4 ms·

Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record

by brk 5y ago

Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely. What you propose would require massive changes to essentially any camera that has any part of its view covering an outdoor area, and probably many indoor areas (malls, etc.). Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much. You'd need to implement something like an HDMI-style encryption to control what devices/processors/whatever can connect to a live video stream from a camera to try and control exactly how the streams are processed.

exo762 5y ago
> Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. > Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely. This is irrelevant, because scale changes nature of things. Single photo of your person is just that. 24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Law was clearly about recording usage that does not amount to surveillance. > Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much. Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.
- brk 5y ago
  >Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works? >24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Sure but we're nowhere near that point, or likely to be at that point. Also, almost nothing records at 24fps, 15fps is more common. >Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap. In most cases and camera and recording/viewing software come from different companies, so you'd still need some kind of key management system.
  - jrmg 5y ago
    The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works? There are legit arguments to be had about personal freedom here, but it’s plainly untrue regulation intrinsically can’t work. It works for many, many things - and works for gun ownership in basically every other developed nation in the world.
- zo1 5y ago
  And how does one view the feed from the camera if it's encrypted? That's the whole point of the camera itself. Anywho, sounds like we're jumping through hoops without really understanding the requirements. Like, what is really bad about recording people in public? What is really bad about performing facial recognition? But I'd go a step further, what is it that we're trying to prevent from happening by making facial recognition illegal? This is the juicy part and the one where the "problem" becomes wishy-washy. We get reasons like: "Prevent stalking by government officials", or "stop widespread surveillance from...[something]". All present their own challenges and implied slippery-slopes, but all have different ways of being solved without necessarily making public recording and facial recognition blanketly illegal.
alkonaut 5y ago
Where I am the law is very strict although somewhat arbitrary. I can shoot a video of a public place. I can publish the material (although commercial use requires sign off naturally). But here is the interesting bit: I can’t set up a fixed camera to record a public space without permission. And I won’t get that permission. Meaning basically that recording in public spaces is only done by humans, limiting the scope of how widespread it can be. I like this. It also means, that it’s not allowed to put up a camera on my porch that covers the street in front of my house. I suspect a lot of ring/nest users are in violation.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  Do you have the text of the law for this? I suspect you're overstating the restrictions.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Which part of the law? That I can’t set up a camera on my house to film a street crossing? That’s almost impossible to get permission for. A private citizen can not get permission to film a Street corner. The difficulty in getting permission obviously isn’t written in the legal text, but individuals don’t get permission and businesses only very rarely do. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/kamerabevakningslag-20181200_sfs-2018-1200 https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-f...
    - dgfitz 5y ago
      Don’t tell Nest… Seriously, this means every home outdoor security camera is potentially illegal. This can’t be true.
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        Of course it is. You can’t put up a camera on your porch and shoot your driveway and part of the street. To follow the law you have to point it so it’s only covering your driveway or lawn and no public space. It’s pretty simple restrict the field of view with a screen in front or bit of tape over the camera if needed. Does everyone do that? Probably not. But that doesn’t change how the law is written.

by brk 5y ago

exo762 5y ago

> Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. > Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely. This is irrelevant, because scale changes nature of things. Single photo of your person is just that. 24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Law was clearly about recording usage that does not amount to surveillance. > Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much. Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.

brk 5y ago
>Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works? >24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Sure but we're nowhere near that point, or likely to be at that point. Also, almost nothing records at 24fps, 15fps is more common. >Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap. In most cases and camera and recording/viewing software come from different companies, so you'd still need some kind of key management system.
- jrmg 5y ago
  The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works? There are legit arguments to be had about personal freedom here, but it’s plainly untrue regulation intrinsically can’t work. It works for many, many things - and works for gun ownership in basically every other developed nation in the world.
zo1 5y ago
And how does one view the feed from the camera if it's encrypted? That's the whole point of the camera itself. Anywho, sounds like we're jumping through hoops without really understanding the requirements. Like, what is really bad about recording people in public? What is really bad about performing facial recognition? But I'd go a step further, what is it that we're trying to prevent from happening by making facial recognition illegal? This is the juicy part and the one where the "problem" becomes wishy-washy. We get reasons like: "Prevent stalking by government officials", or "stop widespread surveillance from...[something]". All present their own challenges and implied slippery-slopes, but all have different ways of being solved without necessarily making public recording and facial recognition blanketly illegal.

alkonaut 5y ago

Where I am the law is very strict although somewhat arbitrary. I can shoot a video of a public place. I can publish the material (although commercial use requires sign off naturally). But here is the interesting bit: I can’t set up a fixed camera to record a public space without permission. And I won’t get that permission. Meaning basically that recording in public spaces is only done by humans, limiting the scope of how widespread it can be. I like this. It also means, that it’s not allowed to put up a camera on my porch that covers the street in front of my house. I suspect a lot of ring/nest users are in violation.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
Do you have the text of the law for this? I suspect you're overstating the restrictions.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Which part of the law? That I can’t set up a camera on my house to film a street crossing? That’s almost impossible to get permission for. A private citizen can not get permission to film a Street corner. The difficulty in getting permission obviously isn’t written in the legal text, but individuals don’t get permission and businesses only very rarely do. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/kamerabevakningslag-20181200_sfs-2018-1200 https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-f...
  - dgfitz 5y ago
    Don’t tell Nest… Seriously, this means every home outdoor security camera is potentially illegal. This can’t be true.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      Of course it is. You can’t put up a camera on your porch and shoot your driveway and part of the street. To follow the law you have to point it so it’s only covering your driveway or lawn and no public space. It’s pretty simple restrict the field of view with a screen in front or bit of tape over the camera if needed. Does everyone do that? Probably not. But that doesn’t change how the law is written.