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

America is turning against facial-recognition software

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 149 posts

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#41

Post by povertyworld »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #26
diafygi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so I have good arguments when talking to someone about this specific point, can you or someone else please go into more detail on why this will happen?

There have been numerous issues where corpora of peoples faces have been insufficiently stocked with a particular racial group, in such cases people's faces might not register as faces and therefore be shut out of whatever the facial recognition is supposed to implement. For example facial recognition at a high priced building, suddenly non-white people can't get in because you did not show a real face at the scanner…

The problem with an "it's racist" strawman is that all the people selling this stuff have to do is frame it so NOT using it is racist. I don't think it would be hard to argue that a face scan is going to have less implicit bias than a poorly trained security guard or bored cop working overtime. So maybe it's racist to not use facial recognition, since that leaves room for human prejudice.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#42

Post by mc32 »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #39
mc32 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>”corpora of peoples faces have been insufficiently stocked with a particular racial group, in such cases people's faces might not register as faces..” I’m not sure this is s good argument against the technology because there is a solution to this objection: they’ll improve it and ensure every face type is comparably recognized. It should be rejected on more basic principles.

It's not as simple as "just make sure it works on everyone". Even if it were physically possible to capture the face of all 7 billion people on Earth, you'd start running into issues of false positives/negatives, overfitting, etc., and furthermore it would basically require every person to be periodically scanned from birth until death to ensure that the algorithm can recognize new faces.

This is a different objection than the original objection. (effective accuracy vs specific bias).

With a pervasive system, unless people are hermits, they’ll get scanned periodically, and with other bits of information the changed face can be correlated with the same person (I go into a salon looking one way, come out different, go into a boxing match, come out different, but I’m following my routine and go to the same subway stop and convenience store and use the same payment method, etc.)

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#43

Post by xboxnolifes »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #39
mc32 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>”corpora of peoples faces have been insufficiently stocked with a particular racial group, in such cases people's faces might not register as faces..” I’m not sure this is s good argument against the technology because there is a solution to this objection: they’ll improve it and ensure every face type is comparably recognized. It should be rejected on more basic principles.

It's not as simple as "just make sure it works on everyone". Even if it were physically possible to capture the face of all 7 billion people on Earth, you'd start running into issues of false positives/negatives, overfitting, etc., and furthermore it would basically require every person to be periodically scanned from birth until death to ensure that the algorithm can recognize new faces.

And then you just have a different implementation of China's social credit surveillance system...

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#44

Post by homonculus1 »

mc32 wrote: post #30
trevyn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Along the lines of “everyone is breaking some law”, there could be a shift from “technically illegal but generally harmless and tolerated” to “illegal and mindlessly enforced by automated technology”. An example being China’s automated jaywalking-shamer.

The only “good” outcome of this is we get to know how pervasive surveillance affects behavior and whether the benefits outweigh the detriments. In other words does it result in a better or worse society overall. Even if it’s better overall I’d it worth the negative effects on affected populations? It’s a living laboratory.

The benefits would have to be impossibly valuable to outweigh the constant burden and psychological damage of living in a totalitarian panopticon.

Given that society functions without it and is constantly improving anyway--crime rates, poverty, mortality continue to drop from socioeconomic and technological development without the need for the intervention of pervasive surveillance--I personally literally cannot conceive of a benefit that would actually be worth it.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#45

Post by rmrfrmrf »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #26
diafygi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so I have good arguments when talking to someone about this specific point, can you or someone else please go into more detail on why this will happen?

There have been numerous issues where corpora of peoples faces have been insufficiently stocked with a particular racial group, in such cases people's faces might not register as faces and therefore be shut out of whatever the facial recognition is supposed to implement. For example facial recognition at a high priced building, suddenly non-white people can't get in because you did not show a real face at the scanner…

Many mortgage backing companies still routinely deny loans to black people because their models inversely correlate black homeowners to lower surrounding property values. When a mortgage backer also backs the loans of those same surrounding properties, the risk of losing money on their existing loans increases, thereby leading them to deny the loan and perpetuating racist policy from a so-called "objective" model-driven business decision.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#46

Post by hu3 »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #32
tobylane wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you expect to be achieved by banning it? Intelligence services will continue with it, which is my major concern over its current use.

It will be less widespread and fewer engineers will push it forward.

This is how you get billion+ defense contracts. Because Intelligence Services always get what they want regardless of the price and we pay for it.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#47

Post by walshemj »

tobylane wrote: post #24
EugeneOZ wrote: post #21

I'm ready to sacrifice my extremely convenient way to unlock iPhone just to know this technology is banned worldwide. This technology opens wide doors for surveillance, for finding, identifying and pursuing political opponents - not just their leaders, but every person who was brave enough to protest on the streets. It opens wide doors also for cyber bullying, and this issue is a problem for every country, not only f…

What would you expect to be achieved by banning it? Intelligence services will continue with it, which is my major concern over its current use.

I think the concern is more widespread use by LEO and corporates who have far less oversight - and will effect several orders of magnitude more people.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#48

Post by mc32 »

homonculus1 wrote: post #44
mc32 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only “good” outcome of this is we get to know how pervasive surveillance affects behavior and whether the benefits outweigh the detriments. In other words does it result in a better or worse society overall. Even if it’s better overall I’d it worth the negative effects on affected populations? It’s a living laboratory.

The benefits would have to be impossibly valuable to outweigh the constant burden and psychological damage of living in a totalitarian panopticon. Given that society functions without it and is constantly improving anyway--crime rates, poverty, mortality continue to drop from socioeconomic and technological development without the need for the intervention of pervasive surveillance--I personally literally cannot conc…

True, I do not see it turning out well. But it would be a laboratory into behavioral control. Something like this would eliminate needs for safe spaces, anti/hate speech, etc. because this would regulate all this anti social behavior in the first place.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#49

Post by lostgame »

xena wrote: post #38
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with your sentiment but I don't agree with a ban. Prohibition doesn't work. You should be able to use it but the legal risks and liability you open yourself up to by using it should be strong enough to deter its use except when there truly is no substitute. Asbestos comes to mind as an example. People (often on HN) often run in circles and scream about the sky falling because "OMG it's not banned" but t…

For instance, I am transgender. This kind of technology would allow them to identify "masculine" features of my face that I didn't ask for. This could cause me to be profiled as male, regardless of what my court order or personal preferences say. This kind of technology is fundamentally dangerous to people who do not fit cleanly into the rigid caste-like boxes that are used to categorize people.

Omigosh, thank you for mentioning this! I am also transgender and had never even considered the implications of this.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#50

Post by WeirdFlexButOky »

xena wrote: post #38
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with your sentiment but I don't agree with a ban. Prohibition doesn't work. You should be able to use it but the legal risks and liability you open yourself up to by using it should be strong enough to deter its use except when there truly is no substitute. Asbestos comes to mind as an example. People (often on HN) often run in circles and scream about the sky falling because "OMG it's not banned" but t…

For instance, I am transgender. This kind of technology would allow them to identify "masculine" features of my face that I didn't ask for. This could cause me to be profiled as male, regardless of what my court order or personal preferences say. This kind of technology is fundamentally dangerous to people who do not fit cleanly into the rigid caste-like boxes that are used to categorize people.

+1 from another trans woman
Post reply on HN