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

China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#71

Post by pgeorgi »

rebuilder wrote: post #57
pgeorgi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Or, rather, the automated systems that store and process the data will increasingly do analysis as well, with humans only viewing the data when prompted to by the system. Technically "the police" can be said not to access the data. In reality it's even worse than if they did, because the automated system , if it works as intended, is much more efficient than humans. IOW: If it's a violation of civil rights for humans…

Right, but I think that's already the next step: the theory of "we're not looking so we don't collect" predates efficient automated large-scale analysis.

It makes sense to me to fight both schemes, but they have different impact, different risk and might need different approaches.

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#72

Post by leppr »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #58
rtpg wrote: post #4

It'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…

> 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. This is an interesting perspective. Facial recognition is routine among people, and generally not considered nefarious. Rather, it's important to know who people are for a large number of good reasons. The…

Giving out an ID piece is consensual and/or a rare occurrence, compared to simply walking down the street which is a daily unavoidable activity for the vast majority of people.

It's similar to giving out your IP address to websites you visit vs. being tracked by an omniscient ad network embedded all over the web.

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#73

Post by genera1 »

roenxi wrote: post #23
zaroth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology itself is always amoral. Even splitting the atom can be used to achieve wonderful and horrific outcomes. So of course “facial recognition” per say is not the problem. But in this particular example, we see how facial recognition combined with a couple hundred million surveillance cameras funneled into a massive government data processing pipeline can be extremely effectively used for persistent tracking an…

> There’s a reason we don’t implant GPS trackers into babies at birth just because they might get lost one day. What reason are you thinking? I wouldn't support it myself, but I don't usually represent public opinion. GPS didn't really burst into the public imagination before 2007 and the iPhone; in a sense the technology is only about a decade old or so in the public sphere. Prior to 2000 the US government's officia…

>As the cost of sensors and radio chips goes down, we might reach the point where we do put a GPS sensor on everybody. Law enforcement would love it and on the small scale it would probably save lives and reduce crime.

GPS chips are already cheap enough (single digit dollars), that it's an issue of policy\public perception, not cost

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#74

Post by paxys »

rtpg wrote: post #4

It'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…

I disagree with your assertion that facial recognition can have only nefarious applications. In fact I'd say the overwhelming majority of usage of the technology today is for unlocking phones and tagging friends on social media rather than arresting protestors.

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#75

Post by AFascistWorld »

mrich wrote: post #35

The 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.

You have to understand that Chinese prefer security over freedom. They support this kind of measures since majority of them probably won't be bothered by it their whole lives, as their typical response: if you don't illegal things, what's to fear for.

And the state media has been touting for years that China is the safest country on earth that "you can buy skewers at midnight", that America is the example of a failed society.

They mostly likely are sincerely and proudly presenting this as a superiority over the tumultuous west.

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#76

Post by isostatic »

dmix wrote: post #7

> China has the largest monitoring system in the world. There are some 170 million CCTV cameras across the country I wonder how this compares to the UK per capita considering how massive China is.

So China is about 1 in 8.

Publicly operated cameras in the UK would be about 150k, most on public transport

http://qrcctv.co.uk/cctv/cctv-facts

That is far less per capita - 1 in 400. However including private operated ones could bring it upto 4m, or 1 in 16.

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#77

Post by raxxorrax »

quotz wrote: post #2

Jesus... This is a very representative example of what happens when technology is not used in a democratic way, and when it is. It can be abused as much as it could be used for the public benefit

CCTV doesn't help in democratic countries where crimes rates have been plumeting for the last decade. They do create a lot of dissidents though and rightly so in my opinion.

If I would be in reach of a public surveillance camera, I would certainly try to sabotage it. Maybe roast the sensor because I happen to have a bright flashlight in my pocket. Damn, I guess I have become a criminal now...

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#78

Post by dewey »

devoply wrote: post #15

As people in Hong Kong have shown, it's as easy to tear all this shit down as it is to put it up.

It gets a bit harder if these sensors / cameras are deployed on drones or higher buildings though. That doesn't seem like a very good strategy.

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#79

Post by pinkfoot »

raxxorrax wrote: post #77
quotz wrote: post #2

Jesus... This is a very representative example of what happens when technology is not used in a democratic way, and when it is. It can be abused as much as it could be used for the public benefit

CCTV doesn't help in democratic countries where crimes rates have been plumeting for the last decade. They do create a lot of dissidents though and rightly so in my opinion. If I would be in reach of a public surveillance camera, I would certainly try to sabotage it. Maybe roast the sensor because I happen to have a bright flashlight in my pocket. Damn, I guess I have become a criminal now...

> CCTV doesn't help in democratic countries

A trivial search shows otherwise:

1.in the UK where the Russian operatives were caught in Salisbury trying to murder a real-life dissident

2. in the UK, where the police have dedicated units of 'super-recognisers' that review CCTV footage and solved many a crime.

[1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7182071/cctv-russian-spy-poiso... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/11/super-recogn... [2]

Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)

#80

Post by raxxorrax »

pinkfoot wrote: post #79
raxxorrax wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CCTV doesn't help in democratic countries where crimes rates have been plumeting for the last decade. They do create a lot of dissidents though and rightly so in my opinion. If I would be in reach of a public surveillance camera, I would certainly try to sabotage it. Maybe roast the sensor because I happen to have a bright flashlight in my pocket. Damn, I guess I have become a criminal now...

> CCTV doesn't help in democratic countries A trivial search shows otherwise: 1.in the UK where the Russian operatives were caught in Salisbury trying to murder a real-life dissident 2. in the UK, where the police have dedicated units of 'super-recognisers' that review CCTV footage and solved many a crime. [1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7182071/cctv-russian-spy-poiso... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018…

Compare UK crime statistics with countries that do not employ it and you have empirical evidence that says otherwise.
Post reply on HN