Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

#131

Post by colinmhayes »

the_pwner224 wrote: post #53
hutzlibu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can regulate the NSA and CIA too, if you really want.

In theory, yes. In practice... no, unfortunately. The people of America seem to be fine with it. Actually, as another commenter mentioned, they probably already are doing it. It would be stupid to think otherwise.

>> If you really want

> The people of America seem to be fine with it.

The people don't care that they're being watched. That's the main lesson I took from the snowden leaks. I think most people might even like it because they think it means there will be less crime.

Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

#132

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

trasz wrote: post #126
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. It is known that civilians never use vehicles.

“Anti-vehicle mines” are rally anti-tank mines, and as such: 1. They require tons of pressure to detonate; it’s adjusted for a tank, not ordinary car, and 2. They don’t end up in unexpected places - they are placed on the roads, and thus are easy to find and detonate.

Any truck or bus has higher road pressure than a tank, because wheels footprint is much smaller than that of a tank tracks.

A very quick search also proves that deaths from anti-vehicle mines number at thousands each year. Even on the very UN website [1] we read:

> The Secretary-General calls on all countries to also regulate the use of anti-vehicle landmines. Such weapons continue to cause many casualties, often civilian. They restrict the movement of people and humanitarian aid, make land unsuitable for cultivation, and deny citizens access to water, food, care and trade.

I believe we can safely assume that anti-vehicle landmines DO pose a deadly threat to civilians.

[1]: https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Landmines/

Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

#133

Post by herbstein »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #130
alkonaut wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is. You can’t put up a camera on your porch and shoot your driveway and part of the street. To follow the law you have to point it so it’s only covering your driveway or lawn and no public space. It’s pretty simple restrict the field of view with a screen in front or bit of tape over the camera if needed. Does everyone do that? Probably not. But that doesn’t change how the law is written.

you keep saying this and you don't actually provide the text of the law

They did. Two comments ago. But it's in Swedish so you probably won't be able to read it.

Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

#135

Post by novok »

bayindirh wrote: post #22
namibj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL, and this sounds actually rather useful. Do you have information on which ones would support that? Especially in the range a curious hacker (who else is HN for?) would be interested in.

It's especially useful in crowd gatherings, group photos and such. I think it's rather designed for concerts, weddings, etc. My A7-III has it. Since it uses Eye-AF and Face-AF pipelines (it generates a face model from the photo you take for that feature only), it needs AI autofocus stack inside the camera. A7-C should have it, maybe latest APS-C lines (6600 for example) have it. Sony's AF tech is insane. Point to a p…

Well the goal is to recognize a face, not to match a specific face to a specific person. So you can train an AF model to to center focus on the center of the sunglasses. Even with the 'track these specific faces' features, since your still not trying to unique identify someone, the model can latch on to generic features like "red sunglasses, brown skin, surgical mask & this general shape".

Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

#136

Post by novok »

andy_ppp wrote: post #10
ricardobayes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everywhere though, in Spain it's illegal to film the street. "In Spain, the law protects the rights of citizens to use public spaces, which is free from interference (Clavell et al., 2012)" If you want to live a functioning non-Orwellian society, move here.

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...

They have bad economics and were living under a dictatorship in living memory. Those countries can do the best for a while once they free themselves from dictatorship.

Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

#137

Post by midjji »

kilburn wrote: post #128
midjji wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with a strict legal framework for implementation is that it takes 1 person just a few days to get a face recognition system working using generic frameworks for deep learning. The laws can be as strict as you like, but its like introducing a law saying you cant watch nude cartoons at home. Even if you somehow eliminated all the existing ones, its just a pen and paper away.

Is that really a problem from a legal perspective? There are plenty of things that are easy to do but have strict legal frameworks around them. Quick examples include copyright laws, use of force/violence and driving rules.

and how well are those laws preventing these actions? Long term there are few things more damaging to a societies justice system than wide spread breaking of laws. Go on long enough, and people stop taking every law seriously, while at the same time political reasons for prosecution starts dominating.

Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

#138

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

herbstein wrote: post #133
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you keep saying this and you don't actually provide the text of the law

They did. Two comments ago. But it's in Swedish so you probably won't be able to read it.

oh it's swedish laws. that makes sense then

Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

#139

Post by trasz »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #132
trasz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Anti-vehicle mines” are rally anti-tank mines, and as such: 1. They require tons of pressure to detonate; it’s adjusted for a tank, not ordinary car, and 2. They don’t end up in unexpected places - they are placed on the roads, and thus are easy to find and detonate.

Any truck or bus has higher road pressure than a tank, because wheels footprint is much smaller than that of a tank tracks. A very quick search also proves that deaths from anti-vehicle mines number at thousands each year. Even on the very UN website [1] we read: > The Secretary-General calls on all countries to also regulate the use of anti-vehicle landmines. Such weapons continue to cause many casualties, often civ…

Huh, I’ve learned something, thank you!

Re: Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere

#140

Post by harry8 »

midjji wrote: post #137
kilburn wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really a problem from a legal perspective? There are plenty of things that are easy to do but have strict legal frameworks around them. Quick examples include copyright laws, use of force/violence and driving rules.

and how well are those laws preventing these actions? Long term there are few things more damaging to a societies justice system than wide spread breaking of laws. Go on long enough, and people stop taking every law seriously, while at the same time political reasons for prosecution starts dominating.

Huh? Driving laws are working really quite well on the standards of comparison to their total abolition?
Post reply on HN