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

61–70 of 174 posts

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

#61

Post by the_gastropod »

jmyeet wrote: post #44

There are certain people who believe that average citizens can be held responsible for the actions of their government, to the point that they are valid military targets. Well, if that's true then employees of the companies that build the tools for all this to happen can also be held responsible, no? I'm actually an optimist and believe there will come a time whena whole lot of people will deny ever working for Palan…

I never worked at a company that could broadly be considered unethical, I don't think. But it was always a bit disheartening how many little obviously unethical decisions (e.g., advertised monthly plans with a small print "annual contract" and cancellation fee) almost every other employee would just go along with implementing, no pushback whatsoever. I don't know what it is, but your average employee seemingly sees themselves as wholly separate from the work they're paid to do.

I have friends who are otherwise extremely progressive people, who I think are genuinely good people, who worked for Palantir for many years. The cognitive dissonance they must've dealt with...

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

#62

Post by seanw444 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #52
lenerdenator wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

I disagree with the shooting too, but this is such a massive oversimplification of the event.

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

#63

Post by monknomo »

charcircuit wrote: post #28
monknomo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you sure it won't enabled targeted enforcement for people law enforcement finds irritating, more than evenly applied law? It's still people setting the priorities and exercising discretion about charging.

It should be easier to audit since you would have a list of who broke the law, but action had not been taken yet.

do you think the records of the vast number of police departments and agencies would be combinable with the separate court records, as well as the facial recognition access data source (if it exists?)

I think that is pretty unlikely

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

#64

Post by helterskelter »

asveikau wrote: post #57
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.

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.

Yeah but these companies are operating hand in glove with govt such that there's no discernible difference between the current system and government just doing it themselves. Ban it outright.

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

#65

Post by throw-qqqqq »

the_gastropod wrote: post #61
jmyeet wrote: post #44

There are certain people who believe that average citizens can be held responsible for the actions of their government, to the point that they are valid military targets. Well, if that's true then employees of the companies that build the tools for all this to happen can also be held responsible, no? I'm actually an optimist and believe there will come a time whena whole lot of people will deny ever working for Palan…

I never worked at a company that could broadly be considered unethical, I don't think. But it was always a bit disheartening how many little obviously unethical decisions (e.g., advertised monthly plans with a small print "annual contract" and cancellation fee) almost every other employee would just go along with implementing, no pushback whatsoever. I don't know what it is, but your average employee seemingly sees t…

> I don't know what it is, but your average employee seemingly sees themselves as wholly separate from the work they're paid to do.

Hannah Arendt coined the term “the banality of evil”. Many people think they are just following orders without reflecting on their actions.

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

#66

Post by OutOfHere »

quantified wrote: post #47
OutOfHere wrote: post #9

We need a Constitutional amendment that guarantees a complete right to anonymity at every level: financial, vehicular, travel, etc. This means the government must not take any steps to identify a person or link databases identifying people until there has been a documented crime where the person is a suspect. Only if an anonymous person or their property is caught in a criminal act may the respective identity be inve…

Maybe. Anonymity is where bad actors play. Better to have better disclosure and de-anonymization in some cases. If some live in fear (e.g. of cartels), go after the cartels harder than they go after you.

> Anonymity is where bad actors play

That is a myth spread by control freaks and power seekers. Yes, bad actors prefer anonymity, but the quoted statement is intended to mislead and deceive because good actors can also prefer strong anonymity. These good actors probably even outnumber bad ones by 10:1. To turn it around, deanonymization is where the bad actors play.

Also, anonymity can be nuanced. For example, vehicles can still have license plates, but the government would be banned from tracking them in any way until a crime has been committed by a vehicle.

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

#67

Post by kristopolous »

asveikau wrote: post #57
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.

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.

The separation between private and the government is purely theatrics - a mere administrative shell.

I really don't understand why people treat it with such sacrosanct reverence.

It reminds me of a cup and ball street scam. Opportunistic people move things around and there's a choir of true believers who think there's some sacred principles of separation to uphold as they defend the ornamental labels as if they're some divine decree.

I mean come on. Know when you're getting played.

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

#68

Post by duped »

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.

This is why we should shun the people that build this stuff. If you take a paycheck to enable fascism, you're a bad person and should be unwelcome in polite society.

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

#69

Post by pixl97 »

asveikau wrote: post #57
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.

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.

>A private company can't decide to lock somebody away in prison or send them to death row.

A private company can 100% do this in many ways. They already do this buy putting up and using their technology in minority areas, for example.

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

#70

Post by joering2 »

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.

unsure what you mean by starting IDing? Majority business in US does it already, all banks use facial recognition to know who comes through their door (friend who works in IT at Bank of America told me they implemented it cross all Florida branches sometime in 2009), most large chain gas stations as well, so does car rentals, most hotels, etc. I was recently booted out of Mazda Dealership in Florida because 11 years ago in Georgia I sued Toyota Dealership for a lemon sell, and now they both under same ownership and my name came up on "no business" alert when I entered their offices.
Post reply on HN