4 ms·

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 e

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).

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).