3 ms·

It is certainly a bold claim. But there simply is no security problem to be solved without introducing new dangers through facial recognition and there are bett

It is certainly a bold claim. But there simply is no security problem to be solved without introducing new dangers through facial recognition and there are better alternatives for any other case.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
New tools offer new benefits and new risks. There are obviously benefits to facial recognition, it's rather disingenuous to deny that, but of course there are also risks. A blanket ban is the irrational approach and, again, a worrying sign that everything has to be absolute and black and white nowadays without the possibility of open discussion and measured approach.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  I disagree. The problem overall is indeed not black and white. There are psychological factors to be considered with constant surveillance and because western societies tend to be older, security already has a disproportionate focus. The only rational argument for more security measures are real threats. And these plainly don't manifest themselves. What are the obvious benefits of facial recognition? We are not talking about medical applications here or unlocking your phone... Video taping public places is the extreme position in my opinion. I lacks measure, focus and applicability. It would just be a waste of energy with even worse secondary effects.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Who mentioned constant surveillance, video taping public places, or what not? There are already CCTVs all over the place, ANPR cameras here and there on the road (at least in the UK) that check for valid insurance and 'wanted' cars. This does not seem to have much of a psychological effect on people... We could imagine CCTVs with face recognition in 'strategic' locations that could check for wanted people while not identifying and not recording anyone else, for instance, as I already mentioned. I don't see the outrage with that. I remember discussions on using the tech to monitor entries and exists in schools or other places. That does not seem outrageous, either. There are lot of things that could be done or tried, some would stick, some wouldn't. A blanket ban shuts the door on everything and as far as I can see this is for ideological and emotional reasons, not pragmatic ones. What's needed is a very strict legal framework, not a ban.

It is certainly a bold claim. But there simply is no security problem to be solved without introducing new dangers through facial recognition and there are better alternatives for any other case.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

New tools offer new benefits and new risks. There are obviously benefits to facial recognition, it's rather disingenuous to deny that, but of course there are also risks. A blanket ban is the irrational approach and, again, a worrying sign that everything has to be absolute and black and white nowadays without the possibility of open discussion and measured approach.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
I disagree. The problem overall is indeed not black and white. There are psychological factors to be considered with constant surveillance and because western societies tend to be older, security already has a disproportionate focus. The only rational argument for more security measures are real threats. And these plainly don't manifest themselves. What are the obvious benefits of facial recognition? We are not talking about medical applications here or unlocking your phone... Video taping public places is the extreme position in my opinion. I lacks measure, focus and applicability. It would just be a waste of energy with even worse secondary effects.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Who mentioned constant surveillance, video taping public places, or what not? There are already CCTVs all over the place, ANPR cameras here and there on the road (at least in the UK) that check for valid insurance and 'wanted' cars. This does not seem to have much of a psychological effect on people... We could imagine CCTVs with face recognition in 'strategic' locations that could check for wanted people while not identifying and not recording anyone else, for instance, as I already mentioned. I don't see the outrage with that. I remember discussions on using the tech to monitor entries and exists in schools or other places. That does not seem outrageous, either. There are lot of things that could be done or tried, some would stick, some wouldn't. A blanket ban shuts the door on everything and as far as I can see this is for ideological and emotional reasons, not pragmatic ones. What's needed is a very strict legal framework, not a ban.