I see us wearing masks as a more general trend in the future. That would probably mess with all facial recognition systems
Gait analysis/recognition covers that.
Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
61–70 of 145 posts
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also trivially easy to regulate. Mandate that all cameras recording public spaces record to encrypted storage. The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant , with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping or raiding a home or searching someone's computer.
Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely. What you propose would require massive changes to essentially any camera that has any part of its view covering an outdoor area, and probably many indoor areas (malls, etc.). Also, face recognition typi…
> Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that?
Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense.
> Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely.
This is irrelevant, because scale changes nature of things. Single photo of your person is just that. 24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Law was clearly about recording usage that does not amount to surveillance.
> Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much.
Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also trivially easy to regulate. Mandate that all cameras recording public spaces record to encrypted storage. The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant , with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping or raiding a home or searching someone's computer.
If someone throws a rock through a window, why shouldn't it be legal to run the surveillance through facial recognition? A crime was committed, we have a pic of the perpetrator.
Because recognition is incredibly flawed and biased and leads to false accusations ruining lives and costing people tens of thousands of dollars
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also trivially easy to regulate. Mandate that all cameras recording public spaces record to encrypted storage. The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant , with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping or raiding a home or searching someone's computer.
Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely. What you propose would require massive changes to essentially any camera that has any part of its view covering an outdoor area, and probably many indoor areas (malls, etc.). Also, face recognition typi…
Where I am the law is very strict although somewhat arbitrary. I can shoot a video of a public place. I can publish the material (although commercial use requires sign off naturally).
But here is the interesting bit: I can’t set up a fixed camera to record a public space without permission. And I won’t get that permission. Meaning basically that recording in public spaces is only done by humans, limiting the scope of how widespread it can be. I like this.
It also means, that it’s not allowed to put up a camera on my porch that covers the street in front of my house. I suspect a lot of ring/nest users are in violation.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone throws a rock through a window, why shouldn't it be legal to run the surveillance through facial recognition? A crime was committed, we have a pic of the perpetrator.
Because recognition is incredibly flawed and biased and leads to false accusations ruining lives and costing people tens of thousands of dollars
True, it should not replace an eyes on review of matching suspects. But is a useful tool to reduce the pile you need to go through.
Really, facial recognition just isn't getting weighed properly judicially.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#66Pre-crime facial recognition surveillance is authoritanism. Post-crime facial recognition of surveillance is investigative process. The cat is out of the bag, the only thing that prevents it's inevitable abuse is strict legal framework for its implementation
> strict legal framework for its implementation And that might turn this technology into something that only big company can afford, artificially created a pro-monopoly environment. The problem is complex.
Not really. I don't mind there being a near-monopoly on facial recognition software if it takes a large company to handle the needed guidelines and potential liabilities.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant, with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping That's how you end up with the NSA and CIA being inside every single camera in the country :)
You can regulate the NSA and CIA too, if you really want.
Those agencies both monitor and retaliate against members of Congress. The NSA and CIA regulate government, not the other way around.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also trivially easy to regulate. Mandate that all cameras recording public spaces record to encrypted storage. The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant , with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping or raiding a home or searching someone's computer.
All that seems trivial to type but less than trivial to implement.
So?
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
We banned mines, too, and it‘s been fairly successful. Not 100%, sure, but just imagine a world were mines weren’t banned, and what Europe and the US would look like, and you know the ban was very effective.
Most countries banned mines, but not US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
That's a fact the US should be deeply ashamed of. I had no idea how bad the land mine and unexploded bomb situation is until I visited Cambodia and Laos where even 50 years after the war people are still getting their limbs blown off.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely. What you propose would require massive changes to essentially any camera that has any part of its view covering an outdoor area, and probably many indoor areas (malls, etc.). Also, face recognition typi…
> Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. > Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely. This is irrelevant, because scale changes nature of things. Single photo of your person is jus…
>Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense.
The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works?
>24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance.
Sure but we're nowhere near that point, or likely to be at that point. Also, almost nothing records at 24fps, 15fps is more common.
>Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.
In most cases and camera and recording/viewing software come from different companies, so you'd still need some kind of key management system.