Live data from Hacker News

Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

gadgetreview.com

81–90 of 165 posts

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#81
post #64

Think about the most notorious authoritarian regimes. Third Reich, GDR , USSR, Mao's China. They had relatively weak surveillance capacity. Secret police had to personally spy on the target and manually install bugs/taps. Technology was primitive and error prone. Most casual conversations were less vulnerable to spying. Rural people were relatively safe. Private conversations could be easily held in secret (e.g. walk…

Yes, though on the flip side, that power is very fragile now, relying on complex, difficult to maintain technology, with high overhead costs (aggregate, not individual). They can also more easily be turned against their creators or those who believe they have firm control but don't.

That power is actually less fragile than ever, given there are for-profit entities ensuring their continued existence. The State doesn't need to deploy mass surveillance tools when they're built and maintained by private industry. Regular payments and court orders ensure the State has ready access to any of the data they might want.

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#82
post #64

Think about the most notorious authoritarian regimes. Third Reich, GDR , USSR, Mao's China. They had relatively weak surveillance capacity. Secret police had to personally spy on the target and manually install bugs/taps. Technology was primitive and error prone. Most casual conversations were less vulnerable to spying. Rural people were relatively safe. Private conversations could be easily held in secret (e.g. walk…

Scary stuff. But if we only use mass facial-recognition to catch “the bad guys” then that’s OK, right? It’s not totalitarian or authoritarian at all, right? When a majority of voters want it, that’s democracy, right?

My head hurts.

[1] https://news.met.police.uk/news/arrest-landmark-for-met-offi...

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lq580696o

[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/met-police-facial-reco...

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that people were uncomfortable with simply having their pictures taken and shown without their knowledge gives lie to the idea that "You're in a public place—of course you have no right to privacy." It's great to be given the chance to face your principles.

Well, in the US, in a "right to work state", an employer could say "We don't support the views of this band. We saw that you were there and are going to let you go." Or "Data shows you hang out in low income areas, we don't think that aligns with our companies goals." So the "face your principals" is completely fucking arbitrary. That's the fear.

What on earth are you talking about. An employer can do that in any state, not just the "right to work" ones.

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#84

Feels like this title could benefit from clarification that 'Massive Attack' refers to the band and not the concept of a large scale attack; perhaps "Band 'Massive Attack' Turns Concert into Facial Recognition Surveillance Experiment"

Just as in Wayne's World, where the band being referred to was The Shitty Beetles, "It's not just a clever name!"

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#85
post #64

Think about the most notorious authoritarian regimes. Third Reich, GDR , USSR, Mao's China. They had relatively weak surveillance capacity. Secret police had to personally spy on the target and manually install bugs/taps. Technology was primitive and error prone. Most casual conversations were less vulnerable to spying. Rural people were relatively safe. Private conversations could be easily held in secret (e.g. walk…

Yes, though on the flip side, that power is very fragile now, relying on complex, difficult to maintain technology, with high overhead costs (aggregate, not individual). They can also more easily be turned against their creators or those who believe they have firm control but don't.

I’m an optimist and would love to hear more . I agree it’s costly to maintain, but I worry that the victims pay a hidden tax to maintain it (eg high banking costs which turn into credit monitoring as one example , or inflation turning into funds for the NSA )

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#86
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in the US, in a "right to work state", an employer could say "We don't support the views of this band. We saw that you were there and are going to let you go." Or "Data shows you hang out in low income areas, we don't think that aligns with our companies goals." So the "face your principals" is completely fucking arbitrary. That's the fear.

What on earth are you talking about. An employer can do that in any state, not just the "right to work" ones.

[flagged]

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#87

A few sentences in, I was thinking that the article felt AI-generated, so I scrolled to the bottom of the page. There's no author listed, but there is this disclaimer: "AI assists in refining our editorial process, ensuring that every article is engaging, clear and succinct." One thing I hope we'll see in the future on these types of articles is the ability to view the original prompt. If your goal is to be succinct,…

[deleted]

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#88
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, though on the flip side, that power is very fragile now, relying on complex, difficult to maintain technology, with high overhead costs (aggregate, not individual). They can also more easily be turned against their creators or those who believe they have firm control but don't.

That power is actually less fragile than ever, given there are for-profit entities ensuring their continued existence. The State doesn't need to deploy mass surveillance tools when they're built and maintained by private industry. Regular payments and court orders ensure the State has ready access to any of the data they might want.

I lean toward this side . It’s harder to know friend vs enemy because everyone is engaged and employed to spy on you. My doctor requires privacy disclosures to share my diagnostics and genome results – none of the admins know how to allow me to decline. So now I have to choose between important care and – risk of employment and insurability .

Also the martial forces (police , military, security ) are more directly managed , and more broadly deployed . You can no longer reason with an individual because their decisions have to be run up the chain . Individuals no longer have authority to provide exceptions or help

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#89
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing I hope we'll see in the future on these types of articles is the ability to view the original prompt. Would it matter if the same prompt gives different output? You couldn't verify it.

The point is to not need to look at the output if the prompt itself has all of the info that someone cares about

If I put a button on the bottom of a web page that says " click here to see the secret sauce", you click it and I pop up some text.

How likely are you to just trust, let alone know for sure, whether or not the text I showed you is actually what I fed to the llm?

Post reply on HN