4 ms·

I for one support the use of face recognition and otherwise enhanced surveillance by law enforcement. The alternative that we are seeing here, of private survei

I for one support the use of face recognition and otherwise enhanced surveillance by law enforcement. The alternative that we are seeing here, of private surveillance is so much worse. From time to time there's a discussion on HN about the "Nothing to Hide Argument" (e.g [1],[2],[3]). On this topic, I feel there's close to a unanimous position on HN that the "nothing to hide argument" is wrong. People mention counterexamples like "are you ok with cameras in your bathroom", "can you share your bank account password with me". They are all strawmen. The way I see it is: if law enforcement identifies all the perpetrators of the Capitol attack and brings them to justice, that's a good thing. I was not there. I don't live in fear that one day the law enforcement will use some facebook photo of mine to send me to prison, because I don't engage in criminal behavior. But if someone with my likeness was there, and a mob of redditors mistake that person to me, yes, that's something that I can be afraid of. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25416123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25416123 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957864 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25417117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25417117

jowsie 6y ago
> I was not there. I don't live in fear that one day the law enforcement will use some facebook photo of mine to send me to prison, because I don't engage in criminal behavior. You have almost certainly committed some minor crime at some point. Mass surveillance and facial recog tech means they can just bank that for later use if for any not-criminal reason the powers that be decide you need to go away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
syberspace 6y ago
>But if someone with my likeness was there, and a mob of redditors mistake that person to me, yes, that's something that I can be afraid of. who says this can't happen with law enforcement surveillance?
- credit_guy 6y ago
  It can, but with law enforcement there is due process. I can tell them I was in a different place, I can bring witnesses, they can check the logs of my IPhone, etc. With the mob, there are no checks and balances.
  - DataWorker 6y ago
    I hope you never experience America’s “due process.” You thinking highlights your own inexperience. The system idd as heavily flawed and often makes mistakes. Many convictions are eventually thrown out. And that’s the very imperfect justice system. Don’t get me started on very imperfect software or data management.
    - credit_guy 6y ago
      Indeed, I never had an encounter with the law enforcement, the justice, or the due process. If I'm not too nosy, did you? Or you are basing your conclusions on things you read about? In my case, not only I didn't experience the "heavy hand" of the law enforcement, but I don't know anyone who did. I interact with hundreds of people, and I don't know anyone who's been subject to law enforcement troubles. Now, I assume that some people with such trouble would not talk with everyone about their issues, just like people with health problems don't necessarily advertise their condition. But if I can continue the parallel with the health issues, if someone has cancer, you learn about that sooner or later. If someone spends a few days in the "crowbar hotel", there's a good chance people would start whispering. I never heard this type of whispers about the people in my circle. So, based on my personal experience, I did not see evidence that the "due process" is a farce. But more importantly, I did not see evidence that innocent people fall pray to any intentional or unintentional abuse from the law enforcement linked to face recognition, or other types of surveillance. Yes, I did read horror stories on the internet. But I take what I read with a bit of grain of salt (especially since there's a tendency in all these stories to hear only a sigle part of the story), and I prefer to rely more on my personal experience.
      - 6y ago
Bakary 6y ago
Let's say the coup had been successful. You could then have been part of a database and become a criminal without changing anything about your life, because the definition of crime changed around you. The reason this tech is dangerous is because we are never safe from a decline in governance. The reason passivity is dangerous is because doing nothing and being blameless is no longer sufficient to escape punishment after such a decline. >From time to time there's a discussion on HN about the "Nothing to Hide Argument" (e.g [1],[2],[3]). On this topic, I feel there's close to a unanimous position on HN that the "nothing to hide argument" is wrong. People mention counterexamples like "are you ok with cameras in your bathroom", "can you share your bank account password with me". They are all strawmen. Let's assume you are right and they are strawmen. What if we take a more innocuous question? Let's say I ask you at what time you shower in the morning. Would you feel comfortable answering? If not, what exactly worries you about the question? Giving the information would not harm you, but there is still that feeling that it ought to be on a strict need-to-know basis, and failing to combat surveillance means as they develop guarantees that this basis will be increasingly ignored. The easier a tool is to use, the more it will be used, and the unintended consequences of that use will multiply.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > because the definition of crime changed around you Well, if that's the way you're looking at it, there's not much point passing a law banning the use of facial recognition technology, since that law could be changed after the fact too.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    It's more about discouraging the implementation of infrastructure as much as possible. To some extent, I agree with you: the change is almost inevitable at this point. But any delay represents fewer lives through the grinder and thus presents a clear reason to act.
- dudyy3e 6y ago
  >Let's say the coup had been successful.< Why would anyone say that? It wasn't a coup by definition and, even if it had been, neither the people you'd need to bribe/murder nor the records you'd need to burn and replace were present.

jowsie 6y ago

> I was not there. I don't live in fear that one day the law enforcement will use some facebook photo of mine to send me to prison, because I don't engage in criminal behavior. You have almost certainly committed some minor crime at some point. Mass surveillance and facial recog tech means they can just bank that for later use if for any not-criminal reason the powers that be decide you need to go away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

syberspace 6y ago

>But if someone with my likeness was there, and a mob of redditors mistake that person to me, yes, that's something that I can be afraid of. who says this can't happen with law enforcement surveillance?

credit_guy 6y ago
It can, but with law enforcement there is due process. I can tell them I was in a different place, I can bring witnesses, they can check the logs of my IPhone, etc. With the mob, there are no checks and balances.
- DataWorker 6y ago
  I hope you never experience America’s “due process.” You thinking highlights your own inexperience. The system idd as heavily flawed and often makes mistakes. Many convictions are eventually thrown out. And that’s the very imperfect justice system. Don’t get me started on very imperfect software or data management.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    Indeed, I never had an encounter with the law enforcement, the justice, or the due process. If I'm not too nosy, did you? Or you are basing your conclusions on things you read about? In my case, not only I didn't experience the "heavy hand" of the law enforcement, but I don't know anyone who did. I interact with hundreds of people, and I don't know anyone who's been subject to law enforcement troubles. Now, I assume that some people with such trouble would not talk with everyone about their issues, just like people with health problems don't necessarily advertise their condition. But if I can continue the parallel with the health issues, if someone has cancer, you learn about that sooner or later. If someone spends a few days in the "crowbar hotel", there's a good chance people would start whispering. I never heard this type of whispers about the people in my circle. So, based on my personal experience, I did not see evidence that the "due process" is a farce. But more importantly, I did not see evidence that innocent people fall pray to any intentional or unintentional abuse from the law enforcement linked to face recognition, or other types of surveillance. Yes, I did read horror stories on the internet. But I take what I read with a bit of grain of salt (especially since there's a tendency in all these stories to hear only a sigle part of the story), and I prefer to rely more on my personal experience.
    - 6y ago

Bakary 6y ago

Let's say the coup had been successful. You could then have been part of a database and become a criminal without changing anything about your life, because the definition of crime changed around you. The reason this tech is dangerous is because we are never safe from a decline in governance. The reason passivity is dangerous is because doing nothing and being blameless is no longer sufficient to escape punishment after such a decline. >From time to time there's a discussion on HN about the "Nothing to Hide Argument" (e.g [1],[2],[3]). On this topic, I feel there's close to a unanimous position on HN that the "nothing to hide argument" is wrong. People mention counterexamples like "are you ok with cameras in your bathroom", "can you share your bank account password with me". They are all strawmen. Let's assume you are right and they are strawmen. What if we take a more innocuous question? Let's say I ask you at what time you shower in the morning. Would you feel comfortable answering? If not, what exactly worries you about the question? Giving the information would not harm you, but there is still that feeling that it ought to be on a strict need-to-know basis, and failing to combat surveillance means as they develop guarantees that this basis will be increasingly ignored. The easier a tool is to use, the more it will be used, and the unintended consequences of that use will multiply.

commandlinefan 6y ago
> because the definition of crime changed around you Well, if that's the way you're looking at it, there's not much point passing a law banning the use of facial recognition technology, since that law could be changed after the fact too.
- Bakary 6y ago
  It's more about discouraging the implementation of infrastructure as much as possible. To some extent, I agree with you: the change is almost inevitable at this point. But any delay represents fewer lives through the grinder and thus presents a clear reason to act.
dudyy3e 6y ago
>Let's say the coup had been successful.< Why would anyone say that? It wasn't a coup by definition and, even if it had been, neither the people you'd need to bribe/murder nor the records you'd need to burn and replace were present.