6 ms·

Pre-crime facial recognition surveillance is authoritanism. Post-crime facial recognition of surveillance is investigative process. The cat is out of the bag, t

Pre-crime facial recognition surveillance is authoritanism. Post-crime facial recognition of surveillance is investigative process. The cat is out of the bag, the only thing that prevents it's inevitable abuse is strict legal framework for its implementation

nirui 5y ago
> strict legal framework for its implementation And that might turn this technology into something that only big company can afford, artificially created a pro-monopoly environment. The problem is complex.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Not really. I don't mind there being a near-monopoly on facial recognition software if it takes a large company to handle the needed guidelines and potential liabilities.
  - sailfast 5y ago
    One doesn’t mind until it turns on one, typically. It’s all fine until the monopoly stops operating in good faith and it’s too late to stop it.
    - Jarwain 5y ago
      Well that's what the strict legal framework is for, right? To ensure ethical operation instead of relying on good faith?
      - voakbasda 5y ago
        You have presupposed that said monopoly will not have already bought the necessary legislation required to maintain its position through regulatory capture. The current system positively rewards monopolies in most sectors.
  - uncletammy 5y ago
    Replace the words "facial recognition software" with "location data", a comparable commodity in this context, then it's immediately clear what would go wrong. See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/its-time-google-resist-geofence-warrants-and-stand-its-affected-users https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/its-time-google-resist... If the bureaucratic obstacles for using a technology are so high that only very well funded companies can overcome them, then those companies effectively form a cartel with the state in the use and abuse of those technologies. If citizens had stronger protections against the application of the third-party doctrine in the US, we might have less to fear. Currently though, the greatest oppressor of personal freedoms through technology is the United States Government. They can and will use "guidelines and potential liabilities" to weaponize new technology while making it next to impossible to counter the threat.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  When did we decide that this should have a low barrier to entry. Is there any reason to think increased competition between surveillance providers will lead to more ethical surveillance? This is not a market problem at all, I don't see why you'd use market-brain constructs like monopoly to engage with it. One provider or thousands, the problem is the social dynamics and the power structures, not a product-consumer relationship.
  - crusty 5y ago
    "When did we decide that this should have a low barrier to entry..." That's not the argument I took away from that. Poster includes a summation, "it's complex" and is noting that simply adding regulation that only increases costs of compliance may just enable the formation of a tent seeking monopoly and does not necessarily result in a better outcome for citizens. The poster could advocate for a ban (or not advocate for anything) rather than deregulation as implied.
- midjji 5y ago
  Problem with a strict legal framework for implementation is that it takes 1 person just a few days to get a face recognition system working using generic frameworks for deep learning. The laws can be as strict as you like, but its like introducing a law saying you cant watch nude cartoons at home. Even if you somehow eliminated all the existing ones, its just a pen and paper away.
  - kilburn 5y ago
    Is that really a problem from a legal perspective? There are plenty of things that are easy to do but have strict legal frameworks around them. Quick examples include copyright laws, use of force/violence and driving rules.
    - midjji 5y ago
      and how well are those laws preventing these actions? Long term there are few things more damaging to a societies justice system than wide spread breaking of laws. Go on long enough, and people stop taking every law seriously, while at the same time political reasons for prosecution starts dominating.
      - harry8 5y ago
        Huh? Driving laws are working really quite well on the standards of comparison to their total abolition?
deepstack 5y ago
> strict legal framework for its implementation and strict legal framework enforcement
sneak 5y ago
There's really no chance of that happening in the USA within a generation. The US federal government has decided that it alone is trustworthy, and that everyone and everything is a potential threat, and that it is entitled to unlimited and unrestricted surveillance of the entire country (and several others), regardless of what is or is not written into law. Snowden even blew the lid off of it, and nothing changed. That's how you know it's permanent.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. If anything, your comment is sadly an understatement.
andrepd 5y ago
It's also trivially easy to regulate. Mandate that all cameras recording public spaces record to encrypted storage. The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant, with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping or raiding a home or searching someone's computer.
- adolph 5y ago
  All that seems trivial to type but less than trivial to implement.
  - dunefox 5y ago
    So?
- the_pwner224 5y ago
  > The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant, with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping That's how you end up with the NSA and CIA being inside every single camera in the country :)
  - vincnetas 5y ago
    Including your phone ;)
  - antris 5y ago
    As if they aren't already.
    - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
      are they? or is this baseless speculation
      - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
        No quite baseless, more like speculation with established precedent, motive and opportunity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

nirui 5y ago

> strict legal framework for its implementation And that might turn this technology into something that only big company can afford, artificially created a pro-monopoly environment. The problem is complex.

pessimizer 5y ago
Not really. I don't mind there being a near-monopoly on facial recognition software if it takes a large company to handle the needed guidelines and potential liabilities.
- sailfast 5y ago
  One doesn’t mind until it turns on one, typically. It’s all fine until the monopoly stops operating in good faith and it’s too late to stop it.
  - Jarwain 5y ago
    Well that's what the strict legal framework is for, right? To ensure ethical operation instead of relying on good faith?
    - voakbasda 5y ago
      You have presupposed that said monopoly will not have already bought the necessary legislation required to maintain its position through regulatory capture. The current system positively rewards monopolies in most sectors.
- uncletammy 5y ago
  Replace the words "facial recognition software" with "location data", a comparable commodity in this context, then it's immediately clear what would go wrong. See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/its-time-google-resist-geofence-warrants-and-stand-its-affected-users https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/its-time-google-resist... If the bureaucratic obstacles for using a technology are so high that only very well funded companies can overcome them, then those companies effectively form a cartel with the state in the use and abuse of those technologies. If citizens had stronger protections against the application of the third-party doctrine in the US, we might have less to fear. Currently though, the greatest oppressor of personal freedoms through technology is the United States Government. They can and will use "guidelines and potential liabilities" to weaponize new technology while making it next to impossible to counter the threat.
giraffe_lady 5y ago
When did we decide that this should have a low barrier to entry. Is there any reason to think increased competition between surveillance providers will lead to more ethical surveillance? This is not a market problem at all, I don't see why you'd use market-brain constructs like monopoly to engage with it. One provider or thousands, the problem is the social dynamics and the power structures, not a product-consumer relationship.
- crusty 5y ago
  "When did we decide that this should have a low barrier to entry..." That's not the argument I took away from that. Poster includes a summation, "it's complex" and is noting that simply adding regulation that only increases costs of compliance may just enable the formation of a tent seeking monopoly and does not necessarily result in a better outcome for citizens. The poster could advocate for a ban (or not advocate for anything) rather than deregulation as implied.
midjji 5y ago
Problem with a strict legal framework for implementation is that it takes 1 person just a few days to get a face recognition system working using generic frameworks for deep learning. The laws can be as strict as you like, but its like introducing a law saying you cant watch nude cartoons at home. Even if you somehow eliminated all the existing ones, its just a pen and paper away.
- kilburn 5y ago
  Is that really a problem from a legal perspective? There are plenty of things that are easy to do but have strict legal frameworks around them. Quick examples include copyright laws, use of force/violence and driving rules.
  - midjji 5y ago
    and how well are those laws preventing these actions? Long term there are few things more damaging to a societies justice system than wide spread breaking of laws. Go on long enough, and people stop taking every law seriously, while at the same time political reasons for prosecution starts dominating.
    - harry8 5y ago
      Huh? Driving laws are working really quite well on the standards of comparison to their total abolition?

deepstack 5y ago

> strict legal framework for its implementation and strict legal framework enforcement

sneak 5y ago

There's really no chance of that happening in the USA within a generation. The US federal government has decided that it alone is trustworthy, and that everyone and everything is a potential threat, and that it is entitled to unlimited and unrestricted surveillance of the entire country (and several others), regardless of what is or is not written into law. Snowden even blew the lid off of it, and nothing changed. That's how you know it's permanent.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. If anything, your comment is sadly an understatement.

andrepd 5y ago

It's also trivially easy to regulate. Mandate that all cameras recording public spaces record to encrypted storage. The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant, with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping or raiding a home or searching someone's computer.

adolph 5y ago
All that seems trivial to type but less than trivial to implement.
- dunefox 5y ago
  So?
the_pwner224 5y ago
> The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant, with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping That's how you end up with the NSA and CIA being inside every single camera in the country :)
- vincnetas 5y ago
  Including your phone ;)
- antris 5y ago
  As if they aren't already.
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    are they? or is this baseless speculation
    - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
      No quite baseless, more like speculation with established precedent, motive and opportunity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]