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

A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 224 posts

Re: A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

#11

Post by delinka »

tmp192489 wrote: post #6
envy2 wrote: post #5

This is almost surely about catching "unauthorized" tenants (e.g., medium/long-term guests) and finding grounds for eviction. One of the many sorts of ubiquitous lease provisions that landlords are more than happy to turn a blind eye to for "desirable" market-rate tenants who pay on time each month, but will vigorously enforce against others.

Actually, I would guess catching people that try to Airbnb their rent-stabilized apt (short-term guests). Honestly, I agree it is would be kind of messed up for someone to have the fortune of winning a below-market luxury apartment and turn that around and illegally rent it out for a massive markup on Airbnb.

Wouldn’t this be “unauthorized tenants?”

Re: A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

#12

Post by mLuby »

abhinai wrote: post #4

As a computer engineer, I get excited to see latest technology being applied to our every day lives. I can't wait to see a facial recognition system in action somewhere. On the other hand, it is hard to disagree with this article. Getting photographed everyday or perhaps several times in a single day could quickly start feeling like a huge violation of privacy. All the security cameras in this building make things ev…

100% agree.

Relatedly, does a landlord have the right to know when you are in your home? Because that's a side effect of this (which could already be possible by monitoring things like electrical usage). Asking in both legal and ethical senses (which I expect are different).

Re: A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

#13

Post by abakker »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #3

among other things, this might be to track how many people stay in your home and for how long, and that might cause eviction.

It is always interesting to me to contrast the presence of laws, which enforced feel like privacy violations. At least in SF, I have to give my landlord notice if someone is going to stay with me longer than 2 weeks. But, my landlord and I have a great relationship and I never see him. Technically, I am violating the lease if someone stays too long, but he would never find out or care if someone did...

Seems like the solution is to give up on unenforceable laws, or get comfortable with surveillance. The status quo of rules and laws that are not really enforced is more like an option than a contract. And I have a feeling that the excersize of those options asymmetrically hurts certain people.

Re: A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

#15

Post by jen20 »

tmp192489 wrote: post #6
envy2 wrote: post #5

This is almost surely about catching "unauthorized" tenants (e.g., medium/long-term guests) and finding grounds for eviction. One of the many sorts of ubiquitous lease provisions that landlords are more than happy to turn a blind eye to for "desirable" market-rate tenants who pay on time each month, but will vigorously enforce against others.

Actually, I would guess catching people that try to Airbnb their rent-stabilized apt (short-term guests). Honestly, I agree it is would be kind of messed up for someone to have the fortune of winning a below-market luxury apartment and turn that around and illegally rent it out for a massive markup on Airbnb.

What makes you so sure that it's not aiming to catch people who get a rent-stabilised apartment and then long-term sublet it at market rate?

Re: A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

#16

Post by tmp192489 »

delinka wrote: post #11
tmp192489 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I would guess catching people that try to Airbnb their rent-stabilized apt (short-term guests). Honestly, I agree it is would be kind of messed up for someone to have the fortune of winning a below-market luxury apartment and turn that around and illegally rent it out for a massive markup on Airbnb.

Wouldn’t this be “unauthorized tenants?”

Well, the person I replied to for some reason specifically called out medium/long-term guests, like partners or friends not officially on the lease.

Re: A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

#17

Post by jacques_chester »

afiori wrote: post #9
golemotron wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting photographed everyday or perhaps several times in a single day could quickly start feeling like a huge violation of privacy. If you in the public spaces of a city, it's likely you are photographed thousands of times a day.

But you do not imagine that people will compile a profile of all your random photos where you are just background. (maybe google does, but that would be extremely creepy too)

The LinkNYC monoliths have cameras[0]. If they're not already selling or planning to sell this data for exactly this kind of aggregation, I would be very surprised.

(They swear they have a privacy policy but frankly, I just don't believe them).

[0] https://theintercept.com/2018/09/08/linknyc-free-wifi-kiosks...

Re: A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

#18

Post by mLuby »

afiori wrote: post #9
golemotron wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting photographed everyday or perhaps several times in a single day could quickly start feeling like a huge violation of privacy. If you in the public spaces of a city, it's likely you are photographed thousands of times a day.

But you do not imagine that people will compile a profile of all your random photos where you are just background. (maybe google does, but that would be extremely creepy too)

Right. We do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public for a given location but we do have an expectation of privacy in public in the aggregate (the alternative is called stalking).

Re: A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

#19

Post by pwg »

The privacy concerns here are huge, but the much more direct issue is from this quote from the article:

> the same programs failed to identify darker-skinned women up to one-third of the time.

A one-third failure rate means that on average, for every three times you try to return home, you are likely to have the system fail to identify you at least once. Being locked out, as a resident, one-third of the number of times you return home, will get very irritating very quickly.

And for the really unlucky, they may seldom have the system recognize them, so they end up locked out a majority of the time.

A 33% recognition failure rate is simply too high to consider door locks to ones home as a good use of facial recognition.

Re: A Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings

#20

Post by onetimemanytime »

abakker wrote: post #13
onetimemanytime wrote: post #3

among other things, this might be to track how many people stay in your home and for how long, and that might cause eviction.

It is always interesting to me to contrast the presence of laws, which enforced feel like privacy violations. At least in SF, I have to give my landlord notice if someone is going to stay with me longer than 2 weeks. But, my landlord and I have a great relationship and I never see him. Technically, I am violating the lease if someone stays too long, but he would never find out or care if someone did... Seems like the…

These guys will pay to enforce every little thing. They have lawyers ready and make a small fortune if the apartment goes for market rates.
Post reply on HN