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

CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 174 posts

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#51

Post by porridgeraisin »

dylan604 wrote: post #48
lazide wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh no? Facial recognition to names has been the bread and butter of facial recognition since the beginning. It’s literally the point.

There are plenty of facial rec systems. Thinking of systems like in iOS Photos, or any of the other similar photo library systems. I think pretty much everyone would be freaked out if they started IDing people in your local libraries.

Note that there is no difference in the model or in the training. The only thing needed to convert ios photos into one that IDs people is access to a database mapping name to image. The IDing part is done after the "AI" part, it's just a dot product.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#52

Post by FireBeyond »

lenerdenator wrote: post #36
dylan604 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't we back to where this is illegal again, unless you're an ICE agent.

"Hey man, doctor's orders. Gotta wear it to get allergy relief. And no, can't ask about it... HIPAA stuff."

Sadly, I'm sure that will go over "not well" with ICE agents who will happily assault you for carrying a phone...

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#53

Post by dylan604 »

lenerdenator wrote: post #36
dylan604 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't we back to where this is illegal again, unless you're an ICE agent.

"Hey man, doctor's orders. Gotta wear it to get allergy relief. And no, can't ask about it... HIPAA stuff."

"I'll show you mine if you show me yours"

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#54

Post by charcircuit »

mindslight wrote: post #27
charcircuit wrote: post #12

[flagged]

Why do you write so many low-effort, disingenuous, inflammatory comments? They're "not even wrong", yet they just suck energy right out of productive discussion as people inevitably respond to one part of your broken framing, and then they're off to the races arguing about nonsense. The main problem with the law not being applied evenly is structural - how do you get the people tasked with enforcing the law to enforc…

I want to share my opinion even if I know that it may not be a popular one on HN. I am not trying to maximize my reputation by always posting what I believe will get the most upvotes, but instead I prioritize sharing my opinion.

>people inevitably respond to one part of your broken framing, and then they're off to the races arguing about nonsense.

I agree that this unproductive. When people have two very different viewpoints it is hard for that gap to be bridged. I don't want to lay out my entire world view and argument from fist principals because it would take too much time and I doubt anyone would read it. Call it low effort if you want, but at least discussions don't turn into a collection of a single belief.

>how do you get the people tasked with enforcing the law to enforce the law against their own ingroup?

Ultimately law enforcement is responsible to the people so if the people don't want it then it will be hard to change. In regards to avoiding ingroup preference it would be worth coming up with ways of auditing cases that are not being looked into and having AI try to find patterns in what is causing it. The summaries of these patterns could be made public to allow voters and other officals to react to such information and apply needed changes to the system.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#55

Post by verdverm »

quantified wrote: post #45
estebank wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think anything short of fully obscuring your face (a-la ICE-agent/stormtrooper) will be merely a mitigation and not 100% successful. I recall articles talking about face recognition being used "successfully" on people wearing surgical masks in China. In the US they ask you to remove face masks in places where face recognition is used (at the border, TSA checkpoints), but would be unsurprised if that isn't strictly…

Probably room to add little cheek pads or other shape-shifters under the mask.

You have to change how you walk and sounds as well

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#56

Post by CGMthrowaway »

digiown wrote: post #42
sailfast wrote: post #3

Always easier when you can avoid the law and just buy it off the shelf. It’s fine to do this, we say, because it’s not being done by the government - but if they’re allowed to turn around and buy it we’re much worse off.

That's why it doesn't make sense to ban governments from doing things while still allowing private companies. Either it is illegal to surveil the public for everyone, or the government can always do it indirectly with the same effect. I don't think the deal described here is even that egregious. It's basically a labeled data scrape. Any entity capable of training these LLMs are able to do this.

[flagged]

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#57

Post by asveikau »

digiown wrote: post #42
sailfast wrote: post #3

Always easier when you can avoid the law and just buy it off the shelf. It’s fine to do this, we say, because it’s not being done by the government - but if they’re allowed to turn around and buy it we’re much worse off.

That's why it doesn't make sense to ban governments from doing things while still allowing private companies. Either it is illegal to surveil the public for everyone, or the government can always do it indirectly with the same effect. I don't think the deal described here is even that egregious. It's basically a labeled data scrape. Any entity capable of training these LLMs are able to do this.

The difference is that a government can take personal liberty away from people in the most direct way. A private company can't decide to lock somebody away in prison or send them to death row. (Hopefully anyway.) So we put a higher standard on government.

That said, I do believe there ought to be more restrictions on private use of these technologies.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#58

Post by hackingonempty »

lenerdenator wrote: post #36
dylan604 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't we back to where this is illegal again, unless you're an ICE agent.

"Hey man, doctor's orders. Gotta wear it to get allergy relief. And no, can't ask about it... HIPAA stuff."

It is not a good idea to lie to an employee of the USA.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#59

Post by lotsofpulp »

verdverm wrote: post #55
quantified wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably room to add little cheek pads or other shape-shifters under the mask.

You have to change how you walk and sounds as well

99.9% of people walk around with an electronic device that identifies them. If a particular person doesn’t, it should be trivial to filter out all the people that it couldn’t have been, leaving only a small list of possible people.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#60

Post by throwaway894345 »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #56
digiown wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why it doesn't make sense to ban governments from doing things while still allowing private companies. Either it is illegal to surveil the public for everyone, or the government can always do it indirectly with the same effect. I don't think the deal described here is even that egregious. It's basically a labeled data scrape. Any entity capable of training these LLMs are able to do this.

[flagged]

I would much rather have a democratically elected and constitutionally constrained government than private enterprise with limitless power. It would also be helpful if the “government is bad” people would stop electing the people who seek to sabotage the government.
Post reply on HN