41–50 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a reminder that the "1 per store per day" is an innocent human being who probably would have been put through hell on earth by what you considered an acceptable rate of error.
You're missing the parts where I said twice that I wasn't defending the practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One difference is that it's hard to know if you have the chemicals in your building, or be able to eliminate them. Knowing that you have facial recognition and eliminating it is much easier.
Not for any landlord that doesn’t control every business and person in the building. All it takes is UPS adding facial recognition to driver bodycams or something and suddenly your building has facial recognition in it. Better to just put the warning everywhere and forget about it.
If your place of business is actively adding cameras, and is actively using facial recognition, those are actions that your business has taken. A temporary action of another party should require you to do a disclaimer. Especially if the same action is something they should be disclaiming.
> with “largely lower-income, non-white neighborhoods” serving as the technology testbed. There's been plenty of articles pointing out that certain demographics are very under-represented in training sets, leading to all kinds of errors [1] [2]. Technological advances aside, the company should have clearly disclosed their use of facial recognition technology - concealing that raises serious privacy issues. 1: https:/…
Is there any law requiring disclosure of facial recognition? Should there be? I don't know if there is, but don't think so? I think there probably should be -- but also, it'll be just another fine-print fades-into-landscape thing. All the signs about video monitoring don't really matter much, we just assume there's video monitoring everywhere and don't even notice the signs anymore. I assume facial recognition will s…
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/30/opinion/illinois-biometri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please express my admiration for your friend's actions here. We need more people like him.
More people who make fascile pleas inevitably resilting in hopeless failure? I think it would be better to actually change things. This and other everyday examples show that this means overcoming capitalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person." I would contest that. Determining if someone is the same person as a low-quality photo is not necessarily something a human can do, and that's especially true if the human in question A: basically doesn't care and is likely to screw it up every w…
You are correct. In fact there is research that humans are not particularly good at matching people to photos... this 2014 study showed a 15% error rate (with photos from identification documents , high-quality standardized photos, not low-quality random angle ones!), and the real kicker is passport officers (who do this as part of their job all day and presumably care about doing it well) surprisingly performed no b…
>(Someone is now going to suggest, right, that's why we should have computers do it instead, bringing the circle back around again... but just no).
So where does this leave us for facial recognition? Should we ban both computer and human facial recognition, because they're both flawed? How would that be enforced? If a store employee thinks they recognize someone from a few minutes ago, are they supposed to ignore that fact, and pretend that they're different people, on the off chance that the guy might be someone else[1]?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a reminder that the "1 per store per day" is an innocent human being who probably would have been put through hell on earth by what you considered an acceptable rate of error.
What is "hell on earth" to you? Cops have probable cause and search you. Find no evidence. "Oh boy sorry for the mix up sir". Hell on earth!
Trust me man it’s especially degrading not to mention time consuming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is "hell on earth" to you? Cops have probable cause and search you. Find no evidence. "Oh boy sorry for the mix up sir". Hell on earth!
Ah yes, those american police who are so well known for their thoughtful and calm approach to suspected shoplifters in low income neighborhoods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please express my admiration for your friend's actions here. We need more people like him.
More people who make fascile pleas inevitably resilting in hopeless failure? I think it would be better to actually change things. This and other everyday examples show that this means overcoming capitalism.
Also, not everyone agrees that the best way to counter the ills of capitalism is to replace the whole system with something else that may be better but could be worse (in different ways). Being so casually dismissive of such people’s effort to improve things within capitalism means they won’t ever be interested in ideas that go beyond reformism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any law requiring disclosure of facial recognition? Should there be? I don't know if there is, but don't think so? I think there probably should be -- but also, it'll be just another fine-print fades-into-landscape thing. All the signs about video monitoring don't really matter much, we just assume there's video monitoring everywhere and don't even notice the signs anymore. I assume facial recognition will s…
Yeah any warning system will just turn into California’s prop ~~86~~ 65, which led every building in the state to add signage reading “this building may or may not contain cancer-causing chemicals.” Which is completely useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the parts where I said twice that I wasn't defending the practice.
I've found that adding that disclaimer is entirely useless. Like holding beef jerky in front of a dog and saying "I'm not offering this to you, just holding it here".
That sure does limit discussion, and human reason generally. I mean, what do you suggest instead?