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

541–550 of 550 posts

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

#541

Post by [deleted] »

dingo_bat wrote: post #103
TFortunato wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried the demo. A little sad, that it sees me as 12 years older than I am, and that I apparently always look angry and disgusted! I'm going to blame it on my glasses and bushy beard, and try to look at the bright side - apparently face scanning systems aren't quite good enough to get a read on me yet. (And try not to be too sad about looking like a grumpy old man) (Anyone else with a glasses, a beard, or other non-…

Same experience here. Shows my age 10-15 years more than actual. I tried to smile and it just filled up the "disgust" bar. Neutral expression shows a high amount of "sadness". I wear glasses too, and have a slight beard. I don't think glasses and beard are non-typical facial features!

[deleted]

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

#542

Post by sunir »

white-flame wrote: post #479
_kb wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, so this got a bit of interest. To be honest I'm a little surprised this seems to be news to the HN crowd. I feel a little bad about calling out one API provider specifically, so here's a bunch more: https://www.kairos.com/ https://skybiometry.com/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive-service... http://www.affectiva.com/ http://www.crowdemotion.co.uk/ http://emovu.com/e/ https://www.faceplusplus.…

I've lost track of how many times I've said this on HN: We need HIPPA for all personal information, not just medical. We have an expectation of privacy in being "lost in the crowd" when we're out and about. Our physical & online whereabouts, who we're physically with, who we're communicating with, our personal contact information, and obviously payment information is private information that can be harmful if not kep…

Who is this we? America opted out of the OECD privacy framework.

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

#543

Post by Retra »

794CD01 wrote: post #529
Retra wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do have privacy in public. Both the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the de facto privacies of anonymity, free association, and predictable rules of social engagement.

>the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" Does not protect your exposed face >the de facto privacies of anonymity, free association, and predictable rules of social engagement Are outdated illusions with no basis in fact

Well, I seem to have no trouble practicing all of those, so I know they are based on fact. Perhaps you don't actually understand what I'm talking about? Or maybe your experiences differ. Either way, telling me the things that that I personally do are not being done is... not an argument.

>>the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" > Does not protect your exposed face

Yeah, that's why it is "reasonable expectations" not "absolute enforcement."

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

#544

Post by dwaltrip »

794CD01 wrote: post #533
dwaltrip wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a gross mischaracterization​ of the issue. You aren't looking at the bigger picture. Do we really want to commodotize​ the simple act of walking down the boulevard? Make every moment in public space (and private digital space!) sliced, diced, and scrutinized by God knows how many data munchers, middlemen, analytics brokers, and ethically challenged people in order compel as much thoughtless consumer spending…

"You aren't looking at the bigger picture" is just an arrogant way to say "I think you're wrong and I'm right". It can be safely omitted in favor of actual arguments. >Do we really want to commodotize​ the simple act of walking down the boulevard? It's not a boulevard you are walking down, but a bazaar. The only difference is that modern technology allows you to visit the bazaar to be "sliced, diced, and scrutinized…

> It can be safely omitted in favor of actual arguments.

Fair point, I could have dropped that sentence. I stand by my gross mischaracterization statement, though. Programmatic surveillance is very different from a stranger looking at someone.

> Sure. It's called a relationship. Or a memory.

The profile built up on people by ad brokers and spy agencies is a relationship? I don't think that's how most people would describe it.

> You can safely replace "this information" with virtually anything useful and get the same effect. Do you feel the same about, say, nuclear weapons? Or legal authority to lock people in cages?

Uh, a core part of the problem is this information being coupled with the ability to lock people in cages (or exert power in other ways). Obviously the data by itself is inert and useless. It's what people might do with it that matters.

Important examples would be restrictions on free speech and suppression of dissent. Imagine something like a credit score 2.0, created by analyzing a lifetime of private communication, online activity, and transactional data.

Those websites you visited 12 years ago? It's gonna cost you on your next car loan. And don't even think of running for city council -- the dirt will really come out then. Etc etc.

Obviously, technology brings a lot of great benefits. I'm all for that. I think we should just be aware of new pitfalls it brings as well, and try to account for them.

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

#545

Post by 794CD01 »

dwaltrip wrote: post #544
794CD01 wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You aren't looking at the bigger picture" is just an arrogant way to say "I think you're wrong and I'm right". It can be safely omitted in favor of actual arguments. >Do we really want to commodotize​ the simple act of walking down the boulevard? It's not a boulevard you are walking down, but a bazaar. The only difference is that modern technology allows you to visit the bazaar to be "sliced, diced, and scrutinized…

> It can be safely omitted in favor of actual arguments. Fair point, I could have dropped that sentence. I stand by my gross mischaracterization statement, though. Programmatic surveillance is very different from a stranger looking at someone. > Sure. It's called a relationship. Or a memory. The profile built up on people by ad brokers and spy agencies is a relationship? I don't think that's how most people would des…

>The profile built up on people by ad brokers and spy agencies is a relationship? I don't think that's how most people would describe it.

Most people use language woefully imprecisely. The relationship I have with the barista at the cafe near my office isn't the same as the relationship I have with my sister but it is a relationship of the kind that's relevant here. Knowing what I order and when, recognizing me, etc.

>Uh, a core part of the problem is this information being coupled with the ability to lock people in cages (or exert power in other ways). Obviously the data by itself is inert and useless. It's what people might do with it that matters.

A nice thought, but in practice, when we try to fragment this power by privatizing police, prisons, military, firefighting, etc, all of which have many modern examples, things do not turn out well. As unreasonable as it may sound, the evidence suggests it's better to put all the eggs into one poorly run basket.

>Imagine something like a credit score 2.0, created by analyzing a lifetime of private communication, online activity, and transactional data....

Oh, I imagine.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12499525

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

#546

Post by 794CD01 »

Retra wrote: post #543
794CD01 wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" Does not protect your exposed face >the de facto privacies of anonymity, free association, and predictable rules of social engagement Are outdated illusions with no basis in fact

Well, I seem to have no trouble practicing all of those, so I know they are based on fact. Perhaps you don't actually understand what I'm talking about? Or maybe your experiences differ. Either way, telling me the things that that I personally do are not being done is... not an argument. >>the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" > Does not protect your exposed face Yeah, that's why it is "reasonable expectati…

In other words, as long as you are unaware of the surveillance, you are happy to pretend it doesn't exist? So where's the problem? Just don't click on links like the OP.

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

#547

Post by dwaltrip »

794CD01 wrote: post #545
dwaltrip wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It can be safely omitted in favor of actual arguments. Fair point, I could have dropped that sentence. I stand by my gross mischaracterization statement, though. Programmatic surveillance is very different from a stranger looking at someone. > Sure. It's called a relationship. Or a memory. The profile built up on people by ad brokers and spy agencies is a relationship? I don't think that's how most people would des…

>The profile built up on people by ad brokers and spy agencies is a relationship? I don't think that's how most people would describe it. Most people use language woefully imprecisely. The relationship I have with the barista at the cafe near my office isn't the same as the relationship I have with my sister but it is a relationship of the kind that's relevant here. Knowing what I order and when, recognizing me, etc.…

> Most people use language woefully imprecisely. The relationship I have with the barista at the cafe near my office isn't the same as the relationship I have with my sister but it is a relationship of the kind that's relevant here. Knowing what I order and when, recognizing me, etc.

Yes but that is a very different type of relationship with quite different characteristics. I hope it isn't too difficult to infer I'm arguing not everyone wants these types of relationships. To call it "just another relationship" is not very helpful for the discussion.

This type of relationship may have significant extended and unforseen side effects. It's not well constrained and the preserved artifacts could easily be hijacked for countless unknown purposes decades in the future. It's a fundamentally new paradigm that we don't fully understand yet, and given humanity's historical tendency to abuse new mechanisms of power as they become available, I think some caution is very reasonable.

Perhaps to make my position a little more clear, a key point on why detailed data profiles could be quite dangerous is their scalable and programmatic nature. Never before could a single click of a button identify every individual who has been discussing topic X in the last year, or spit out a list of everyone with 2 degrees of connection to some targeted individual. The same unlimited possibilities that make this stuff exciting to technologists are also why it may be quite dangerous.

These powers are unprecedented. You would need a rotating team of investigators inside every home and every place of business in order to gather this data in previous eras, not to mention even trying to collate and process it. It's equivalent to someone in previous eras standing over your shoulder and writing down every newspaper article you read, taking notes on every conversation you have, etc. Because it is invisible, it doesn't feel this way, but that is what's happening.

> when we try to fragment this power by privatizing police, prisons, military, firefighting, etc, all of which have many modern examples, things do not turn out well

I never suggested we do that?

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

#548

Post by nimnio »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #289
deadbunny wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not GP but I've worked in a similar industry. For me I knew how our data was anonymized. So while our system would be able to say "I have seen person 1234 at locations 4,7,9,11 on dates x,y,x" we had absolutely no way of knowing who 1234 was or anything about them, even the unique identifier was just a hash. Obviously it depends on how much data you collect/store, personally I don't think the things shown in OP are a…

A friendly reminder that there's no such thing as "anonymized data", there's only "anonymized until combined with other data sets".

By definition anonymization is supposed to be irreversible. What you're describing is de-identification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-identification#Anonymizatio...).

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

#549

Post by TeMPOraL »

nimnio wrote: post #548
TeMPOraL wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friendly reminder that there's no such thing as "anonymized data", there's only "anonymized until combined with other data sets".

By definition anonymization is supposed to be irreversible. What you're describing is de-identification ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-identification#Anonymizatio... ).

Under this strong definition, anonymization doesn't exist in practice at all. Strong anonymization requires serious destruction of information (e.g. reducing all samples to a single average number). It's not what people in ad industry do.

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

#550

Post by JoeAltmaier »

bjl wrote: post #444
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's at the heart of it - is examining a person in public with automated tools, unethical? Just saying it is, isn't a compelling argument. The FBI can use automated tools for surveillance - which doesn't speak to ethics directly but indirectly, as we hope ethics drove those rules. I can sit in my private store and observer people out the window all day, even take notes. That's not unethical; that's a sociological e…

Manipulating people on a mass scale without their informed consent has always been considered unethical; its on you if you're trying to argue that its not. And you're 'but what if a person does it' arguments are irrelevant - there's a clear difference of scale between the massively automated systems we're discussing and a single person with a pencil and paper.

It was one billboard ad - not really 'massively automated'. Would have been cheap to hire an intern to stand behind the billboard and make notes. Probably cheaper.
Post reply on HN