4 ms·

Am I correct in thinking that the Democratics have hitherto been against facial recognition software? If so, will they be changing their minds?

mmcclure 6y ago
They shouldn't need to, a lot of these folks are posting these selfies and such to a certain social media site that requires government-issued ID.
- derekdahmer 6y ago
  What social media site requires an ID?
  - kenhwang 6y ago
    These people tend to want the blue checkbox on Twitter.
  - mmcclure 6y ago
    Parler. Looking again at their terms I think you may be able to access parts of the platform without it, but to "Get Verified" for Parler Citizen status you need to submit a selfie with a form of government ID.
gonzo41 6y ago
Not really against facial recognition, also the cats out of the bag really, but more want there to be effective rules around it's use and for there to be some evidentiary standard used with it. Identifying criminals after the crime with FR is totally fine. using fuzzy facial matches for strict liability infringement policing / revenue raising is not ok. It's a space that's due for some sensible legislation.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  But why spend money on it when it doesn't solve problems with crime? Don't come back crying when crime statistics don't match your ideals and please pay for it yourself. There will be millions getting sunk in infrastructure for something politicians try to sell their voters for years: the perception of safety. To me, this seems just dumb. Install a camera in your home, it will probably scare burglars, but I wouldn't expect much for broad deployment in public spaces. For violent crime it will do nothing, analogous to stronger sentences not working. There will be countless security firms that will sell you the gadgets. But at that point you already became a victim in my opinion.
  - gonzo41 6y ago
    I'm not worried about FR personally. I just think that we don't know how good things will get and how much trouble that may cause.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Maybe. People don't go out much anyway and who cares about money. I am not from the US, but I believe your country could solve its issues with equality if you just make the whole thing a giant prison. That is innovative and the future and a blessing AI will grant us.
  - giantDinosaur 6y ago
    Interesting position to take that because it doesn't solve all the problems of crime it won't be a useful tool in e.g. analysing thousands of hours of footage that no person every would (fine, I'll grant that'll require it to be much better than it actually is currently). Why wouldn't you expect much in the longer term? I can imagine many ways it could be used to reduce crime (as well as many horrifying ways it will be used against everyone else).
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
They’re all white, so the software would actually work, for once. But no, still not in favor of its use. Democrats, or me at least, aren’t quite as quick to give up their principles.
- rangoon626 6y ago
  Democrat politicians, however...
rasz 6y ago
Facial recognition is mostly used for bulk surveillance. Alternative is diligent manual police work.

mmcclure 6y ago

They shouldn't need to, a lot of these folks are posting these selfies and such to a certain social media site that requires government-issued ID.

derekdahmer 6y ago
What social media site requires an ID?
- kenhwang 6y ago
  These people tend to want the blue checkbox on Twitter.
- mmcclure 6y ago
  Parler. Looking again at their terms I think you may be able to access parts of the platform without it, but to "Get Verified" for Parler Citizen status you need to submit a selfie with a form of government ID.

gonzo41 6y ago

Not really against facial recognition, also the cats out of the bag really, but more want there to be effective rules around it's use and for there to be some evidentiary standard used with it. Identifying criminals after the crime with FR is totally fine. using fuzzy facial matches for strict liability infringement policing / revenue raising is not ok. It's a space that's due for some sensible legislation.

raxxorrax 6y ago
But why spend money on it when it doesn't solve problems with crime? Don't come back crying when crime statistics don't match your ideals and please pay for it yourself. There will be millions getting sunk in infrastructure for something politicians try to sell their voters for years: the perception of safety. To me, this seems just dumb. Install a camera in your home, it will probably scare burglars, but I wouldn't expect much for broad deployment in public spaces. For violent crime it will do nothing, analogous to stronger sentences not working. There will be countless security firms that will sell you the gadgets. But at that point you already became a victim in my opinion.
- gonzo41 6y ago
  I'm not worried about FR personally. I just think that we don't know how good things will get and how much trouble that may cause.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Maybe. People don't go out much anyway and who cares about money. I am not from the US, but I believe your country could solve its issues with equality if you just make the whole thing a giant prison. That is innovative and the future and a blessing AI will grant us.
- giantDinosaur 6y ago
  Interesting position to take that because it doesn't solve all the problems of crime it won't be a useful tool in e.g. analysing thousands of hours of footage that no person every would (fine, I'll grant that'll require it to be much better than it actually is currently). Why wouldn't you expect much in the longer term? I can imagine many ways it could be used to reduce crime (as well as many horrifying ways it will be used against everyone else).

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

They’re all white, so the software would actually work, for once. But no, still not in favor of its use. Democrats, or me at least, aren’t quite as quick to give up their principles.

rangoon626 6y ago
Democrat politicians, however...

rasz 6y ago

Facial recognition is mostly used for bulk surveillance. Alternative is diligent manual police work.