Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects • Hacker News Board

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#121

Post by deadbunny » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 1:55 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #113

drawkbox wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privacy is important because basically we all are, at least once a day, committing some kind of crime. I think that is the big issue we will see and have seen recently. Surveillance tools are better than ever in history. Many times, laws were created as deterrents to some behavior, that maybe shouldn't be laws, because it wasn't easy to nab everyone doing it. Back then cops, judges and more weren't as locked into f…

>If we had arrested everyone that used cannabis half the country at least would have a record. That is the nightmare scenario: when 51% of a population decides they want to lock up the other 49% and technology makes that possible.

More like 0.01% decide to lock up 100% of their political opponents supporters.

The War on Drugs was started by Nixon to target hippies and blacks, those who supported his opponents. I can imagine a War on X being brewed up by either side to do the same if they have the means to automatically enforce it.

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#122

Post by watwat1 » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #116

drawkbox wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privacy is important because basically we all are, at least once a day, committing some kind of crime. I think that is the big issue we will see and have seen recently. Surveillance tools are better than ever in history. Many times, laws were created as deterrents to some behavior, that maybe shouldn't be laws, because it wasn't easy to nab everyone doing it. Back then cops, judges and more weren't as locked into f…

> If we had arrested everyone that used cannabis half the > country at least would have a record. That idea seems deeply troubling if you're a White American. Meanwhile, this is the daily reality of Black Americans, because the police have been systematically enforcing these laws against people of colour. Now we face a world where that same disproportionate enforcement may be applied to Democrats, or the young (who d…

Source?

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#123

Post by vog » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:01 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #116

drawkbox wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privacy is important because basically we all are, at least once a day, committing some kind of crime. I think that is the big issue we will see and have seen recently. Surveillance tools are better than ever in history. Many times, laws were created as deterrents to some behavior, that maybe shouldn't be laws, because it wasn't easy to nab everyone doing it. Back then cops, judges and more weren't as locked into f…

> If we had arrested everyone that used cannabis half the > country at least would have a record. That idea seems deeply troubling if you're a White American. Meanwhile, this is the daily reality of Black Americans, because the police have been systematically enforcing these laws against people of colour. Now we face a world where that same disproportionate enforcement may be applied to Democrats, or the young (who d…

> may be applied to Democrats, or the young (who disproportionally vote against Republicans).

That doesn't make any sense! To affect elections, you'd need a really huge number of prisoners. Moreover, you'd need to deny prisoners the right to vote. Wait ...

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#124

Post by tmnvix » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:04 PM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #117

dalbasal wrote: post #108

Face recognition exists, is becoming trivial and this has implications. I saw a demo of sorts about 6 years ago, and heard rumors of various research projects @ FB. Banner tracking in malls that link banner "views" to "conversions" using a camera armed cash registers. Hi-res cameras on streets that collect data like wildlife tracking collars. A stadium cam that can id all the people at a match. A smart building that…

A bit of a strong idea, but what if we just outright say that face recognition is unethical? I have a hard time finding any use that is positive for society. Advertising and surveillance. Given that, what if we try to convince as many people as possible to not research this tech, nor work for any company working on this. You wouldn't work for a weapons manufacturer, maybe the same metrics need to be applied to adtech…

Well, you (and I) wouldn't work for a weapons manufacturer, but many people would - and do.

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#125

Post by dsfyu404ed » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:23 PM UTC

mahrain wrote: post #109

drawkbox wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privacy is important because basically we all are, at least once a day, committing some kind of crime. I think that is the big issue we will see and have seen recently. Surveillance tools are better than ever in history. Many times, laws were created as deterrents to some behavior, that maybe shouldn't be laws, because it wasn't easy to nab everyone doing it. Back then cops, judges and more weren't as locked into f…

The Dutch police issued 9.2 million traffic fines on a population of 17 million. Most of this is a fully automated system from connected speed traps, to an 'invoicing system'. I feel that if these things are fining apparently widespread behavior at such a scale the laws should change. Last week a judge ruled that the Student Loan administration can use mandatory personal RFID equipped train tickets to detect scholars…

>I feel that if these things are fining apparently widespread behavior at such a scale the laws should change.

You don't even need the law itself. If you've got the infrastructure to fine everyone who exceeds the speed limit in a place that it's not a big stretch to use dynamic speed limits set to the 90th percentile speed with only a little bit of lag.

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#126

Post by SauciestGNU » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

tmnvix wrote: post #124

rtpg wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit of a strong idea, but what if we just outright say that face recognition is unethical? I have a hard time finding any use that is positive for society. Advertising and surveillance. Given that, what if we try to convince as many people as possible to not research this tech, nor work for any company working on this. You wouldn't work for a weapons manufacturer, maybe the same metrics need to be applied to adtech…

Well, you (and I) wouldn't work for a weapons manufacturer, but many people would - and do.

Well yes, but why should we not ostracize those people like we presumably would do to others who committed, participated in, or collaborated with atrocities?

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#127

Post by dsfyu404ed » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:44 PM UTC

deadbunny wrote: post #121

noonespecial wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If we had arrested everyone that used cannabis half the country at least would have a record. That is the nightmare scenario: when 51% of a population decides they want to lock up the other 49% and technology makes that possible.

More like 0.01% decide to lock up 100% of their political opponents supporters. The War on Drugs was started by Nixon to target hippies and blacks, those who supported his opponents. I can imagine a War on X being brewed up by either side to do the same if they have the means to automatically enforce it.

Having recently read a lot more literature about the big picture social issues in the US from the 30 through the 70s the late '60s and early '70s was a time of stupid groups reacting to other stupid groups with tragic consequences.

The militant leftists and their bombs, the hippies and their antiwar stuff, the racists, the FBI/government and it's BS, the black power groups and their violence, they all were reacting to each other while failing to understand in any meaningful way the grievances of the other groups in any meaningful way.

Cracking down on the millitant left was right. They were the second the most destructive domestic terrorist movement (the post civl war KKK is 1st by a mile). The government at the time used it as an excuse to cast way to wide of a net because of personal beliefs (in aggregate) and because they didn't understand the where the problem was coming from. It's unfortunate.

If people hadn't been such idiots in the late 1960s there wouldn't have been a millitant left to crack down on. If civil rights of the late 1960s or the Vietnam war had happened a decade apart from each other we probably wouldn't be mopping it up in 2017. It didn't so here we are trying to wind down the war on drugs and demilitarize the police (and we'll probably revert some gun control too since it's part of the same anti-minority, anti-hippy package of knee jerk decisions).

In the 2040s we'll probably be in the same situation trying to wind down the post 9/11 expansion of government surveillance.

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#128

Post by noonespecial » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

deadbunny wrote: post #121

noonespecial wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If we had arrested everyone that used cannabis half the country at least would have a record. That is the nightmare scenario: when 51% of a population decides they want to lock up the other 49% and technology makes that possible.

More like 0.01% decide to lock up 100% of their political opponents supporters. The War on Drugs was started by Nixon to target hippies and blacks, those who supported his opponents. I can imagine a War on X being brewed up by either side to do the same if they have the means to automatically enforce it.

Ahh but that we can actually call "wrong" the former is "democracy".

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#129

Post by firebender6 » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

Why is this not evoking a stronger response from the public? Or globally? Mass surveillance has always been a troubling possibility with computer vision.

I remember a client who approached us a few years ago to develop software to surveil his employees in departmental store (containing no particularly special commodity). To track his employees 24-7. We refused to take up the project. I can't believe we are on the way to implement to the same idea at this large a scale!

No matter what the short term benefits are, I believe the long term effects are going to be very very unpleasant. Orwell's world doesn't seem too far off.

Re: Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

#130

Post by dsfyu404ed » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

globuous wrote: post #6

Rob Lake's comment is pretty spot on (I'm taking the liberty to repost w/o his authorization): ""The app brings up the suspect’s vital information, including name, ethnicity, gender and address." Presumably version 2 of the app will also pop up the person's social credit score." That being said, this will definitely come to the west sooner or later. I mean, doesn't London already have cameras at every street corner f…

This is exactly what comes up when the police run a plate.

The only difference is facial recognition vs numbers and letters.

Querying for more invasive information such as medical history, sexual orientation, online accounts, "undesirable people" they are acquainted with) is a simple as a DB connection string and a select statement.