161–170 of 208 posts
Let's go further with facial recognition? Let companies use on our children. Let companies/government scan our kids from birth to death. Put cameras in schools, on every street corner, government buildings, parks, doctor's offices, and of course scan every face that goes through governmental facilities (DMV, Criminal/civil courts). Put cameras in all stores. Put a Ring type camera on every residence. Government could…
Let's go further with facial recognition? Let companies use on our children. Let companies/government scan our kids from birth to death. Put cameras in schools, on every street corner, government buildings, parks, doctor's offices, and of course scan every face that goes through governmental facilities (DMV, Criminal/civil courts). Put cameras in all stores. Put a Ring type camera on every residence. Government could…
I'm always amazed at how many people watch movies/TV like Blade Runner, Black Mirror, Terminator, Altered Carbon, Her, Ex Machina, Firefly, Cowbow Bebop, etc and think "Yeah, that looks like a future I want." Dystopian Sci-Fi is a warning, not a blueprint. Even the utopian Sci-Fis often reference a struggled past in transitioning to their societies. And a lot of these problems have to deal with surveillance or an adj…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrowland_(film)#Plot
The movie isn't great, but it's critique of pop culture isn't wrong. We have very little hopeful science fiction these days apart from Star Trek.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have survived as a society for long time without the need for this. You could say the same thing about the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments. "what about the children"
You may be right. The facial recognition does seem to interact with the 4th amendment, at least. But then it happens in the public place? I don't know the answer to that one. I fear that in the age of social media and Antifa, the protections that we had before are no longer enough. Now we have additional actors on the streets who may turn to physical violence on a dime. I feel that the streets should be free from phy…
This is such an annoying trend in media coverage of this issue: every city in the world is happy to restrict THEIR USE of facial recognition. That's a symbolic and small victory. It will always be a symbolic and small victory. Every headline leaves the "government use" part out. Every single time. That's because people who write headlines know what everyone knows: that "government use" is a small slice of the overall problem. The key is that anyone who raises this issue with these headlines will hear from some annoying person chiming in to list out why government use of facial recognition is bad (as though that's the basis for my rub here. It's isn't.) But individual localities making internal rules to stop their own use of facial recognition software isn't solving the big problem. This has been going on for years, and cities banning their own use of facial recognition has had zero effect on any other political entities but other cities seeking easy headlines. It's not solving the societal problems that facial recognition poses. It's not earning the click. Cities should stop distracting from that bigger set of problems with this stuff.
Genuine question - why not ban cameras altogether? Or ban the use of computers in police stations, make them write up all their reports by hand. I truly don't understand why there would be a line at facial recognition, it's just a law against making a process more efficient. It's clear to me that there should be a line to prevent fully convicting someone of a crime without any humans in the loop at all. Don't replace…
I think the tough part is you can't really ban failing to think in the presence of an algorithm. People see an algorithm produce a result and often assign far too much confidence to it. "The satnav directions say to turn onto this pier." "The model says this house is worth 200k less than the ones in the whiter neighborhood a quarter mile away." "The system recommends the patient have 40% allocated home health care ho…
>"Facial recognition" means an automated or semiautomated process that assists in identifying, or verifying the identity of, an individual based on the physical characteristics of an individual's face.
So I have a still from security camera footage. And I have 50,000 mug shots stored in the mug shot data base. I can see that it's a man in the image, he's white, between the ages of 15 - 50. So I go to my computer and put in the filter for the mug shot database to include those criteria. Sounds to me like I just used a semi-automated method to attempt to identify the person in the still image.
This ordinance is dumb. The use of a computer to pattern match, to automate what a person can do, is a lever that makes everyone more efficient. What's the logic in making someone thumb, or click through, every photo in the state's mug shot collection instead of allowing a system to reduce the possible candidates, if any.
NO, King County banned "government use" of facial recognition software. This is such an annoying trend in media coverage of this issue: every city in the world is happy to restrict THEIR USE of facial recognition. That's a symbolic and small victory. It will always be a symbolic and small victory. Every headline leaves the "government use" part out. Every single time. That's because people who write headlines know wh…
Interesting parts: > The Proposed Ordinance would also prohibit county administrative offices and executive departments from issuing any permit or entering into any agreement which authorizes a third party to use facial recognition technology or obtain or access facial recognition information on behalf of the county. However, evidence relating to the investigation of a specific crime that may have come from facial recognition technology may be used by a county administrative office or executive department so long as the evidence was not generated by or at the request of the county office or department.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone is beating me, I'm not likely to be able to focus on his number and memorize it. When a thug put his gun in my face to rob me, I later could describe the gun in great detail, but not his face.
But with all the smartphones around, someone can get the officer's badge number hopefully while they're beating you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There may not be enough unsolved violent crime to justify facial recognition, but one thing there is too much of in Seattle, Portland, SF, LA, NYC is un-prosecuted violent crime.
If we forced the cops to wear their badge numbers, we'd know who was committing the violence and they could be prosecuted for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the tough part is you can't really ban failing to think in the presence of an algorithm. People see an algorithm produce a result and often assign far too much confidence to it. "The satnav directions say to turn onto this pier." "The model says this house is worth 200k less than the ones in the whiter neighborhood a quarter mile away." "The system recommends the patient have 40% allocated home health care ho…
Depending on how you read the specific text of the statute, I think they banned the usage of electronic mug shot databases. >"Facial recognition" means an automated or semiautomated process that assists in identifying, or verifying the identity of, an individual based on the physical characteristics of an individual's face. So I have a still from security camera footage. And I have 50,000 mug shots stored in the mug…
But if you didn't record or have access to those fields, and you tried to infer age, gender and race from the photo, and then filter -- well, what if your system is much more accurate guessing ages for some racial groups than others, or more accurate in distinguishing between white and latinx than between latinx and asian? Suddenly your "filtering" process can also have a bias problem, where some people are more likely than others to be included in the results for a query which shouldn't actually include them.