4 ms·

First just a disclaimer that I am not a proponent of facial recognition technology (I think it has a number of significant faults). That being said, it does no

First just a disclaimer that I am not a proponent of facial recognition technology (I think it has a number of significant faults). That being said, it does not seem like facial recognition technology is the issue here, at all. The crux of the matter appears to be this: > Businesses generally have the right to decide whom they want to do business with, as long as they are not discriminating by ethnicity, sex, religion, disability or another protected class. This seems to be the issue that people are fundamentally disagreeing with. Facial recognition technology is one way of achieving that. If the venue just had all security guards carry a list of the lawyers' photographs, instead of using automated technology, would people be fine with the venue barring access? Essentially it seems to me like people are disagreeing with the fact that businesses can choose to not to business with unprotected classes. If so, that's fine, but I don't understand why people are just couching this as an attack on facial recognition technology, which seems like in this instance is actually doing its job well. The article ends with: > Lawyers may not be the most sympathetic victims and their need to be entertained may not be the most compelling of causes. But their plight, Mr. Greenberg said, should raise alarms about how the use of this technology could spread. Businesses, for instance, might turn people away based on their political ideology, comments they’d made online or whom they work for. But again...."Businesses, for instance, might turn people away based on their political ideology, comments they’d made online or whom they work for" with or without the use of facial recognition technology, so the fundamental issue appears to be that businesses _shouldn't_ be allowed to turn away unprotected classes?

vlovich123 4y ago
I agree with your position. The issue is whether unprotected classes are allowed to be turned away for reasons other than visibily disturbing the peace. However, I think the difference between automated image recognition and security guards with clipboards is one of scale. It would simply be impossible to have images of lawyers from across 90 firms on clipboards and would take long enough to be infeasible for every single patron coming through the doors. Automation makes this possible and easy and thus it’s worth having the discussion. It’s like Google with self driving cars. While they were technically on public roads, the breadth and scale of PII being captured and displayed changed what was acceptable. Hence Google choosing to instead deploy automated algorithms to blur faces.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Some people tend to change their minds about laws/rules when enforcement becomes automated and scalable. Speeding: Person A can say "Yea, speeding should be against the law" when one cop struggles to pull over one speeder out of 500 on the road every hour. Then, when you put up speeding cameras, Person A's chances of getting caught go from 1/500 to 1/1, and he suddenly changes his mind. I agree with OP that this is the only reason we're even talking about facial recognition here. Most people are fine with a business kicking someone out that they don't want to do business with. Trust me, we would not want to live in a world where you can't kick someone out of your business. But when the kicking becomes scalable and automated, some people have second thoughts about being fine with this. It's interesting to see people double-check and backtrack their world views when the world becomes automated.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    > Trust me, we would not want to live in a world where you can't kick someone out of your business Can you elaborate on this please? It's not immediately obvious to me that's a bad thing (within reason). I'm not talking about removing all ability nor about all businesses. I'm specifically talking about a severely restricted ability - you can kick people out of a public venue if they're being disruptive, causing a public nuisance of some kind, or not following the publicly posted rules for the venue that you are clearly enforcing evenly. But other than that, you can't just evict people. You also obviously need to make it a crime to hire people to harass the people you dislike to provide cover under the pretense of kicking both parties out which is what will happen with such a policy.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      If you narrow the criteria to things like "disruptive" and "nuisance" then you end up constantly defining and clarifying exactly what these things mean. Rules-lawyer-type people will come in and walk right up to wherever the line was established. The whole "nyaa nyaa, I'm not technically touching you!" type. You also might forget things. If you establish a list of attributes/behaviors you can ban over, then people will do the other things that you didn't list. "Your sign says no fighting, but I'm just yelling insanely." "Your sign says no being disruptive but I'm just quietly wearing my pointy white hood." Better to have a list of behaviors you can't ban over (the special, enumerated things in the law) and reserve the right to ban over anything else. Then you have people who are not disruptive themselves, but you know their presence will invite others who are. The whole "How to not become a nazi bar" example[1]. EDIT: Rules-lawyer example: Do you really want this guy[2] in your store? "Ackshually, it's 8:59 and you close at 9:00!" 1: https://twitter.com/IamRageSparkle/status/1280891537451343873 https://twitter.com/IamRageSparkle/status/128089153745134387... 2: https://www.tiktok.com/@ragnar_helsson/video/7185409836857707819 https://www.tiktok.com/@ragnar_helsson/video/718540983685770...
jedberg 4y ago
I think people would have a problem with an army of security guards with pictures. It's just never come up before because it was cost prohibitive. I think you're right in that people aren't upset with facial recognition per se, but are upset with its efficiency. However the best way to counteract that at this time is to push for a ban on the technology instead of a ban on the consequences, because enumerating all possible consequences now and in the future is hard.
CPLX 4y ago
Quantity has a quality all its own. When technology makes things possible that were impractical before it changes the underlying social bargain behind the rule. For example anyone can sue anyone else, but mass filing of lawsuits by computer presents a novel problem. This kind of issue happens all the time.
- fivefives55555 4y ago
  I guess my question is then, what is the limit? Should a business be allowed to bar as many people as it can do so without using automated technology?
- ghaff 4y ago
  Someone else mentioned speed limit enforcement (or really a lot of traffic laws generally). There's essentially a contract between people and the state whereby most people accept that there are traffic laws that they'll loosely follow and the state can enforce the laws but will almost universally ignore or miss minor infractions. The situation would be quite a bit different in the US if automated tickets were sent out (or money were just deducted from a bank account) every time someone went 5 miles per hour over the speed limit.
  - fivefives55555 4y ago
    > There's essentially a contract between people and the state whereby most people accept that there are traffic laws that they'll loosely follow and the state can enforce the laws but will almost universally ignore or miss minor infractions. Someone should let small town cops know about this contract. I've been ticketed for speeding 7, 5, and even 3 miles over the limit. I've also once had my car searched for running a stop sign (at 2 in the morning, when other than the cop car lurking in the parking lot, there were absolutely no cars anywhere). I was a teenager back then, and didn't know my rights, or had any resources to pursue legal recourse. But the point is that traffic laws are enforced extremely erratically, depending on where you happen to be living in a country.

vlovich123 4y ago

I agree with your position. The issue is whether unprotected classes are allowed to be turned away for reasons other than visibily disturbing the peace. However, I think the difference between automated image recognition and security guards with clipboards is one of scale. It would simply be impossible to have images of lawyers from across 90 firms on clipboards and would take long enough to be infeasible for every single patron coming through the doors. Automation makes this possible and easy and thus it’s worth having the discussion. It’s like Google with self driving cars. While they were technically on public roads, the breadth and scale of PII being captured and displayed changed what was acceptable. Hence Google choosing to instead deploy automated algorithms to blur faces.

ryandrake 4y ago
Some people tend to change their minds about laws/rules when enforcement becomes automated and scalable. Speeding: Person A can say "Yea, speeding should be against the law" when one cop struggles to pull over one speeder out of 500 on the road every hour. Then, when you put up speeding cameras, Person A's chances of getting caught go from 1/500 to 1/1, and he suddenly changes his mind. I agree with OP that this is the only reason we're even talking about facial recognition here. Most people are fine with a business kicking someone out that they don't want to do business with. Trust me, we would not want to live in a world where you can't kick someone out of your business. But when the kicking becomes scalable and automated, some people have second thoughts about being fine with this. It's interesting to see people double-check and backtrack their world views when the world becomes automated.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  > Trust me, we would not want to live in a world where you can't kick someone out of your business Can you elaborate on this please? It's not immediately obvious to me that's a bad thing (within reason). I'm not talking about removing all ability nor about all businesses. I'm specifically talking about a severely restricted ability - you can kick people out of a public venue if they're being disruptive, causing a public nuisance of some kind, or not following the publicly posted rules for the venue that you are clearly enforcing evenly. But other than that, you can't just evict people. You also obviously need to make it a crime to hire people to harass the people you dislike to provide cover under the pretense of kicking both parties out which is what will happen with such a policy.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    If you narrow the criteria to things like "disruptive" and "nuisance" then you end up constantly defining and clarifying exactly what these things mean. Rules-lawyer-type people will come in and walk right up to wherever the line was established. The whole "nyaa nyaa, I'm not technically touching you!" type. You also might forget things. If you establish a list of attributes/behaviors you can ban over, then people will do the other things that you didn't list. "Your sign says no fighting, but I'm just yelling insanely." "Your sign says no being disruptive but I'm just quietly wearing my pointy white hood." Better to have a list of behaviors you can't ban over (the special, enumerated things in the law) and reserve the right to ban over anything else. Then you have people who are not disruptive themselves, but you know their presence will invite others who are. The whole "How to not become a nazi bar" example[1]. EDIT: Rules-lawyer example: Do you really want this guy[2] in your store? "Ackshually, it's 8:59 and you close at 9:00!" 1: https://twitter.com/IamRageSparkle/status/1280891537451343873 https://twitter.com/IamRageSparkle/status/128089153745134387... 2: https://www.tiktok.com/@ragnar_helsson/video/7185409836857707819 https://www.tiktok.com/@ragnar_helsson/video/718540983685770...

jedberg 4y ago

I think people would have a problem with an army of security guards with pictures. It's just never come up before because it was cost prohibitive. I think you're right in that people aren't upset with facial recognition per se, but are upset with its efficiency. However the best way to counteract that at this time is to push for a ban on the technology instead of a ban on the consequences, because enumerating all possible consequences now and in the future is hard.

CPLX 4y ago

Quantity has a quality all its own. When technology makes things possible that were impractical before it changes the underlying social bargain behind the rule. For example anyone can sue anyone else, but mass filing of lawsuits by computer presents a novel problem. This kind of issue happens all the time.

fivefives55555 4y ago
I guess my question is then, what is the limit? Should a business be allowed to bar as many people as it can do so without using automated technology?
ghaff 4y ago
Someone else mentioned speed limit enforcement (or really a lot of traffic laws generally). There's essentially a contract between people and the state whereby most people accept that there are traffic laws that they'll loosely follow and the state can enforce the laws but will almost universally ignore or miss minor infractions. The situation would be quite a bit different in the US if automated tickets were sent out (or money were just deducted from a bank account) every time someone went 5 miles per hour over the speed limit.
- fivefives55555 4y ago
  > There's essentially a contract between people and the state whereby most people accept that there are traffic laws that they'll loosely follow and the state can enforce the laws but will almost universally ignore or miss minor infractions. Someone should let small town cops know about this contract. I've been ticketed for speeding 7, 5, and even 3 miles over the limit. I've also once had my car searched for running a stop sign (at 2 in the morning, when other than the cop car lurking in the parking lot, there were absolutely no cars anywhere). I was a teenager back then, and didn't know my rights, or had any resources to pursue legal recourse. But the point is that traffic laws are enforced extremely erratically, depending on where you happen to be living in a country.