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

Banning facial recognition is missing the point

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 163 posts

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#11

Post by Enginerrrd »

blazespin wrote: post #6
avmich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the ideology of online anonymity?

I think there is some expectation of privacy online. No such expectation exists in a public space.

>No such expectation exists in a public space.

It sure as hell does in any practical sense. I expect that I can walk around town, and people that I don't know, don't know my name, phone number, purchase history, etc.

Let's say I want to buy a butt plug or something. I could go to the sex shop in town, and make sure nobody I knew was around before I went in, buy it and leave. If I wanted to buy a studded electro-shock butt plug, and wanted to take extra precautions that I was undiscovered, I could drive to another town and drop it off.

Now suppose I'm a government whistle blower trying to expose some really nasty government coverup or conspiracy committed by the FBI. I'd definitely take the same precaution. I could leave my phone, go several cities over, walk up to a public mail drop and drop off my envelope of documentation in the USPS box and historically, could fully expect to remain anonymous in doing so. That's still arguably safer than sending an email and hoping I've perfectly configured all my network VPN or tor settings to try to ensure there aren't any leaks.

That's NOT the case with facial recognition. Particularly when that info can be processed and categorized into a form where someone could just query an identity and get a complete historical tracking of a bunch of places you've been prior to any sort of investigative interest.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#12

Post by James_Henry »

randomsearch wrote: post #2

I see his point, but practical face recognition is a lot easier to implement and a lot harder to defend against than all the other types of recognition. You could, for example, no carry a phone or turn it off. But your face is expected to be on show (obv exceptions aside). So no, it’s not missing the point. It’s a different point. He’s right, but action against face recognition is also worthwhile.

Schneier's point doesn't have to do with the specifics of, as he says, "identification, correlation and discrimination" methods, but rather he's arguing that focusing just on facial recognition instead of focusing on the larger more important question of surveillance in general is not useful.

If you just ban facial recognition, then you are missing the point Schneier's making.

Also, I think it might be easier to wear a mask than to not carry a phone, walk funny, wear bulky clothes over all skin, and never use a credit card. I don't know how hard it is to constantly wear a mask in public though. I'm sure there would be push back.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#13

Post by munmaek »

chii wrote: post #10
randomsearch wrote: post #2

I see his point, but practical face recognition is a lot easier to implement and a lot harder to defend against than all the other types of recognition. You could, for example, no carry a phone or turn it off. But your face is expected to be on show (obv exceptions aside). So no, it’s not missing the point. It’s a different point. He’s right, but action against face recognition is also worthwhile.

> action against face recognition is also worthwhile. there's limited resources for political action. If you focus on facial recognition, may be it succeeds. But the data brokering industry will continue on unabated because there are plenty of other sources of data other than face. And now there's less political capital left to fight the fight again. Best to deploy the limited resources to fight the root cause - that…

Why is it one or the other? IMO, laws against facial recognition would start a national dialogue on data collection.

You have to start somewhere, so it’s better to start with this and then expand, versus trying to pass sweeping legislation, etc.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#14

Post by emodendroket »

James_Henry wrote: post #12
randomsearch wrote: post #2

I see his point, but practical face recognition is a lot easier to implement and a lot harder to defend against than all the other types of recognition. You could, for example, no carry a phone or turn it off. But your face is expected to be on show (obv exceptions aside). So no, it’s not missing the point. It’s a different point. He’s right, but action against face recognition is also worthwhile.

Schneier's point doesn't have to do with the specifics of, as he says, "identification, correlation and discrimination" methods, but rather he's arguing that focusing just on facial recognition instead of focusing on the larger more important question of surveillance in general is not useful. If you just ban facial recognition, then you are missing the point Schneier's making. Also, I think it might be easier to wear…

I wear a mask outside in the winter, usually, but this makes people uncomfortable inside at best and obviously prevents you from eating or drinking. And you would not be comfortable yourself either. So I'm going to say wearing a mask at all times is not practical.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#15

Post by emodendroket »

blazespin wrote: post #6
avmich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the ideology of online anonymity?

I think there is some expectation of privacy online. No such expectation exists in a public space.

I disagree. If someone followed you around taking film while you were in a public place you'd probably object (or most people would).

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#17

Post by James_Henry »

petermcneeley wrote: post #4

It took me awhile to grok but I think that people like Schneier want to take the ideology of online anonymity and apply it IRL.

We live in a different time "when people can be identified and their data correlated at a speed and scale previously unseen, we need new rules."

I think he's just trying to think and get others thinking about "identification, correlation and discrimination" technologies. Obviously you can't have perfect anonymity in real life, but is there something we can do to ensure that our lack of anonymity is not used improperly?

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#18

Post by bsenftner »

Schneier's points are dead on. One of the few talking sense here. Biometric and related identification technologies are here and multiplying. We need to regulate data sharing and 3rd party data compiling, regardless of the data. Dirty data and incorrect data will haunt people, existing in who knows what databases. This is what needs to be regulated. Not the individual identification technologies. Stop the abuse of new tracking technologies before they are invented. As well as end the advertiser tracking that is out of control. (FYI: I write FR software.)

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#19

Post by James_Henry »

emodendroket wrote: post #14
James_Henry wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schneier's point doesn't have to do with the specifics of, as he says, "identification, correlation and discrimination" methods, but rather he's arguing that focusing just on facial recognition instead of focusing on the larger more important question of surveillance in general is not useful. If you just ban facial recognition, then you are missing the point Schneier's making. Also, I think it might be easier to wear…

I wear a mask outside in the winter, usually, but this makes people uncomfortable inside at best and obviously prevents you from eating or drinking. And you would not be comfortable yourself either. So I'm going to say wearing a mask at all times is not practical.

Of course it's uncomfortable

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#20

Post by bsenftner »

randomsearch wrote: post #2

I see his point, but practical face recognition is a lot easier to implement and a lot harder to defend against than all the other types of recognition. You could, for example, no carry a phone or turn it off. But your face is expected to be on show (obv exceptions aside). So no, it’s not missing the point. It’s a different point. He’s right, but action against face recognition is also worthwhile.

Action against facial recognition is not worthwhile specifically because of the public attention drain it's focus will cause. The focus needs to be on the larger issue of person profile compiling and sharing by 3rd parties.
Post reply on HN