[deleted]
China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
101–110 of 153 posts
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#102Earlier 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…
> Being able to track and find individuals, anywhere in the US where there is a camera, will significantly reduce crime
It's a strange arguments given that you can use it in this exact form to support a lot of unpopular measures. Like banning strong encryption.
On the other hand it's weird to jump straight to face recognition without making sure that you put some real effort into other less invasive methods, already proven to work by other western countries. Plenty of counties like France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom have a substantial presence of people coming from vastly different cultures and crime rates are still up to 5x lower than the US.
There are plenty of measures to go through before jumping to face recognition. But I'd wager the actual goal of any country starting to rely heavily on such privacy invasive tech is not crime control, it's just control.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't know, hongkongers seem to prefer freedom.
Only the minority that are protesting.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#104The demonstrators in Hong Kong are very aware of this technology. I hope the masks and the umbrellas they use are effective but I doubt it
There’s also gait analysis, so unless the rioters can disguise how they walk, it will be difficult to hide.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#105As people in Hong Kong have shown, it's as easy to tear all this shit down as it is to put it up.
[deleted]
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#106The 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 is one of very few respected foreign news outlets that is not routinely blocked by the GFW. They generally have a more China-friendly stance than US news media.
The BBC has been blocked by the GFW since around mid-2018 when they migrated to HTTPS. The Chinese censors could no longer snoop on or selectively block the traffic.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#107Is the kind of facial recognition only bad if wielded by a nefarious government?
Partly I think that huge DNA databases, biometric databases and millions and millions of cameras would be wonderful for catching criminals. On the other hand, the opportunities for abuse are too many to number. Has anyone written anything interesting on where/how to draw the line?
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#108Earlier 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…
Anecdotally this is a big factor when I talk with Chinese residents and how they feel about safety in everyday life. 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 pe…
>Does it make large sections of the Chinese population feel safer? I think so.
I don't think it makes people feel safer with their freedom or their rights (property or otherwise), rather it makes people less anxious that people act outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour (e.g. act disorderly).
However, the problem here is that it is done by constant fear. Instead of educating people about why they should behave in a positive manner, they are coerced into behaving by fear. It's Clockwork Orange territory.
Re: China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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/…
Odd isn't it? I watch their news for more than a few weeks and for the most part find it both balanced and unbiased. I think there were legitimate gripes about its coverage surrounding the Scottish devolution debate, but other than that - it's very good.
What were those legitimate gripes?