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…
Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
11–20 of 166 posts
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#12For 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.
- 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
#13Let 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…
> I am not happy or supporting either
Then don't.
Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans
#14Let 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…
"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
#15The 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’.
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
#16For 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
#17The 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
#18The 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.
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
#19For 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
#20The 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.