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

91–100 of 224 posts

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

#91

Post by Cpoll »

C14L wrote: post #72
sithadmin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nothing else: there's a market for fighting back against this. KeyMe kiosks (usually found at US supermarkets, pharmacies, etc.) have had RFID fob/card cloning capabilities for a while now. You scan the fob/card at the kiosk, then they clone it to a sticker and send it to you via mail.

> clone it to a sticker and send it to you via mail. So they have a database full of addresses together with their digital keys? What could possibly go wrong...

To be honest, not a lot, they only let you past the building door. So as a thief, I can: A. Scrub through a hypothetical leak of all that data, or B. Tailgate someone (even in security-conscious buildings this isn't much harder than following someone while carrying a box in both hands)

Locks are for honest people.

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

#92

Post by danans »

jonathankoren wrote: post #44

Unsurprisingly, this technology, and presumably utilizing the surveillance to find any reason for eviction, is being applied to poor people. You rarely find this being rolled out in luxury apartments. Let's be honest here, poor people are stereotyped as being lazy, sneaky, untrustworthy, and stupid, so they have to be subjective to a more paternalism.

While I mostly agree with your comment, I think that what the landlords are really worried about is poor tenants exploiting the price arbitrage opportunity that presents itself to them, though it may be a violation of their leases.

If anything it's the poors' cleverness that is threatening. If you read through the website of the management company mentioned here, they brag that they have been a force in shaping rent stabilized housing policy. They likely set those policies up to ensure a steady rate of return from the state, in return for stabilized rent for tenants.

Now consider that in the context of the corrupt, borderline criminal history of the NYC real estate development industry, who've not wasted any opportunity to cheat on taxes by undervaluing their assets, among other financial crimes.

Only the wealthy are allowed to play games with finance.

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

#93

Post by codedokode »

jonathankoren wrote: post #44

Unsurprisingly, this technology, and presumably utilizing the surveillance to find any reason for eviction, is being applied to poor people. You rarely find this being rolled out in luxury apartments. Let's be honest here, poor people are stereotyped as being lazy, sneaky, untrustworthy, and stupid, so they have to be subjective to a more paternalism.

Exactly. Rich people like Zuckerberg build high walls around their homes and hide details of their private life, at the same time wanting to know everything about their users or customers.

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

#94

Post by omegaworks »

abeppu wrote: post #62
omegaworks wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a guy who calls himself an "environmental consultant" subleasing three rooms in his rent-controlled four room Nob Hill apartment. Cycled through a second subtenant in one of the rooms while I was there and raised the rent $400. I doubt he works.

Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but you seem to find this distasteful. If this guy was stopped from doing this, and the landlord evicted him, the landlord would just capture that value. The distinction I don't understand is, why is it might be acceptable for the landlord to try to want market rate for the apartment, but not acceptable for the tenant to want market rate for a room when a new subtenant starts? Perhaps…

Surely.

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

#95

Post by Faaak »

scrollaway wrote: post #56
closeparen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already accomplished by having difficult-to-duplicate keys or fobs for the building entrance, which is a pretty standard feature of apartment living. And yes, some management companies are very stingy with extra fobs, as a control against having extra people in the unit who are not on the lease, or Airbnb, or whatever. You can tell you are in a building with a lot of illegal extra tenants when the keyfob-cont…

In every apartment I've lived in with such difficult-to-duplicate keys (such as magnetic locks and what not), I've been ask whether I want a second set; and/or the owner told me to ask them should that ever be the case. Not quite sure what's different with that situation from before, other than slightly cheaper keys.

In Switzerland I've always changed the locks to my apartment and its garage.

1) The landlord is _never_ allowed to enter your house 2) In an emergency, the firemen would just break the door.

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

#97

Post by burtonator »

alister wrote: post #10

One result of doors being controlled by facial recognition -- or any other kind of biometric system -- is that you have to get permission from someone whenever you have a regular visitor. You can no longer give your girlfriend, boyfriend, dog sitter, relatives, or whoever you wish a key or access card to your home. You have to enroll that person in the facial database. And whoever is doing the enrolling can ask for l…

Let's ignore whether this is dystopian or evil for a minute.

Assume that the land lord is right and that this will lower his expenses.

I assume he's going to pass that savings to his tenants or just use it to buy more properties?

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

#98

Post by Hamuko »

closeparen wrote: post #46
alister wrote: post #10

One result of doors being controlled by facial recognition -- or any other kind of biometric system -- is that you have to get permission from someone whenever you have a regular visitor. You can no longer give your girlfriend, boyfriend, dog sitter, relatives, or whoever you wish a key or access card to your home. You have to enroll that person in the facial database. And whoever is doing the enrolling can ask for l…

This is already accomplished by having difficult-to-duplicate keys or fobs for the building entrance, which is a pretty standard feature of apartment living. And yes, some management companies are very stingy with extra fobs, as a control against having extra people in the unit who are not on the lease, or Airbnb, or whatever. You can tell you are in a building with a lot of illegal extra tenants when the keyfob-cont…

Do Americans not get extra keys for their rental apartments?

Granted, I've only rented out an apartment once, but it was from a big local rental agency and I got three keys despite being the only tenant in a single bedroom apartment. My current studio apartment (although not a rental) also has three keys.

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

#99

Post by rongenre »

ohazi wrote: post #34
mc32 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the system even care about color in the first place? Can't it measure other facial characteristics, measurements?

It doesn't care about color. Dark faces reflect less light, making them more challenging to photograph well. If you have less light illuminating a scene, you'll have more noise and less contrast/dynamic range in the image. You need these things to extract features reliably. It's physics, not racial bias.

Choosing to implement this system clearly reflects racial bias.

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

#100

Post by crdoconnor »

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.

Is it any more messed up than someone having the fortune of inheriting a luxury apartment and doing the exact same thing?

It's a lottery either way. Either there's a problem with lotteries in general or a problem with what kind of person is allowed to win them.

Post reply on HN