4 ms·

@mods, actual title is "Unchecked use of computer vision by police carries high risks of discrimination" which is the big issue here.

deogeo 7y ago
Yes, mass surveillance is A-OK as long as it's not racist.
- fnord123 7y ago
  You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).
  - detaro 7y ago
    Not universally true. Different places have different laws about this.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    No expectation of privacy (arguable, but okay) doesn't imply it's OK to build mass surveillance infrastructure there.
  - Silhouette 7y ago
    Maybe you should be entitled to some respect for your privacy in public, though. Indeed in some places you are today. There is no good reason to extrapolate from the natural situation that "If you go out then someone might see you" to the entirely unnatural "If you go out then you should be subject to arbitrary surveillance, recording and analysis by unknown parties who also have access to unknown additional data about you for unknown purposes."
    - fnord123 7y ago
      Sure. And the article is about exactly that.
      - Silhouette 7y ago
        Not really. The article is about the potential for unintended bias in machine learning systems. That is just one small part of a much larger problem.
  - the_svd_doctor 7y ago
    No expectation is different from your information being automatically stored and analyzed (and easily traced back to you whenever the government feels like it).
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - fnord123 7y ago
      Sure and the article is about exactly that.
  - gruez 7y ago
    So you're fine with your everyday movements logged and published online? After all, to go anywhere you'll need to step public roads, so you have no expectation of privacy.
    - three_seagrass 7y ago
      >So you're fine with your everyday movements logged and published online? This comment will be downvoted, but this is hyperbole. Your everyday movements are more than just your activity in public spaces. Likewise any website publishing your activity in public spaces is not entitled to linking it to your PII, because if they do deanonymize it, you now have means to take it down.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        Your activity in public places is personally identifiable.
        three_seagrass 7y ago
        Again, any website publishing your activity in public spaces is not entitled to linking it to your PII, because if they do deanonymize it, you now have means to take it down.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        Your activity in public spaces is PII, it's as unique to you as your face.
    - asdff 7y ago
      If you leave bluetooth on your phone, they already are.
  - Zarath 7y ago
    Actually, I do.
jshevek 7y ago
>which is the big issue here There are at least two issues, and both are worth discussing. Interestingly, if we prevent the surveillance problem we also prevent the racist surveillance problem, so in this way one could argue that (in this specific situation) the surveillance problem is more fundamental.

deogeo 7y ago

Yes, mass surveillance is A-OK as long as it's not racist.

fnord123 7y ago
You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).
- detaro 7y ago
  Not universally true. Different places have different laws about this.
- deogeo 7y ago
  No expectation of privacy (arguable, but okay) doesn't imply it's OK to build mass surveillance infrastructure there.
- Silhouette 7y ago
  Maybe you should be entitled to some respect for your privacy in public, though. Indeed in some places you are today. There is no good reason to extrapolate from the natural situation that "If you go out then someone might see you" to the entirely unnatural "If you go out then you should be subject to arbitrary surveillance, recording and analysis by unknown parties who also have access to unknown additional data about you for unknown purposes."
  - fnord123 7y ago
    Sure. And the article is about exactly that.
    - Silhouette 7y ago
      Not really. The article is about the potential for unintended bias in machine learning systems. That is just one small part of a much larger problem.
- the_svd_doctor 7y ago
  No expectation is different from your information being automatically stored and analyzed (and easily traced back to you whenever the government feels like it).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - fnord123 7y ago
    Sure and the article is about exactly that.
- gruez 7y ago
  So you're fine with your everyday movements logged and published online? After all, to go anywhere you'll need to step public roads, so you have no expectation of privacy.
  - three_seagrass 7y ago
    >So you're fine with your everyday movements logged and published online? This comment will be downvoted, but this is hyperbole. Your everyday movements are more than just your activity in public spaces. Likewise any website publishing your activity in public spaces is not entitled to linking it to your PII, because if they do deanonymize it, you now have means to take it down.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Your activity in public places is personally identifiable.
      - three_seagrass 7y ago
        Again, any website publishing your activity in public spaces is not entitled to linking it to your PII, because if they do deanonymize it, you now have means to take it down.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        Your activity in public spaces is PII, it's as unique to you as your face.
  - asdff 7y ago
    If you leave bluetooth on your phone, they already are.
- Zarath 7y ago
  Actually, I do.

jshevek 7y ago

>which is the big issue here There are at least two issues, and both are worth discussing. Interestingly, if we prevent the surveillance problem we also prevent the racist surveillance problem, so in this way one could argue that (in this specific situation) the surveillance problem is more fundamental.