4 ms·

I am not at all in favor of this. If the police can legally obtain information, they should be allowed to use it. IMO the right fix is at the other end: severe

by amluto 4y ago

I am not at all in favor of this. If the police can legally obtain information, they should be allowed to use it. IMO the right fix is at the other end: severely restrict the use of facial recognition for everyone. I don’t want corporations to have powers exceeding that of the police, thank you very much.

Ajedi32 4y ago
I think it's a bit silly to target face recognition. The data's already there, so to say "yeah you can have all this video footage, and you can review the footage all you want, you just aren't allowed to use a computer to analyze it" is dumb. To the extent that further privacy protections are needed they should be enforced at the point of data collection/retention, not at the point of analysis.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  It costs a lot of hours to watch cctv footage. Tracking everyone who ever is on cctv footage without face/gait/whatever recognition is impossible. We do want the police to do their jobs. We don't want them to be an intelligence apparatus.
omniglottal 4y ago
If you outlaw facial recognition, only outlaws will recognize faces. Consider how gun control laws have some efficacy because not everyone is a skilled gunsmith with machining equipment. Someone with a mill/lathe in their garage can still make them. Software allows even unskilled people to do the thing. This can be performed today with off-the-shelf, existing hatdware and open-source software. Attempting to outlaw its use is about like trying to close Pandora's box. The horses are already out of the barn on this one...
- amluto 4y ago
  On the other hand, if you outlaw the collection, retention, and sale, transfer, or other trafficking in information derived from large scale face recognition, then the availability of the information will decrease radically. People deploy or obtain access to large scale privacy-invading data sets because they can legally monetize it. If it becomes illegal to collect the data and illegal to be on either side of a transaction, then the information becomes a liability instead of an asset. And outlaws don’t have enormous fleets of cameras.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Except you don't have access to the datases of identities as an individual (without paying a lot). That's the value. Who cares if someone runs facial recognition if they don't have a database to tie it to your PII. It's also a big difference based on what powers the user legally has (police vs individual).
dangerlibrary 4y ago
Police just buy this technology from corporations right now. Presumably in practice this bill would be interpreted as "you can't search clearview.ai's website unless you have a warrant" https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/18/magazine/facial-recognition-clearview-ai.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/18/magazine/faci...
Nifty3929 4y ago
This doesn't make sense to me. What's a corporation going to do? Try to sell you something? So what? Oh no! Facebook is showing me overly-targeted advertisements! The government can put you in jail or shoot you. That's who we need to be worried about. The gov't loves it that all of the (mainstream) privacy concern is about corporations, while honestly that's such a small issue in the grand scheme.

by amluto 4y ago

Ajedi32 4y ago

I think it's a bit silly to target face recognition. The data's already there, so to say "yeah you can have all this video footage, and you can review the footage all you want, you just aren't allowed to use a computer to analyze it" is dumb. To the extent that further privacy protections are needed they should be enforced at the point of data collection/retention, not at the point of analysis.

vorpalhex 4y ago
It costs a lot of hours to watch cctv footage. Tracking everyone who ever is on cctv footage without face/gait/whatever recognition is impossible. We do want the police to do their jobs. We don't want them to be an intelligence apparatus.

omniglottal 4y ago

If you outlaw facial recognition, only outlaws will recognize faces. Consider how gun control laws have some efficacy because not everyone is a skilled gunsmith with machining equipment. Someone with a mill/lathe in their garage can still make them. Software allows even unskilled people to do the thing. This can be performed today with off-the-shelf, existing hatdware and open-source software. Attempting to outlaw its use is about like trying to close Pandora's box. The horses are already out of the barn on this one...

amluto 4y ago
On the other hand, if you outlaw the collection, retention, and sale, transfer, or other trafficking in information derived from large scale face recognition, then the availability of the information will decrease radically. People deploy or obtain access to large scale privacy-invading data sets because they can legally monetize it. If it becomes illegal to collect the data and illegal to be on either side of a transaction, then the information becomes a liability instead of an asset. And outlaws don’t have enormous fleets of cameras.
giantg2 4y ago
Except you don't have access to the datases of identities as an individual (without paying a lot). That's the value. Who cares if someone runs facial recognition if they don't have a database to tie it to your PII. It's also a big difference based on what powers the user legally has (police vs individual).

dangerlibrary 4y ago

Police just buy this technology from corporations right now. Presumably in practice this bill would be interpreted as "you can't search clearview.ai's website unless you have a warrant" https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/18/magazine/facial-recognition-clearview-ai.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/18/magazine/faci...

Nifty3929 4y ago

This doesn't make sense to me. What's a corporation going to do? Try to sell you something? So what? Oh no! Facebook is showing me overly-targeted advertisements! The government can put you in jail or shoot you. That's who we need to be worried about. The gov't loves it that all of the (mainstream) privacy concern is about corporations, while honestly that's such a small issue in the grand scheme.