4 ms·

> with “largely lower-income, non-white neighborhoods” serving as the technology testbed. There's been plenty of articles pointing out that certain demographi

> with “largely lower-income, non-white neighborhoods” serving as the technology testbed. There's been plenty of articles pointing out that certain demographics are very under-represented in training sets, leading to all kinds of errors [1] [2]. Technological advances aside, the company should have clearly disclosed their use of facial recognition technology - concealing that raises serious privacy issues. 1: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/04/1034368231/facebook-apologizes-ai-labels-black-men-primates-racial-bias https://www.npr.org/2021/09/04/1034368231/facebook-apologize... 2: https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-finds-gender-skin-type-bias-artificial-intelligence-systems-0212 https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-finds-gender-skin-type-bias-...

jrochkind1 3y ago
Is there any law requiring disclosure of facial recognition? Should there be? I don't know if there is, but don't think so? I think there probably should be -- but also, it'll be just another fine-print fades-into-landscape thing. All the signs about video monitoring don't really matter much, we just assume there's video monitoring everywhere and don't even notice the signs anymore. I assume facial recognition will soon be the same, unless it is regulated beyond requiring disclosure.
- brookst 3y ago
  Yeah any warning system will just turn into California’s prop ~~86~~ 65, which led every building in the state to add signage reading “this building may or may not contain cancer-causing chemicals.” Which is completely useless.
  - bolasanibk 3y ago
    Did you mean prop 65? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_...
    - brookst 3y ago
      Yes, thank you. Corrected!
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    One difference is that it's hard to know if you have the chemicals in your building, or be able to eliminate them. Knowing that you have facial recognition and eliminating it is much easier.
    - brookst 3y ago
      Not for any landlord that doesn’t control every business and person in the building. All it takes is UPS adding facial recognition to driver bodycams or something and suddenly your building has facial recognition in it. Better to just put the warning everywhere and forget about it.
      - ixwt 3y ago
        I don't think this is a very good argument. A UPS driver/truck is temporary, and isn't a part of your business. That's like saying you have to put up a Prop 65 disclaimer for your place of business because someones shoes might have a cancer causing chemical in it. If your place of business is actively adding cameras, and is actively using facial recognition, those are actions that your business has taken. A temporary action of another party should require you to do a disclaimer. Especially if the same action is something they should be disclaiming.
      - Thorrez 3y ago
        Is it the landlord's job to prevent a tenant from using facial recognition in the tenant's area of the building? I think the tenant is in charge of putting up the disclaimer if the tenant does that. As for facial recognition in common areas, the landlord can put a clause in the lease agreement requiring tenants not to do that. If disclaimers are required for facial recognition and a UPS driver has a facial recognition bodycam, I assume it'll be the UPS driver that needs the disclaimer, not every place the UPS driver visits.
    - AstralStorm 3y ago
      Eliminating it by a customer is a rather tough sell.
      - 3y ago
  - bannedbybros 3y ago
    [dead]
  - 127361 3y ago
    https://imgur.com/hiUqXuK https://imgur.com/hiUqXuK
- eduction 3y ago
  There are a number of state laws but the last time I checked the one in Illinois (which requires affirmative consent to do facial recognition) is the only effective one because it contains what’s called a “right of private action” - if the state does not sue a company you (each individual plaintiff) can sue for $5k statutory damages (which can make class actions a huge threat even to rich tech cos). https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/30/opinion/illinois-biometric-data-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/30/opinion/illinois-biometri...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I think there definitely should be. I wouldn't want to set foot in a place that did this, and would be really angry if I discovered that a place was secretly doing this because it would rob me of my ability to protect myself.
georgedegennaro 3y ago
[flagged]

jrochkind1 3y ago

Is there any law requiring disclosure of facial recognition? Should there be? I don't know if there is, but don't think so? I think there probably should be -- but also, it'll be just another fine-print fades-into-landscape thing. All the signs about video monitoring don't really matter much, we just assume there's video monitoring everywhere and don't even notice the signs anymore. I assume facial recognition will soon be the same, unless it is regulated beyond requiring disclosure.

brookst 3y ago
Yeah any warning system will just turn into California’s prop ~~86~~ 65, which led every building in the state to add signage reading “this building may or may not contain cancer-causing chemicals.” Which is completely useless.
- bolasanibk 3y ago
  Did you mean prop 65? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_...
  - brookst 3y ago
    Yes, thank you. Corrected!
- Thorrez 3y ago
  One difference is that it's hard to know if you have the chemicals in your building, or be able to eliminate them. Knowing that you have facial recognition and eliminating it is much easier.
  - brookst 3y ago
    Not for any landlord that doesn’t control every business and person in the building. All it takes is UPS adding facial recognition to driver bodycams or something and suddenly your building has facial recognition in it. Better to just put the warning everywhere and forget about it.
    - ixwt 3y ago
      I don't think this is a very good argument. A UPS driver/truck is temporary, and isn't a part of your business. That's like saying you have to put up a Prop 65 disclaimer for your place of business because someones shoes might have a cancer causing chemical in it. If your place of business is actively adding cameras, and is actively using facial recognition, those are actions that your business has taken. A temporary action of another party should require you to do a disclaimer. Especially if the same action is something they should be disclaiming.
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      Is it the landlord's job to prevent a tenant from using facial recognition in the tenant's area of the building? I think the tenant is in charge of putting up the disclaimer if the tenant does that. As for facial recognition in common areas, the landlord can put a clause in the lease agreement requiring tenants not to do that. If disclaimers are required for facial recognition and a UPS driver has a facial recognition bodycam, I assume it'll be the UPS driver that needs the disclaimer, not every place the UPS driver visits.
  - AstralStorm 3y ago
    Eliminating it by a customer is a rather tough sell.
    - 3y ago
- bannedbybros 3y ago
  [dead]
- 127361 3y ago
  https://imgur.com/hiUqXuK https://imgur.com/hiUqXuK
eduction 3y ago
There are a number of state laws but the last time I checked the one in Illinois (which requires affirmative consent to do facial recognition) is the only effective one because it contains what’s called a “right of private action” - if the state does not sue a company you (each individual plaintiff) can sue for $5k statutory damages (which can make class actions a huge threat even to rich tech cos). https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/30/opinion/illinois-biometric-data-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/30/opinion/illinois-biometri...
JohnFen 3y ago
I think there definitely should be. I wouldn't want to set foot in a place that did this, and would be really angry if I discovered that a place was secretly doing this because it would rob me of my ability to protect myself.

georgedegennaro 3y ago

[flagged]