7 ms·

> Surveillance technology enables all sorts of new attacks Sure, but like any other tools it also enable all sorts of new benefit. The preferable action would

by matz1 5y ago

> Surveillance technology enables all sorts of new attacks Sure, but like any other tools it also enable all sorts of new benefit. The preferable action would be to take advantage of the benefit while also try to fix whatever it is that cause problem with the tools instead of simply banning it.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
That's what they're doing. The problem is automated identification of faces. The solution is banning that.
- matz1 5y ago
  >The problem is automated identification of faces Whats the problem with this ?
  - jacobwilliamroy 5y ago
    I had a dream a few months ago where I was standing in front of a computer. I typed in my name and got back a stream of video which showed every single moment of my life from multiple angles starting from the moment I was born. The footage came from a variety of sources, CCTV, smartphone cameras, dashcams. The system had videos of everything anyone had ever done. I didn't like it. Found it kind of disturbing.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Fortunately, we can stop that from being a reality.
    - matz1 5y ago
      Then basically you says its boil down to matter of subjective preference. So you don't like it, fine fair enough then don't be surprised that other people may like it.
      - jacobwilliamroy 5y ago
        I don't say that? You just have to think about how this stuff is going to be used in the real world where we actually live. The thing which is objectively disturbing is how easy it is to lose control of one's life once the government is able to record, observe and judge every single thing a person does. I believe such a level of transparency is only beneficial when it's applied to people who hold power over others; to subject everyone in a society to that kind of scrutiny would just be laying the foundations for abuse.
        matz1 5y ago
        The government simply record, observe and judge every single thing a person does is not problem, in fact it can be used for my benefit. The problem is when they use it to harm me. What need to be fixed is The government record, observe and judge every single thing a person does to harm people. >to subject everyone in a society to that kind of scrutiny would just be laying the foundations for abuse It can be used for abuse but not always, It can also be used for good, what need to be prevented is the use for abuse.
- lewdev 5y ago
  I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the justice system believes that it's enough to convict someone of a crime.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Even just arresting them or bringing them in for assessment is enough to put someone in a dangerous position, because cops can effectively legally execute people. So the problem is any police interaction is potentially deadly and this is giving cops another arbitrary, potentially racist tool to interact with people who are just living their lives.
    - hik 5y ago
      Let me ask you a question: How many unarmed people were killed by police in 2020?
      - bozzcl 5y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... According to this, 405, which is 405 too many.
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        I only see 50 there. Are you sure you're looking at unarmed 2020 and not for all years? I also just looked at a few unarmed shootings at random to get an idea of what they were like. Of the three I looked up I saw one guy who was shot while fighting with a police officer after being discovered at the scene of a burglary. One guy who was shot after a car chase when, after they had caught him, he got behind the wheel of a police car and the police shot him to prevent another chase. One guy, after stabbing someone to death and being approached by multiple police officers, faked a draw to "suicide by cop". My point is, I don't think it's even clear that all (or even most) of the 50 unarmed shootings are unjustified.
        5y ago
dabbledash 5y ago
The problem is that constant surveillance of people makes exerting power over them trivial.
- matz1 5y ago
  So then that is the actual problem, try to fix that problem instead of banning it. Allowing people to own gun also make it trivially easy to kill people. So ban gun ?
  - dabbledash 5y ago
    If there’s a way to make it impossible for the government to use facial recognition to monitor people other than legally banning them doing so, it’s hard to imagine it.
    - matz1 5y ago
      why would i want to make it impossible for government to monitor people ? government monitoring people by itself is not a problem, government monitoring people to harm people is the problem. What need to be fixed is the usage of tools to harm people, not the tool itself.
      - dabbledash 5y ago
        The only thing that keeps them from harming you is your power relative to them. Handing them more power only increases the probability that they will abuse what powers they do have. I thought the election of Trump would disabuse people of this idea that it’s smart to hand more and more power to central authorities. But at this point I think it’s hopeless. People just want the state to be Daddy, and assume or hope that its power will always be wielded by people they like against people they don’t.
  - beebmam 5y ago
    For your analogy: yes, guns should be banned. That bottle has been opened in most places in the world, and some countries have actually put the genie back in, and it has resulted in dramatically lower gun death rates. The UK for example, as it has one of the lowest gun homicide death rates in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_Uni... Moreover, yes, other deeply awful weapons are also banned. Biological weapons and Chemical weapons are both widely banned by all decent countries in the world. Nuclear weapons should join this list. They almost did, during the Reagan era: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/ronald-reagans-disarmament-dream/422244/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/ronald-...

by matz1 5y ago

wizzwizz4 5y ago

That's what they're doing. The problem is automated identification of faces. The solution is banning that.

matz1 5y ago
>The problem is automated identification of faces Whats the problem with this ?
- jacobwilliamroy 5y ago
  I had a dream a few months ago where I was standing in front of a computer. I typed in my name and got back a stream of video which showed every single moment of my life from multiple angles starting from the moment I was born. The footage came from a variety of sources, CCTV, smartphone cameras, dashcams. The system had videos of everything anyone had ever done. I didn't like it. Found it kind of disturbing.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Fortunately, we can stop that from being a reality.
  - matz1 5y ago
    Then basically you says its boil down to matter of subjective preference. So you don't like it, fine fair enough then don't be surprised that other people may like it.
    - jacobwilliamroy 5y ago
      I don't say that? You just have to think about how this stuff is going to be used in the real world where we actually live. The thing which is objectively disturbing is how easy it is to lose control of one's life once the government is able to record, observe and judge every single thing a person does. I believe such a level of transparency is only beneficial when it's applied to people who hold power over others; to subject everyone in a society to that kind of scrutiny would just be laying the foundations for abuse.
      - matz1 5y ago
        The government simply record, observe and judge every single thing a person does is not problem, in fact it can be used for my benefit. The problem is when they use it to harm me. What need to be fixed is The government record, observe and judge every single thing a person does to harm people. >to subject everyone in a society to that kind of scrutiny would just be laying the foundations for abuse It can be used for abuse but not always, It can also be used for good, what need to be prevented is the use for abuse.
lewdev 5y ago
I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the justice system believes that it's enough to convict someone of a crime.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Even just arresting them or bringing them in for assessment is enough to put someone in a dangerous position, because cops can effectively legally execute people. So the problem is any police interaction is potentially deadly and this is giving cops another arbitrary, potentially racist tool to interact with people who are just living their lives.
  - hik 5y ago
    Let me ask you a question: How many unarmed people were killed by police in 2020?
    - bozzcl 5y ago
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... According to this, 405, which is 405 too many.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        I only see 50 there. Are you sure you're looking at unarmed 2020 and not for all years? I also just looked at a few unarmed shootings at random to get an idea of what they were like. Of the three I looked up I saw one guy who was shot while fighting with a police officer after being discovered at the scene of a burglary. One guy who was shot after a car chase when, after they had caught him, he got behind the wheel of a police car and the police shot him to prevent another chase. One guy, after stabbing someone to death and being approached by multiple police officers, faked a draw to "suicide by cop". My point is, I don't think it's even clear that all (or even most) of the 50 unarmed shootings are unjustified.
      - 5y ago

dabbledash 5y ago

The problem is that constant surveillance of people makes exerting power over them trivial.

matz1 5y ago
So then that is the actual problem, try to fix that problem instead of banning it. Allowing people to own gun also make it trivially easy to kill people. So ban gun ?
- dabbledash 5y ago
  If there’s a way to make it impossible for the government to use facial recognition to monitor people other than legally banning them doing so, it’s hard to imagine it.
  - matz1 5y ago
    why would i want to make it impossible for government to monitor people ? government monitoring people by itself is not a problem, government monitoring people to harm people is the problem. What need to be fixed is the usage of tools to harm people, not the tool itself.
    - dabbledash 5y ago
      The only thing that keeps them from harming you is your power relative to them. Handing them more power only increases the probability that they will abuse what powers they do have. I thought the election of Trump would disabuse people of this idea that it’s smart to hand more and more power to central authorities. But at this point I think it’s hopeless. People just want the state to be Daddy, and assume or hope that its power will always be wielded by people they like against people they don’t.
- beebmam 5y ago
  For your analogy: yes, guns should be banned. That bottle has been opened in most places in the world, and some countries have actually put the genie back in, and it has resulted in dramatically lower gun death rates. The UK for example, as it has one of the lowest gun homicide death rates in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_Uni... Moreover, yes, other deeply awful weapons are also banned. Biological weapons and Chemical weapons are both widely banned by all decent countries in the world. Nuclear weapons should join this list. They almost did, during the Reagan era: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/ronald-reagans-disarmament-dream/422244/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/ronald-...