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

Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

blog.machinebox.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#71

Post by jancsika »

gricardo99 wrote: post #26
nabeards wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? I guess it just comes down to a consequentialism vs deontology whether someone thinks this is a good idea. And, obviously, if they don't do it, I guess someone else will?

The great irony is that often technological innovations are believed to be liberating and done with the motivation of improving the common lot of humanity. Two examples: Social networking - Enabling more meaningful and greater connection between people, leading to greater happiness and fulfillment? Or, fostering more divisions, balkanization into "like" echo chambers, promulgating fear and prejudice, leading to great…

> Social networking - Enabling more meaningful and greater connection between people, leading to greater happiness and fulfillment?

That wasn't the motivation-- it was instead to make identities discoverable online. And-- with Facebook-- to make it easier for college students to get laid.

Both were liberating.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#72

Post by ryandrake »

nabeards wrote: post #7
jstanley wrote: post #3

Please, no. This has to be a parody. > Banks don’t want private account details (like the user’s current balance and credit limits etc) being seen by anybody other than the account holder. This is exactly the kind of justification they'd use. And surprise surprise there won't be a box that says "I'd rather risk somebody seeing my account details than have a biometric model of my face stored in your database and given…

Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? I guess it just comes down to a consequentialism vs deontology whether someone thinks this is a good idea. And, obviously, if they don't do it, I guess someone else will?

The site itself has a tiny section on ethics that might as well say "hey, use this ethically! wink, wink!"

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#74

Post by ceejayoz »

ReverseCold wrote: post #67
gruez wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

disable your webcam? webcams aren't exactly standard on desktops.

Where "this" = face recognition technology :) It's here, and I can't think of anything you can do about it (especially in public).

Plenty of fashionable options for messing with facial recognition. https://cvdazzle.com/

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#75

Post by hahajk »

nabeards wrote: post #7
jstanley wrote: post #3

Please, no. This has to be a parody. > Banks don’t want private account details (like the user’s current balance and credit limits etc) being seen by anybody other than the account holder. This is exactly the kind of justification they'd use. And surprise surprise there won't be a box that says "I'd rather risk somebody seeing my account details than have a biometric model of my face stored in your database and given…

Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? I guess it just comes down to a consequentialism vs deontology whether someone thinks this is a good idea. And, obviously, if they don't do it, I guess someone else will?

"When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success." - Robert Oppenheimer

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#76

Post by candiodari »

Klathmon wrote: post #60
gricardo99 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralization is not essential to cryptocurrency as a technology. It's essential to a view of how it could be used for the betterment of many. The technology can just as easily be applied for other purposes, mandated by an authoritarian government to be the only legal way to conduct commerce. You'd use it not because you want to, but because you want to avoid their ire.

With a single trusted party, a blockchain is just a wildly inefficient database. There's literally no reason to use it at that point, just make a simple db of account numbers and balances.

Actually there is. 21st century money.

It would be actually possible to use a government's money in various new ways. Think of what could happen in the economy if the government provided flexible and free payment services.

(Which is exactly why they'll never do it, but just pointing out that a government-controlled blockchain for normal people would have a LOT of applications)

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#77

Post by [deleted] »

nitwit005 wrote: post #57

> Banks don’t want private account details (like the user’s current balance and credit limits etc) being seen by anybody other than the account holder. Unless it's an in-person interaction, a face has little security value, because it's not a secret. Getting a photo, or even full motion video of someone often just requires finding their Instagram page.

[deleted]

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#78

Post by beckler »

demircancelebi wrote: post #53
nootropicat wrote: post #14

Black Mirror predicted this in a much more realistic business case - forcing users to view ads. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleMXX24v5g&t=52s

I think that is highly unlikely. If lots of people are not okay with watching ads, there would be economic incentives for people to create ad-free alternatives. Even now we have lots of such alternatives. If someone is not able to afford that alternative, it may actually be harmful to advertisers to spend their money on showing these people ads anyway.

I think it's hard to consider at this moment, but I'm sure this is something they'll at least investigate and consider. The ad industry is cutthroat, and if this gave them anyone an edge, you can bet all of them will follow suit in time.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#79

Post by smallnamespace »

demircancelebi wrote: post #53
nootropicat wrote: post #14

Black Mirror predicted this in a much more realistic business case - forcing users to view ads. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleMXX24v5g&t=52s

I think that is highly unlikely. If lots of people are not okay with watching ads, there would be economic incentives for people to create ad-free alternatives. Even now we have lots of such alternatives. If someone is not able to afford that alternative, it may actually be harmful to advertisers to spend their money on showing these people ads anyway.

> economic incentives for people to create ad-free alternatives

Yes, but they will have to fight a giant up-hill battle because ads exploit a quirk of human psychology, which is that most people strongly undervalue their own attention.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#80

Post by smallnamespace »

nabeards wrote: post #7
jstanley wrote: post #3

Please, no. This has to be a parody. > Banks don’t want private account details (like the user’s current balance and credit limits etc) being seen by anybody other than the account holder. This is exactly the kind of justification they'd use. And surprise surprise there won't be a box that says "I'd rather risk somebody seeing my account details than have a biometric model of my face stored in your database and given…

Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? I guess it just comes down to a consequentialism vs deontology whether someone thinks this is a good idea. And, obviously, if they don't do it, I guess someone else will?

> Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this?

But consider the fact that you are using terms out of the humanities, while most of my fellow CS students endlessly griped about how useless their humanities courses were and how they wished the school would get rid of that course requirement (six courses total over 4 years).

Until we teach the tech-priests of the 21st century the great responsibility due to the power that they hold, I doubt things will improve.

Post reply on HN