Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facial recognition: It’s time for action

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 281 posts

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#161

Post by benwerd »

JaRail wrote: post #112
benwerd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm not convinced the US will be passing much of anything in the next two-years. Passing pro-privacy regulation? Seems very unlikely to me. Microsoft should engage with Canada and the EU where technology/privacy regulation is gaining traction.

I'm not so sure - I don't necessarily think it'll be federal straight away, but I think there's real possibility of state-by-state rules, which will eventually give way to federal.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#162

Post by taf2 »

xg15 wrote: post #155

This sounds like a Classic leading-and-pacing piece to take the lead in regulating a field before actual hard regulations are passed. So while demands for restriction on government use are (correctly imo) very strict, for private entities we get this: > From the moment one steps into a shopping mall, it’s possible not only to be photographed but to be recognized by a computer wherever one goes. Beyond information col…

Agreed it’s sales 101 help the customer write RFP.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#163

Post by Yhippa »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #21
dontreact wrote: post #18

This is the first instance I've seen of the tech industry calling for regulation. I admire this and the idea that people running a corporation can understand that despite their best intentions, in the long run the corporation will act to maximize profit via legal means, even if an action is not in the best interest of society. And so in some cases we need to make certain things illegal. I would love to see a company…

There's always the call for regulation - if a competitor has a product which is ahead if you in some way wher you for whatever reason can't or won't compete. See for instance Steve Cook's recent comments about GDPR and privacy.

Curious...do you have a link to that?

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#164

Post by Yhippa »

jessriedel wrote: post #47
dontreact wrote: post #18

This is the first instance I've seen of the tech industry calling for regulation. I admire this and the idea that people running a corporation can understand that despite their best intentions, in the long run the corporation will act to maximize profit via legal means, even if an action is not in the best interest of society. And so in some cases we need to make certain things illegal. I would love to see a company…

Companies calling for more regulation is a ubiquitous phenomenon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture More regulation generally gives an advantage to larger companies over smaller ones since it creates barriers to entry; compliance costs usually increase sublinearly with revenue. (E.g., it's a lot easier for Microsoft to hire a dedicated lawyer than it is for a garage start-up.) This idea that "companies…

I'm glad you called out regulatory capture. The cynic in me wonders if Microsoft is so far behind in some AI aspects like this that they're taking this approach to slow down Amazon's and Google's forays into selling this tech to businesses and government.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#165

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

"The law should specify that consumers consent to the use of facial recognition services when they enter premises [...] In effect, this approach will mean that people will have the opportunity to vote with their feet"

What this really will mean that in effect, facial recognition will be widespread, legitimized, and unavoidable unless you want to live like a hermit, just like CCTV today. The only way this could potentially be avoided is targeted protests at the first stores adopting it.

The post does have some laudable positions and arguments against government surveillance using facial recognition, but I'm not sure how useful this is if private actors build even more powerful databases and offer them for sale to the highest bidder.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#166

Post by iseeyoubydesign »

JaRail wrote: post #112
benwerd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm not convinced the US will be passing much of anything in the next two-years. Passing pro-privacy regulation? Seems very unlikely to me. Microsoft should engage with Canada and the EU where technology/privacy regulation is gaining traction.

red tape ... legislation will be passed if regulation can be made.

Amazon or tech in general wont be stopped , but it will have to pay the toll. This is something dems and repubs agree on. Im guessing MS is not looking to be the leader so why not just get some good press at the same time.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#167

Post by nickrivadeneira »

saghm wrote: post #158
ukulele wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Think of the children" is a common rallying cry for evil. I'm not familiar with this line of reasoning -- can you elaborate, or are there any good examples?

Interestingly, there's a Wikipedia article on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

That wiki doesn't describe anything related to using the phrase for evil.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#168

Post by saghm »

nickrivadeneira wrote: post #167
saghm wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, there's a Wikipedia article on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

That wiki doesn't describe anything related to using the phrase for evil.

The wording isn't as strong, but I think this paragraph explains a bit what GP is talking about:

> Ethicist Jack Marshall described "Think of the children!" as a tactic used in an attempt to end discussion by invoking an unanswerable argument.[2] According to Marshall, the strategy succeeds in preventing rational debate.[2] He called its use an unethical manner of obfuscating debate, misdirecting empathy towards an object which may not have been the focus of the original argument.[2] Marshall wrote that although the phrase's use may have a positive intention, it evokes irrationality when repeatedly used by both sides of a debate.[2] He concluded that the phrase can transform the observance of regulations into an ethical quandary, cautioning society to avoid using "Think of the children!" as a final argument.[2]

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#169

Post by ambicapter »

nickrivadeneira wrote: post #167
saghm wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, there's a Wikipedia article on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

That wiki doesn't describe anything related to using the phrase for evil.

> called the use of the phrase "Think of the children" in debate a type of logical fallacy and an appeal to emotion.[1] According to the authors, a debater may use the phrase to emotionally sway members of the audience and avoid logical discussion.[1] They provide an example: "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won't someone please think of the children?"

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#170

Post by kromem »

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…

Except with a warrant, it's entirely legal (and has been for a long time) currently for a surveillance team to physically stalk you in areas with an expectation of privacy (TEMPEST, wiretaps, etc), and in public areas they don't even need a warrant (actually, in public areas, it's legal for anyone to stalk you - just ask celebrities about their paparazzi stalkers).

As best I can tell, from a surveillance standpoint what Microsoft is encouraging to become standardized is to apply the same level of legal rigor for wiretaps to facial recognition, which would be a significant step beyond matching legal standards for physical surveillance (which is as it should be, as there's a scaling potential with automated surveillance that needs to be kept in check beyond simply the legal limits of physical surveillance).

Microsoft's stance is a pretty good one "in a perfect world." The problem is that it isn't a perfect world, and we've already seen a good system of FISA courts established after the uncovered abuses from the 1975 Church committee turn into a revolving door for exponentially increased secret warrants for NSA surveillance, even to the point of that surveillance becoming available to local police forces.

What doesn't help is that Hollywood has already normalized a lot of surveillance tech so that most of the public assumes things are already legal/implemented in much broader ways than they are, so it's normalized the very idea of the surveillance state that we are growing into.

If anything, private corporate abuses of the technology is the only thing that will generate enough public outrage to lead to a generalized reform. Self-governance at a corporate level may seem good, but I suspect it will simply mitigate the necessary outrage.

The necessary conversation starter would be the ACLU running a personalized erectile dysfunction out-of-home display advertising campaign in Washington, DC. As long as that level of abuse is against the terms of use of the intermediate providers, it protects the less visible abuses of the technology.

Ironically, a "race to the bottom" is precisely what will result in the appropriate level of regulation - corporate self-governance will always be a half-measure that seems good on paper but leaves a lot of procedural loopholes for systemic abuses that go unnoticed for a very long time.

Post reply on HN