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

71–80 of 174 posts

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

#71

Post by plagiarist »

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]

Facial recognition is not a legitimate private enterprise. It is a complete failure of legislation that it is allowed to exist.

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

#73

Post by unethical_ban »

pixl97 wrote: post #69
asveikau wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a distinction. Private companies are partnering with the government to take away personal liberty.

We should ban the government from accessing data gathered by private companies by default, perhaps. I need to mull on it.

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

#74

Post by pixl97 »

charcircuit wrote: post #31
rhcom2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The targets for the AI are still set by humans, the data the AI was trained on is still created by humans. Involving a computer in the system doesn't magically make it less biased.

That is true for now, but eventually it should be possible for it to be more autonomous without needing humans to set its target.

Ah yes, we'll call the system Skynet.

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

#75

Post by plagiarist »

_3u10 wrote: post #11
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…

That will be wildly unpopular with both parties and most importantly their constituents. I doubt even the libertarian party should they get the president, house and senate could pull it off

What do you mean "even" the libertarian party? Libertarians would remove whatever existing laws there are around facial recognition so that companies are free to do whatever they like with the data.

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

#76

Post by asveikau »

helterskelter wrote: post #64
asveikau wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I feel like what we're seeing lately is that private companies are doing the thing that would violate the 4th amendment if government did it, then they sell to the government. The idea that it's not the government itself violating the constitution because they did it through a contractor is pretty absurd.

What specific legal measures you do to enforce this, I don't know, there's some room for debate there.

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

#77

Post by pixl97 »

charcircuit wrote: post #30
mrguyorama wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the destruction of your rights has lead to improvement in clearance rates. Crimes aren't solved, despite having a literal panopticon. This view is just false. Cops are choosing to not do their job. Giving them free access to all private information hasn't fixed that.

Then cops should be taken out of the core law enforcement agentic loop. There could be a new role of people who the AI dispatches instead to do law enforcement work in the real world.

The thing is if you have a truly fair AI you start catching the Trumps and Musks of this world in their little underaged trists. How long do you think that system would actually stay running for?

The thing you're missing is our system is working exactly like it's supposed to for rich people.

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

#78

Post by asveikau »

kristopolous wrote: post #67
asveikau wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

In some cases yes, especially when it comes to surveillance, the distinction doesn't feel like very much. When the government hires a contractor specifically because they break the spirit of the 4th amendment, it's hard to argue that it's not the government breaking the law.

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

#79

Post by asveikau »

unethical_ban wrote: post #73
pixl97 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It's a distinction. Private companies are partnering with the government to take away personal liberty. We should ban the government from accessing data gathered by private companies by default, perhaps. I need to mull on it.

I also personally think there are some private collections we should ban, or put in place limitations on how it can be used, in the interest of general privacy.

That is trickier to decide on and surely there's room to debate.

Post reply on HN