71–80 of 208 posts
It's not the first county int he country; as noted int he article San Francisco (which is both a city and a county) instituted such a ban in 2019. California has a statewide ban in place already. It's good news but needlessly and inaccurately sensationalized.
> We applaud King County for being the first multi-city county in the nation to pass such necessary measures
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it's just a tool that would save tax dollars No, nothing is "just a tool". Surveillance technology enables all sorts of new attacks. Automation makes things feasible. Cheap storage that allows weeks or months of security footage to be preserved changes what's possible. License plate scanners are "just" a technology that could be done with a bunch of cops on corners with notepads, but in aggregate they're a tracking…
> Surveillance technology enables all sorts of new attacks Sure, but like any other tools it also enable all sorts of new benefit. The preferable action would be to take advantage of the benefit while also try to fix whatever it is that cause problem with the tools instead of simply banning it.
At last, KC did something right. Hooray! There's nowhere near enough unsolved violent crime to justify the surveillance state. And yes, I have been the victim of an unsolved violent robbery. P.S. who cares if KC is first or not. What matters is it got done.
There may not be enough unsolved violent crime to justify facial recognition, but one thing there is too much of in Seattle, Portland, SF, LA, NYC is un-prosecuted violent crime.
Genuine question - why not ban cameras altogether? Or ban the use of computers in police stations, make them write up all their reports by hand. I truly don't understand why there would be a line at facial recognition, it's just a law against making a process more efficient. It's clear to me that there should be a line to prevent fully convicting someone of a crime without any humans in the loop at all. Don't replace…
Are there many sincere researchers studying flaws in facial recognition advocating its unequivocal ban forever? Joy Boulamwini:
> At a minimum, Congress should require all Federal agencies and organizations using Federal funding to disclose current use of face-based technologies. We cannot afford to operate in the dark. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg36663/pdf/CH...
Timnit Gebru in the NYTimes:
> Do you see a way to use facial recognition for law enforcement and security responsibly?
> It should be banned at the moment. I don’t know about the future. https://archive.is/JqiqP
Are the flaws Algorithmic Justice League finding real? Someone has definitely been wrongly accused by a facial recognition error (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recogni...).
Is there certainly an impression that activists want a forever ban? Yes, Joy Buolomwini and Timnit Gebru are frequently represented as advocating against even "perfect" facial recognition.
It's true, lawyers tend to advocate for a forever ban. I don't think these researchers advocate for a forever ban. If you read their raw words, they are much more intellectually honest than the press allows.
Is your line of thinking co-opted by people acting in bad faith? Certainly. You would feel very differently about the deployment of the system if you were so much more likely to be falsely accused by it due to the color of your skin.
Every intellectually honest person's opinion of the justice system eventually matures. You'll come around to delegating authority to researchers over lawyers and police.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article and discussion is not about privacy. The people against facial recognition are against it, at least in this case, because it is racist - or at least, it produces racist outcomes. Removing bias from facial recognition is the problem you would have to solve to appease the concerns right now, not privacy. When innocent minorities are getting locked up because the software running it was trained with poor dat…
Someone should let these people know that nobody gets put in jail based on the facial recognition’s decision, so their “concerns” are impossible. Not only that, but if anything, it’s less likely to find darker skin tones at all, so it will favor minorities, not hurt them. It’s a shortcut for manually digging through databases to identify people. Any identification is followed up with investigation, just as it would b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Surveillance technology enables all sorts of new attacks Sure, but like any other tools it also enable all sorts of new benefit. The preferable action would be to take advantage of the benefit while also try to fix whatever it is that cause problem with the tools instead of simply banning it.
The problem is that constant surveillance of people makes exerting power over them trivial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Surveillance technology enables all sorts of new attacks Sure, but like any other tools it also enable all sorts of new benefit. The preferable action would be to take advantage of the benefit while also try to fix whatever it is that cause problem with the tools instead of simply banning it.
That's what they're doing. The problem is automated identification of faces. The solution is banning that.
Whats the problem with this ?
My instinct for self-preservation tells me that this is not a good thing. I understand the need for privacy, but what happens if somebody puts a gun (or a knife) to your face? I think that the need for privacy could be solved through the legislation: we can have very severe restrictions on who could look at this data and why. Also, we can have severe restrictions on the admissibility of such data in court. Unfortunat…
Nothing. Either they mug you and leave or you get injured (or they didn't see the cop standing behind them.) Facial recognition is not going to solve that problem.
I'm not informed on the issue, but I'd imagine that preventing them from buying the technology is easier than tightly controlling its use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that constant surveillance of people makes exerting power over them trivial.
So then that is the actual problem, try to fix that problem instead of banning it. Allowing people to own gun also make it trivially easy to kill people. So ban gun ?
Genuine question - why not ban cameras altogether? Or ban the use of computers in police stations, make them write up all their reports by hand. I truly don't understand why there would be a line at facial recognition, it's just a law against making a process more efficient. It's clear to me that there should be a line to prevent fully convicting someone of a crime without any humans in the loop at all. Don't replace…
"The satnav directions say to turn onto this pier."
"The model says this house is worth 200k less than the ones in the whiter neighborhood a quarter mile away."
"The system recommends the patient have 40% allocated home health care hours per week going forward."
"The algorithm says this grainy footage of someone far away from the camera in the dark and the rain is X."
If you put humans in the loop informed by an algorithm making judgements, the human will often defer to the algorithm. Does the algorithm give an output that indicates its uncertainty? Based on what model? How equipped is the human to consider that?