Facial recognition: It’s time for action • Hacker News Board

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#121

Post by sib » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:25 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #98

sib wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if I'm an assembly line worker at GM and someone buys a pickup truck and intentionally drives it into a crowd, murdering 20 people, I should get the death penalty as a serial killer? Obviously hyperbolic, but not very different at the core.

A car’s primary function is not to kill people. If you are an engineer and develop a tool whose primary purpose is mass surveillance, you should bear that ethical burden.

And yet, cars kill many, many more people (1.25 million in 2013, per WHO) than mass surveillance does. And parent didn't qualify his statement as to which products the oath would apply to:

"Anything I build can and will be abused. I am responsible for my designs, for my products, and for the data I collect and store. If my technology is used for evil, I am responsible."

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#122

Post by mpolichette » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #70

mpolichette wrote: post #39

This is really interesting and I agree, but I think only addressing facial recognition is missing the forest for a tree. There is an underlying idea here of a person owning information about themselves and having control over it and making sure a company can not use it inappropriately. I think addressing it as only 'facial recognition' wouldn't go far enough.

They're not missing anything; by regulating hot topics individually they can prevent sweeping GDPR-style privacy regulation.

I am not convinced GDPR is a bad thing yet... What makes you think it is?

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#123

Post by Koshkin » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:31 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #98

sib wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if I'm an assembly line worker at GM and someone buys a pickup truck and intentionally drives it into a crowd, murdering 20 people, I should get the death penalty as a serial killer? Obviously hyperbolic, but not very different at the core.

A car’s primary function is not to kill people. If you are an engineer and develop a tool whose primary purpose is mass surveillance, you should bear that ethical burden.

Whatever the "primary function," car accidents is the leading cause of young people's death in the US.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#124

Post by thelastidiot » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

benwerd wrote: post #16

geephroh wrote: post #11

This is a laudable first step in advocacy for real regulation of a technology that already has huge impacts on privacy and civil society. I was in the room for one of the meetings with Microsoft's senior leadership as a representative of a Seattle-based civil liberties group. While our coalition would like to see MS go further, it was quite clear that they take their commitment to corporate responsibility and ethics…

> This stands in stark contrast to the meeting I attended on Tuesday with Amazon's general counsel regarding their Rekognition service. And I think that cuts to the core of this: this is an anti-Amazon move. Nonetheless, I do also think it's a pro-consumer, pro-civil liberties stance. It's also a recognition that the tide is turning with respect to consumers and privacy; here, Microsoft is getting ahead of this chang…

Microsoft knows how to talk the enterprise talk. BTW, Amazon competes against Alibaba for their main business, not Microsoft.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#125

Post by John_KZ » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

seanf wrote: post #80

java-man wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the big difference is that the data is stored temporarily in a human brain. as opposed to, you know, somewhere in a poorly designed system which gets hacked. (sorry, apparently joined a chorus)

The photo on the card is already stored in a system somewhere, and already vulnerable to attack. The brain is just for authentication at the door.

Not necessarily.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#126

Post by Angostura » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:39 PM UTC

PaulKeeble wrote: post #26

Biometrics are creeping into everyday life. One of my local gyms this week switched to requiring fingerprints or you were barred from access. Another local gym uses facial recognition for entrance, although you can choose to have a member card instead if you ask for it directly, they don't list it as an option. Thankfully in the EU we have GDPR. It considers biometrics as a similar sensitivity to medical data, so unl…

I wonder what the implications are for the large number of secondary schools that now apparently use fingerprint biometrics for school meal payments.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#127

Post by jka » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:39 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #53

geephroh wrote: post #11

This is a laudable first step in advocacy for real regulation of a technology that already has huge impacts on privacy and civil society. I was in the room for one of the meetings with Microsoft's senior leadership as a representative of a Seattle-based civil liberties group. While our coalition would like to see MS go further, it was quite clear that they take their commitment to corporate responsibility and ethics…

> He also denied that Amazon had any responsibility for the negative impacts of their AI/ML technologies, or role to play in industry efforts to self-regulate. For a period of time, there was a lot of chatter about all developers having some kind of professional oath, like doctors. Many of the approaches that were taken have issues (preclude working on smart weapons program or legal surveillance). I wonder if what we…

Something like this would be a great start. I have a feeling the industry has a tendency to try to recruit young and perhaps naive developers who might not be fully ready to appreciate all of the potential misuses (and the probability of those outcomes) of what they build, however. Or worse, have some misaligned incentives to build them regardless.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#128

Post by markus_orlandis » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:40 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #115

geephroh wrote: post #11

This is a laudable first step in advocacy for real regulation of a technology that already has huge impacts on privacy and civil society. I was in the room for one of the meetings with Microsoft's senior leadership as a representative of a Seattle-based civil liberties group. While our coalition would like to see MS go further, it was quite clear that they take their commitment to corporate responsibility and ethics…

>> This is a laudable first step in advocacy for real regulation of a technology... Perhaps I'm jaded, but I don't agree at all. They're trying to get it regulated so they can be creepy without fear. One of the first "good" uses listed was finding 3000 children. "Think of the children" is a common rallying cry for evil. Nothing else mentioned was really relevant. The line IMHO needs to be drawn at anything that you'd…

That's a really good line in the sand, and relatively practical as well. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be put into the books with all the interests corporations would have in keeping it out.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#129

Post by CamperBob2 » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:40 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #53

geephroh wrote: post #11

This is a laudable first step in advocacy for real regulation of a technology that already has huge impacts on privacy and civil society. I was in the room for one of the meetings with Microsoft's senior leadership as a representative of a Seattle-based civil liberties group. While our coalition would like to see MS go further, it was quite clear that they take their commitment to corporate responsibility and ethics…

> He also denied that Amazon had any responsibility for the negative impacts of their AI/ML technologies, or role to play in industry efforts to self-regulate. For a period of time, there was a lot of chatter about all developers having some kind of professional oath, like doctors. Many of the approaches that were taken have issues (preclude working on smart weapons program or legal surveillance). I wonder if what we…

"Anything I build can and will be abused... If my technology is used for evil, I am responsible."

Well, which is it? Both of these statements can't be true. Does this creed apply to gun manufacturers? Knife manufacturers? Car manufacturers? Hammer manufacturers?

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#130

Post by matchagaucho » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

There are already several anti-bias and discrimination laws on the books. Why does facial recognition warrant additional regulation?

Numerous processes already capture gender, race, and age.

Facial recognition seems like a better/faster tool for capturing these data points. But the requirement to comply with existing laws is unchanged.

Any further regulation will only limit the development of facial technology to a few large players that can afford compliance and enforcement measures.