Live data from Hacker News

Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

therecord.media

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#21

[flagged]

As AI, facial recognition, cameras, etc. become more widespread, we'll need to rethink privacy laws.

Imagine a company in the near future called MyPI that uses a ubiquitous camera network and facial recognition to track someone you have an interest in. You could surveil dozens or hundreds of individuals this way, all for a low cost. What time they leave the house, start work, where they go after work, etc. All legal because, hey, they're in public.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#22

I was appalled to see TSA facial recognition scanners at airports recently, where instead of checking your ID and boarding pass they scan your face. Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out. I’m not sure how the eventual forced violation of biometrics can be stopped when most people don’t care.

I recently reentered the US after a short vacation (the first time I'd been out of the country for a couple of years) and the CBP now have cameras/face scanners. The agent said hello using my name before I'd even handed over my passport -- in fact I don't think he even looked at it.

I assume they must be face-matching on the passport photo database.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#23
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recording things is generally interpreted as a form of speech. For example, recording police officers in public is speech. If the government can ban private parties from recording people's faces in public, the same could be done to prevent recording the police.

Resolving this pathological impasse is straightforward - differentiate between personal activity and commercial activity . Individuals recording the police, other people happenstance, or even spending a considerable amount of their personal time compiling a self-administered facial recognition database of people - fine. Businesses (or really, entire industries) creating surveillance databases that would make a Stasi…

It seems like an impasse caused by the first amendment, which does not distinguish between "personal" and "commercial" activities. I suppose there could be another amendment to add in these categories, but the freedom of the (commercial) press seems to fall under your "commercial activity" category? I suppose the government could license the commercial press, but that seems problematic, as it's what many totalitarian regimes do to suppress speech, and is exactly what the first amendment was meant to forestall.

On a slightly different note, why is the impasse "pathological"? Are you just throwing in a pejorative term?

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#24
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recording things is generally interpreted as a form of speech. For example, recording police officers in public is speech. If the government can ban private parties from recording people's faces in public, the same could be done to prevent recording the police.

Resolving this pathological impasse is straightforward - differentiate between personal activity and commercial activity . Individuals recording the police, other people happenstance, or even spending a considerable amount of their personal time compiling a self-administered facial recognition database of people - fine. Businesses (or really, entire industries) creating surveillance databases that would make a Stasi…

I don't see how you can differentiate between humans and corporations. They are both fundamentally the same. They are born... and oh wait, yeah. But still under the 14th ammendment's equal protection clause the Supreme court determined they were in 1886 (some argue 1819).

Maybe we shouldn't treat corporate speech the same as human speech under the 1st amendment, but that would allow regulation of corporations giving money to political organizations? Ok, well that's beyond the pale. That's obviously originally the founders intent in writing the bill of rights. I'm sure it's in the Federalist Papers somewhere.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#25
post #22

I was appalled to see TSA facial recognition scanners at airports recently, where instead of checking your ID and boarding pass they scan your face. Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out. I’m not sure how the eventual forced violation of biometrics can be stopped when most people don’t care.

I recently reentered the US after a short vacation (the first time I'd been out of the country for a couple of years) and the CBP now have cameras/face scanners. The agent said hello using my name before I'd even handed over my passport -- in fact I don't think he even looked at it. I assume they must be face-matching on the passport photo database.

Yes, passport photos have been used for facial recognition for a long time now.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#26
post #17

I was appalled to see TSA facial recognition scanners at airports recently, where instead of checking your ID and boarding pass they scan your face. Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out. I’m not sure how the eventual forced violation of biometrics can be stopped when most people don’t care.

I wasn't "appalled" but definitely felt uneasy about it. I am aware I could opt out and read all the discussions about it here on HN. I didn't do anything about it, despite being a very privacy conscious person (using firefox, use max adblocking/anti tracking etc). Why? I don't want to be an asshole, hold the queue and cause trouble for a TSA agent who is just doing the job and likely have no idea what "opt out" mean…

If you have a passport, they already do. If you have a driver's license or state ID, they most likely do.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#28

I was appalled to see TSA facial recognition scanners at airports recently, where instead of checking your ID and boarding pass they scan your face. Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out. I’m not sure how the eventual forced violation of biometrics can be stopped when most people don’t care.

I flew recently and didn't opt out. If you have a passport or a state ID, any federal agency has you in the system already. What good would avoiding this particular picture do?

Not wanting to contribute more to my palantir profile and accidentally becoming a person of interest due to some shitty algorithm.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#29
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resolving this pathological impasse is straightforward - differentiate between personal activity and commercial activity . Individuals recording the police, other people happenstance, or even spending a considerable amount of their personal time compiling a self-administered facial recognition database of people - fine. Businesses (or really, entire industries) creating surveillance databases that would make a Stasi…

I don't see how you can differentiate between humans and corporations. They are both fundamentally the same. They are born... and oh wait, yeah. But still under the 14th ammendment's equal protection clause the Supreme court determined they were in 1886 (some argue 1819). Maybe we shouldn't treat corporate speech the same as human speech under the 1st amendment, but that would allow regulation of corporations giving…

We treat corporate speech as an extension of human speech because corporations are made up of humans, and there is no way of abridging the speech of corporations without also abridging the speech of the humans within that corporation.

Also, abridging corporate speech creates a precedent for abridging the speech of all human collective entities like religions, political parties, advocacy groups and the press, because there is no particular reason why corporations as an abstract entity created by humans to express collective human will should be unique in this regard.

You can't simply nullify rights when people exercise them in aggregate. That isn't how free societies are supposed to work, and it's too easy to undermine.

Re: Federal civil rights watchdog sounds alarm over Feds use of facial recognition

#30
post #22

I was appalled to see TSA facial recognition scanners at airports recently, where instead of checking your ID and boarding pass they scan your face. Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out. I’m not sure how the eventual forced violation of biometrics can be stopped when most people don’t care.

I recently reentered the US after a short vacation (the first time I'd been out of the country for a couple of years) and the CBP now have cameras/face scanners. The agent said hello using my name before I'd even handed over my passport -- in fact I don't think he even looked at it. I assume they must be face-matching on the passport photo database.

Interesting, the camera is usually a bit behind the officer, perpendicular to the lane. Did you walk past the station or was it pointed towards you?
Post reply on HN