131–140 of 154 posts
I wonder how effective systems like https://cvdazzle.com/ are against this. Will we all be putting on masks or face-paint in the future when we go outside?
Ok, it seems this step is done. Face recognition, check. What's next? Does somebody knows the state of voice recognition (in the sense of ID'ing someone by his/her voice)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you're saying is, just because our governments collect everything, everybody else should be allowed to do it too, or stop worrying? The fight for privacy is not for us, it's for generations to come.
>> So what you're saying is, just because our governments collect everything, everybody else should be allowed to do it too, or stop worrying? Yes, Strong corporations and public rights, are necessary to ensure, that government does not becomes too powerful. And there is at least some balance of power. >> The fight for privacy is not for us, it's for generations to come. Please define "us"? "us" or "people" or "gener…
Are you suggesting here that corporations are a meaningful brake on state power?
Given that corporations are a legal fiction only made possible by the state institutions of law, currency, markets, international treaties, trade, and war, I don't see how this assertion can be supported; the origin, future, incentives, and fortunes of states and corporations have always been inextricably linked.
'Anarcho-capitalist' and libertarians solutions for non-state corporations have always appeared to me to be shallow hand-waving (speaking as a former anarcho-capitalist and hand-waver myself).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you're saying is, just because our governments collect everything, everybody else should be allowed to do it too, or stop worrying? The fight for privacy is not for us, it's for generations to come.
>> So what you're saying is, just because our governments collect everything, everybody else should be allowed to do it too, or stop worrying? Yes, Strong corporations and public rights, are necessary to ensure, that government does not becomes too powerful. And there is at least some balance of power. >> The fight for privacy is not for us, it's for generations to come. Please define "us"? "us" or "people" or "gener…
Corporations are an exercise of government power; their strength isn't a safeguard against government power, it is government power.
So the real message here seems to be that exercises of government power that disproportionately favor a certain narrow elite are seen as necessary to prevent government exercising power in ways that benefit other groups.
I wonder how effective systems like https://cvdazzle.com/ are against this. Will we all be putting on masks or face-paint in the future when we go outside?
Whenever I see some of these 'countermeasures' I usually run them through some high end commercial face recognition algorithms I have access to. In many of the cases the countermeasures are completely ineffective. They may fool some things like opencv DIY algorithms, but not the expensive stuff :). For those the most effective strategy is to just tilt your head to the left or right a lot, though that will possibly gi…
That's the thing with personal pictures online. Most people can't imagine what is going to happen in the future. People on Hacker News well understand this issue, but ask your non-computer friends and family. If you'd tell them, that you can take a picture of a random person and search that picture out of a pool of people and get their contact info (as a private company / random programmer with enough data), they won…
> Even today it's no problem to analyze the Facebook picture of some random person and calculate a chance of that person being an alcoholic in X years based on the number of party pictures they share. The problem is not that this calculation exists, but that people so easily misinterpret it. It doesn't mean "Person with these photos has a 65% chance of being an alcoholic in 5 years", what it REALLY means is "65% of t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's always slippery slopes and fantastic nightmare scenarios It already is a nightmare scenario for some [1]. How bad should we let things get before we try to fix them? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11721600
That HN comment you linked to is _still_ just a nightmare scenario. If you read the article, you would see that they are lying about what happened. Even your question, based on incorrect information, is implying a slippery slope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That HN comment you linked to is _still_ just a nightmare scenario. If you read the article, you would see that they are lying about what happened. Even your question, based on incorrect information, is implying a slippery slope.
What makes you think they are lying? Our view on the downsides of technology might be biased because we are (often, unless you're a moderator or a victim) sheltered from them[1]. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11387934/internet-moderato... Edit: grammar
I'm also not sure how YouTube mods from 10+ years ago are relevant in a discussion about tech advancement. If anything, the automation of child porn detection since is proof that technology keeps up and prevents nightmare scenarios.
Also, why create the new account to question?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That HN comment you linked to is _still_ just a nightmare scenario. If you read the article, you would see that they are lying about what happened. Even your question, based on incorrect information, is implying a slippery slope.
Once the nightmare scenario arrives though, it's usually too late to do anything about it. Look how impossibly hard it is to stop the NSA from gathering all of the network traffic. I wouldn't doubt for a second that Kim Jung would use this against protesters (if North Koreans had social networking). Just this morning I heard on NPR about a group working on genetic modifications to make half-human, half-animal beings,…
The PRISM dark fiber exploit has since been blocked by most tech companies, and honestly, you're more likely to be negatively affected by slipping in your shower or a car accident. Doesn't mean don't be aware, it just means you don't need to wear a tinfoil hat. Or worry about hypothetical nightmare scenarios.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even today it's no problem to analyze the Facebook picture of some random person and calculate a chance of that person being an alcoholic in X years based on the number of party pictures they share. The problem is not that this calculation exists, but that people so easily misinterpret it. It doesn't mean "Person with these photos has a 65% chance of being an alcoholic in 5 years", what it REALLY means is "65% of t…
This distinction seems relevant only if you target one person, which seems pretty rare. In reality you're going to use this metric on a pool of people, in which case 65% of them would become an alcoholic in 5 years.