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

A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 550 posts

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#531

Post by 794CD01 »

baldfat wrote: post #500
794CD01 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a lot of words to simply say that some people think it is unethical. Which is an essentially empty statement. Couldn't you at least say most people and make it an argumentum ad populum?

lawful and ethical are two totally different things. They are both related but are mutually exclusive of each other ethical != opinion Ethical has weight and you can lose your job, and even go to jail for being unethical. RMS actually has a very strong academic ethical mind (Even though I disagree with him more then agree). BUT ethics isn't easily defined. Here is a decent link to defining Ethics. https://www.scu.edu…

>lawful and ethical are two totally different things.

Mind explaining where you think I implied otherwise? Or why you keep repeating this despite the fact that I haven't?

>Ethical has weight and you can lose your job, and even go to jail for [what your boss thinks is] unethical.

For example, doctors who get fired for performing abortions, something that most of hn doesn't find unethical.

>https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision...

That is itself, merely what Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer find ethical.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#532

Post by 794CD01 »

gglitch wrote: post #505
794CD01 wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until relatively recently, unavailability of large stockpiles of consumer data (at least, stockpiles at the scale now possible) was a significant impediment to a large and probably mostly-undiscovered class of potentially ethical behavior, as well as behavior that actively combats unethical behavior. Data itself is amoral and can be used for either good or bad.

Ethical behavior isn't a problem.

You might even say it's the opposite.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#533

Post by 794CD01 »

dwaltrip wrote: post #516
794CD01 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it an ethical issue for strangers to look at your face when you are out in public?

This is a gross mischaracterization​ of the issue. You aren't looking at the bigger picture. Do we really want to commodotize​ the simple act of walking down the boulevard? Make every moment in public space (and private digital space!) sliced, diced, and scrutinized by God knows how many data munchers, middlemen, analytics brokers, and ethically challenged people in order compel as much thoughtless consumer spending…

"You aren't looking at the bigger picture" is just an arrogant way to say "I think you're wrong and I'm right". It can be safely omitted in favor of actual arguments.

>Do we really want to commodotize​ the simple act of walking down the boulevard?

It's not a boulevard you are walking down, but a bazaar. The only difference is that modern technology allows you to visit the bazaar to be "sliced, diced, and scrutinized by God knows how many data munchers, middlemen, analytics brokers, and ethically challenged people in order compel as much thoughtless consumer spending as possible" without physically travelling there.

>Allow incredibly detailed profiles to be built up on every person, spanning the decades of their life?

Sure. It's called a relationship. Or a memory.

>And of course, there is always the danger of governments co-opting and abusing this information years or decades in the future, after adminstrations have come and gone, and laws have been overturned, drastically altered, or ignored.

You can safely replace "this information" with virtually anything useful and get the same effect. Do you feel the same about, say, nuclear weapons? Or legal authority to lock people in cages? I would say either of those is far more dangerous than data. Yet we recognize that the power exists regardless, and the government can at least put it to good use.

>I believe our societal institutions and corporate entities are not mature enough to safely handle the power granted by unrestrained, high resolution data on the entire populace

Then the obvious answer is to improve societal institutions and corporate entities, which is useful in and of itself, rather than futilely trying to impede the progress of technology.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#534

Post by TACIXAT »

alasdair_ wrote: post #507
white-flame wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lost track of how many times I've said this on HN: We need HIPPA for all personal information, not just medical. We have an expectation of privacy in being "lost in the crowd" when we're out and about. Our physical & online whereabouts, who we're physically with, who we're communicating with, our personal contact information, and obviously payment information is private information that can be harmful if not kep…

>We need HIPPA for all personal information, not just medical. The UK has the Data Protection Act which does some of this. One radical option would be to grant people copyright over their own PII (with about a billion caveats to allow journalism etc.)

>with about a billion caveats to allow journalism etc.

Then you'd just see setups like the financial industry has. You get analysts, call them journalists, and have people subscribe to your publication. The journalists go get insider-ish tips and 'publish' them to a select group of followers.

With laws like that you'd just hire a full time business analytics journalist to cover your store.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#535

Post by TACIXAT »

lloeki wrote: post #201
edanm wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It saddens me that most people refuse to accept that not everybody shares their morals, and that it might be them that are wrong. I'm not saying there isn't an absolute right and wrong, but I certainly don't find this as abhorrent as most people here, apparently.

So what am I supposed to do if I find this invading my privacy? Not walk within 10m of such a billboard? It's not like there's any other active way to opt out of this. I suppose a banner saying "you are being tracked" on tom of such a billboard could have quite an interesting effect. Come to think of it I've seen "Smile, you're being recorded!" in some shops.

Photographs are legal in public. This is just taking that to the extreme. Address that law. What bothers me is ALPR. Taken to an extreme you can just put a camera on every intersection and effectively track all vehicles without a warrant.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#536

Post by nathan_long »

fixermark wrote: post #423
pyre wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because there is no expectation of privacy does not mean that a reasonable person would assume that their every action is being recorded in precise detail to be stored away forever by a third party.

... but mostly because reasonable people haven't been brought up to speed on what is technologically feasible now.

What's technologically feasible is irrelevant to our moral expectations. It's technologically feasible to brain you with a club and steal your stuff, and has been for millennia.

Preventing the misuse of Blunt Instrument Technologies™ is literally what laws are for. Surveillance is just a club we don't have laws about yet, but should.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#537

Post by alasdair_ »

jhonovich wrote: post #461
rpeden wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. This isn't new. It's everywhere . The cameras retailers use with their surveillance systems are coming with facial recognition built in now. [1] And lots of retailers, banks, etc, are using systems that track people's visits across multiple locations. [2] You'll see a lot of these systems being sold as fraud/loss prevention solutions. The reason for this is that it's a relatively easy sell this way - customer…

"The cameras retailers use with their surveillance systems are coming with facial recognition built in now. [1]" Your source in the marketing material of an IP camera manufacturer. We research that space and I can guarantee that less than 0.1% of IP cameras have facial recognition built-in or running. These manufacturers, like Axis, whom you cite, would love for such capabilities but they are still very uncommon.

>We research that space and I can guarantee that less than 0.1% of IP cameras have facial recognition built-in or running.

While I'm sure this is true (since the majority of IP cameras in the world are cheap things little more than webcams), do you have a number for retail stores specifically? I know many of the larger chains spend a lot of money on their cameras and movement detection and other intelligence has been onboard those for at least 15 years.

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#538

Post by alanfalcon »

Kliment wrote: post #515
alanfalcon wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for every you, there's ten people who complete their purchase using the code they received, and my boss makes more money and I keep my job. Until and unless those ratios reverse, it's going to be that way and you'll have fewer and fewer places to shop. (I'd happily make the case to my boss that he makes more money without retargeting tactics like this if such were the truth.)

I'm okay with that. I find your practices disgusting but I'm not in a position to be telling your customers what they should be choosing. So all I can do is vote against it with my money and reward shops that don't do evil. There's very few things that I need badly enough to put up with that crap.

You classify sending un-asked-for mail as evil? (I admit the company that provides this service is not doing God's work by combining/selling all their customers' databases to make this possible, and so by enabling them neither are we. I'm not seeing how it's exactly evil though.)

Re: A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system

#540

Post by tunap »

WillyOnWheels wrote: post #519
throwaway91111 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often times i don't give a damn about the content it sponsors. I'd much rather be able to do my business without being assaulted by ads, which often have little to do with reality, and often act as an alienating and dehumanizing force. It's very difficult to see the good. I would rather have no content than ad-supported content. of course, nobody will ever offer that! You can't sell ads if people can opt out, and too…

Gas stations in the US make very little, possibly zero, from the sale of gasoline.

Anyone have a source for this oft claimed fact? Retail to spot spread is averaging $.50-$.70/gallon for 86 octane with $.20-$.30 added for each premium tier in PHX. Does adding detergent & transport eat up that much margin?
Post reply on HN