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

101–110 of 224 posts

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

#101

Post by Karunamon »

mgleason_3 wrote: post #90
manfredo wrote: post #33

Makes sense for publicly subsidized housing (which is what rent control is, in essence). A lot of people sublet their price controlled housing under the table. It's not like the facial recognition is resulting in any privacy loss for those that legally live there. The government already knows their permanent address.

Hmm, there’s a lot to take exception with in this comment. “Makes sense for publicly subsidized housing (which is what rent control is, in essence). In the US, rent control is when the government controls the amounts charged for rented housing - it’s not “publicly subsidized”. “It’s not like the facial recognition is resulting in any privacy loss...” Ouy, where to even start. Of course it is. Every time you’re tracke…

Except the people doing the tracking already know where you live, and in this case, own the land you live on, so I'm not at convinced that this amounts to any kind of loss.

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

#102

Post by closeparen »

pwg wrote: post #22
mLuby wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The article mentions this is to replace a "key-fob". "Key-fob" implies some kind of RF read of the fob, and a potential computer behind the scenes checking if fob serial X is authorized entry at this time. So the landlord likely already knows which fob's have entered the building at any given time. Presuming that most of the fobs are with their rightful owners, then the landlord knows mostly who is in the building at…

The fob is not read on exit, so no. You can make inferences from frequency of entry, but you can't tell the difference between someone who is away all weekend vs. holed up in their apartment all weekend.

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

#103

Post by closeparen »

vetinari wrote: post #51
gist wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing to prevent owner of a building (landlord or other person/entity) from installing a camera and taking a picture of everyone entering the building (outside the door). [1] Inside (legally) maybe the same no expectation or privacy in the lobby of a public building. The end result of the landlord knowing when you are in your home does not change that. [1] Same principle that allows you to photograph the police out…

At least in EU, that's much more complicated. If you have a camera that has any publicly available (not just public, also private-but-unfenced) place in it's FoV, you must register with your local data protection office and fullfill all the requirements (you must prove, how you use, make available, securely store and dispose any recordings). If you don't have any publicly available space in your FoV, you must have a…

Are renters considered co-owners? Even if they are, can't you collect that permission in the lease?

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

#104

Post by jjoonathan »

fwip wrote: post #77
grey-area wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I now view this outcome as inevitable. Such systems are already being trialled on the streets of london. However our privacy is not just about face recog - we leave myriad digital traces thousands of times a day (payments, phone, search, maps, likes, car plates, emails, phone calls, store cameras) which can already be used to trace out our lives in excruciating detail. Just one of these factors gives a lot of colour;…

> It may be better to legislate for all this data to be open to all rather than trying to legislate it out of existence. I can't imagine that it would be better for every person on the planet to have access to my face scans at my apartment than just my landlord.

Surveillance will always be subject to authority-flavored selective availability and interpretation unless the collected information is freely available to all legitimately interested parties.

This has only ever directly affected me once, in a stupid argument with my apartment administration over a $250 fire exit sign, but it was enough to make me aware of how much power the person holding the footage has. Extrapolating to victims with less soft power and more at stake is not a comforting proposition.

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

#105

Post by dub »

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…

In San Francisco the rent ordinance allows tenants to petition the rent board to lower their rent due to a substantial decrease in services if a landlord denies a request for a spare key.

This seems like a reasonable policy that other cities with renters might benefit from, if they don't already have something similar.

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

#106

Post by ma2rten »

sithadmin wrote: post #52
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…

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.

Does this also work for company badges?

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

#107

Post by detaro »

Faaak wrote: post #95
scrollaway wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GP was talking about the entrance to the building, not the apartment. Having your own keys to the apartment doesn't help much if you only have one key to get into the building.

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

#108

Post by codedokode »

darawk wrote: post #76

If I had to guess at what's really going on here...it's that the landlord suspects the residents of some of these units aren't the people they're supposed to be. Sometimes if someone has a rent-stabilized apartment, they might want to move somewhere else. Ordinarily this would cause the unit to lose rent control status, but if they simply let someone else (e.g. a family member) take their place without notifying the…

Even if there is no violations, installing a surveillance might add a motivation for tenants to move out. Make their life as unpleasant as possible within the law.

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

#109

Post by closeparen »

Hamuko wrote: post #98
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…

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.

As a single tenant, I've always gotten 2 keys for my apartment door, and only one fob for the main entrance.

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

#110

Post by grey-area »

amenod wrote: post #78
grey-area wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I now view this outcome as inevitable. Such systems are already being trialled on the streets of london. However our privacy is not just about face recog - we leave myriad digital traces thousands of times a day (payments, phone, search, maps, likes, car plates, emails, phone calls, store cameras) which can already be used to trace out our lives in excruciating detail. Just one of these factors gives a lot of colour;…

Actually, this outcome is far from inevitable - it all depends on the society and the political will. The problem with loss of privacy is that it can influence the voting body, and thus political outcomes. In the arms of power-that-be, it is not difficult to imagine an outcome where this technology is used to protect the ruling party from losing their power. In other words: 1984. I like to think that this is the reas…

It’s already here, just exclusively in the hands of the state at present.
Post reply on HN