3 ms·

As if the landlords didn't already know their renters were in minority groups. Your fear is no different than if the landlord had surveillance cameras in publi

As if the landlords didn't already know their renters were in minority groups. Your fear is no different than if the landlord had surveillance cameras in public areas of the property, recording 24/7... which they absolutely should anyway.

fwlr 4y ago
With the 24/7 surveillance camera setup, the cost to the landlord of gathering enough violations to evict minority tenants is “watch all recorded video from all cameras, looking for the target”. Facial recognition allows landlords to start with a target in mind and have the technology filter an arbitrary amount of data for just the moments when the target is on camera. The tech removes that O(n) search where n is hours recorded, which was the dominating factor making it impractical, and crucially was the only thing that made pervasive recording correspondingly more expensive to mine for violations.
- brvsft 4y ago
  Cameras can just recognize humans, so a lot of the N hours can be removed simply by detecting human activity and without using facial recognition. It's still quite practical. I have cheap Wyze cameras that allow me to do this. It would also be trivial to pore through those videos and just pick out the ones where the human has dark skin if I'm a racist landlord. The thing is, I agree with people against this simply on the principle that the landlord shouldn't be able to use facial recognition on tenants without their permission, and the landlord also shouldn't be able to use that lack of agreement to withhold a lease in the first place. But the race-reductionist arguments being used to prop up this position come off as sophistry. I don't think a landlord in NYC of all places is going to waste time targeting black people that they already gave a lease to an apartment, rather than just targetting shitty tenants. The cameras will probably be able to find people littering in the building, for example. Those are the people you target if the plan is to start kicking people out of the building to improve it.
  - fnimick 4y ago
    > It would also be trivial to pore through those videos and just pick out the ones where the human has dark skin if I'm a racist landlord. Yes, but you can't do it at scale. Automation via facial recognition makes it cheap. That's the problem. I have no problem with an individual person remembering the face of another individual person - I have a problem with a system that allows a landlord to pick out every interaction with any person they choose after the fact for the entire term of the data collection.
    - brvsft 4y ago
      > I have a problem with a system that allows a landlord to pick out every interaction with any person they choose after the fact for the entire term of the data collection. If that's the case, then why bring race into it? The racial aspects of the argument infers that such law would only be put in place, in spirit, to protect the privacy of minorities, and not anyone else.
      - fnimick 4y ago
        I'm not the one who brought race into it, I'm pointing out that it should be banned for everyone. Nobody here is saying "we should ban facial recognition only on minorities", they are pointing out that it can and is likely to be abused specifically to further existing racial inequality.
        zdragnar 4y ago
        If you're going to move the goalposts in the middle of a conversation, you might want to call that out a little clearer.
        fnimick 4y ago
        I'm not sure "enabling easier abuse of power will likely have bad consequences for populations of people who are already targeted for abuse by people in power" is moving the goalposts.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  You're assuming that a landlord who wants to evict a tenant without "proper" cause is going to bother with gathering evidence, instead of simply fabricating it or finding some other way to lay blame on them.
- bequanna 4y ago
  This is a HUGE leap. You're saying a technology should be banned because there might be some racist landlord who could leverage it to capture minority tenant lease violations? First, we already have systems to deal with this sort of behavior. If someone is found selectively applying rules based on race it is typically illegal and punishable. Second, why would a racist landlord rent to a minority and then spend all of that effort gathering evidence against just that tenant to kick them out?

fwlr 4y ago

With the 24/7 surveillance camera setup, the cost to the landlord of gathering enough violations to evict minority tenants is “watch all recorded video from all cameras, looking for the target”. Facial recognition allows landlords to start with a target in mind and have the technology filter an arbitrary amount of data for just the moments when the target is on camera. The tech removes that O(n) search where n is hours recorded, which was the dominating factor making it impractical, and crucially was the only thing that made pervasive recording correspondingly more expensive to mine for violations.

brvsft 4y ago
Cameras can just recognize humans, so a lot of the N hours can be removed simply by detecting human activity and without using facial recognition. It's still quite practical. I have cheap Wyze cameras that allow me to do this. It would also be trivial to pore through those videos and just pick out the ones where the human has dark skin if I'm a racist landlord. The thing is, I agree with people against this simply on the principle that the landlord shouldn't be able to use facial recognition on tenants without their permission, and the landlord also shouldn't be able to use that lack of agreement to withhold a lease in the first place. But the race-reductionist arguments being used to prop up this position come off as sophistry. I don't think a landlord in NYC of all places is going to waste time targeting black people that they already gave a lease to an apartment, rather than just targetting shitty tenants. The cameras will probably be able to find people littering in the building, for example. Those are the people you target if the plan is to start kicking people out of the building to improve it.
- fnimick 4y ago
  > It would also be trivial to pore through those videos and just pick out the ones where the human has dark skin if I'm a racist landlord. Yes, but you can't do it at scale. Automation via facial recognition makes it cheap. That's the problem. I have no problem with an individual person remembering the face of another individual person - I have a problem with a system that allows a landlord to pick out every interaction with any person they choose after the fact for the entire term of the data collection.
  - brvsft 4y ago
    > I have a problem with a system that allows a landlord to pick out every interaction with any person they choose after the fact for the entire term of the data collection. If that's the case, then why bring race into it? The racial aspects of the argument infers that such law would only be put in place, in spirit, to protect the privacy of minorities, and not anyone else.
    - fnimick 4y ago
      I'm not the one who brought race into it, I'm pointing out that it should be banned for everyone. Nobody here is saying "we should ban facial recognition only on minorities", they are pointing out that it can and is likely to be abused specifically to further existing racial inequality.
      - zdragnar 4y ago
        If you're going to move the goalposts in the middle of a conversation, you might want to call that out a little clearer.
        fnimick 4y ago
        I'm not sure "enabling easier abuse of power will likely have bad consequences for populations of people who are already targeted for abuse by people in power" is moving the goalposts.
zdragnar 4y ago
You're assuming that a landlord who wants to evict a tenant without "proper" cause is going to bother with gathering evidence, instead of simply fabricating it or finding some other way to lay blame on them.
bequanna 4y ago
This is a HUGE leap. You're saying a technology should be banned because there might be some racist landlord who could leverage it to capture minority tenant lease violations? First, we already have systems to deal with this sort of behavior. If someone is found selectively applying rules based on race it is typically illegal and punishable. Second, why would a racist landlord rent to a minority and then spend all of that effort gathering evidence against just that tenant to kick them out?