21–30 of 160 posts
"Okay, we will send all our video surveillance to a third party intelligence partner with whom we own stock and they will do facial recognition and send us a list of suspects." - Most police and government entities. If the ban doesn't prevent 3rd party data access the above will likely happen.
I have mixed feelings over this. As a recent victim of crime (burglary and robbery) I know there is nothing the police can do about it even though the robber was caught on tape. There is a lot of crime that goes unpunished that contributes heavily to morale of the honest part of the population and their belief in the system. Why work when some thugs can take your staff for free and won't even be bothered by police ov…
Edit. Wrong people spent life behind bars for crimes they didn't commit. With FR it's just going to be more often. Your weak "but this is not me" will be countered by prosecutor's "all criminals say this and this certified FR system is more reliable than humans, your honor, I ask for 10 years for this gentleman" and the strong incentive to close the case paired with political desire to not disprove belief in FR will convince the judge to make the right decision. Important people will be exempt from FR, obviously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find the attitude of ignoring "petty crime" very worrying. I think the cost of it is underestimated. If we can use technology to catch the bad guys let's try it. For the sake of argument, we’ve caught the bad guy. What should we do now? I think this is a seriously hard to answer question, and we haven’t really got a coherent answer. This assumes that we actually get the right person as well, and facial recognitio…
An argument here is that it disincentivizes others from doing similar crimes. If the technology is so spot on that 99% of the time you commit the crime you'll get caught, then others will likely not take the risk. Granted there's an easy counter argument there (all the more prescient these days) that they could wear a mask while committing the crime. There's a similar (less discussed about) trend happening these days…
I have mixed feelings over this. As a recent victim of crime (burglary and robbery) I know there is nothing the police can do about it even though the robber was caught on tape. There is a lot of crime that goes unpunished that contributes heavily to morale of the honest part of the population and their belief in the system. Why work when some thugs can take your staff for free and won't even be bothered by police ov…
>I find the attitude of ignoring "petty crime" very worrying Ironically I think petty crimes are much more impactful personally than say political corruption/bribery. If you find out that your politicians received bribe/corrupt personally you don't feel it immediately. It's not like your tax amount suddenly increasing to cater the corruption. Petty crimes on the other hand are much more direct in impact. Personal pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An argument here is that it disincentivizes others from doing similar crimes. If the technology is so spot on that 99% of the time you commit the crime you'll get caught, then others will likely not take the risk. Granted there's an easy counter argument there (all the more prescient these days) that they could wear a mask while committing the crime. There's a similar (less discussed about) trend happening these days…
I agree, it does disincentivise people from committing similar crimes to a certain extent, but I think what it often does is shift people to different kinds of crime. In the pandemic, burglaries dropped significantly, presumably because people were home and the perpetrators didn’t like the idea of being caught. However, scams have risen sharply.
> In the pandemic, burglaries dropped significantly, presumably because people were home
I would have expected that to be the case too, but in fact in the US there's been a rise in burglaries during the pandemic.
How did the EU become such a bunch of luddites? Or does it only seem that way from outside? I get that there are legit concerns about face recognition (as there are benefits), but the concerns _could_ be regulated. Granted, regulation is a much more work intensive process – you have to sit down with a large number of people, get educated on the subject etc. Is it laziness? Or is this a negotiation tactic? Start askin…
Ah, yes, the European Parliament. They have a great track record regulating technology, not at all like a bunch of out of touch clueless boomers. I'm sure something as complex as facial recognition is well within their capabilities to comprehend.
Now let's talk surveillance, most people know there are false positives , most competent tech people know that there is also a bias with this technology, if you really want surveillance is better to implant people with chips, at least you won't execute innocent people because the SV startup that implemented the AI made a mistake and will not admit it until 15 years alter after a lengthy trial.
Doubt this will pass, the EPP(conservatives) want the EU to enable surveillance states.