4 ms·
That's why it doesn't make sense to ban governments from doing things while still allowing private companies. Either it is illegal to surveil the public for eve
by digiown 8mo ago
That's why it doesn't make sense to ban governments from doing things while still allowing private companies. Either it is illegal to surveil the public for everyone, or the government can always do it indirectly with the same effect.
I don't think the deal described here is even that egregious. It's basically a labeled data scrape. Any entity capable of training these LLMs are able to do this.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo ago[flagged]
- throwaway894345 8mo agoI would much rather have a democratically elected and constitutionally constrained government than private enterprise with limitless power. It would also be helpful if the “government is bad” people would stop electing the people who seek to sabotage the government.
- plagiarist 8mo agoFacial recognition is not a legitimate private enterprise. It is a complete failure of legislation that it is allowed to exist.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoApple Face ID is not a good or legitimate feature? You just upset hundreds of millions of people
- heavyset_go 8mo agoMost people miss Touch ID on the iPhone.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoSo biometrtics are OK as long as it's not your face? Trying to derive the first principle here.
- plagiarist 8mo agoWhen it's allegedly stored in the Secure Enclave and the data unable to leave the device, it is obviously not the same interaction. I personally would be fine with a law making that distinction with the on-device recognition as legal.
- asveikau 8mo agoThe difference is that a government can take personal liberty away from people in the most direct way. A private company can't decide to lock somebody away in prison or send them to death row. (Hopefully anyway.) So we put a higher standard on government. That said, I do believe there ought to be more restrictions on private use of these technologies.
- helterskelter 8mo agoYeah but these companies are operating hand in glove with govt such that there's no discernible difference between the current system and government just doing it themselves. Ban it outright.
- asveikau 8mo agoI don't disagree with the sentiment. I feel like what we're seeing lately is that private companies are doing the thing that would violate the 4th amendment if government did it, then they sell to the government. The idea that it's not the government itself violating the constitution because they did it through a contractor is pretty absurd. What specific legal measures you do to enforce this, I don't know, there's some room for debate there.
- digiown 8mo agoI don't think there is an expectation of privacy for things you literally post to the public, like social media. Even the government doing the scraping directly I believe would not violate the 4th amendment. The third party doctrine also basically legalizes most types of search through people's "cloud data". To have an expectation of privacy, the data needs to not be shared in the first place. I don't think tying the hands of the government is a viable solution. The sensitive data needs to not be collected in the first place via technical and social solutions, as well as legislation to impose costs on data collection. - Teaching that "the cloud is just someone else's computer" - E2EE cloud - Some way of sharing things that don't involve pushing them to the whole internet, like Signal's stories. - GDPR type legislation which allows deleting, opting out, etc
- koolba 8mo agoWhat would such a ban look like? A private company can surely link its own cameras and data to create a private use database of undesirables. I’m certain that Walmart and friends do exactly this already. It’s the large scale version of the Polaroids behind the counter.
- bad_haircut72 8mo agowouldnt "Any person found to have implemented a system which violates the rights of people in xyz way will be punished with imrisonment" work ?
- koolba 8mo agoIn what way? A business can refuse to service any individual as long as it’s not a direct violation of things like civil rights laws.
- digiown 8mo agoThe whole point of a regulation is to ban something they are currently allowed to do. There was a time before the civil rights laws where you can discriminate by race, you know.
- scarecrowbob 8mo agoIt's possible to understand these things as "civil rights", unless you have a very narrow and likely pejorative understanding of the term.
- koolba 8mo agoRights don’t entirely disappear because a group of individuals decides to form a collective entity. That’s the heart of the Citizen’s United decision. If an individual can aggregate data about his customers and make a decision to not serve a known offender, then surely a group of individuals can do the same. That’s their right. Again, this is not discrimination if it’s done for specific individuals, even if it’s done using data collected in aggregate. Banning a protected group wouldn’t be illegal. But banning a specific person would not. Whether it’s legal to sell that same data as a list of undesirables is the open untested question.
- ChoGGi 8mo agoOr that the government isn't allowed to purchase anything they'd normally need a warrant for?