8 ms·

I realize that this is one of those situations where I'm supposed to be supportive of the use of facial recognition, but I'm still uncomfortable. Facial recogni

by rychco 6y ago

I realize that this is one of those situations where I'm supposed to be supportive of the use of facial recognition, but I'm still uncomfortable. Facial recognition seems like an all or nothing deal to me, and even after the capitol has been raided... I still opt for 'nothing'.

detaro 6y ago
I don't think you "should" be supportive, for exactly those reasons.
- rychco 6y ago
  You're right, I think a better phrasing would be "supposed to". Edited the original.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Is it that different to wanted posters or publishing cctv of a crime? I get why people don't want facial recognition cameras on every street corner but using it to identify people from pics is a different activity... Edit: I completely agree there is nothing special about this case. No exigent circumstances.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  I'm more concerned with the data being in the hand of an unaccountable private company than with the facial recognition itself to be honest. I remember that Clearview AI itself was associated with far-right individuals last year, so having them police a far-right insurrection from their personal black box system is more than suspect. If it happens, it should be done by an institution that is under the supervision of congress and staffed by public servants. This emerging, largely unaccountable surveillance industrial complex with ties to extremist political figures worries me more.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    Personally, I'm not really comfortable with the existence of a database of people from which to compare faces against. However, I think it's perhaps more worrying that one day this evidence will be presented in court and the jury will trust the accuracy of "AI" over their own judgment. To clarify, the situation I'm thinking of is where a grainy CCTV image is shown to the jury. The AI expert comes in and talks about all of the technical details of their algorithm and how it determines that the grainy image is of defendant A with 96% probably.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Juries already have a tendency to believe the police even when presented with massive evidence to the contrary. Throw in some “expert” testimony from an AI company and we’re in for an even worse situation.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Is it that different to wanted posters or publishing cctv of a crime? I think so. That mechanism is judicially auditable. The AI is not. We should not be arresting people based on the output of an unauditable mechanism.
  - ianai 6y ago
    It’s not auditable and scale can make it a substantially different problem altogether. But, if you’re in a restricted area or a public building I think it makes sense.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > That mechanism is judicially auditable. The AI is not. We should not be arresting people based on the output of an unauditable mechanism. Are we, though? If “ClearView AI gave us a hit” is being treated as probable cause sufficient for an arrest warrant, that's a problem. If it's being used as a tool to generate leads to investigate and traditional evidence is gathered and presented, I don't see a big problem.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Police have demonstrated multiple times that “a hit” is enough for them to railroad an innocent person
trianglem 6y ago
Yeah facial recognition is just bad. We have pictures and a populace ready and willing to root these terrorists out as we’ve seen so far.
- agora_rising 6y ago
  Using the T-word as you have is only going to make things worse. You can be disgusted at what happened. But breaking out that word is an escalation. Language like this will let a genie out of a bottle that cannot be put back in. And you probably aren't the sort of person who would like the outcome.
  - trianglem 6y ago
    Things have to get worse before they get better. What other word besides terrorist are you going to use to describe a group of people that break into the capitol, kill police officers and set pipe bombs? It’s quite literally the definition of a terrorist. Also is that a threat of violence at the end there from a 15 minute old account?
    - agora_rising 6y ago
      Not really a threat. Let's not be silly. Just a prediction of what's going to happen if you believe the official narrative and keep doing what you're doing. I don't want to see things get worse. But if you keep up with this nonsense, they will get worse. No one wants that. Just relax.
eznzt 6y ago
>I realize that this is one of those situations where I'm supposed to be supportive of the use of facial recognition ???
jonas21 6y ago
Out of curiosity, why do you feel like you're supposed to be supportive of the use of facial recognition in this case?
- walls 6y ago
  Identifying terrorists is a positive outcome.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    This statement in the abstract is correct. The context in which it’s applied ... well I’m sure many actually believe Trump supporters are “literally” terrorists. This technology was of course also used to identify those laying siege to various federal buildings over the summer, but I guess it’s okay now. This is to say that the context in which this technology is used obviously matters a lot and is directly related to who holds the reigns of cultural power. Yay.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      I'm not really accustomed to thinking about what others want me to think, but if you're like many who are trying to guess what progressives want you to think; facial recognition bad, clearview extra bad.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    Is this technology going to identify anyone Twitter won't? I mean, correctly identify because it'll probably belch up a lot of false positives, too.
  - jonas21 6y ago
    Identifying terrorists and violent criminals is always the argument in favor of using facial recognition for law enforcement.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6y ago
uniqueid 6y ago
one of those situations where I'm supposed to be supportive of the use of facial recognition No, it's not. This is the Hoan Ton-That supposedly protecting us from the crazies... "Founder Hoan Ton-That’s has links to the far-right movement that move right past suspicious into obvious, according to HuffPo. He reportedly attended a 2016 dinner with white supremacist Richard Spencer and organised by alt-right financier Jeff Giesea, an associate of Palantir founder and Trump-supporting billionaire Peter Thiel. (Thiel secretly bankrolled a lawsuit that bankrupted Gizmodo’s former parent company, Gawker Media.) Ton-That was also a member of a Slack channel run by professional troll Chuck Johnson for his now-defunct WeSearchr, a crowdfunding platform primarily used by white supremacists; that channel included people like the webmaster of neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer, Andrew Auernheimer, and conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich" https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/04/creepy-face-recognition-firm-clearview-ai-sure-has-a-lot-of-ties-to-the-far-right/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/04/creepy-face-recognition-f...
siruncledrew 6y ago
With Clearview's history in mind, would people rather live in world with or without facial recognition being used in public? What are the bounds for such technology and/or companies like Clearview? Are there quality of life differences in places where facial recognition crime technology is used vs not used?
- tastroder 6y ago
  Still without honestly. Relative OSINT laypersons on different social media seem to have little problem identifying terrorists without facial recognition. The fact that they publicised their own multi-angle, high resolution video surveillance in real time seems to help.
newguy1234 6y ago
Agree. This is a huge slippery slope.
- idiocrat 6y ago
  Hopefully there will be an AI Judge soon, so we do not need to worry about the ethics.
throwaway346434 6y ago
This event is highly comparable to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch - Attempted coup - Radicalized and misinformed supporters (majority) with an extremist, armed element (minority) - Extremely dangerous moment for free and fair elections in the west What would the world have looked like if in 1923, the disaffected germans who took part in that were identified en masse; and serious efforts were made to re-integrate them to society while addressing the systemic issues they faced? Instead, we ended up doing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification several years later after a lot of death. I think there is a very good argument for identification and holding people to account. There also needs to be very, very robust adherence to due process - AI identification is not proof, and a suitable alibi should be step 1 in invalidating it.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  The sad thing is precisely that no-one cares about "re-integrating" proponents of right-leaning views "to society". Everyone is talking about forcibly deplatforming them all out of society which, even if successful, will only make them far more marginalized and far more open to dangerous, violent extremism. Is this really what we need? We've had enough divisiveness already, so why not try a more constructive approach?
  - wpietri 6y ago
    I don't think anybody has proposed forcibly deplatforming everybody with "right-leaning views", so that sounds like a straw man. If, as you seem to suggest, divisiveness is your primary concern, it would seem to make a lot of sense to deplatform the small number of people very eager to create it through lies, organized violence, and overthrow of the government.
  - ianai 6y ago
    That is decidedly opposite of how I see the immediate political inertia. It might help to revisit previous times the democrats took over all three legislative branches. They’re not unified ever and dissent is assured. Meaning there are conservative wings which will welcome and work with the far right even after this. If you’re referencing the deplatforming going on from corporate entities that’s a whole another phenomenon and legally forced. Edit-if you’re referencing just how people treat one another 1-1 in culture, well, the forever trumpers just need to learn to treat people like people again. Apologizing helps, but simply being friendly and polite goes a long way.

by rychco 6y ago

detaro 6y ago

I don't think you "should" be supportive, for exactly those reasons.

rychco 6y ago
You're right, I think a better phrasing would be "supposed to". Edited the original.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Is it that different to wanted posters or publishing cctv of a crime? I get why people don't want facial recognition cameras on every street corner but using it to identify people from pics is a different activity... Edit: I completely agree there is nothing special about this case. No exigent circumstances.

Barrin92 6y ago
I'm more concerned with the data being in the hand of an unaccountable private company than with the facial recognition itself to be honest. I remember that Clearview AI itself was associated with far-right individuals last year, so having them police a far-right insurrection from their personal black box system is more than suspect. If it happens, it should be done by an institution that is under the supervision of congress and staffed by public servants. This emerging, largely unaccountable surveillance industrial complex with ties to extremist political figures worries me more.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  Personally, I'm not really comfortable with the existence of a database of people from which to compare faces against. However, I think it's perhaps more worrying that one day this evidence will be presented in court and the jury will trust the accuracy of "AI" over their own judgment. To clarify, the situation I'm thinking of is where a grainy CCTV image is shown to the jury. The AI expert comes in and talks about all of the technical details of their algorithm and how it determines that the grainy image is of defendant A with 96% probably.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Juries already have a tendency to believe the police even when presented with massive evidence to the contrary. Throw in some “expert” testimony from an AI company and we’re in for an even worse situation.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Is it that different to wanted posters or publishing cctv of a crime? I think so. That mechanism is judicially auditable. The AI is not. We should not be arresting people based on the output of an unauditable mechanism.
- ianai 6y ago
  It’s not auditable and scale can make it a substantially different problem altogether. But, if you’re in a restricted area or a public building I think it makes sense.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > That mechanism is judicially auditable. The AI is not. We should not be arresting people based on the output of an unauditable mechanism. Are we, though? If “ClearView AI gave us a hit” is being treated as probable cause sufficient for an arrest warrant, that's a problem. If it's being used as a tool to generate leads to investigate and traditional evidence is gathered and presented, I don't see a big problem.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Police have demonstrated multiple times that “a hit” is enough for them to railroad an innocent person

trianglem 6y ago

Yeah facial recognition is just bad. We have pictures and a populace ready and willing to root these terrorists out as we’ve seen so far.

agora_rising 6y ago
Using the T-word as you have is only going to make things worse. You can be disgusted at what happened. But breaking out that word is an escalation. Language like this will let a genie out of a bottle that cannot be put back in. And you probably aren't the sort of person who would like the outcome.
- trianglem 6y ago
  Things have to get worse before they get better. What other word besides terrorist are you going to use to describe a group of people that break into the capitol, kill police officers and set pipe bombs? It’s quite literally the definition of a terrorist. Also is that a threat of violence at the end there from a 15 minute old account?
  - agora_rising 6y ago
    Not really a threat. Let's not be silly. Just a prediction of what's going to happen if you believe the official narrative and keep doing what you're doing. I don't want to see things get worse. But if you keep up with this nonsense, they will get worse. No one wants that. Just relax.

eznzt 6y ago

>I realize that this is one of those situations where I'm supposed to be supportive of the use of facial recognition ???

jonas21 6y ago

Out of curiosity, why do you feel like you're supposed to be supportive of the use of facial recognition in this case?

walls 6y ago
Identifying terrorists is a positive outcome.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  This statement in the abstract is correct. The context in which it’s applied ... well I’m sure many actually believe Trump supporters are “literally” terrorists. This technology was of course also used to identify those laying siege to various federal buildings over the summer, but I guess it’s okay now. This is to say that the context in which this technology is used obviously matters a lot and is directly related to who holds the reigns of cultural power. Yay.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    I'm not really accustomed to thinking about what others want me to think, but if you're like many who are trying to guess what progressives want you to think; facial recognition bad, clearview extra bad.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  Is this technology going to identify anyone Twitter won't? I mean, correctly identify because it'll probably belch up a lot of false positives, too.
- jonas21 6y ago
  Identifying terrorists and violent criminals is always the argument in favor of using facial recognition for law enforcement.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 6y ago

uniqueid 6y ago

one of those situations where I'm supposed to be supportive of the use of facial recognition No, it's not. This is the Hoan Ton-That supposedly protecting us from the crazies... "Founder Hoan Ton-That’s has links to the far-right movement that move right past suspicious into obvious, according to HuffPo. He reportedly attended a 2016 dinner with white supremacist Richard Spencer and organised by alt-right financier Jeff Giesea, an associate of Palantir founder and Trump-supporting billionaire Peter Thiel. (Thiel secretly bankrolled a lawsuit that bankrupted Gizmodo’s former parent company, Gawker Media.) Ton-That was also a member of a Slack channel run by professional troll Chuck Johnson for his now-defunct WeSearchr, a crowdfunding platform primarily used by white supremacists; that channel included people like the webmaster of neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer, Andrew Auernheimer, and conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich" https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/04/creepy-face-recognition-firm-clearview-ai-sure-has-a-lot-of-ties-to-the-far-right/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/04/creepy-face-recognition-f...

siruncledrew 6y ago

With Clearview's history in mind, would people rather live in world with or without facial recognition being used in public? What are the bounds for such technology and/or companies like Clearview? Are there quality of life differences in places where facial recognition crime technology is used vs not used?

tastroder 6y ago
Still without honestly. Relative OSINT laypersons on different social media seem to have little problem identifying terrorists without facial recognition. The fact that they publicised their own multi-angle, high resolution video surveillance in real time seems to help.

newguy1234 6y ago

Agree. This is a huge slippery slope.

idiocrat 6y ago
Hopefully there will be an AI Judge soon, so we do not need to worry about the ethics.

throwaway346434 6y ago

This event is highly comparable to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch - Attempted coup - Radicalized and misinformed supporters (majority) with an extremist, armed element (minority) - Extremely dangerous moment for free and fair elections in the west What would the world have looked like if in 1923, the disaffected germans who took part in that were identified en masse; and serious efforts were made to re-integrate them to society while addressing the systemic issues they faced? Instead, we ended up doing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification several years later after a lot of death. I think there is a very good argument for identification and holding people to account. There also needs to be very, very robust adherence to due process - AI identification is not proof, and a suitable alibi should be step 1 in invalidating it.

zozbot234 6y ago
The sad thing is precisely that no-one cares about "re-integrating" proponents of right-leaning views "to society". Everyone is talking about forcibly deplatforming them all out of society which, even if successful, will only make them far more marginalized and far more open to dangerous, violent extremism. Is this really what we need? We've had enough divisiveness already, so why not try a more constructive approach?
- wpietri 6y ago
  I don't think anybody has proposed forcibly deplatforming everybody with "right-leaning views", so that sounds like a straw man. If, as you seem to suggest, divisiveness is your primary concern, it would seem to make a lot of sense to deplatform the small number of people very eager to create it through lies, organized violence, and overthrow of the government.
- ianai 6y ago
  That is decidedly opposite of how I see the immediate political inertia. It might help to revisit previous times the democrats took over all three legislative branches. They’re not unified ever and dissent is assured. Meaning there are conservative wings which will welcome and work with the far right even after this. If you’re referencing the deplatforming going on from corporate entities that’s a whole another phenomenon and legally forced. Edit-if you’re referencing just how people treat one another 1-1 in culture, well, the forever trumpers just need to learn to treat people like people again. Apologizing helps, but simply being friendly and polite goes a long way.