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

51–60 of 163 posts

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#51

Post by vkou »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #37
jammygit wrote: post #21

> These efforts are well intentioned, but facial recognition bans are the wrong way to fight against modern surveillance. Focusing on one particular identification method misconstrues the nature of the surveillance society we're in the process of building. Ubiquitous mass surveillance is increasingly the norm. In countries like China, a surveillance infrastructure is being built by the government for social control.…

> but we should take every winning battle we can, no? It's treating the symptoms not the cause though, and this little victory will likely serve to dampen resolve to continue fighting against the root cause: increased surveillance, invasion of privacy, and the overall devaluing of privacy. Facial recognition may be a battle that gets won, but it could be a key moment that results in the war on ubiquitous surveillance…

The cause is the desire for profit and control.

Unless you're going to build better people, you're never going to deal with the cause. All we can do is deal with the symptoms.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#52

Post by peteretep »

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.

> But your face is expected to be on show (obv exceptions aside)

Only in cities where pollution isn't a major concern. Any time I'm in Bangkok I'm wearing a mask most of the time that covers everything from my eyes down, and nobody bats an eyelid.

I feel like masks also got a lot more common during the last SARS outbreak, and in other countries it's normal to wear a mask when you're sick.

I think what I'm saying here is: be the change you want to see, and start wearing one[0] as much as possible in your day-to-day life outside / during your commute / whatever, to normalize it?

[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=N95+mask+fashion&iax=images&ia=ima...

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#53

Post by peteretep »

firediamond wrote: post #42
sircastor wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Gait recognition seems a far easier thing to spoof via a limp, change in shoes...

I had that thought when I heard about gait recognition too, and I'm still curious if the general counterpoint is the same as the next thought I had, or unrelated: It seems surprisingly hard to spoof a limp (or any other biomechanic change, like randomly swapping shoe inserts or some prosthesis to change arm movement patterns or something), consistently, for an extended period. Also, painful. Also, noticeable to human…

Do you want to consistently change it for an extended period? You'd be better off changing it for small periods of time when you don't want to be recognized, and you can stick a stone in your shoe for that.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#54

Post by Barrin92 »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #37
jammygit wrote: post #21

> These efforts are well intentioned, but facial recognition bans are the wrong way to fight against modern surveillance. Focusing on one particular identification method misconstrues the nature of the surveillance society we're in the process of building. Ubiquitous mass surveillance is increasingly the norm. In countries like China, a surveillance infrastructure is being built by the government for social control.…

> but we should take every winning battle we can, no? It's treating the symptoms not the cause though, and this little victory will likely serve to dampen resolve to continue fighting against the root cause: increased surveillance, invasion of privacy, and the overall devaluing of privacy. Facial recognition may be a battle that gets won, but it could be a key moment that results in the war on ubiquitous surveillance…

how do you devour a whale? One bite at a time. I don't think there is any purpose to being caught up in theoretical discussions about privacy. Privacy is won by extending the real rights of people piece by piece and sustaining that effort for a long time. There is no one time, root cause fix that holds forever in a democracy.

>Must we repeat it again every five years?

Yes we must. We live in a society where people over and over negotiate how they want to live together, which means that if we advocate for something we have make our case again and again. That is a good thing. In the Mie Prefecture, Japan the citizens tear down a shrine every 20 years because it is the only way to learn exactly how it was built.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#55

Post by nl »

jammygit wrote: post #21

> These efforts are well intentioned, but facial recognition bans are the wrong way to fight against modern surveillance. Focusing on one particular identification method misconstrues the nature of the surveillance society we're in the process of building. Ubiquitous mass surveillance is increasingly the norm. In countries like China, a surveillance infrastructure is being built by the government for social control.…

He’s right, but we should take every winning battle we can, no? Even a few notable victories could help to change public opinion about whether things are inevitable or not

"Banning" facial recognition is the worse possible outcome for people who are privacy focused.

At the moment it's useful to point people at and make them feel "creeped out". If it's "banned" the concern goes away.

I'm using scare quotes around "banned" because I cannot imagine any scenario where there won't be exemptions that are so big anyone will be able to use it anyway. Facial recognition is already widely used within company security systems, and within law enforcement and the idea that these systems will be banned just seems completely non-credible to me.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#56

Post by eckza »

Barrin92 wrote: post #54
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but we should take every winning battle we can, no? It's treating the symptoms not the cause though, and this little victory will likely serve to dampen resolve to continue fighting against the root cause: increased surveillance, invasion of privacy, and the overall devaluing of privacy. Facial recognition may be a battle that gets won, but it could be a key moment that results in the war on ubiquitous surveillance…

how do you devour a whale? One bite at a time. I don't think there is any purpose to being caught up in theoretical discussions about privacy. Privacy is won by extending the real rights of people piece by piece and sustaining that effort for a long time. There is no one time, root cause fix that holds forever in a democracy. >Must we repeat it again every five years? Yes we must. We live in a society where people ov…

I agree - enthusiastically - with your points, but I do have one comment:

> I don't think there is any purpose to being caught up in theoretical discussions about privacy.

There is a point! These discussions provide the context, terminology, and language for the people that understand these issues the best, to provide people like me - people whom our peers consider “conspiracy wackos” and “tinfoil” because of our deep-seated suspicion and mistrust of surveillance tech - with the tools to explain our rationale to the people we have influence over, via interpersonal relationships and whatnot.

This article, for me, crystallizes and defines many of my own personal anxieties about surveillance culture, and gives me the tools to better explain my concerns and apprehensions to my friends and family.

Just a thought.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#57

Post by eckza »

fzeroracer wrote: post #40
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but we should take every winning battle we can, no? It's treating the symptoms not the cause though, and this little victory will likely serve to dampen resolve to continue fighting against the root cause: increased surveillance, invasion of privacy, and the overall devaluing of privacy. Facial recognition may be a battle that gets won, but it could be a key moment that results in the war on ubiquitous surveillance…

The entire reason why we're facing down these privacy and surveillance issues is because they came one small step at a time. First it's rolled out for some incredibly small part of the population, gradually expanded to everyone else as people get used to the new norm. Rinse and repeat. The way you win battles like this is by winning many smaller ones and pushing back what is acceptable or not one step at a time.

100%. It’s all case-by-case; moment-by-moment.

“And then they came for me”, in full effect.

Also, unrelated: but fuck yeah F-Zero. <3

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#58

Post by rapnie »

peteretep wrote: post #52
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.

> But your face is expected to be on show (obv exceptions aside) Only in cities where pollution isn't a major concern. Any time I'm in Bangkok I'm wearing a mask most of the time that covers everything from my eyes down, and nobody bats an eyelid. I feel like masks also got a lot more common during the last SARS outbreak, and in other countries it's normal to wear a mask when you're sick. I think what I'm saying here…

If that is needed as a form of protest, but I would hate to see that become the norm in the EU.

It may be polite and even prudent to wear one, if you have a cold or the flue. But many people wearing masks makes society feel even more impersonal, individualistic.

May be a cultural thing to get used to, I dunno. You see them mostly in Asia and with Asian people when they visit Europe as tourists. I sometimes wonder 'Are all these people sick, or don't they trust the air in EU, or do they just feel more comfortable hiding their face that it became a habit'.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#59

Post by radicsge »

jammygit wrote: post #23
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.

In Canada, it’s now illegal to hide your face during a protest (a gift from the Harper years)

In the solidarity protests for HK in Vancouver almost everybody wears them for obvious reason. Would be interesting if Canadian police require to remove them...

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#60

Post by codegladiator »

Barrin92 wrote: post #54
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but we should take every winning battle we can, no? It's treating the symptoms not the cause though, and this little victory will likely serve to dampen resolve to continue fighting against the root cause: increased surveillance, invasion of privacy, and the overall devaluing of privacy. Facial recognition may be a battle that gets won, but it could be a key moment that results in the war on ubiquitous surveillance…

how do you devour a whale? One bite at a time. I don't think there is any purpose to being caught up in theoretical discussions about privacy. Privacy is won by extending the real rights of people piece by piece and sustaining that effort for a long time. There is no one time, root cause fix that holds forever in a democracy. >Must we repeat it again every five years? Yes we must. We live in a society where people ov…

> how do you devour a whale? One bite at a time.

Missed a step. You gotta kill it first.

Post reply on HN