Live data from Hacker News

Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

themarkup.org

11–20 of 166 posts

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#11

Let 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…

"Sometimes a difference in scale makes a difference in kind" (heard in a CGPGrey video, but I'm sure the quote predates it)

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#12

For 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.

The CCP already has that:

- QR code required to board public transit

- facial surveillance when you use a traffic light which monitors your appearance and expression

- moving towards digital-only currency to track purchases.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#13

Let 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…

Yeah, and the difference between drinking a glass of water and drowning is also just one of scale and rate. Same for a pat on the back, and being violently attacked -- it's just physical impact, the only difference is the speed.

> I am not happy or supporting either

Then don't.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#14

Let 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…

>Let me be controversial for a second but this is not such a big deal. because they were always doing it only slower and manually.

"Nuclear weapons are not a big deal, we used rocks and arrows for the same purpose in the past anyway..."

The similarities between past and present are irrelevant to draw conclusions from without also having the difference in mind.

And the difference here is one of scale. Dosage makes the cure or the poison.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#15

The 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’.

We saw the same in London after the 2012 riots. Instead of stopping the rioting and looting the police let it go on and then took all the cctv and arrested the perpetrators after the event.

It’s lazy policing, hundreds of shops got damaged and looted simply because for whatever reason the police wouldn’t do what people want them to do. Stop people committing crime at the time.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#16

For 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.

We don’t have mandatory in-home surveillance, for the moment.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#17

The 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’.

Funny enough, the capitol insurgents brought their own surveillance. Courtesy of FB and Twitter. Pretty sure all the video material streamed and posted by themselves would be more than enough in that case.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#18
post #15

The 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’.

We saw the same in London after the 2012 riots. Instead of stopping the rioting and looting the police let it go on and then took all the cctv and arrested the perpetrators after the event. It’s lazy policing, hundreds of shops got damaged and looted simply because for whatever reason the police wouldn’t do what people want them to do. Stop people committing crime at the time.

> lazy policing

From Susan Landau's 2016 testimony[1] before the House Judiciary Committee regarding Apple's encryption on the San Bernardino shooter's iphone:

>> "Instead of embracing the communications and device security we so badly need for securing US public and private data, law enforcement continues to press hard to undermine security in the misguided desire to preserve simple, but outdated, investigative techniques."

>> "We need 21st century techniques to secure the data that 21st century enemies—organized crime and nation-state attackers—seek to steal and exploit. Twentieth century approaches that provide law enforcement with the ability to investigate but also simplify exploitations and attacks are not in our national security interest. Instead of laws and regulation that weaken our protections, we should enable law enforcement to develop 21st century capabilities for conducting investigations."

>> "Developing such capabilities will involve deep changed for the Bureau, which remains agent-based, not technology-based."

Whenever law enforcement complains that they need tools that give them access to more data they never mention that they have access to far more data than any point in history. Yes, some types of data they have used in the past may be going dark, but they have gained an incredible breadth of new tools.

Unfortunately, learning new investigation techniques requires money, training, and effort. Shoveling as much data as possible onto the problem makes the actual investigation more difficult, but they do it anyway when it also acts de facto as another source of power. ~sigh~ This crap needs to be reigned in. Fast.

[1] (pdf) https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20160301/104573/HHRG...

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#19

For 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.

Compare surveillance in US and China. Both have a lot of it, but one has orders of magnitude more of it. Also China is more open about it. In US there's attempts to be sneaky about it, not so in China, though that's probably just the dictatorial aspect.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#20

The 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’.

Funny enough, the capitol insurgents brought their own surveillance. Courtesy of FB and Twitter. Pretty sure all the video material streamed and posted by themselves would be more than enough in that case.

Yes but there's a difference between reviewing evidence and using mass facial recognition software to scour literally everything.
Post reply on HN