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

Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

#41

Post by fapjacks »

gnode wrote: post #33
fapjacks wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just guessing, but GDPR does require that if a person says "no" to tracking (or rather, if they do not explicitly opt-in), that the service cannot be degraded. So I'm wondering if NPR is just serving completely script-less, ad-less text to provide the same thing to this audience?

I wonder how regulators would look at this practise. It would depend on whether taking away formatting and any image / video content counts as degrading. For some people this is desirable, but for others it may not be. My interpretation is that they would be free to give the text-only version to EU residents unilaterally, but not to make formatting tied to tracking consent, as tracking is not functionally necessary f…

Yeah, it's an interesting question. I'm sure the lawyer-nerds are really having a great time with it. I've heard it said elsewhere and here on HN that EU courts are mostly concerned about the practical intent of the laws and not the explicit wording of the law like it can be here in the States. I have no idea if that's true, but it does sound reasonable to me, the part about EU courts. That being said, I think personally it's strange to say that the United States isn't also concerned about the practical intent of laws, because anytime I read a ruling or an opinion, it's always trying to drill into the intent behind the law and not picking nits over verbiage. But I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm completely wrong. The American system seems to be more about loopholes, though, so perhaps there is a looser interpretation of this comparison that rings true.

Re: Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

#42

Post by petermcneeley »

maxxxxx wrote: post #38
petermcneeley wrote: post #6

Many forms of privacy will disappear but these are all modern creations anyway. Think of how a small tribe use to behave. Was there anything that was private in a small community? Would a criminal also too be instantly spotted in the local lodge as the bard plays his tunes?

I don't think you can compare small tribes watching each other with the current situation where someone with access to surveillance systems can record all movements in a whole country and get them analyzed automatically. Surveillance used to be expensive and cost a lot of effort but increasingly it can be done more complete and cheaper. The world may look differently if previous dictators had had the surveillance sys…

Yes but this is just a further expression of our unaddressed ever-increasing social inequities. Even among the basic primates there is a great variety present in their visible social hierarchies. The shape that our reconstituted tribes take is for us now to choose.

Re: Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

#43

Post by derefr »

J-dawg wrote: post #40
everdev wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So can you wear a cross necklace or a yamaka? Or use a Jesus fish bumper sticker?

Or to take the idea further, can you wear a cross necklace and a halloween mask? Or a hijab and a welding mask? One item is signalling your religion, the other is covering your face. Neither item is covering your face in a way that signals your religion. I feel like any attempt at imposing anti-privacy laws while keeping some pretence of a free society ultimately descends into farce, because the two ideas are basical…

No, you misunderstand; the law doesn't say anything about covering your face, it just says "you can't display your religious affiliation in public." A hijab happens to cover your face, but it's illegal to wear in public only because it's a religious telltale, not because of its function.

You can't wear the cross necklace, or have the bumper-sticker; they signal religion. And you can wear the halloween mask, or the welding mask; they don't signal religion. There's nothing more to it than that, and there's no complex interaction.

If you can still see the hijab under the welding mask (and you can; the welding mask doesn't cover the back of your head, or your neck) then the hijab has gotta go. (And, to be extra clear, it's a unilateral rule: nuns and priests can't wear their vestments in public either! They've gotta change into them at the church/nunnery, and change back before they leave.)

On the other hand, if you wear a cross necklace under your clothes where nobody can see it, that's perfectly fine. Because, again, the point is that you can't signal your religion. The symbols aren't against the law; displaying them is.

And so, actually, wearing a hijab would be fine if you wear, say, a motorcycle helmet over your head, and a bandana over the lower half of your face. You're covering all the same area—but, because nobody can tell that you're wearing a hijab, and because neither a motorcycle helmet nor a bandana signal religious affiliation, you're fine. The symbol is hidden, like the cross under your clothes is hidden.

(Interestingly, since the point of the hijab tradition is to cover these areas, not to look a specific way, anything that covers these areas is "functionally" still a hijab as far as Islamic social norms are concerned. So wearing just the motorcycle helmet + bandana would actually be a perfectly legitimate way to cohere to your religious beliefs, without [legibly] signalling your religion. ...until, that is, every Muslim woman started doing it; then it'd become a legible religious symbol, and so be banned as well.)

Re: Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

#44

Post by wedn3sday »

joering2 wrote: post #22

10 years from now frontpage HN: "Thanks to cameras placed in every room of every Chinese house, 10,000 people have been saved from otherwise being abused, kidnapped, raped or trafficked this month alone!" Yay!

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!

Re: Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

#45

Post by gotrecruit »

fapjacks wrote: post #41
gnode wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how regulators would look at this practise. It would depend on whether taking away formatting and any image / video content counts as degrading. For some people this is desirable, but for others it may not be. My interpretation is that they would be free to give the text-only version to EU residents unilaterally, but not to make formatting tied to tracking consent, as tracking is not functionally necessary f…

Yeah, it's an interesting question. I'm sure the lawyer-nerds are really having a great time with it. I've heard it said elsewhere and here on HN that EU courts are mostly concerned about the practical intent of the laws and not the explicit wording of the law like it can be here in the States. I have no idea if that's true, but it does sound reasonable to me, the part about EU courts. That being said, I think person…

the american system is definitely more geared towards the letter of the law, while the rest of the world is more inclined towards the spirit of the law.

Re: Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

#46

Post by J-dawg »

derefr wrote: post #43
J-dawg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or to take the idea further, can you wear a cross necklace and a halloween mask? Or a hijab and a welding mask? One item is signalling your religion, the other is covering your face. Neither item is covering your face in a way that signals your religion. I feel like any attempt at imposing anti-privacy laws while keeping some pretence of a free society ultimately descends into farce, because the two ideas are basical…

No, you misunderstand; the law doesn't say anything about covering your face, it just says "you can't display your religious affiliation in public." A hijab happens to cover your face, but it's illegal to wear in public only because it's a religious telltale, not because of its function. You can't wear the cross necklace, or have the bumper-sticker; they signal religion. And you can wear the halloween mask, or the we…

I don’t think this is correct. A hijab is a scarf around the head that doesn’t cover the face. I’m sure I’ve seen women in France wearing them.

The Wikipedia article suggests it’s a straightforward ban on covering the face, not as you describe.

So in fact the welding mask or motorcycle helmet would be illegal (in a public place). The hijab would be irrelevant.

I still think it’s a bad law, but at least it seems basically consistent.

Are we talking about different laws? Is there a different one about signalling your religion?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

EDIT: I think we are indeed talking about different laws. You’re referring to an older one that bans religious symbolism in public institutions. So what you describe is correct, when we’re talking about schools and hospitals.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in...

Re: Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

#47

Post by derefr »

J-dawg wrote: post #46
derefr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you misunderstand; the law doesn't say anything about covering your face, it just says "you can't display your religious affiliation in public." A hijab happens to cover your face, but it's illegal to wear in public only because it's a religious telltale, not because of its function. You can't wear the cross necklace, or have the bumper-sticker; they signal religion. And you can wear the halloween mask, or the we…

I don’t think this is correct. A hijab is a scarf around the head that doesn’t cover the face. I’m sure I’ve seen women in France wearing them. The Wikipedia article suggests it’s a straightforward ban on covering the face, not as you describe. So in fact the welding mask or motorcycle helmet would be illegal (in a public place). The hijab would be irrelevant. I still think it’s a bad law, but at least it seems basic…

Ah! I didn't realize there was a newer law. It seems dumb :P

Re: Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

#48

Post by coolspot »

wilsonnb wrote: post #23
J-dawg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Masks and temporary/permanent face altering techniques will explode as this technology takes hold Along with a corresponding explosion in legislation to prevent you from covering your face in public. It already exists in France (popularly known as the 'Burqa Ban', but I think it covers other face coverings). I'm especially curious to see how this will go down in the UK, which is increasingly authoritarian while oft…

It's already illegal in many states in the US. Possibly at the local level as well. Here's the relevant law for Virginia. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter9/secti... It's a class 6 felony, which in VA means you'll be looking at "a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jai…

> However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes;

It doesn't say I can't wear traditional holiday costume outside of holiday, so it should be okay to wear Halloween scary costume all year long.

Re: Thanks to facial recognition, a third person is arrested following a pop concert

#49

Post by iovrthoughtthis »

gnode wrote: post #26
m_t wrote: post #25

Direct access to the text only version: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=613692526 Thanks to GDPR, I can now acess a page with what I want to read way faster than before!

While I appreciate them being the first site I've seen that's actually trying to be GDPR compliant (not just giving me a "yes I accept tracking" and "no I don't want to see the content" choice), it's a bit annoying that their "decline and visit plain text site" link goes to the homepage, rather than the article.

This is an obvious "force people to join by providing a shit service" ploy.

Articles done event have properly tagged titles.

Post reply on HN