.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoThen that needs to be fixed. We can’t just accept that companies are above the law.
- TylerE 7y agoSo, kind of tying back to earlier ideas.. the government should regulate effectively... a major source is "off road" engines like lawn mowers. Diesel cars are not. (Trucks yes, but as ever ever those standards are far laxer)
- umvi 7y agoFacial recognition tech could save so much time and money though. Imagine how many man hours would be saved if teachers no longer had to take attendance? Shoplifting would hit all time lows since you wouldn't be able to get away with it short of wearing a mask into the store.
- piracy1 7y agoYa but at the price of general freedom.
- umvi 7y agoWhat freedom is lost, exactly?
- hdydhwhd 7y agoAs far as I can tell the core axiom of privacy activism is that it's a given that the trade is not worth it. It's why so much of the digital privacy movement is people who don't live in bad neighborhoods.
- Nasrudith 7y agoOf course that is more Mazlowe Hiearchy of needs. The truth is giving away privacy wouldn't help in bad neighborhoods because the reason it is a bad neighborhood is nobody with power cares. You will still get some combination of murder, robbed, and raped before a camera and they might get around to it eventually.
- kick 7y agoStudents? You're proposing we track students? It says something that the first example that's used (not just you, I've seen it many times elsewhere, too) is that we track the only group of people who by-and-large cannot consent, and not only that, but in a way that has permanent implications for their right to privacy. Further, the idea of facial recognition being used in every store is atrocious. Not only can they track you online, now advertisers and the government can track your offline spending habits and location at all times, too! Why hasn't anyone proposed a use for facial recognition that isn't: 1. Useless (like it is in iOS) 2. Completely scummy (like it is in both of your examples) 3. Using it to increase surveillance on populations that cannot legally offer consent in any way, in areas that they're forced to go to? I kind of expect it here on HN, given how large of a proportion of adtech and other surveillance-oriented employees there are here, but I see it everywhere, and it's just confounding.
- AlexCoventry 7y ago> The agency, created in 2004, advises the administration on privacy issues. So the agency came into existence as a fig leaf for the Bush administration... Any reason to believe it's grown teeth since then?
- morpheuskafka 7y agoTitle is somewhat misleading, although not intentionally so: > The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), an independent agency, is coming under increasing pressure to recommend the federal government stop using facial recognition. The PCLOB exists to advise the government on compliance with civil liberties and privacy principles, not to recommend bans on private activities. This proposal would only restrict federal agencies, not third parties--unlike proposals by the EU which would ban private data processors and companies.
- papito 7y agoI was just thinking the other day how you won't even have to tap your card to pay for something - just walk up to the register. The future is bright, but most likely - dark and terrifying.
- snarf21 7y agoThe future is dark and full of terrors. 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 only scratched the surface. I truly expect in the future we'll voluntary put ourselves into the Matrix or the Oasis. It will be the only way to cope because real life will become so controlled.
- bsenftner 7y agoAnd for your correct understanding: FR is not authoritative, is is not secure for financial transactions. Any company implementing FR alone as authentication to access sensitive, personal or financial data is stupendously foolish. Apple's FaceID is not 2D, it uses additional 3D data and multiple frames, so it is more secure, but not enough in my opinion for financial access.
- dr01d 7y agoI'm using opencv with facial detection running in the browser as JavaScript. The technology is here and isn't going away. Realistically, smartphones are tracking everyone all the time and provide rich datasets. Camera, microphone, and GPS. If you turn off location services your phone still connects to cell towers, WiFi access points, and Bluetooth beacons, as you drive or walk around throughout your day.