4 ms·

These things seem great for casual use, but not trustworthy enough for archival work, for example. The world needs casual-use tools, too, but there are bigger i

These things seem great for casual use, but not trustworthy enough for archival work, for example. The world needs casual-use tools, too, but there are bigger impact use cases in the pipeline. I'd love for these things to communicate when they're shaky on an interpretation, for example. Maybe pairing it with a different model and using an adversarial approach? Getting a confidence rating on existing messy data where the source is available for a second pass could be a good use case. Looking at this, however, my hope is soured by the exponentially growing power of our law enforcement's panopticon. The existing shitty, buggy facial recognition system is already bad, but making automated fingerprints of people's movements based on their face combined with text on clothing and bags, the logos on your shoes, protest signs, alerting authorities if people have certain bumper stickers or books, recording the data on every card made visible when people open their wallets at public transit hubs or to pay for coffee or groceries, or set up a cheap remote camera across the street from a library to make a big list of every book checked out correlated with facial recognition... I mean, damn. Even in the private sector affording retailers the ability to make mass databases of any logo you've had on you when walking into their stores... or any stores considering it will be data brokers who keep it. Considering how much privacy our society has killed with the data we have, I'm genuinely concerned about what they will make next. Attempts to limit Facebook, et al may well seem quaint pretty soon. How about criminal applications? You can get a zoom camera with incredible range for short money, and surely it wouldn't be that hard to find a counter in front of a window where people show sensitive documents. Even just putting a phone with the camera facing out in your shirt pocket and walking around a target rich environment could be useful when you can comb through that gathered data looking for patterns, too. That said, I'm not in security, law enforcement, crime, or marketing data collection so maybe I'm full of beans and just being neurotic. Edit: if you're going to downvote me, surely you're capable of articulating your opposition in a comment, no?

nox101 3y ago
honest question: Why is it bad? I see that posted over and over. Right now I watch SF and LA feel like 3rd world countries. Nothing appears to be enforced. Traffic laws, car break-ins, car theft, garage break-ins, house break-ins. I'd personally choose a little less privacy if it meant less people were getting injured by drivers ignoring the traffic laws and, less people were having to shell out for all the costs associated with theft including replacing or repairing the damaged/stolen item as well as the increased insurance costs, cost that get added to everyone's insurance regardless of income level. Note: car break-in, garage break-in has both costs for the items stolen and costs to repair the car/garage/house. I don't know where to draw the line. I certainly don't want cameras in my house or looking through my windows. Nor do I want it on my computer or TV looking at what I do/view. For traffic, I kind of feel like at a minimum, if they can move the detection to the cameras and only save/transmit the violations that would be okay with me. You violated the law in a public space that affected others, your right to not be observed ends for that moment in time. Also, if I could personally send in violations I would have sent 100s by now. I see 3-8 violations every time I go out for a 30-60 minute drive. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-25/traffic-deaths-surpass-homicides-in-los-angeles https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-25/traffic-... There are similar articles for SF.
- simonw 3y ago
  It's bad because while you may trust the government right now, there are no guarantees that a government you do NOT trust won't be elected in the future. Also important to consider that government institutions are made up of individuals. Do you want a police officer who is the abuser in an bad domestic situation being given the power to track their partner using the resources made available to them in their work?
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    > It's bad because while you may trust the government right now, there are no guarantees that a government you do NOT trust won't be elected in the future. Yes, but this ignores the reverse causality component. If people feel unsafe then the probability that a bad government gets elected goes up. Look at El Salvador. Freedom can't survive if people's basic needs (such as physical safety) aren't met. The freedom vs safety dichotomy isn't a simple spectrum. There are feedback dynamics.
- chefandy 3y ago
  Sadly, you should disabuse yourself of the notion that our government will only use these powers in our best interest by looking at COINTELPRO, manufactured evidence for invading Iraq, mass incarceration based on nonviolent crimes, surveilling and prosecuting rape victims who live in the wrong jurisdictions for seeking abortions, police treatment of people who speak out against them (they'll have access, too,) the red scare, etc. etc. etc. And that's entirely ignoring what we may be subject to by other governments. Even the increasing polarity between partisan political entities is concerning. If our country is run by someone comfortable with encouraging their supporters to violently put down opposition, do you want them supported by agencies that have access to this stuff? If you are, should everybody else have to be? One way I gauge where we are is to compare it to what people previously considered problematic. We've witnessed a tectonic shift in the overton window for reasonable surveillance-- each incremental change is presented as a reasonable, prudent step that a preponderance of people agree is beneficial. However, if you compiled the changes that have taken place and presented to someone from 1984, for example, they'd be understandably shocked. For people that have the correct ideas about what to believe, what to say, what to do, and how to do it according to everyone from their municipal jurisdictions to the federal government and all of it's arms, it's probably not a problem. Can we accept the government installing machinery to squash everybody else? Speeding and red light camera tickets are one thing-- they selectively capture stills of people who have likely committed a crime. Camera networks that track all cars movement by recording license plate sightings are more representative of what the future looks like. Think I'm being paranoid? It's already implemented: https://turnto10.com/news/local/providence-police-department-crime-statistics-automated-license-plate-readers-cameras-rhode-island-december-14-2022 https://turnto10.com/news/local/providence-police-department... Edit: again, if you're going to downvote me, surely you're capable of articulating your opposition in a comment, no?

nox101 3y ago

honest question: Why is it bad? I see that posted over and over. Right now I watch SF and LA feel like 3rd world countries. Nothing appears to be enforced. Traffic laws, car break-ins, car theft, garage break-ins, house break-ins. I'd personally choose a little less privacy if it meant less people were getting injured by drivers ignoring the traffic laws and, less people were having to shell out for all the costs associated with theft including replacing or repairing the damaged/stolen item as well as the increased insurance costs, cost that get added to everyone's insurance regardless of income level. Note: car break-in, garage break-in has both costs for the items stolen and costs to repair the car/garage/house. I don't know where to draw the line. I certainly don't want cameras in my house or looking through my windows. Nor do I want it on my computer or TV looking at what I do/view. For traffic, I kind of feel like at a minimum, if they can move the detection to the cameras and only save/transmit the violations that would be okay with me. You violated the law in a public space that affected others, your right to not be observed ends for that moment in time. Also, if I could personally send in violations I would have sent 100s by now. I see 3-8 violations every time I go out for a 30-60 minute drive. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-25/traffic-deaths-surpass-homicides-in-los-angeles https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-25/traffic-... There are similar articles for SF.

simonw 3y ago
It's bad because while you may trust the government right now, there are no guarantees that a government you do NOT trust won't be elected in the future. Also important to consider that government institutions are made up of individuals. Do you want a police officer who is the abuser in an bad domestic situation being given the power to track their partner using the resources made available to them in their work?
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > It's bad because while you may trust the government right now, there are no guarantees that a government you do NOT trust won't be elected in the future. Yes, but this ignores the reverse causality component. If people feel unsafe then the probability that a bad government gets elected goes up. Look at El Salvador. Freedom can't survive if people's basic needs (such as physical safety) aren't met. The freedom vs safety dichotomy isn't a simple spectrum. There are feedback dynamics.
chefandy 3y ago
Sadly, you should disabuse yourself of the notion that our government will only use these powers in our best interest by looking at COINTELPRO, manufactured evidence for invading Iraq, mass incarceration based on nonviolent crimes, surveilling and prosecuting rape victims who live in the wrong jurisdictions for seeking abortions, police treatment of people who speak out against them (they'll have access, too,) the red scare, etc. etc. etc. And that's entirely ignoring what we may be subject to by other governments. Even the increasing polarity between partisan political entities is concerning. If our country is run by someone comfortable with encouraging their supporters to violently put down opposition, do you want them supported by agencies that have access to this stuff? If you are, should everybody else have to be? One way I gauge where we are is to compare it to what people previously considered problematic. We've witnessed a tectonic shift in the overton window for reasonable surveillance-- each incremental change is presented as a reasonable, prudent step that a preponderance of people agree is beneficial. However, if you compiled the changes that have taken place and presented to someone from 1984, for example, they'd be understandably shocked. For people that have the correct ideas about what to believe, what to say, what to do, and how to do it according to everyone from their municipal jurisdictions to the federal government and all of it's arms, it's probably not a problem. Can we accept the government installing machinery to squash everybody else? Speeding and red light camera tickets are one thing-- they selectively capture stills of people who have likely committed a crime. Camera networks that track all cars movement by recording license plate sightings are more representative of what the future looks like. Think I'm being paranoid? It's already implemented: https://turnto10.com/news/local/providence-police-department-crime-statistics-automated-license-plate-readers-cameras-rhode-island-december-14-2022 https://turnto10.com/news/local/providence-police-department... Edit: again, if you're going to downvote me, surely you're capable of articulating your opposition in a comment, no?