[deleted]
Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
161–170 of 190 posts
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#162Another report https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/16/moment-man-fined-90-hiding-fa...
It's a little bit like saying "If she doesn't want to be tossed into the water she must be a witch!"
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I don't understand about the hard-line 2A advocates. They're so concerned with being able to "defend against the government" if needed but guns are no longer the government's biggest source of power over the people. Data and surveillance are far more powerful in 2019 than any weapon. Full disclosure: I'm a gun owner. But I'd swap the second amendment for a data privacy amendment in a heartbeat.
"But I'd swap the second amendment for a data privacy amendment in a heartbeat." In practice, that would be a bad trade, because you can verify that you still have your 2A rights by being in possession of a gun, whereas with data privacy, all you have are solemn assurances that your rights are being respected, and when you discover you were lied to and you didn't actually have data privacy after all, you've got nothi…
I definitely see your point. Though I would argue most of our rights are intangible and without ability to audit yet they're (so far, at least mostly) enforced by the court system. Your right to due process, for example. And your right to free speech. And your right against unreasonable government search and seizure. All we have are solemn assurances from the court system that our rights are being protected. So far, at least mostly, it's worked.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#164> The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. That's why it's called "erosion of rights" and not "outright nullification of rights". Unfortunately, it works, and it's entirely unsurprising that face surveillance will become normalized.
> That's why it's called "erosion of rights" and not "outright nullification of rights" True, but you can't erode something ad infinitum ; eventually it will disappear.
Yes, yes it will.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#165In a science fiction world, those of us who cared about privacy would start wearing make-up (until it was banned): https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeu... We don't do this en masse now because "The very thing that makes you invisible to computers makes you glaringly obvious to other humans"
I wonder, what about methods that do not obstruct human vision but do obstruct the camera? Like a faceshield, transparent mask or bag that you can wear (like a transparent raincoat hood) but one that has scattering features for near IR light that will hide your face to cameras. Or laser dazzlers that look for lenses. Both will probably be quickly banned as criminal tools (like 'hacking tools' are in some nations). Yo…
I think we need temporary tattoos: they should dissolve over a few days, so you can new ones and avoid re-detection, but not be able to be "taken off" by police wishing to scan you. Something that is worn would be considered as disobedience, like the shirt the man in the article pulled over this face.
We just need one of the Kardashians to make it fashionable and then it's all over for face detection.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That difference no longer exists in the US in any practical way because technology has obsoleted the legal mechanism of “you can’t ask for my drivers license without probable cause”. Are you sure this is quite as absolute and one-way as you’re saying here? ID isn’t required by government to be driven, use public transport, fly on private aircraft, use boats, etc. Sure as a practical matter in the US non-car options…
> The motivation for drivers licenses is a real one of public safety. If the true purpose of a drivers license was public safety there are surely a large number of people who wouldn't be permitted to operate a motor vehicle. Or at the very least we would be required to periodically prove our competency.
>If the true purpose of a drivers license was public safety there are surely a large number of people who wouldn't be permitted to operate a motor vehicle.
That's silly. Driving in America at least is a quasi-right: while not technically a right by law, as things stand the economy and much of society in the country would collapse if most adults were not able to drive. But at the same time driving is not natural and definitely represents real danger. So the law reflects a balance between these two competing interests, with safety concerns slowly getting pushed harder over time. Driving requirements are relatively forgiving, and removal is taken seriously. But there are a lot of laws and thinking around how to improve safety. The licensing process has become more of a ramp too, with many (all?) states having increasingly graduated licensing and some starting to have rechecks needed for the elderly. Licensing for non-necessity driving (commercial vehicles, motorbikes etc) sees a significant spike in requirements.
People very much care. In highschool I had a good friend hit and killed by a drunk driver while they were walking right near school, and I would strongly resent any putting down of how devastating that was for the family and our group. But "individualized mechanized arbitrary point to point transportation" is also very much critical, and with current technology that means "a human driving". It's very unfairly glib to impugn that society isn't trying to balance here. What is needed to radically change the status quo is to finish the car technology so that a human is not needed. Once that is the case and manual driving becomes a fun luxury I expect we'll see licensing requirements and training increase a great deal, looking more like what professional motor racers do. The converse from a privacy perspective is that no, many people will not bother to carry drivers licenses with them anymore, nor will they need to.
Generalized authentication is and should be an important role of government, so some form of ID will still matter. But in terms of needing to have it on you? No, I do not think that legal requirements around that will change. The "true purpose" of a drivers license is in fact trying to have some minimum level of competence and personal responsibility attached to the act of personally controlling a multi-ton pile of metal moving at high speeds.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm sorry if that offends you, but pick up a history book and read and you will see that I am correct. It doesn't offend me, it's just trivially wrong, as I know of many privacy-enhancing laws that got passed without a drop of blood being spilled (e.g. the GDPR).
This is part of why I object to the dilution of the term "right" with the modern, European concept of creating new rights to suit a political agenda. Basic liberties are a very narrow category as laid out in the Bill of Rights. "Owning your data" is not a right in the sense in which your parent comment was speaking, certainly not in the same way as the Right to Bear Arms. In other words, there is a big difference bet…
> European concept of creating new rights to suit a political agenda.
Compared to ? The US ?
> Right to Bear Arms.
Why are Americans so emotional about that ? How is that a basic liberty ?
What about the right not to die of diabetes because you can't afford insulin thanks to the unregulated "free market" they call "health industry" ? The right not to have > 70% of your population overweight ? The right to have a proper political system which isn't "democratic" in name only. The right now to be systematically spied on by 3 letters agencies ?
It sounds like anything could happen but as long as the right to own gun is kept no one would bat an eye. The recent Alabama abortion law is a very good example.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way to avoid this is to make dazzle makeup fashionable.
That will work, at first. It is not a long-term solution, as algorithms and technology will simply evolve to recognize in spite of that. The solution, at least for America, is to remind the feds that they have no constitutional power to use facial recognition, for a similar reason that mass surveillance is unconstitutional. It's a breach of the Fourth Amendment Right to security in persons and papers, I would argue (…
> I have also heard that the FBI is notified if you buy more than a certain quantity of fertilizer.
I'm not even sure it matters any longer; have you ever tried to find ammonium nitrate based fertilizer at your typical big-box store?
It's pretty much unobtainable unless you're a farmer.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not everyday I quote Ted Kaczynski, but I think he had a valid point when, in his manifesto, he theorise that no amount of regulation is capable of making us safe from technological abuse. 125 - 135 from: https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_So... . > It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force an…
The issue is that, ultimately and generally, the government does what a majority of people wants (or at least tolerates). Why are we tolerating this loss of freedoms? The only answer I can arrive at is "because it doesn't inconvenience people enough to do something about it". Protesting against something takes a lot of energy, and inconveniencing you only a little (or very much but extremely rarely) doesn't make most…
>Why are we tolerating this loss of freedoms?
The press sold us out. They rolled up, told us they were the forth estate. People are busy so they outsourced their critical thinking about government to experts. The press then proceed to not give half a shit about civics.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I see it is that our systems became so complex that we lost sight of what's good for us, as individual and as a group. Most people are too busy to even acknowledge these issues. When you're barely able to financially take care of your family or when you're too deep in the consumerism game you don't have time for these high level questions. People are more outraged about the latest episode of Game of Thrones t…
> The way I see it is that our systems became so complex that we lost sight of what's good for us, as individual and as a group. I feel ask though it's more that our systems became so complex that no one, let alone the lay in that specific tech, are even capable of understanding the consequences and what we're loosing. It's not unreasonable for a lay person to be told about facial recognition and think "well, it's ju…
>[. . .] no one, let alone the lay in that specific tech, are even capable of understanding the consequences and what we're loosing.
This 100%. Living deep in flyover country, I have heard the sentence in your second paragraph from several people.
And do you know who I blame?
Creators and marketers of AI/ML. People on this site are included in that list.
They are being lauded as the saviors of humanity. Think of all we can learn and do with AI/ML. Nevermind that they're just sufficiently large datasets with sufficiently complicated math problems. Also nevermind where that data is coming from or what it contains.
You won't have to worry about online shopping, because we'll be able to get you your stuff faster! Isn't that great?!
In flyover country, deep in flyover country, away from huge cities, away from tech, people do not understand what data is out there about them and what is being done with it. That is the biggest problem with all of this. They literally don't understand why it's a problem, let alone the nuance of the problems.