5 ms·

I think this is a good argument for requiring all software purchased, and all technology developed, with public funds to be public domain and/or open source. A

I think this is a good argument for requiring all software purchased, and all technology developed, with public funds to be public domain and/or open source. A lot of people will believe that we should just kill the project and move on, but honestly, the tech is there, and we have all seen what happens with tech: it just keeps going. The functionality will be snuck in as an add on to some other software package anyway. This isn't to say we shouldn't kill the project -- just that this should be required as open. It won't undo any security/benefit gained from it, much like open crypto. It will however give us the voters the ability to actually provide input about what can/can't be done by the government.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
I agree in some sense. This technology as a law enforcement tool is inevitable. I can't see a future in which every national government doesn't use it on some level. So making it open and promoting discussion about its limits is probably the way to go.
mtgx 14y ago
I agree with having all/most software developed with taxpayer money be open-sourced. It might even lower the total costs if others contribute to it.
- malandrew 14y ago
  It also makes it remarkably easy to pick out the contractors who simply aren't up to par and are milking the government of money. Every software engineer can review their code and call out those of unacceptable quality and make sure they never get awarded another contract.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    If you support freedom, you would prefer incompetent contractors here.
beambot 14y ago
I don't understand your reasoning. You want to open source a $1B piece of facial recognition software so that _more_ agencies / NGOs / companies / individuals can track our movements? That sounds a little counter productive. At least the FBI (presumably) has accountability and oversight. Can you imagine trying to police abuses if deployed to every municipal law force and marketing agency in the country?
- wahnfrieden 14y ago
  Facial recognition is useful for more than tracking movement.
  - pdelgallego 14y ago
    Advertising is one of them. I wonder if google/facebook/apple will go that path someday. Actually, is more matter of "when" than "if".
    - MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
      Here's a scene from Minority Report with an imagined advertising landscape after automatic recognition becomes common. The assumption was that retinal scans would be used instead of facial recognition, but the imagined scenario is apt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk
      - gknoy 14y ago
        It's even more apropos when we consider how many people in the future may be wearing Google Glass-like augmented reality devices. In Minority Report, you might see someone else's advertisements, but if they are projected directly on your viewscreen (or retina, etc) then advertising and propaganda gets even more creepy, as it's more private. A plausible version of such a dystopian vision is one where your new glasses get infected with malware that spams you with advertisements, which I believe I read about in a novel by Gibson. A more frightening one would be one in which what you see is based on propaganda.
kevindication 14y ago
It's not as simple as github.com/usgov but some of what you're looking for is certainly there. If the government has rights to the source code then it can fall under FOIA. They have ways of denying those requests but only with the proper documentation.
Nelson69 14y ago
I think the 21st century trick for this is to "privatize" it. Public funds go to a trusted private partner who can operate in the dark. Then it seems like the billions are spent and gone by the time the questions are asked and the damage is done.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

I agree in some sense. This technology as a law enforcement tool is inevitable. I can't see a future in which every national government doesn't use it on some level. So making it open and promoting discussion about its limits is probably the way to go.

mtgx 14y ago

I agree with having all/most software developed with taxpayer money be open-sourced. It might even lower the total costs if others contribute to it.

malandrew 14y ago
It also makes it remarkably easy to pick out the contractors who simply aren't up to par and are milking the government of money. Every software engineer can review their code and call out those of unacceptable quality and make sure they never get awarded another contract.
- Evbn 14y ago
  If you support freedom, you would prefer incompetent contractors here.

beambot 14y ago

I don't understand your reasoning. You want to open source a $1B piece of facial recognition software so that _more_ agencies / NGOs / companies / individuals can track our movements? That sounds a little counter productive. At least the FBI (presumably) has accountability and oversight. Can you imagine trying to police abuses if deployed to every municipal law force and marketing agency in the country?

wahnfrieden 14y ago
Facial recognition is useful for more than tracking movement.
- pdelgallego 14y ago
  Advertising is one of them. I wonder if google/facebook/apple will go that path someday. Actually, is more matter of "when" than "if".
  - MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
    Here's a scene from Minority Report with an imagined advertising landscape after automatic recognition becomes common. The assumption was that retinal scans would be used instead of facial recognition, but the imagined scenario is apt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk
    - gknoy 14y ago
      It's even more apropos when we consider how many people in the future may be wearing Google Glass-like augmented reality devices. In Minority Report, you might see someone else's advertisements, but if they are projected directly on your viewscreen (or retina, etc) then advertising and propaganda gets even more creepy, as it's more private. A plausible version of such a dystopian vision is one where your new glasses get infected with malware that spams you with advertisements, which I believe I read about in a novel by Gibson. A more frightening one would be one in which what you see is based on propaganda.

kevindication 14y ago

It's not as simple as github.com/usgov but some of what you're looking for is certainly there. If the government has rights to the source code then it can fall under FOIA. They have ways of denying those requests but only with the proper documentation.

Nelson69 14y ago

I think the 21st century trick for this is to "privatize" it. Public funds go to a trusted private partner who can operate in the dark. Then it seems like the billions are spent and gone by the time the questions are asked and the damage is done.