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

61–70 of 163 posts

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#61

Post by goatinaboat »

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?

Absolutely. Things like this serve to raise awareness that tech companies such as Google and Facebook are sleazy and exploitative. When people who used to brag at parties that they were “a googler” feel ashamed to mention it then some progress might get made.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#62

Post by petre »

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…

Suddenly the muslim veil makes sense. It's definitely a great way to combat face recognition. This is part of why I think a ban on wearing it in public is a bit overreaching - in public is exactly where it's needed.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#63

Post by aeternum »

bsenftner wrote: post #18

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 ne…

Data compiling is just too easy at this point. Anyone can spin up some instances and run webscrapers to compile profile pictures, writing samples, etc. Many data leaks are available as torrents or hosted on pay-for-access sites likely from a variety of jursidictions.

Even with some kind of global cooperation, can regulations really solve the problem? They might prevent corporations from using the data for advertising, but I don't see them as actually addressing the privacy issue.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#64

Post by petre »

schlowmo wrote: post #38
jammygit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unfortunately this is already illegal in some other western countries for quite some time. In Germany for example since 1985 (one year late though). It's often used as legitimation when the police is using violence against otherwise peaceful protests. In the aftermath of the G20 summit in Hamburg there were some advancements to even tighten the law while at the same time the police was using illegal face recognition…

What about fake beards and moustaches? I've heard they're the norm in Korea. Imagine thousands of Santa Claus or Paul von Hindenburg protesting.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#65

Post by onion2k »

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…

Additionally, this is only a 5-year victory. Must we repeat it again every five years? At least the victory in the war for encryption lasted 20-odd years.

I think the idea is to ban it in Europe for 5 years while the rest of the world carries on with it, and then reassess the impact by looking at how the rest of the world has changed. If the tech hasn't moved on and there's been very little impact, great, use it. If other countries that use it are police states where citizens can't leave their houses for fear of automated oppression then ban it permanently.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#66

Post by Supermancho »

avmich wrote: post #5
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.

What is the ideology of online anonymity?

> What is the ideology of online anonymity?

I imagine it's something like - Biological and Social constraints have restricted human endeavors. "Online" in terms of the "internet" was an experiment to test this theory.

It both succeeded to a lesser degree than expected and failed, primarily due to social conditions of the times. Wealth disparity (motivating more bad actors than good), and outlet for those in psychological crisis (who tend to have a lot of time on their hands), juvenile behavior (gaming as a gateway) and the weakness of the legislation/prosecution for when cursory privacy invasion was enabled enough to track down bad actors (due to legislators being relative luddites).

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#67

Post by radu_floricica »

Because the conversation is so lopsided, I feel like somebody has to ask: what opportunities are we giving away when banning face recognition tech?

Obvious one would be no more purse snatchers, ever. Almost no rapes, much fewer violent crimes. No lost kids. Lives and wallets saved.

What else? This feels like the kind of tech that creates its own broad fields of use where there were none before. It might take time or imagination to see where it goes.

And if - just saying - if the benefits are good enough to stop and think for a second, aren't there any better ways of skinning this cat than banning tech? Might be worth a brainstorm.

I'm not a big fan of EU's GDPR - I've literally just fired a client last week on an emailing consulting gig because the threat of unpredictable huge fines is too big for me. Plus I freaking hate cookie popups. But I have to admit it's also doing a lot of good - if companies can't store my IP address without my consent, I'm pretty sure they can't store my facial profile and daily movements. Which leaves the choice in the hands of the consumer, where it should be. I have Google Location enabled on my phone - it's creepy accurate, but I like it. Maybe you don't. Let's not chose once for everybody.

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#68

Post by whateveracct »

radu_floricica wrote: post #67

Because the conversation is so lopsided, I feel like somebody has to ask: what opportunities are we giving away when banning face recognition tech? Obvious one would be no more purse snatchers, ever. Almost no rapes, much fewer violent crimes. No lost kids. Lives and wallets saved. What else? This feels like the kind of tech that creates its own broad fields of use where there were none before. It might take time or…

How would facial recognition stop those crimes exactly? They would still happen..

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#69

Post by mirimir »

I see that these bans regulate use by police.

But how could any of them affect use by federal agencies? Which would then share information with local police.

I mean, police lie to courts about StingRay use, or data from the NSA via SOD,[0,1] and do parallel construction.

I really do think that privacy in meatspace is hopeless.

0) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R2013...

1) https://www.deamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/042215-...

Re: Banning facial recognition is missing the point

#70

Post by moksly »

radu_floricica wrote: post #67

Because the conversation is so lopsided, I feel like somebody has to ask: what opportunities are we giving away when banning face recognition tech? Obvious one would be no more purse snatchers, ever. Almost no rapes, much fewer violent crimes. No lost kids. Lives and wallets saved. What else? This feels like the kind of tech that creates its own broad fields of use where there were none before. It might take time or…

No street art. No protesting. Social credit. No way to break away from the stigmas assigned you your face. No speeding. No jaywalking. No pissing outside. No way to rebel.

I mean, it wouldn’t really stop crime. London has something close to total surveillance, and they have a lot of crime.

But if you really want that sort of thing, you can actually have a taste of it in parts of China.

Post reply on HN