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

61–70 of 151 posts

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

#61

Post by BadHumans »

curiouscavalier wrote: post #57
BadHumans wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea and don't know the difference but I could say the same thing of the camera they used to take my passport photo or my state ID.

That’s true, but those are also different agencies, so at a minimum you’re spreading the data (and risk surface). My concerns are generally (though not entirely) around data breaches rather than the collector. And sadly we have ample evidence that federal agencies aren’t always great at securing PII. But more to the point the reason for doing it is there, for better or worse — want a passport? Have a picture taken. I…

I'm certainty not advocating for more of this security theater but the genuine and imaginary concerns meld together when we talk about security so I'm more trying to ascertain what's the realistic risk here. I agree that government is awful at storing PII and it is only a matter of time before biometrics get leaked assuming they haven't already.

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

#62

Post by cge »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #3

I was appalled to see TSA facial recognition scanners at airports recently, where instead of checking your ID and boarding pass they scan your face. Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out. I’m not sure how the eventual forced violation of biometrics can be stopped when most people don’t care.

>Almost everyone simply accepted the new process instead of opting out.

Given the reputation of groups involved, I expect many people who might have otherwise opted out felt that trying to do so would have revealed there was no efficient opt-out process, just an empty offer of one, or that opting out would have lasting repercussions for their treatment during travel in the future.

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

#63

Post by samatman »

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…

> a law prohibiting [private citizens] from recording everyone who walks by is most likely going to withstand a court review

I'll take the other side of that bet.

> sufficient laws about recording people without their consent

Such as?

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

#64

Post by Dalewyn »

hnburnsy wrote: post #59
Dalewyn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cool. You must be at ATL. I hardly ever run into a line long line at pre check, I am thankful most flyers dont sign up. A line even shorter sounds good, and with global entry and passport, the government has everything it needs to track me down.

The closest major airport I use is SEA (which unfortunately doesn't have Digital ID yet), but I've definitely enjoyed the time savings whenever I fly through ATL or LAX.

The TSA Precheck lines at all three airports are horrifically long. ;_;

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

#65

Post by charlie90 »

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.

>Recording things is generally interpreted as a form of speech.

Then make it not so, we aren't forced to live with the status quo for eternity.

The law wouldn't be banning people recording faces. It would be much more specific: corporations can't record peoples faces at a mass scale to log them away and sell the data for a profit. If there's any edge cases to this, then let the courts handle it. We let the courts sort out grey areas already, that's their job.

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

#67

Post by karaterobot »

chrismeller wrote: post #60

> Civil rights watchdog Well not quite. They keep getting money every year, but officially their mandate expired in the 90’s and has never been renewed. As crazy as that is by itself, they certainly don’t have the authority to do anything.

Honest question: what else can they do but warn people?

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

#68

Post by karaterobot »

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.

There are two things wrong with this: first, in the U.S., you do have certain rights to privacy in public. Whether this is a case of those rights being violated is a different question. In any case, I don't like the creeping redefinition of civil rights I infer from that statement, intentional or not. Second, just as civil rights can be eroded, they can also be expanded, and the idea that we should just throw up our hands is not helpful in a free society that depends on people giving a shit.

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

#69

Post by OrsonSmelles »

AlbertCory wrote: post #58
Fogest wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a difference between recording everyone entering your space, and recording everyone in a public space.

There's probably a legal distinction, but personally I really don't want, say, my grocery store tracking how long I spent in which aisles to add to my advertising profile.

(Yes, I use rewards cards, but I have the option to not enter my phone number and pay cash if I want to exclude a particular purchase from that dataset.)

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

#70

Post by erikaww »

derektank wrote: post #54
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…

It should be illegal for the government to monitor what is, in most cases, public property (airports and border crossings)?

I think it would be a fantastic idea for the government to surveil road infrastructure. We spend a crap ton of our GDP just on healthcare addressing the negative impact of traffic violence. Not to mention everyone knows someone that has been killed or affected by this. Outright saying the government shouldn’t monitor this is in bad taste.

You can argue that the solution is to stop doubling down on our bad investment, bad that is much less feasible than installing a bunch of traffic cameras.

Meta: I welcome the dog pile that will ensue.

Post reply on HN