3 ms·

Not sure I understand the concerns. If it is used the same way fingerprints are used, it's not a massive privacy invasion. You are only registered to the databa

by cm2187 5y ago

Not sure I understand the concerns. If it is used the same way fingerprints are used, it's not a massive privacy invasion. You are only registered to the database if you committed some crime, and searches in the database are only in relation to a specific crime. I am not seeing here a proposal for a chinese style face recognition on all CCTV in public transportation or something like that. And I think anyone who has played with a face recognition algorithm will agree that it cannot be used as evidence in court. But if it can help narrow down to a few suspects, why not?

ganzuul 5y ago
Because we know fully well that the people who use these systems are going ignore the probability of a false positive and just worship the oracle as if it infallible, as we are much too comfortable to offload our cognition on algorithms.
- BlargMcLarg 5y ago
  I remember one master's graduate presenting his research and program using facial recognition to find offenders (I believe using phone while driving). When asked about false positives and their consequences, it was basically waved off and not many in the room were interested in the answer. This is the same country which is still handling a case where it had families fined because the system incorrectly flagged them for years (Netherlands, childcare benefit scandal). On top of these families still not being repaid, a lot of tax money is wasted on politicians talking about it without resolving the issue.
  - soundnote 5y ago
    I've noticed that people are increasingly comfortable with the idea of screwing over innocent people so long as the guilty are punished, and don't really value innocent until proven guilty anymore.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
Surveillance laws tend to gradually expand and very, very rarely get rolled back. Once the database is there, someone will bring up the proposal to apply it to some CCTV cameras. That will be shot down. Then someone will bring it up a few years later. Then a few years later it will actually happen. Then it will be slowly expanded. > And I think anyone who has played with a face recognition algorithm will agree that it cannot be used as evidence in court. Hope the court sees it the same.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  If it's all as inevitable as the tides, what is there to argue about?
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    The more pushback against each step, the less quickly this happens.
mushbino 5y ago
What do you mean by "Chinese style"? China has some of the strongest consumer facial recognition protections. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/facial-recognition-china-tech-data/2021/07/30/404c2e96-f049-11eb-81b2-9b7061a582d8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/facial-recognition-chin...
krona 5y ago
You are only registered to the database if you committed some crime Generally false; biometric data is enrolled on arrest, not conviction. European countries probably differ on specifics like how easy it is to have your data removed at a later date, if at all.
- cm2187 5y ago
  Not sure for every country. My understanding is that the practice is to take biometrics to check against the database on arrest, but adding to the database requires a conviction (at least I believe that's the way it works in France).

by cm2187 5y ago

ganzuul 5y ago

Because we know fully well that the people who use these systems are going ignore the probability of a false positive and just worship the oracle as if it infallible, as we are much too comfortable to offload our cognition on algorithms.

BlargMcLarg 5y ago
I remember one master's graduate presenting his research and program using facial recognition to find offenders (I believe using phone while driving). When asked about false positives and their consequences, it was basically waved off and not many in the room were interested in the answer. This is the same country which is still handling a case where it had families fined because the system incorrectly flagged them for years (Netherlands, childcare benefit scandal). On top of these families still not being repaid, a lot of tax money is wasted on politicians talking about it without resolving the issue.
- soundnote 5y ago
  I've noticed that people are increasingly comfortable with the idea of screwing over innocent people so long as the guilty are punished, and don't really value innocent until proven guilty anymore.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

Surveillance laws tend to gradually expand and very, very rarely get rolled back. Once the database is there, someone will bring up the proposal to apply it to some CCTV cameras. That will be shot down. Then someone will bring it up a few years later. Then a few years later it will actually happen. Then it will be slowly expanded. > And I think anyone who has played with a face recognition algorithm will agree that it cannot be used as evidence in court. Hope the court sees it the same.

SiempreViernes 5y ago
If it's all as inevitable as the tides, what is there to argue about?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  The more pushback against each step, the less quickly this happens.

mushbino 5y ago

What do you mean by "Chinese style"? China has some of the strongest consumer facial recognition protections. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/facial-recognition-china-tech-data/2021/07/30/404c2e96-f049-11eb-81b2-9b7061a582d8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/facial-recognition-chin...

krona 5y ago

You are only registered to the database if you committed some crime Generally false; biometric data is enrolled on arrest, not conviction. European countries probably differ on specifics like how easy it is to have your data removed at a later date, if at all.

cm2187 5y ago
Not sure for every country. My understanding is that the practice is to take biometrics to check against the database on arrest, but adding to the database requires a conviction (at least I believe that's the way it works in France).