Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 550 posts

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#371

Post by bjelkeman-again »

deadbunny wrote: post #269
bigbugbag wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a store has a warning at the door that this happens inside, it's good because now I can avoid getting inside the store and silently hate and boycott the brand. If a store has a warning label on the device engaging in this, it's bad because it's too late for not entering the store. I'm gonna complain right now at the store manager, maybe call the cops or sue. I'll be vocal about actively hating the store, the brand…

> maybe call the cops or sue What exactly are you going to call the cops for let alone sue for? While I don't agree with this kind of technology you seem to be overly emotional about it which really doesn't help the issue.

In some countries, like Sweden [1], this type of deployments of cameras are strictly regulated. A quick reading of the rules in Sweden tells me that you are unlikely to get permission for this easily.

[1] http://www.datainspektionen.se/lagar-och-regler/kameraoverva...

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#372

Post by sbuttgereit »

thunder-ltu wrote: post #283
sbuttgereit wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The future was here in 1995.... I worked for the U.S. Postal service for a time doing data entry (here as a matter of fact... http://www.sltrib.com/news/3445651-155/the-first-and-last-of... ). That job measured the number of keystrokes per hour of each employee. You had to maintain a 10,000 keystrokes per hour minimum data entry rate, they also spot checked for accuracy. Capturing the data you were suppose to enter (…

This is a very sad sad life people agree to :(

It was tedious and not well suited for people needing a certain level of variety or intellectual stimulation in their work. I found it a touch soul crushing... on the other hand I knew people there that were completely content doing exactly that work. They'd turn on their radio/books on tape/etc. (some, including me from time to time, would even read a bit) an go to a world of their own thoughts for 8-10 hours and be content. I had a relative that worked at the same place for 20 years and was completely happy with the job and life.

I did the data entry job for (as I recall) about a year and a half: it paid the bills and gave me a better life than I would have without it and I didn't have the right qualifications or work experience for anything better. For those reasons I was appreciative of the work while at the same time I looked to improve my working situation... something I can say of my work today (though what counts as improvement in working situation is way different now).

There are many jobs out there that need doing. Many of them are boring, or dirty, or dangerous. I don't think that necessarily makes for any more or less of a "sad life". I'm completely thankful to those that do those boring, dirty, or dangerous jobs. Some of them, like me, did it as an early first job sort of thing and used the work experience to get a better job: we paid our dues as it were. Others, like what I find unfulfilling or uninteresting. Some want to work outside, some want to work with their hands, some want to work with minds, and some simply want to be a bit financially better off than they are without the work.

"There is no such thing as a lousy job - only lousy men who don't care to do it."

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#373

Post by criddell »

ffriend wrote: post #208

As someone working on a similar project (specifically, emotion recognition) I'm highly interested to hear how such a product should look like to be not considered unethical. So far from the comments I see that: - it should be made clear that you are being analyzed e.g. by big yellow sticker near the camera - no raw data should be stored - it should be used to collect statistics, not identify individuals (?) Is it suf…

The fact that you are already working on this says something about your willingness to do something distasteful to earn a paycheck. A slightly bigger paycheck would probably mean you would relax you morals even further. Even if your product starts out with stickers and no logging, I bet it doesn't stay that way for long. Not if the paycheck can be bigger.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#374

Post by ctdonath »

ffriend wrote: post #208

As someone working on a similar project (specifically, emotion recognition) I'm highly interested to hear how such a product should look like to be not considered unethical. So far from the comments I see that: - it should be made clear that you are being analyzed e.g. by big yellow sticker near the camera - no raw data should be stored - it should be used to collect statistics, not identify individuals (?) Is it suf…

I've watched the same hysteria & concerns about all kinds of privacy-invading systems. Social Security Numbers, credit cards, computer IDs, camera GPS, search queries, and piles of other tech all start popularization with "OMG evil people can do evil things with that data to hurt you!" Save for a few holdouts (usually much older folks), society at large has completely accepted all that tech as normal. Just takes about a decade of the convenience overwhelming the fear. I despise SSNs, but cutting my taxes by $1500/yr (child tax credit) is motivating; credit cards suck for a zillion reasons, but swipe-and-done is so damn convenient; no question Google has an impressive model of me but those search results are enormously useful; etc.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#375

Post by justaman »

mikewhy wrote: post #343
bigbugbag wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a store has a warning at the door that this happens inside, it's good because now I can avoid getting inside the store and silently hate and boycott the brand. If a store has a warning label on the device engaging in this, it's bad because it's too late for not entering the store. I'm gonna complain right now at the store manager, maybe call the cops or sue. I'll be vocal about actively hating the store, the brand…

> If a store has a warning at the door that this happens inside. Don't many shops have a generic "you are under video surveillance"? Wouldn't that also cover something like this?

This is true, the vast vast majority of stores have surveillance of some kind. Advertising's impact on the human psyche cant be underestimated. In the last ten years alone this has become increasingly apparent. Whether it be photoshopping images that manipulate our conception of beauty or dating apps that make us feel lonely enough to install.

I don't mind being recorded at a checkout.

Recording me to decipher my thoughts instead of my actions crosses a line.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#376

Post by belorn »

r0muald wrote: post #142
asher_ wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this scummy exactly? If a salesperson was to try to sell to you in a store, they would take into account how you appear and act to tailor the sale. There's nothing wrong with that. Why is it suddenly bad if a machine does it?

Because when you talk to a salesperson you know you're being looked at (and reciprocally you're looking at them), and human memory is limited so it's unlikely they will retain any "data" about you when the contact is finished. Here, instead, there is no indication that you're being watched, analyzed and kept recorded for indefinite amounts of time.

Reminds of a law here in Sweden and how car surveillance work on the bridge to Denmark. The law forbids the unnecessary registration of people so in order to avoid breaking the law the police have a live system in place where information of a car on the danish side get show on a screen on the Swedish side, giving border and toll guards enough time to react. The whole thing is legal only because the system operate live and never store any data, which otherwise would create a illegal register with personal information.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#377

Post by Grollicus »

_kb wrote: post #15

You'd be surprised / scared / outraged if you knew how common this is. Any time you've been in a public place for the past few years, you've likely been watched, analysed and optimised for. Advertising in the physical world is just as scummy as it's online equivalent. Check out the video here http://sightcorp.com/ for an ultra creepy overview. You can even try their live demo: https://face-api.sightcorp.com/demo_basi…

> Any time you've been in a public place for the past few years, you've likely been watched, analysed and optimised for

I don't believe this. This kind of advertisement in public would be illegal in germany as it is mass surveillance.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#378

Post by edanm »

bigbugbag wrote: post #232
edanm wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It saddens me that most people refuse to accept that not everybody shares their morals, and that it might be them that are wrong. I'm not saying there isn't an absolute right and wrong, but I certainly don't find this as abhorrent as most people here, apparently.

You'd have a point if this was a general statement, but in the case of automated facial recognition it's almost universally despised across the world. If you're not sharing this position it could be that you are younger or have been subjected to the conditioning of population by industries to make intrusive surveillance technology acceptable to them which has been going on for at least 15+ years afaik.

"[...] in the case of automated facial recognition it's almost universally despised across the world."

I don't think that's true. Most of us tech-geeks are worried about privacy way more than the average person. I personally don't see this particular use case as too problematic, depending on what is done with the data - as others in the thread have pointed out, you're in a public place, other people could be taking pictures of you or writing down information about you, and I don't think most people are worried about that either.

My view is that as long as the technology exists or can exist, it will be developed used, so complaining about the people building it is completely fruitless. If you really dislike how it's used, help pass laws against it! Don't go around guilting people for building this stuff.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#379

Post by edanm »

lloeki wrote: post #201
edanm wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It saddens me that most people refuse to accept that not everybody shares their morals, and that it might be them that are wrong. I'm not saying there isn't an absolute right and wrong, but I certainly don't find this as abhorrent as most people here, apparently.

So what am I supposed to do if I find this invading my privacy? Not walk within 10m of such a billboard? It's not like there's any other active way to opt out of this. I suppose a banner saying "you are being tracked" on tom of such a billboard could have quite an interesting effect. Come to think of it I've seen "Smile, you're being recorded!" in some shops.

"So what am I supposed to do if I find this invading my privacy?"

There are laws and customs around public places and what may be done there. E.g. depending on your local laws, if you're in public, people can usually take pictures of you and there's also nothing you can do about that.

Don't like it? Petition to have the laws changed. This is how we deal with such things in a democracy.

Trying to guild the engineers who build this system is both IMO wrong, but also completely pointless in terms of real-world effect.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#380

Post by Shish2k »

bigbugbag wrote: post #217
abalone wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ethics are simple: If you don't get opt-in consent, many subjects are going to feel violated. Even if you assure them you anonymize the data. It's not enough to put a warning next to the camera because you've already captured them at that point and it's too late. If anywhere it would need to be at the entrance to the store. But guess what? Customers HATE this stuff. The backlash and lost business is not worth it.…

If a store has a warning at the door that this happens inside, it's good because now I can avoid getting inside the store and silently hate and boycott the brand. If a store has a warning label on the device engaging in this, it's bad because it's too late for not entering the store. I'm gonna complain right now at the store manager, maybe call the cops or sue. I'll be vocal about actively hating the store, the brand…

> If a store has a warning at the door that this happens inside, it's good because now I can avoid getting inside the store and silently hate and boycott the brand.

Given how widespread this kind of monitoring is, this approach is basically "I will punish the honest stores and reward a sneaky store by spending my money there instead"

Post reply on HN