Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

therecord.media

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 151 posts

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

#41

Post by mindslight »

nickff wrote: post #23
mindslight wrote: post #18

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…

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…

The jurisprudence of the first amendment already makes many distinctions that are not there in the text of the amendment itself. This is inevitable - rights conflict with other rights and even with the same right as exercised by someone else.

> why is the impasse "pathological"? Are you just throwing in a pejorative term?

The current jurisprudence is a pathlogical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case) interpretation that clamps the solution space to maximal commercial/corporate rights at the expense of individual rights.

The example of the press is actually quite poignant. The current legal regime neuters the free speech rights of most of the press. People can be fired for writing articles saying things their employer does not want to be said. They can even be fired for saying things in their own personal time that their employer does not want to be said! The end result is greatly diminished rights for the individuals making up the press, in order to support greatly increased rights for the controlling owners of the press.

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

#42

Post by beaglesss »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #30
lsllc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes this seems variable based on point of entry. I had (have?) a flagged passport for awhile and I never got the oh shit face from CBP until they scanned my passport.

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

#43

Post by LightHugger »

beaglesss wrote: post #38
infamouscow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental flaw of cynicism is that it invariably opts for the path of least resistance—a facile dismissal rather than a constructive lens for genuine improvement. If an overwhelming majority—say, 80% of the populace—were deeply invested in this issue, they would elect representatives committed to outlawing it, and thus it would indeed become illegal. The cynic might retort that such laws are perpetually vulnera…

I'm of the opposite opinion,that recording is a liberty and the right to mass record and identify people is a healthy sign of private free speech rights. I feel banning it would be dystopic. Where I disagree is the use of government at all in many of the capacities taking advantage of this such as TSA, DHS, CBP etc as they are essentially unhinged violent pirates.

Interesting opinion but there is no dystopian literature i know of that worries about banning mass surveillance. Mass surveillance on the other hand features very prominently.

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

#44

Post by monkeyfun »

infamouscow wrote: post #35
beaglesss wrote: post #7

You have no right to privacy in public. If you make this illegal private companies will do it instead, and the first amendment makes that impossible to stop.

The fundamental flaw of cynicism is that it invariably opts for the path of least resistance—a facile dismissal rather than a constructive lens for genuine improvement. If an overwhelming majority—say, 80% of the populace—were deeply invested in this issue, they would elect representatives committed to outlawing it, and thus it would indeed become illegal. The cynic might retort that such laws are perpetually vulnera…

Well, a true cynic would note that if an 80% of a dictatorship all agreed and felt so passionate -- if even 40% did, such a government would easily fall apart or be capable of reform.

If we could reliably attain passion, cooperation, consciousness? And ultimately, a belief in agency?

Then we would hardly even need to protect institutions against such subversion.

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

#45

Post by beaglesss »

monkeyfun wrote: post #44
infamouscow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental flaw of cynicism is that it invariably opts for the path of least resistance—a facile dismissal rather than a constructive lens for genuine improvement. If an overwhelming majority—say, 80% of the populace—were deeply invested in this issue, they would elect representatives committed to outlawing it, and thus it would indeed become illegal. The cynic might retort that such laws are perpetually vulnera…

Well, a true cynic would note that if an 80% of a dictatorship all agreed and felt so passionate -- if even 40% did, such a government would easily fall apart or be capable of reform. If we could reliably attain passion, cooperation, consciousness? And ultimately, a belief in agency? Then we would hardly even need to protect institutions against such subversion.

I'm reminded of ceausescu. Everyone agreed, up until they suddenly didn't and he and his wife didn't even seem to get it until they were lined up and shot.

I think it takes both agreement and desperation for that kind of thing to happen, though. Comfortable people don't tend to buck the people who can freeze their bank accounts in any serious way at simultaneous scale, even when they're in mass disagreement.

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

#46

Post by GauntletWizard »

LightHugger wrote: post #43
beaglesss wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of the opposite opinion,that recording is a liberty and the right to mass record and identify people is a healthy sign of private free speech rights. I feel banning it would be dystopic. Where I disagree is the use of government at all in many of the capacities taking advantage of this such as TSA, DHS, CBP etc as they are essentially unhinged violent pirates.

Interesting opinion but there is no dystopian literature i know of that worries about banning mass surveillance. Mass surveillance on the other hand features very prominently.

Then you're looking in the wrong section. You don't want the sci-fi section, you want history - Cold War. The investigation of the government by the people was violently suppressed and the the official mouthpieces were jokes - "There is no pravda in Izvestia and no izvestia in Pravda."

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

#47

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

nickff wrote: post #12
worik wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> first amendment makes that impossible to stop. How so? Preventing facial recognition misuse (or use even). How is that impinging on the freedoms guaranteed in the First Ammendment?

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.

Commercial speech is substantially less protected under First Amendment case law. You can't prohibit random individuals from declaring themselves a citizen journalist and recording people, but I think it would be entirely possible to pass a law saying private companies may not assemble facial recognition databases for sale to third parties.

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

#48

Post by Dalewyn »

hnburnsy wrote: post #15
Dalewyn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually opted in (Delta Airlines Digital ID, default opt out) because I have Global Entry so CBP and TSA all have my information already anyway. Opting in was just me authorizing Delta to also share my flight data with them so they can match my records up. The result? Faster passage through gate security, significantly faster than TSA Precheck in fact. As a frequent flyer, I like it.

In what way is it faster? Do you skip xray for carry ons?

TSA Precheck lines are excessively long now, to say nothing about the normie lines which probably violate some population density laws of the universe. Meanwhile the Digital ID line is (at least for now) practically empty.

So that's an easy 10~20 minutes shaved off. Once I'm ushered through to screening I have the same convenience benefits as TSA Precheck since it's a prerequisite for Digital ID anyway.

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

#49

Post by beaglesss »

LightHugger wrote: post #43
beaglesss wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of the opposite opinion,that recording is a liberty and the right to mass record and identify people is a healthy sign of private free speech rights. I feel banning it would be dystopic. Where I disagree is the use of government at all in many of the capacities taking advantage of this such as TSA, DHS, CBP etc as they are essentially unhinged violent pirates.

Interesting opinion but there is no dystopian literature i know of that worries about banning mass surveillance. Mass surveillance on the other hand features very prominently.

Mass surveillance played out privately means every plated cop car can be tracked, every noted confidential informant and every detective, tax stasi, etc can be traced. This is already becoming the case on networked mapping apps where the road pirates are losing their revenue. It's more of a worry for the state than citizens IMO.

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

#50

Post by Fogest »

AlbertCory wrote: post #31

The issue with governments implementing mass warrantless surveillance is not training or standards, NIST or otherwise. It should be straight-out illegal. Governments do not have "free speech" rights. As for private citizens doing it: I think there are already sufficient laws about recording people without their consent. You can hire someone to stand on a corner and watch for a specific person to walk by, but a law pr…

From my understanding, don't many places like big retail stores or malls already use facial recognition with their security systems? Whether it be to deal with flagging banned individuals who come on premises, or for things like tracking where people go in a mall. These kinds of things privately I think are already used a lot.
Post reply on HN