4 ms·

We need to block it on a federal level in the USA. Don't allow any state to use facial recognition software for any reason, except maybe at airports, but only

We need to block it on a federal level in the USA. Don't allow any state to use facial recognition software for any reason, except maybe at airports, but only for terrorism---not for any other reason.

zo1 5y ago
Sounds like a modern-day version of Luddism. We don't need to block it. We need to embrace it and make sure it's used properly, safely and with accountability. We're not talking about nuclear warheads here. There has to be a safe and secure way to get the benefits of large-scale and centralized facial-recognition and tracking.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > We're not talking about nuclear warheads here. True, we're talking about something worse. The danger is higher and the detectability and barriers to entry are lower.
  - brodock 5y ago
    Once systems are in place, all it takes is a change in will of who controls it.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      This is precisely my objection to anyone who suggests such things are put in place. The Stasi would have simply loved to just inherit an all-pervasive, comprehensive surveillance system from a more peaceful predecessor.
- Jiejeing 5y ago
  > We need to embrace it and make sure it's used properly This has never worked, period.
  - mellavora 5y ago
    Except if the embrace is a death-embrace in which you carry the technology with you to the netherworld, leaving none of it behind... and 'used properly' means 'utterly destroyed'
- zthrowaway 5y ago
  There’s a point where things can go too far. When we have machines violating our privacy and manipulating social expression (behaviors change when people know they are being watched and tracked), that’s a problem. In the end it’s corporations and governments doing this, why all of a sudden have we forgotten how most of the time they don’t have our best interest in mind and only greed and power?
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  > We're not talking about nuclear warheads here. No, we're not. Those damage the physical world. Facial recognition will damage something else in the long run - the society - which is just as dangerous.
  - neartheplain 5y ago
    You know what else damages society? Rape, murder, kidnapping, arson. Facial recognition software, used responsibly under a strict and throughly-audited regulatory scheme, can assist law enforcement in more quickly and reliably apprehending suspects in such cases. I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn’t be used, given the proper legal and regulatory framework.
- simion314 5y ago
  What are the benefits? The only thing I can think might be that for a shot while you can catch some criminals but as they learned to use gloves they will learn to use masks, After that what benefits are there for creating a database with everyone historical location?
  - anticristi 5y ago
    Well, there you have it. It creates jobs in the high-end mask accessories industry.
toyg 5y ago
> but only for terrorism That little loophole right there would soon be big enough to let through a freight train.
- prox 5y ago
  Exactly, the definition of terrorist is very malleable in the hands of despots.
mtgx 5y ago
> but only for terrorism You do realize that means scanning everyone to check if they are a known terrorist, yes? They said the same when they passed the Patriot Act - "We'll pass this to read the terrorists' emails." And everyone cheered, without realizing that means reading YOUR emails to see if YOU are a terrorist. They did this through all the taps into the ISPs and carriers' cables, considering email wasn't even encrypted between servers until very recently.
tomcooks 5y ago
Isn't terrorism specifically the reason behind the Patriot Act and all limitations that American citizens are suffering?
selfhoster11 5y ago
Colour me skeptical. The USA pioneered such abusive innovations as perpetual copyright, pervasive hardware-level DRM and rootkits, and surveillance capitalism. I can't see protections against something as powerful as facial recognition coming from a society that didn't oppose similarly abusive tech.
- tzs 5y ago
  > The USA pioneered such abusive innovations as perpetual copyright The US change from a fixed 28 year term that could be renewed once to a life of author + 50 years term was done to match the minimum term allowed under the Berne Convention, which most of the world had already done decades before. In 1998 the US lengthened the term again, to life + 70 years. That one was to match Europe, which had made that change in 1993.
  - anticristi 5y ago
    I like the popular myth more: Copyright in the US is prolonged as required to keep Mickey mouse away from the public domain. :)
crocodiletears 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the only way to block it is at the local level. There is no compelling incentive for the federal government to not support the expansion of facial recognition technologies. Our politicians might be convinced to introduce token pieces of legislation that can conveniently be voted down by the other side, and just enough of their fellow party members. But that's about it.
snarf21 5y ago
Who will watch the watchers? It isn't like there was no crime/terrorism before 1995. Look at how ex-AG Barr wanted backdoors in everything but they "promised" to only use it responsibly and with warrants. Do you sincerely believe that?

zo1 5y ago

Sounds like a modern-day version of Luddism. We don't need to block it. We need to embrace it and make sure it's used properly, safely and with accountability. We're not talking about nuclear warheads here. There has to be a safe and secure way to get the benefits of large-scale and centralized facial-recognition and tracking.

jhgb 5y ago
> We're not talking about nuclear warheads here. True, we're talking about something worse. The danger is higher and the detectability and barriers to entry are lower.
- brodock 5y ago
  Once systems are in place, all it takes is a change in will of who controls it.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    This is precisely my objection to anyone who suggests such things are put in place. The Stasi would have simply loved to just inherit an all-pervasive, comprehensive surveillance system from a more peaceful predecessor.
Jiejeing 5y ago
> We need to embrace it and make sure it's used properly This has never worked, period.
- mellavora 5y ago
  Except if the embrace is a death-embrace in which you carry the technology with you to the netherworld, leaving none of it behind... and 'used properly' means 'utterly destroyed'
zthrowaway 5y ago
There’s a point where things can go too far. When we have machines violating our privacy and manipulating social expression (behaviors change when people know they are being watched and tracked), that’s a problem. In the end it’s corporations and governments doing this, why all of a sudden have we forgotten how most of the time they don’t have our best interest in mind and only greed and power?
selfhoster11 5y ago
> We're not talking about nuclear warheads here. No, we're not. Those damage the physical world. Facial recognition will damage something else in the long run - the society - which is just as dangerous.
- neartheplain 5y ago
  You know what else damages society? Rape, murder, kidnapping, arson. Facial recognition software, used responsibly under a strict and throughly-audited regulatory scheme, can assist law enforcement in more quickly and reliably apprehending suspects in such cases. I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn’t be used, given the proper legal and regulatory framework.
simion314 5y ago
What are the benefits? The only thing I can think might be that for a shot while you can catch some criminals but as they learned to use gloves they will learn to use masks, After that what benefits are there for creating a database with everyone historical location?
- anticristi 5y ago
  Well, there you have it. It creates jobs in the high-end mask accessories industry.

toyg 5y ago

> but only for terrorism That little loophole right there would soon be big enough to let through a freight train.

prox 5y ago
Exactly, the definition of terrorist is very malleable in the hands of despots.

mtgx 5y ago

> but only for terrorism You do realize that means scanning everyone to check if they are a known terrorist, yes? They said the same when they passed the Patriot Act - "We'll pass this to read the terrorists' emails." And everyone cheered, without realizing that means reading YOUR emails to see if YOU are a terrorist. They did this through all the taps into the ISPs and carriers' cables, considering email wasn't even encrypted between servers until very recently.

tomcooks 5y ago

Isn't terrorism specifically the reason behind the Patriot Act and all limitations that American citizens are suffering?

selfhoster11 5y ago

Colour me skeptical. The USA pioneered such abusive innovations as perpetual copyright, pervasive hardware-level DRM and rootkits, and surveillance capitalism. I can't see protections against something as powerful as facial recognition coming from a society that didn't oppose similarly abusive tech.

tzs 5y ago
> The USA pioneered such abusive innovations as perpetual copyright The US change from a fixed 28 year term that could be renewed once to a life of author + 50 years term was done to match the minimum term allowed under the Berne Convention, which most of the world had already done decades before. In 1998 the US lengthened the term again, to life + 70 years. That one was to match Europe, which had made that change in 1993.
- anticristi 5y ago
  I like the popular myth more: Copyright in the US is prolonged as required to keep Mickey mouse away from the public domain. :)

crocodiletears 5y ago

I'm pretty sure the only way to block it is at the local level. There is no compelling incentive for the federal government to not support the expansion of facial recognition technologies. Our politicians might be convinced to introduce token pieces of legislation that can conveniently be voted down by the other side, and just enough of their fellow party members. But that's about it.

snarf21 5y ago

Who will watch the watchers? It isn't like there was no crime/terrorism before 1995. Look at how ex-AG Barr wanted backdoors in everything but they "promised" to only use it responsibly and with warrants. Do you sincerely believe that?