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

Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 256 posts

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#221

Post by maldeh »

fixermark wrote: post #107
maldeh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that in the short term, Amazon could be changing the economics of mass surveillance, making it more feasible for police departments that could not afford such tech before. But at this point, I think a change of dynamic is important, and that we actually _need_ an 800 pound gorilla to frighten us, before people wake up and start demanding action at the state and federal level. It's already been half a de…

Speaking of which: how have things gone with the UK's experiment? Maybe I'm not plugged into the right channels, but I haven't heard any news about "London falsely jails thousands of people due to false-positives on the camera surveillance network" or "the Crown finds and jails protesters by the thousands."

Last I heard, it got mired in legal issues, and was recently tossed out by the courts [0]. (Something that's not quite as likely in the US due to the EU being more privacy-conscious, and would require mass outrage and an act of congress to deflect)

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/30/uk-mass-digi...

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#222

Post by lostmsu »

s_dev wrote: post #120
Spooky23 wrote: post #12

Why? The surveillance is there. I used this with some personal video surveillance to identify some thieves who were casing driveways to find cars to get into. Instead of wasting hours looking at footage, I was able to give the police excerpts that helped them identify the perp. Also, because of the circumstances and footage, they were able to charge him with a more serious crime than petit larceny, which means he won…

>If you're allowed to have a camera, you should be allowed to look at it with whatever means you want. You aren't allowed to look in to people houses with it or in to schools, up girls skirts, inside some banks etc. You may have rights to own a camera -- I have the right to go around swinging my fists in to thin air but my right to swing fists stops where your head begins.

Actually, you are OK to do most of these things in many parts of US.

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#223

Post by decebalus1 »

howard941 wrote: post #199
decebalus1 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. The fourth amendment went out the window with the Patriot act and the Freedom act. The fourth amendment does not matter anymore and nobody gives a shit. It's not like an 'important' amendment. I mean it's not the second amendment, otherwise there would be huge lobbying groups up in arms (no pun intended).

The Rehnquist drug exception to the 4th amendment opened the door for everything else.

TIL. Thank you, stranger.

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#224

Post by zaroth »

fixermark wrote: post #79
syshum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh the old "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" defense for mass surveillance. Don't study history much do you? If you believe this will only ever be used to stop thieves and people that victimize others you are naive at an unfathomable level >The Federal government has been doing this type of surveillance either using facial or LPR data on interstate corridors since at least the 90s. lol... You be…

It does suggest, however, that a slippery-slope argument of "More surveillance plunges us immediately into a 1984-esque dystopia" has a big [citation needed] banner hovering over it though.

I guess you haven’t been watching what they’ve been doing to Trump for the last couple of years?

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#225

Post by fcarraldo »

jedberg wrote: post #149
trumped wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a ridiculous comment... Because it has been available doesnt make it any better...

Except that the article is paining it as if it's this crazy new thing and the government and Amazon must be stopped in their collaboration to turn America into a police state. When in reality it's just a service that's been around for a while that offers a technology that other people have, and was available to law enforcement long before Amazon started selling it to them. What is the news here? That Amazon sells the…

There is plenty of technology available to private citizens and companies that cannot be freely used by government entities, unchecked, on a massive scale. The news is that the government wants to use a new technology that is rife for abuse, which currently has no regulation when used by law enforcement, and Amazon wants to sell it to them.

Amazon might be a bogeyman here, but calling out the potential for abuse by governments of new tech is a primary function of the press in a modern free society.

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#226

Post by _dw7s »

HashThis wrote: post #130
decebalus1 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. The fourth amendment went out the window with the Patriot act and the Freedom act. The fourth amendment does not matter anymore and nobody gives a shit. It's not like an 'important' amendment. I mean it's not the second amendment, otherwise there would be huge lobbying groups up in arms (no pun intended).

> The fourth amendment does not matter anymore and nobody gives a shit. It does matter. Citizens do care. Just because they haven't taken action yet doesn't mean that they don't care or won't.

The don't and they won't, don't fool yourself, This legislation will never be backtracked, it's just political suicide as there will ALWAYS be a bogeyman to scare people straight. You know, like communists, drugs, terrorists, etc.. the usual [1].

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Do you know where that quote is from?

[1]https://www.amazon.com/Fantasyland-America-Haywire-500-Year-...

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#227

Post by cfadvan »

LoonyBalloony wrote: post #205
anigbrowl wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Lack of) actions speak louder than words.

Better to do nothing then the wrong something. There is a non violent solution to this, I'm just not smart enough to know what that is.

Wait long enough and the violent solution will emerge on its own, like riots or the guillotine. Waiting and doing nothing while hoping for something ideal is a surefire way to live through the worst case scenario.

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#228

Post by thephyber »

Spooky23 wrote: post #190
zipwitch wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the advancement of technology changes the impact of certain classes of surveillance and tracking. Existing law is based on a balance that no longer exists. Bruce Schneier has a nice essay on this and license plates: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2007/01/on_police_s... In short, having a unique id and database of car owners may be okay when the police need to manually look up information. But when t…

I don’t disagree with you. My point isn’t that pervasive surveillance is great. It’s that if you’re allowed to have cameras everywhere, why would you limit useful processing of the data? How do you regulate it? If you can’t hire Amazon to do LPR or facial recognition, can you pay a guy to recognize people walking down the street and note their patterns? Do you license/permit camera placement?

> How do you regulate it?

Use vague words in the statutes like "reasonable" and have jurisprudence define how it can be used in practice. At least that's how the law already works.

Even though private surveillance is pervasive in the US, law enforcement is still sometimes rejected from using some of it when it flies in the face of the privacy standards to which we are accustomed[1].

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/judge-blasts-fbi...

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#229

Post by nighthawk1 »

confounded wrote: post #166
alex_young wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal. Everyone is a criminal. You commit multiple crimes a day if you're like most people. There absolutely should be a clear delineation between what is possible and what is allowed when considering state surveillance. The 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, hous…

> Everyone is a criminal. You commit multiple crimes a day if you're like most people. More importantly, pretty much everyone has a driver’s license or other government issued ID, and in most states, the police have access to your mugshot from that. The criminality can be figured out later. The problem is real time surveillance of the entire population.

As in ww2 Germany they said: give me the man and I’ll give you the crime.

Re: Amazon Pushes Facial Recognition to Police, Critics See Surveillance Risk

#230

Post by PostOnce »

npongratz wrote: post #148
mfringel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that total involuntary surveillance is not something the majority of the (United States) populace signed up for. The legal Expectation of Privacy[0] continues to be important, even if there are people who think that it was a legal handwave that only existed due to lack of adequate technology. ---- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

> I suspect that total involuntary surveillance is not something the majority of the (United States) populace signed up for. I certainly agree, but just wait until They/Them/Those start telling us this is part of some sacrosanct "social contract," and those who don't like it can simply leave. Edit: small changes for clarity.

> If you dont like it leave

people start leaving

> wait! dont leave! We're gonna jack up the renounce-your-citizenship fee by thousands of dollars!

actually happened already.

Post reply on HN