81–90 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier 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…
Anywho, sounds like we're jumping through hoops without really understanding the requirements. Like, what is really bad about recording people in public? What is really bad about performing facial recognition?
But I'd go a step further, what is it that we're trying to prevent from happening by making facial recognition illegal? This is the juicy part and the one where the "problem" becomes wishy-washy. We get reasons like: "Prevent stalking by government officials", or "stop widespread surveillance from...[something]". All present their own challenges and implied slippery-slopes, but all have different ways of being solved without necessarily making public recording and facial recognition blanketly illegal.
Pre-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.
This is not a market problem at all, I don't see why you'd use market-brain constructs like monopoly to engage with it.
One provider or thousands, the problem is the social dynamics and the power structures, not a product-consumer relationship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Do you have the text of the law for this? I suspect you're overstating the restrictions.
That’s almost impossible to get permission for. A private citizen can not get permission to film a Street corner. The difficulty in getting permission obviously isn’t written in the legal text, but individuals don’t get permission and businesses only very rarely do.
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-f...
> CBP says it has processed more than 100 million travelers using face recognition and prevented more than 1,000 “imposters” from entering the US at air and land borders. I wonder how many of those 1000 were incorrectly bounced back
Earlier 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
Instead, we should take the opposite approach: Invest heavily in this tech, and lightly-regulate glaringly bad aspects of it. E.g. For facial recognition, we can put down laws that punish unfair punishment of suspects. Or if we find employers that misappropriate facial recognition developed to record hours worked on the factory floor to punish them for chatting or going to the bathroom too many times, and we don't like that, then we regulate that.
We really went down the wrong path here somewhere, applying a black and white approach to things instead of just riding the in-between strategically and fairly. That's how we move forward as a society instead of legislating ourselves into irrelevance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is an amazing number yet the MET seem incapable of solving most crimes.
So why is that? Isn't this amount of surveillance basically a god tool?