13 ms·

> strict legal framework for its implementation And that might turn this technology into something that only big company can afford, artificially created a pro

by 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?

by nirui 5y ago

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?