Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
themarkup.org
Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
1–10 of 166 posts
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#2For the sake of our kids.. I have no idea how we will avoid a complete surveillance state in the future. Tracking devices in every pocket. And algorithms that can turn every camera into a tracking device.
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#3Let me be controversial for a second but this is not such a big deal. because they were always doing it only slower and manually.
Its same with deepfakes.
I am not happy or supporting either but with rise in computational power some things are unavoidable.
Police always used photo id databases in manhunts. And deepfakes existed in Victorian era.
We need to make sure that auditing agencies monitoring the government and offices and non profits protecting civil rights also gets technological and financial boost.
Everything else is just attacking the windmills.
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#4For the sake of our kids.. I have no idea how we will avoid a complete surveillance state in the future. Tracking devices in every pocket. And algorithms that can turn every camera into a tracking device.
What do you think defines a "complete" surveillance state? I.e. what would be different from now.
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#5The perfect event (the capitol) to normalise the practice even further.
And those who should be opposing it most passionately will be applauding it’s use, because they started with ‘the bad guys’.
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#6Let me be controversial for a second but this is not such a big deal. because they were always doing it only slower and manually. Its same with deepfakes. I am not happy or supporting either but with rise in computational power some things are unavoidable. Police always used photo id databases in manhunts. And deepfakes existed in Victorian era. We need to make sure that auditing agencies monitoring the government an…
It’s not the same though, because when done manually it is possible to be overloaded with the sheer volume of imagery to comb through.
Like saying someone is able to manually throw a grenade so we might as well just carpet bomb everything.
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#7Let me be controversial for a second but this is not such a big deal. because they were always doing it only slower and manually. Its same with deepfakes. I am not happy or supporting either but with rise in computational power some things are unavoidable. Police always used photo id databases in manhunts. And deepfakes existed in Victorian era. We need to make sure that auditing agencies monitoring the government an…
Guns existed before machine guns, you do have to consider the consequences of a bifurcation (loose speak)
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#8For the sake of our kids.. I have no idea how we will avoid a complete surveillance state in the future. Tracking devices in every pocket. And algorithms that can turn every camera into a tracking device.
What do you think defines a "complete" surveillance state? I.e. what would be different from now.
Not OP, but presumably advances in machine learning which will make it simpler to identify patterns and gleam useful, actionable information from the vast troves of data being collected.
Today, it is my impression that much data is only used to reconstruct events after the fact, rather than gaining a priori knowledge to prevent an incident in the first place.
(And, to make it clear - I am not suggesting 'progress' as outlined above is desirable...)
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#9For the sake of our kids.. I have no idea how we will avoid a complete surveillance state in the future. Tracking devices in every pocket. And algorithms that can turn every camera into a tracking device.
What do you think defines a "complete" surveillance state? I.e. what would be different from now.
Not OP but I believe most of the surveillance derives from third parties. The government doesn't directly control or monitor most of the surveillance tools (google, telecoms, geoloc, &c.), or at least not in most advanced countries. But it's getting easier and easier for them to access these data and there will probably be less and less safeguards.
For example in France we're in a permanent "state of emergency" since the attacks in 2015 (and now with covid), which grants more rights to the government/police and let them bypass some legal safeguards for "the greater good" but of course it's already being abused, not against terrorists, but against protesters, people squatting land to protest against projects that would have a negative impact on the environment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_to_Defend), &c.
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think defines a "complete" surveillance state? I.e. what would be different from now.
Not OP but I believe most of the surveillance derives from third parties. The government doesn't directly control or monitor most of the surveillance tools (google, telecoms, geoloc, &c.), or at least not in most advanced countries. But it's getting easier and easier for them to access these data and there will probably be less and less safeguards. For example in France we're in a permanent "state of emergency" since…
It cannot be for “the greater good”, or the law would not have been written that way before the “emergency”.