King County, WA bans facial recognition software

Post by matz1 » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #109

matz1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is automated identification of faces Whats the problem with this ?

I had a dream a few months ago where I was standing in front of a computer. I typed in my name and got back a stream of video which showed every single moment of my life from multiple angles starting from the moment I was born. The footage came from a variety of sources, CCTV, smartphone cameras, dashcams. The system had videos of everything anyone had ever done. I didn't like it. Found it kind of disturbing.

Post by geephroh » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

geephroh wrote: post #61

throwaway1959 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, there's another amendment to the US constitution that is a substantial contributor to the level and severity of physical violence on our streets. But we won't talk about that...

Post by scotuswroteus » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #191

scotuswroteus wrote: post #164

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…

Police use of facial recognition software already has bad impacts today, so at least preventing PD use will prevent real harm. > Another Arrest, and Jail Time, Due to a Bad Facial Recognition Match > A New Jersey man was accused of shoplifting and trying to hit an officer with a car. He is the third known Black man to be wrongfully arrested based on face recognition. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/29/technology/faci…

Post by hik » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

an_opabinia wrote: post #182

hik wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Timnit Gebru is not a sincere researcher, in any respect. She has proven to be willing to act in bad faith on numerous occassions when she is losing an argument. Not to say that a researcher is forbidden to hold any political opinions whatsoever - but her research is primarily political activism, and when political activism goes into research, what you get out is political activism, not research. The whole Algorithmi…

I don't know dude. I understand there are a lot of impressions. For the purpose of furthering curiosity, it was easy to punch in their positions into Google and read their raw, reasonable words. You're welcome to highlight a bad faith argument, in the raw words.

Post by 8note » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

lewdev wrote: post #97

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what they're doing. The problem is automated identification of faces. The solution is banning that.

I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the justice system believes that it's enough to convict someone of a crime.