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

231–240 of 281 posts

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#231

Post by visarga »

Yhippa wrote: post #164
jessriedel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt Microsoft is behind in face recognition, which is an AI task that's been studied and done to death in academic literature. Microsoft has actually made some of the most important discoveries in AI (invented ResNets, co-authored Faster R-CNN), they can surely pull up a mere FR system.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#233

Post by dang »

j4kp07 wrote: post #81
bbddg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if workers should own and control the means of production.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you and your friends from starting such a company. I won't be holding my breath as you start on your new venture.

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN. Please don't post like this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#234

Post by lvs »

akiselev wrote: post #177
JaRail wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The incoming California legislature is over 3/4ths Democratic so while the Federal gridlock may not make any progress, there could be some movement closer to home that at least gets the industry to prepare for the inevitable.

Yes, state action on this is likely to occur first, and it should definitely be done sooner rather than later. State law commonly templates federal law, as it has historically done with mileage standards, the ACA, etc. Get this done in CA, NY, and MA, where it's politically viable.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#235

Post by vallavaraiyan »

pixl97 wrote: post #94
BowBun wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if the oath comparison works out so well for development. Let us not forget that each physician is directly responsible for a life every time they see someone. They also have a more direct effect on the success or failure of the procedure as they tend to produce a large portion of the work. I'd argue few companies ever reach this level of risk, and those that do are so large that the individual contribut…

No snowflake is responsible for the avalanche, therefore I must pile on as much snow as possible -- The modern developer.

But the snowflake doesn't know that it is falling on a mountain slope.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#236

Post by buboard »

bo1024 wrote: post #192
Paperweight wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biometrics are the future equivalent of using the same password everywhere.

I think the main concern with biometrics is surveillance. Not as much the security problems associated with using the same password everywhere.

i think the implication is that, because it is insecure, it will not be deployed everywhere.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#237

Post by ekianjo »

ukulele wrote: post #153
phkahler wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

> "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?

justifying the destruction of privacy to find out child molesters who look for their victims online. there are many examples like that.

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#238

Post by whazor »

BurningFrog wrote: post #211
PaulKeeble wrote: post #26

Biometrics are creeping into everyday life. One of my local gyms this week switched to requiring fingerprints or you were barred from access. Another local gym uses facial recognition for entrance, although you can choose to have a member card instead if you ask for it directly, they don't list it as an option. Thankfully in the EU we have GDPR. It considers biometrics as a similar sensitivity to medical data, so unl…

Facial recognition for gym entrance sounds wonderful ! If that's banned I'll be in the Resistance!

Indeed, privacy-wise it is equivalent to having cameras recording. But convenience wise it is brilliant, when I want to do sports.. I do not want to bring keys or gym cards, just sports clothes

Re: Facial recognition: It’s time for action

#239

Post by Kiro »

ekianjo wrote: post #237
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?

justifying the destruction of privacy to find out child molesters who look for their victims online. there are many examples like that.

99% of people would support destruction of privacy for this cause.
Post reply on HN