81–90 of 153 posts
> 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.
[0] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-spied-on-cities-in-...
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.
> The BBC willingly plays along and does not even question the capabilities either way. What should they do? Not run the story? It is of interest, it is scary to a lot of people. It does also warn people wanting to hide from it. Should no one talk about this technology, or China's current capabilities? Do you think that would be better?
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.
They've got a lot of experience doing this since the conservative government started applying it's will to the BBC after choosing the board of directors. Ther'es no longer a sense of "balanced" and "unbiased" news and it's glaringly obvious just by watching their news for a few weeks.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/13/government-cho...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also demo only things, I am sure 100% it will work. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Every YouTube technical demo is repeated hundred times until perfect video is made to make an impression, it works 100%. That’s the purpose of demoing something. About bureaucratic incompetence I have no opinion.
You're arguing semantics when the point is that they likely aren't ask sophisticated as they make themselves look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think that as soon as facial recognition starts getting used to actually put people in prison, things like the Niqāb [0] are going to become extremely popular among criminal or criminal-adjacent populations. The side effects for the nominally law-abiding population will remain, and the program won't be rolled back, but the crime reduction capabilities will go away quickly. But this might just be the pessimist in me…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're arguing semantics when the point is that they likely aren't ask sophisticated as they make themselves look.
I heard rumors, that Russian KBG had always eyes on all high levels foreigners in the country. All of them were observed expecting to find something interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat Why should China do it differently? BBC journalist is highly valued target for sure. And there you get bonus points for using this information to showcase facial recognition system in 7 minutes.
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.
> The BBC willingly plays along and does not even question the capabilities either way. They've got a lot of experience doing this since the conservative government started applying it's will to the BBC after choosing the board of directors. Ther'es no longer a sense of "balanced" and "unbiased" news and it's glaringly obvious just by watching their news for a few weeks. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/13/…
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.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.