31–40 of 75 posts
The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.
Fast forward a few months, criminals are just wearing ski masks when they steal cars, and you’ve given up a significant amount of your privacy for absolutely zero benefit. Not a good plan, in my opinion.
But will it yet allow private facial recognition? If so that’s a loophole. Oh, we don’t do FR ourselves, we contract that out! FR isn’t bad in and of itself. What is needed is regulation governing that data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fast forward a few months, criminals are just wearing ski masks when they steal cars, and you’ve given up a significant amount of your privacy for absolutely zero benefit. Not a good plan, in my opinion.
ez, just use gait recognition /s https://www.apnews.com/bf75dd1c26c947b7826d270a16e2658a
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wholeheartedly disagree. More toilets won't fix the problem -- I suspect they could even potentially worsen the issue by making the city a more attractive place for the beyond-hope. Fixing the mental heath system that Reagan dismantled would be a far better approach, and a persistent camera + facial recognition system could allow for more effective identification of those that would benefit from commitment.
So you are saying anyone who can't afford the insane price of having a house with a toilet in SF is mentally ill?
The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.
But will it yet allow private facial recognition? If so that’s a loophole. Oh, we don’t do FR ourselves, we contract that out! FR isn’t bad in and of itself. What is needed is regulation governing that data.
If it is available, it will be used. Either within stretched legal frameworks, or through illegal surveillance. Not that we can do much about it. It is going to happen eventually .
The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.
You should try tinting your windows.
But also, that would mean you could assume in a row of cars, the ones with tinted windows were most worth breaking into (which would also defeat the traditional “keep expensive things out of sight” mechanism).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fast forward a few months, criminals are just wearing ski masks when they steal cars, and you’ve given up a significant amount of your privacy for absolutely zero benefit. Not a good plan, in my opinion.
Its a much better idea to fix the fact that so many people are in such a shitty situation that they are willing to steal a worthless radio.
In 1999, I sold the stock radio from my 2000 Dodge Neon on eBay for $40!
1. It can only identify people it already has facial recognition for. So that means people who are already in the system - who you already have fingerprints as well.
2. Can facial recognition provide cause for a warrant? If it can, what happens if its accuracy is biased (see the numerous studies showing “accurate” facial recognition systems are in the order of 15%-20% less accurate at identifying women of color than white men). Seems like that would be reason to get the warrant dismissed and subsequent evidence removed - based on my years of legal experience watching tv ;)
3. Can this be used to identify wanted people randomly on the street, or is it just retroactive (eg there was a crime, identify the person in the picture). The latter is significantly less of a problem (imo) than continuous live identification.
4. How long is this data archived? Who is responsible when it leaks?