4 ms·

Let's say I have a video door bell and there's a pesky company making door-to-door sales and all the salespeople wear a uniform. Would it be fine for me to trai

Let's say I have a video door bell and there's a pesky company making door-to-door sales and all the salespeople wear a uniform. Would it be fine for me to train a ML model to recognize when people who are wearing that uniform are ringing me so the button press gets ignored and I don't get startled during the day? If someone is not wanted in a privately owned place then I don't see why using a model to automatically alert security or deny access is a bad thing.

LarryMullins 4y ago
Comparing private residences to public venues makes sense in a particular and limited sort of "technically correct" way, but is rarely the basis of a persuasive argument.
- AstixAndBelix 4y ago
  The venue is privately owned, how is it public?
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Because it's generally open to the public. Different rules apply to your home and your grocery store even though they're both "privately owned". The law, and most people, recognize numerous differences between the two even if you do not.
    - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
      If the owner of the venue personally stood in front of the entrance and recognized and denied entry to those lawyers, would that be illegal? What's the part you have an issue with, the automation or the banning?
      - kthejoker2 4y ago
        Por que no los dos? First, we're not talking about simply legal vs illegal, there's also ethics and civics involved. These venues are often publicly funded, supported by public services, are generally open to the public. So all such actions around banning members of the public for their identity (versus their behavior or conduct at the venue) should be given heightened scrutiny. To your point, I do not agree that the venue should be able to ban someone simply for who they work for. But the technology is what enabled the venue to identify and ban this lawyer, so it is a simply augmenting the scale of abuse by increasing the "hit rate" of recognition that the owner standing outside the venue wpuld. It is a force multiplier of discrimination. And it reduces the cost of such discrimination significantly.
dtgriscom 4y ago
Business model!

LarryMullins 4y ago

Comparing private residences to public venues makes sense in a particular and limited sort of "technically correct" way, but is rarely the basis of a persuasive argument.

AstixAndBelix 4y ago
The venue is privately owned, how is it public?
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Because it's generally open to the public. Different rules apply to your home and your grocery store even though they're both "privately owned". The law, and most people, recognize numerous differences between the two even if you do not.
  - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
    If the owner of the venue personally stood in front of the entrance and recognized and denied entry to those lawyers, would that be illegal? What's the part you have an issue with, the automation or the banning?
    - kthejoker2 4y ago
      Por que no los dos? First, we're not talking about simply legal vs illegal, there's also ethics and civics involved. These venues are often publicly funded, supported by public services, are generally open to the public. So all such actions around banning members of the public for their identity (versus their behavior or conduct at the venue) should be given heightened scrutiny. To your point, I do not agree that the venue should be able to ban someone simply for who they work for. But the technology is what enabled the venue to identify and ban this lawyer, so it is a simply augmenting the scale of abuse by increasing the "hit rate" of recognition that the owner standing outside the venue wpuld. It is a force multiplier of discrimination. And it reduces the cost of such discrimination significantly.

dtgriscom 4y ago

Business model!