Once the genie is out of the bottle...
Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
101–110 of 145 posts
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#102Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spain seems really competent right now compared to the UK, they even have a digital nomad visa for people outside the EU. With remote working being mainstream going forward I'm certainly going to consider somewhere with more sunshine and less harsh winters...
The other easier option (although doesn't solve the sunshine problem..) is moving out of cities into rural areas. Very few cameras where we live in Cornwall.
If you do video calls through teams or similar when working remotely, internet speed would be a big issue, coupled with the abandon of a lot of rural areas in spain
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#104Earlier 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
Facial recognition should never be considered evidence. It is a clue. A way to sift through tens of thousands of possible entries and narrow it down to 5 for a human to review. We need the legal framework to ensure its not used as evidence by itself, but the investigatory tool is very useful.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spain seems really competent right now compared to the UK, they even have a digital nomad visa for people outside the EU. With remote working being mainstream going forward I'm certainly going to consider somewhere with more sunshine and less harsh winters...
The other easier option (although doesn't solve the sunshine problem..) is moving out of cities into rural areas. Very few cameras where we live in Cornwall.
[deleted]
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snowden leaks
did the snowden leaks say they were in every camera
For practical purposes, yes. The leaks showed how NSA has built a multi-layered data harvesting-archiving-searching machine that works not only through compromised hardware (including cameras), but also big company infrastructures, phone/email/SMS/internet browsing records and content, fiber optic cable tapping, hacking, installing bugs, spying and more.
If the camera itself is not bugged, it likely is harvested at another step at some point and nothing's more clear that if NSA wants to see what a camera sees, they are able to tap it if needed. Sure, untapped cameras exist, but it doesn't really make a practical difference. The NSA will still have your information if it wants, and likely already has most of it.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#107If they ban facial recognition then companies will start using other tech like gait recognition. So are we wanting to ban facial recognition or is it something more like the right to not be tracked(if that even is a right). I think we need to establish what our end goal is because you know clever companies will find a way around such restrictions and find other creative ways. They will use shoe detection instead or s…
This is the same issue I have with 'right to repair' laws.
When you create a tangle of specific laws banning or regulating specific things all that you really have done is created a world where he who has the most lawyers wins.
What is the end goal with banning face recognition? I think this is all about asymmetry of information.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#108Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have the text of the law for this? I suspect you're overstating the restrictions.
Which part of the law? That I can’t set up a camera on my house to film a street crossing? 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..…
Don’t tell Nest…
Seriously, this means every home outdoor security camera is potentially illegal. This can’t be true.
Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
#110Earlier 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
So is eyewitness testimony. That's why we have trials. The problem in the case of a crime committed like that is not that the technology is used, it's when people assume the technology is infallible, when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary (just like there's not plenty of evidence that eyewitness testimony is not infallible and often subject to a bunch of problems).
If facial recognition is perceived as low accuracy, but can yield some leads for investigators that can be independently corroborated, that seems like a fine use of the technology. If we're worried about the public assuming it's more accurate than it is if used as evidence in trials, we can either pass some laws about its use as trial evidence (which is not the same as using it as a lead), or train defense attorneys and the public (often done through TV...) that it's use in the role of proving guilt is extremely limited because of it's false positive rate.