Live data from Hacker News

UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

theregister.com

121–130 of 160 posts

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#121
post #54
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like it needs stronger teeth. Not to be neutered.

I feel like "it doesn't work as intended so it never will, do not try" - an argument very frequently said by cynics, is the antithesis of the indomitable human spirit and human achievement. It's very harmful to anyone trying to do anything challenging. Imagine if this was one of the principal virtues in human civilizations. Where would humanity be? Would we know the Earth is round and not the centre of the universe?…

> Do they genuinely have a mindset that nothing is worth trying if it failed the first time?

No. But the way you first picked to do the thing is very likely impossible to make work. Don't decide on a mechanism, like cookies, and fixate on it without regard for practicality or effectiveness.

Preventing invisible tracking is probably a good goal that's worth iterating on but making sites pop up a list of good and bad tracking and being allowed to track the people who accidentally don't click "No!" seems like an entirely failed way to go about this.

If tracking is bad then stop it for everyone, not just people who clicked the correct thing. If some tracking is generally bad but allowable for certain functionality then mandate that tracking is only applied once the user had opted in, etc. Don't make users mark "Don't steal my organs while I sleep" on the hotel paperwork.

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#122

Writing a law that says it is illegal to do facial recognition with a computer, but okay do use humans to recognise other humans is stupid. The end result is you'll just have sweatshops of people watching CCTV streams clicking matching face images because it's illegal to get a computer to do it automatically.

The East Germans tried manual total surveillance. It didn’t work. Like, it was a horrifically oppressive police state, but it fell short of the full potential of horrific police-state-ness largely due to practicalities.

Automating mass surveillance is dangerous; it makes _possible_ levels of societal control which simply weren’t possible for even the most aggressively dedicated police states of the past. It’s a bit of a Pandora’s box, and probably best left closed.

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#123
post #96
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could have been a great opportunity to try to actually improve things rather than adding loopholes for the benefit of special interests. The reality is that the EU legislation was toxic and loopholed at the behest of the UK and its special interests. The UK was not a moderating influence, but the UK was the one calling for no encryption and spying of the population. If given a chance to improve or remove legislatio…

Yes, very well explained in Yes Minister https://youtu.be/37iHSwA1SwE

Just started watching the series this weekend; it holds up shockingly well. The only sad thing is it's almost not cynical enough when compared to today's politics.

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#124
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like "it doesn't work as intended so it never will, do not try" - an argument very frequently said by cynics, is the antithesis of the indomitable human spirit and human achievement. It's very harmful to anyone trying to do anything challenging. Imagine if this was one of the principal virtues in human civilizations. Where would humanity be? Would we know the Earth is round and not the centre of the universe?…

> Do they genuinely have a mindset that nothing is worth trying if it failed the first time? No. But the way you first picked to do the thing is very likely impossible to make work. Don't decide on a mechanism, like cookies, and fixate on it without regard for practicality or effectiveness. Preventing invisible tracking is probably a good goal that's worth iterating on but making sites pop up a list of good and bad t…

> No. But the way you first picked to do the thing is very likely impossible to make work. Don't decide on a mechanism, like cookies, and fixate on it without regard for practicality or effectiveness.

GDPR is not about cookies. Cookies are mentioned only once in the entire legal text as an example of a technology that can be used to associate users with personally identifiable data. If there is no risk for this association, GDPR does not care about cookies.

GDPR is about ethically acquiring and handling personal data.

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mission accomplished! Good luck with, well, everything & looking forward to seeing you in back in the Union within 2 generations! Without the prior exemptions & special treatment, naturally.

Many Brits against Brexit and who want to rejoin EU disagree and believe EU wants UK back so much it'll offer the same terms as before.

I don't have any skin in this particular game but it sure seems to me that the UK is the one who stands to gain the most out of this particular transaction...

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#126
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could have been a great opportunity to try to actually improve things rather than adding loopholes for the benefit of special interests. But the kind of people who want the policy that Brexit is - i.e. xenophobic nationalists - are not the kind of people you'd want to take such an opportunity. Membership of the EU was a great opportunity. Brexit is an opportunity for fascists.

> Brexit is an opportunity for fascists. I'd be curious to hear how exiting the European Union relates to the doctrines of Benito Mussolini.

Good news, Mussolini is dead so there aren't fascists anymore! They entire ethos was strictly and solely related to that specific time and place and is now a historical curiosity only!

Phew, that was a close one!

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mission accomplished! Good luck with, well, everything & looking forward to seeing you in back in the Union within 2 generations! Without the prior exemptions & special treatment, naturally.

Many Brits against Brexit and who want to rejoin EU disagree and believe EU wants UK back so much it'll offer the same terms as before.

That arrangement of incentives seems about as likely as the US agreeing to take the UK on as the fifty-first state.

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We love it. When we can't afford real CCTV, we hang fake cameras up practically as decorations. Asda even shows you a picture of your own face with a little green box around it to show they've got you and then allegedly just discards the data from it: https://fullfact.org/online/Asda-facial-recognition/ Even when it's legally dubious we'll do our damnedest to look like we're surveilling the ** out of you.

While I enjoy the candor and tone to your post, the content makes me a little uneasy. It just can’t be good for society. That said, I didn’t think London was nearly as bad a Singapore for number of cameras. And their aren’t closed, I have no doubt that’s all to a central store, facial, and AI all rolling now.

If anything, the UK take on surveillance was (for me as a visiting American) hugely de-stressing.

In the US, I worry that some anonymous fellow citizen packing heat is going to snap and decide to execute a lifestyle change on me I didn't ask for and then melt away, unaccountable. The US unsolved murder rate is at a record high. Between the lack of firearm rights and the ubiquitous surveillance, I never had that fear in the UK.

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#129
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could have been a great opportunity to try to actually improve things rather than adding loopholes for the benefit of special interests. Maybe with the right people in power that could still be achieved, but seems unlikely.

It could have been, but realistically only if the goal is "find problems in current legislation and improve". They started from "repeal current legislation and replace". It's like a developer deciding to just rewrite the legacy system, it won't lead you to your desired outcome.

It won't lead to desirable outcomes for the country, but it will lead to desirable outcomes for the Tory's increasingly fascist oligarchy, presumably.

Johnson was asked directly about workers rights prior to Brexit and said that we would improve them and that it was so totally wrong of Remainers to assume any rights would be eroded... and no-one paying attention is surprised to find that was a lie. But it probably worked for a small margin of voters in the referendum.

Re: UK’s GDPR replacement could wipe out oversight of live facial recognition

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mission accomplished! Good luck with, well, everything & looking forward to seeing you in back in the Union within 2 generations! Without the prior exemptions & special treatment, naturally.

Many Brits against Brexit and who want to rejoin EU disagree and believe EU wants UK back so much it'll offer the same terms as before.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN