41–50 of 115 posts
Facial recognition tech could save so much time and money though. Imagine how many man hours would be saved if teachers no longer had to take attendance? Shoplifting would hit all time lows since you wouldn't be able to get away with it short of wearing a mask into the store.
So the agency came into existence as a fig leaf for the Bush administration... Any reason to believe it's grown teeth since then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. What one expects != what one thinks is right. 2. I suppose you would be ok, then, with a police officer tailing you everywhere you go, recording everything you do, everywhere you go, everything you say, and to whom, peering in the windows of your home if you forget to keep your blinds drawn? Just in case that information happens to be useful to a government at some point in the future?
Yep, and its also not a reasonable thing to say "If you go outside you accept total surveillance." Since going outside is a requirement for life. I find it acceptable that if I go outside I might get caught on some store security camera and that video sits on a hard drive for a week and then gets written over but I do not find it acceptable that the store camera recognizes my face and stores my presence in an easily…
There seems to be a lot of conflation on this subject between "expectation of privacy" in the practical sense and "expectation of privacy" in the legal sense. Like, you'd better fuckin believe I expect not to be followed by cops or secret agents everywhere I go. I expect it on the persistence forecast basis and because I understand that it's practically impossible to allocate manpower in that way, assuming they don't think I've done anything wrong in particular.
I also expect that the government, local and federal both, will try to erode my effective privacy in any and every way they can afford and get away with.
None of that has much to do with e.g. the fact that legally, if a cop peers in my window and sees bales of cocaine stacked on the floor of my living room, or whatever, he can come in and take them from me and arrest me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Way to miss the point. The invention of the bulldozer didn't change property rights.
Our existing laws and ideas of privacy were build based on the limitations of the current tech. Yes you could take a photo of a random person in public but it wasn't very useful or harmful to do so. Now we have supercharged spyware tech we have the ability to cause a lot of harm without being in violation of any existing laws because such a thing simply wasn't possible previously.
Good but don't exempt the government. Many local cities are building out vast networks. Including my very own Miami Beach Police Department.
Maybe they own goog stocks in secret.
Edit: this isn't serious.
> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), an independent agency, is coming under increasing pressure to recommend the federal government stop using facial recognition.
The PCLOB exists to advise the government on compliance with civil liberties and privacy principles, not to recommend bans on private activities. This proposal would only restrict federal agencies, not third parties--unlike proposals by the EU which would ban private data processors and companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was around when the emissions rules were less strict. If you compare the air back then vs today you see quickly that environmental regulations were a big success. Companies fought them tooth and nail at every step but the rules worked.
Certainly true, but the regulations VW violated went into force in 2009. We're not talking about the smog era.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't really work for corporations. (See: Dieselgate). They don't get caught for years, if ever.
Then that needs to be fixed. We can’t just accept that companies are above the law.
Diesel cars are not. (Trucks yes, but as ever ever those standards are far laxer)
Facial recognition tech could save so much time and money though. Imagine how many man hours would be saved if teachers no longer had to take attendance? Shoplifting would hit all time lows since you wouldn't be able to get away with it short of wearing a mask into the store.
Further, the idea of facial recognition being used in every store is atrocious. Not only can they track you online, now advertisers and the government can track your offline spending habits and location at all times, too!
Why hasn't anyone proposed a use for facial recognition that isn't:
1. Useless (like it is in iOS)
2. Completely scummy (like it is in both of your examples)
3. Using it to increase surveillance on populations that cannot legally offer consent in any way, in areas that they're forced to go to?
I kind of expect it here on HN, given how large of a proportion of adtech and other surveillance-oriented employees there are here, but I see it everywhere, and it's just confounding.