Live data from Hacker News

America is turning against facial-recognition software

economist.com

121–130 of 149 posts

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#121
post #66

> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…

It doesn't really matter if they have a body camera because the courts never convict them anyway

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#122
post #78

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…

Counterpoint: How many cloned humans have we seen? Prohibition works when the barrier to entry is higher. Any mook with some yeast and sugar can make alcohol. Pot grows just about anywhere (which is why they call it weed). But not a lot of people are privately developing nuclear bombs or cloning humans.

Arguably, the barrier to entry for facial recognition software (or almost any software, for that matter) is way lower than for developing nuclear bombs or cloning humans. Of course it won't be production level of big corps, but a group of less than 5 engineers can definitely hack up a facial recognition software that works fairly decently with only ramen money and a bit of AWS credits.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 from another trans woman

Pardon the ignorant question, but is there an accepted "standard" for pronouns when someone identifies themself as you did? Which is to say, if you say you're a "trans woman", am I able to infer that your desired gender pronoun is female?

> Which is to say, if you say you're a "trans woman", am I able to infer that your desired gender pronoun is female?

Yes, this is indeed a generally safe assumption. View "trans" like any other self-descriptive adjective. "I'm a tall woman", vs "I'm a trans woman". It's not an absolute given, because nothing is black and white (some might prefer gender neutral pronouns), but generally safe.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you want a body camera at your work? You wouldn't I'm sure. Don't blame them for looking for their interest. It's someone else's job to (politicians) to legislate the use of it.

What a poor analogy. My job doesn't have anything to do with being the sole arbiter of violence and defusing dangerous situations at the trust and expense of taxpayers and local citizens. If they don't want accountability as police officers, they can go find another job. > Don't blame them for looking for their interest. I can, I will and I will argue that it is my moral obligation to ensure that the public servants…

"giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour" seems like a legitimate concern. You seem to be assuming that the "superior officers" will have "the best interests of the public" as their sole motivation. In my experience that is rarely true of ladder climbers. By not dealing with this concern you could easily end up making things worse.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#125
post #66

> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…

would you want a body camera at your work? You wouldn't I'm sure. Don't blame them for looking for their interest. It's someone else's job to (politicians) to legislate the use of it.

In my job, I'm not provided a set of lethal and non-lethal weapons. In my job, I am not given the ability to detain anyone. In my job, when someone aggravates me, I do not have issued weapons to use against the aggressor. In my job, I'm not allowed to use deadly force because I feel threatened. I blame them 100% for only looking out for themselves and not the citizens they are sworn to protect.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#126
post #66

> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…

Since 2004, Chicago Police Department paid out $662 million [1] in police misconduct settlements.

The optimist in me says that the cost of proper police reform, training, body cameras, video storage, and actually punishing bad cops would be much less then that.

[1]: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160320/NEWS07/1603...

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#127
post #66

> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…

It doesn't really matter if they have a body camera because the courts never convict them anyway

That's not exactly correct. There are several factors here. A big one is that prosecutors (whose jobs depend on police cooperation) have been reluctant to go against police; this probably won't change with video evidence. However, another factor is that jurors are currently inclined to take the police officer's word for it in he-said-she-said type cases, and this may change if bodycam video evidence becomes more plentiful.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#128
post #38

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.

Is there any intention of using cameras to categorize people as opposed to just looking for specific criminals that are on the loose? What would be gained by categorizing you as a male or not?

I.e, someone robs a bank, their face is captured, get an alert when they are seen else where.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#129
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We 100% benefit by moving the power up the chain from uneducated people to educated people. Most cops are college educated? >They will have biases, but not the same ones police have and far less racist or sexist ones. I honestly am going to need citations for that statement. >Your average engineer is far more intelligent and introspective than your average police though. Again, this is nothing more than a magical be…

Most cops are college educated, however, let's not kid ourselves, a BS in criminal justice is a little different than a BS in engineering.

Ya they probably are a little different... a BS in CJ probably included more liberal arts and sociology classes that forced the student to think and talk about things like race and class, and looked at specific historical examples of social injustice etc. The engineer rolled their eyes at the required non-degree classes.

Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software

#130
post #66

> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…

> Axon, which makes body-worn cameras and Tasers... is building a system for managing records...the firm’s chief information-security officer, says that “what we can do to help officers improve most isn’t the sexy stuff. It’s helping them be more efficient and spend more time on the street.”

Uh... what they could do to help officers improve most might be shipping a device that doesn't seem to mysteriously malfunction or be turned off during the most controversial use of force incidents.

The way bodycams are supposed to help is by forcing officers to be accountable for their actions. When police have plausible deniability due to poorly designed tech, all these expensive devices become basically worthless.

In my cynical moments I have wondered if making such bad tech is actually a selling point for Axon and its competitors. They're selling to police departments; the less likelihood bodycams have of embarrassing police, the more likely they are to make a sale. Check the box, move along. I try to have more faith in our institutions, but the abject failure of bodycams from a technology perspective makes me wonder.

I supposed it could also just be due to a few companies having a lock on an enterprise hardware market.

Post reply on HN