Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe im naive but I don't see anything positive coming from facial recognition. Its two main uses are targeted advertising and finding dissidents. It could help find a handful of criminals, but considering the high level of false positives, the inevitable abuse like every other police technology, and the fact that I live in a police state where im unknowingly breaking any number of laws at any given moment, I don't…
Face recognition as a technology won’t go away. What’s important is preventing governments and private groups from using face recognition in abusive ways. A legal framework for what is and is not okay must be established.
China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
41–50 of 153 posts
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Postulate: how does the US being able to more accurately track people via facial recognition make me meterialy safer as a US citizen? Because for me, that argument has a whiff of 'think of the children'. I don't think the NSA has done anything to make me safer, and I haven't seen any convincing proof to show they have done anything to help my safety. At this point, what is actually accomplished by the US military get…
Going to note that I am largely against facial recognition tracking to us citizens before I say this post. Being able to track and find individuals, anywhere in the US where there is a camera, will significantly reduce crime. Cameras would cover a larger swath of territory, and we would be able to find potential terrorists, criminal suspects, missing people, human traffic victims, etc. far more effectively. We would…
When I bought a bike in China and asked about locks, the shop owner showed me, but mentioned that he didn't really see a need, he hadn't heard of a bike being stolen in a while, which he specifically attributed to pervasive surveillance. I bought a lock anyways, but was taken aback by how strong his perception was that he actually was weakly trying to dissuade me from buying a lock. And indeed I saw my fair share of unlocked bikes, although I also saw many that were also locked up, enough that I continued to always lock my bike.
And it gets to some really in-your-face levels. Some major cities in China have occasional electronic, public billboards posting somewhat redacted photos and partial ID info (first several digits of their ID card and their surname) of jaywalkers flagged by surveillance cameras, essentially naming and shaming in a very public way.
And anecdotally I also feel safer in many large cities in China compared to years prior. Drivers are a lot less crazy. In some, but definitely not all, large cities, traffic lights and crosswalks are essentially sacrosanct now with cameras automatically ticketing everywhere. As a pedestrian, cars will often preemptively stop for me at a crosswalk to let me pass. Pickpocketing seems far less of a concern. Most Chinese residents I see actually wear their backpacks on their backs now at tourist locations and on public transportation (as opposed to previously on their chest to prevent people stealing things from the back). It feels like night and day going to a smaller Chinese city where the old craziness of one or two decades ago still reigns (which is somewhat sad for other sentimental reasons).
Now this is both anecdotal and only based on perception. Even if there were statistics provided about this, they would probably come from the Chinese government which makes them suspect.
Is this scary how much power this concentrates in the government? Very much so. Is the Chinese government using this power to corral dissidents? Definitely. Does it make large sections of the Chinese population feel safer? I think so.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#43Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#44It's not just about this, but given all that is happening in the space of facial recognition, I think it would be really valuable for researchers to start looking at it like they would weapons research. Almost entirely nefarious applications. After WW2 the University of Tokyo banned weapons research from happening in its research labs. I think we can be drawing more lines on research like this and take a stand agains…
Facial recognition itself isn't the problem. Arresting good people based on bad laws is the problem.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#45The interesting part is not the story itself, but that they chose to demo it to the BBC. Marketing at its best, they want everyone to be fully aware of their capabilities. Wouldn't be surprised if they were overstated, so as to keep citizens in check. The BBC willingly plays along and does not even question the capabilities either way.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#46It's not just about this, but given all that is happening in the space of facial recognition, I think it would be really valuable for researchers to start looking at it like they would weapons research. Almost entirely nefarious applications. After WW2 the University of Tokyo banned weapons research from happening in its research labs. I think we can be drawing more lines on research like this and take a stand agains…
The University of Tokyo could afford to do that because another nation had taken over responsibility for their defense. Who's going to be that protector for the US?
Now, obviously, there are intercontinental missiles, but why would anyone employ these against a nation if they would not consider that nation a threat? So the protector of the US can be the US itself - if it chooses to be.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Postulate: how does the US being able to more accurately track people via facial recognition make me meterialy safer as a US citizen? Because for me, that argument has a whiff of 'think of the children'. I don't think the NSA has done anything to make me safer, and I haven't seen any convincing proof to show they have done anything to help my safety. At this point, what is actually accomplished by the US military get…
Going to note that I am largely against facial recognition tracking to us citizens before I say this post. Being able to track and find individuals, anywhere in the US where there is a camera, will significantly reduce crime. Cameras would cover a larger swath of territory, and we would be able to find potential terrorists, criminal suspects, missing people, human traffic victims, etc. far more effectively. We would…
But this might just be the pessimist in me speaking.
> Does large scale surveillance help with making individuals safer? I think the answer is obviously yes.
Until regime change makes some previously legal activity or status verboten. Your government collecting harmless data on your religion starts to matter a lot more when the wehrmacht rolls into town... (I don't think this is a serious possibility for the US, but for countries with less robust judicial systems or militarily superior neighbors it's worth considering)
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#48Dystopian nightmare.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#49It is no longer possible to be "off the grid". And that's quite scary when you realize that every single adult has committed many crimes (however minor) in their life.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#50> For ordinary people we will only extract their data when they need our help. > When they don't need help, we won't gather their data and it remains only in our big database. In the same sentence: "We won't gather their data" and "The data that we gather remains in a database".
It's a common dialectic pattern in law enforcement circles world-wide that data at rest that is never touched is data that doesn't exist. That angle is based on the idea that this data "may as well not exist" but it ignores the many issues with indiscriminate data collection: the data might leak, or management might change and invent undesirable "new" purposes for old data - which, within this theory, then begins to…
The government can collect any data it likes on everything, but any data it then looks at must be published to the world. Ie. The government gets no privacy when looking through its big database.
The simplest approach would be to livestream every screen owned by any government agency.