4 ms·

Facial 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? Shopli

by umvi 7y ago

Facial 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 ago
Ya but at the price of general freedom.
- umvi 7y ago
  What freedom is lost, exactly?
hdydhwhd 7y ago
As 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 ago
  Of 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 ago
Students? 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.
- deanCommie 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure that umvi was sarcastic. Think about his last sentence.
  - rahuldottech 7y ago
    Poe's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law If you're going to be sarcastic over the text on the internet, please make your intent clear with a "/s".
  - kick 7y ago
    I hate to cross-reference as that's technically breaking the rules, but their post history doesn't exactly suggest that they're being sarcastic, and their (three-person, all related) company's privacy policy seems to be "We're taking your data, and hell yes we're going to sell it."
    - umvi 7y ago
      I'm not being sarcastic. The privacy policy I have on my website is used for exactly one app in the Google/iOS App store and is based on a template one I found on GitHub. FWIW, that one app collects exactly zero data on users other than whatever Unity collects for serving opt-in ads.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  The annoying thing about the emphasis is that there is an obvious use for it that won't suffer from an overload problem - personal usage for those of us who have terrible face memory/recognition and ability to manually enter/assign a string to a face. That would combine with AR. But that AR has already flopped due to several issues even without the added camera needed. Plus the issues of existing eyeglass combining. Really that Glass backlash was bizzare along with the post 9-11 "anyone pointing a camera near anything man made must be a terrorist" yet nobody bats an eye or does more than snark at surveillance cameras everywhere. There is probably some psychological principle behind it but the simplest explanation is that "normal people" are fundamentally fucking insane and only care about it conforming to norms instead of actual harm.
deanCommie 7y ago
Don't forget toll booths! Each car could go through the booth seconds faster if each had Apple FaceID, and you could pay that way!
jeroenhd 7y ago
Why waste all that money on cameras when you can just have a mandatory, government-issued ankle bracelet with GPS gear? Way cheaper to mass produce and businesses don't need to invest in their own hardware. Systems like this could be very nice and useful but as long as companies make shady data deals and can't do basic data protection, implementing such a system is just a plain bad idea. Tracking students should be opt-in anyway ("go study some place else if you don't like our tracking system" isn't opt-in) and I doubt you're going to get much support for tracking someone's exact movements every minute of the school day as long as the equifaxes of the world prove that data protection is none of their concern.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by umvi 7y ago

piracy1 7y ago

Ya but at the price of general freedom.

umvi 7y ago
What freedom is lost, exactly?

hdydhwhd 7y ago

As 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 ago
Of 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 ago

Students? 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.

deanCommie 7y ago
I'm pretty sure that umvi was sarcastic. Think about his last sentence.
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  Poe's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law If you're going to be sarcastic over the text on the internet, please make your intent clear with a "/s".
- kick 7y ago
  I hate to cross-reference as that's technically breaking the rules, but their post history doesn't exactly suggest that they're being sarcastic, and their (three-person, all related) company's privacy policy seems to be "We're taking your data, and hell yes we're going to sell it."
  - umvi 7y ago
    I'm not being sarcastic. The privacy policy I have on my website is used for exactly one app in the Google/iOS App store and is based on a template one I found on GitHub. FWIW, that one app collects exactly zero data on users other than whatever Unity collects for serving opt-in ads.
Nasrudith 7y ago
The annoying thing about the emphasis is that there is an obvious use for it that won't suffer from an overload problem - personal usage for those of us who have terrible face memory/recognition and ability to manually enter/assign a string to a face. That would combine with AR. But that AR has already flopped due to several issues even without the added camera needed. Plus the issues of existing eyeglass combining. Really that Glass backlash was bizzare along with the post 9-11 "anyone pointing a camera near anything man made must be a terrorist" yet nobody bats an eye or does more than snark at surveillance cameras everywhere. There is probably some psychological principle behind it but the simplest explanation is that "normal people" are fundamentally fucking insane and only care about it conforming to norms instead of actual harm.

deanCommie 7y ago

Don't forget toll booths! Each car could go through the booth seconds faster if each had Apple FaceID, and you could pay that way!

jeroenhd 7y ago

Why waste all that money on cameras when you can just have a mandatory, government-issued ankle bracelet with GPS gear? Way cheaper to mass produce and businesses don't need to invest in their own hardware. Systems like this could be very nice and useful but as long as companies make shady data deals and can't do basic data protection, implementing such a system is just a plain bad idea. Tracking students should be opt-in anyway ("go study some place else if you don't like our tracking system" isn't opt-in) and I doubt you're going to get much support for tracking someone's exact movements every minute of the school day as long as the equifaxes of the world prove that data protection is none of their concern.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]