5 ms·
this is great news and I wonder if and how this has impact on other European deployments
by hacka22 1y ago
this is great news and I wonder if and how this has impact on other European deployments
- analog8374 1y agoWe're preferring ignorance to knowledge here because we don't trust the government. Which is weird.
- themafia 1y agoIf you don't trust the source how can you call what you received "knowledge?" Why is that weird?
- parineum 1y agoPrefering government ignorance is the same as privacy.
- Alupis 1y agoPrivacy would mean being able to fly anywhere without showing ID - which is not reality.
- Brian_K_White 1y agoIn the 70's, way before any internet databases and real-time data aggregation & automated analysis, you had to show ID to buy beer. So what? What do you suppose that proves or justifies or excuses? The ID served a valid purpose of controlling who had access to beer, yet did not track anyone's movements or habits or compile a profile on them or associate them with others into cohorts or allow anyone to presume to make any kinds of judgements or predictions about them. The two things are not automatically and necessarily tied. It's a disingenuous lie to act like they are and use the one to justify or excuse the other. Indulging in a little predicting myself, let me guess what comes next, "But showing ID for beer never prevented every single underage human from somehow obtaining beer." ? Wait it was unfair for me to assume that based on some data I just collected (your comment)?
- Alupis 1y agoWhen you go through airport security, they scan your license. They're already doing everything people in this thread fear... stopping facial recognition doesn't change a thing expect let people with false identities through. It literally changes nothing... They already are keeping tabs on who you are, where you are coming from, and where you're going. Cohort analysis is already done via group ticket buys, and camera monitoring. This literally changes nothing.
- Brian_K_White 1y agoI already stole your left shoe, so, might as well just make it legal to steal right shoes.
- estimator7292 1y agoPlease post the full street address of your home, your office, your favorite grocery store, and your top ten gas stations. Have you traveled outside the country? Please share with everyone on HN the exact date and times, the street address where you stayed and the phone number of someone who can corroborate. Can you think of any reason that this information shouldn't be shared publicly? Maybe post your phone number and we'll chat about it.
- viraptor 1y agoGenerally we also don't trust the technology, not just the government. Unless you're up for being detained just because you look quite like some wanted person. Given enough samples, there is some guaranteed overlap.
- jbv027 1y agoAlso technology provider is important. I doubt that government is able to self host face recognition. So the most common implementation would be microsoft (or any big corp good at lobbying in this part of the world) owning technology and data to preserve their vendor lock in. So there is high probability that those data will be used for other purposes (you can easily imagine standard corporate excuses if someone finds out).
- idle_zealot 1y agoIt's not just the government. Generally I think knowledge is very important, but as with any important value it butts up against other rights and values. In this case, the individual right to privacy ought to win out against a company or government's or neighbor's right to knowledge. Privacy, like speech, is one of those critically important rights that when violated en masse leads to catastrophic harm; in privacy's case that's through chilling effects, enabling more effective targeted enforcement of laws, and effective targeted propaganda campaigns. A lack of privacy reinforces and exaggerates any existing power structures and imbalances. For an authoritarian, this is fantastic. If you believe in democracy or egalitarianism it should be terrifying.
- Alupis 1y agoIs being in an airport actually considered private? It's a public space, and you must show ID to gain access to the secured area. Additionally, you are subjected to baggage and carry-on inspection, as well as body inspection and metal detection, etc. There are cameras everywhere, monitoring and recording everything. Presumably this system was designed to recognize individuals that may be traveling under false-identities, and are known "bad guys" - otherwise the nation-state security apparatus would have known about the attempted air travel well in advance. The ability to abuse this system may be real, but it seems much more likely your rights would be violated well before you reached any facial recognition systems.
- michaelt 1y agoIt's not the airport specifically, it's the use of automated facial recognition at all. Many former Warsaw Pact citizens have lived under a surveillance state with a dossier on every citizen, and didn't find it particularly great.
- greenavocado 1y agoXKeyscore
- t0bia_s 11mo ago
- estimator7292 1y ago"The government" did not implement, build, install, nor do they control or understand, these systems. These systems are built and controlled entirely by third party private corporations who are only technically held to any kind of standards on privacy or security. In the absolute worst possible case, they receive a symbolic fine for breaking any privacy or data security laws. Whether or not you trust "the government" is almost irrelevant. Do you trust whatever corporate entitiy has exclusive control over these systems? Do you even know who that is?
- kelnos 1y agoNo, we're preferring privacy to pervasive surveillance.
- t0bia_s 11mo agoTurnout during elections one month ago was about 68%. It doesn't look like Czechs don't trust a government.