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

81–90 of 174 posts

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

#81

Post by tintor »

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.

People die all the time, because of decisions made by private companies.

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

#82

Post by CGMthrowaway »

plagiarist wrote: post #71
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Apple Face ID is not a good or legitimate feature? You just upset hundreds of millions of people

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

#84

Post by WrongAssumption »

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.

But that is his point with "or the government can always do it indirectly with the same effect"

The company doesn't have that power, but the government can compel companies to provide them with the same data as long as it exists, and then abuse it in the same way as if they had collected it themselves.

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

#85

Post by heavyset_go »

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 put you on a list and you'll never have a home again.

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

#86

Post by heavyset_go »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #82
plagiarist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apple Face ID is not a good or legitimate feature? You just upset hundreds of millions of people

Most people miss Touch ID on the iPhone.

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

#87

Post by digiown »

asveikau wrote: post #76
helterskelter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think there is an expectation of privacy for things you literally post to the public, like social media. Even the government doing the scraping directly I believe would not violate the 4th amendment. The third party doctrine also basically legalizes most types of search through people's "cloud data". To have an expectation of privacy, the data needs to not be shared in the first place.

I don't think tying the hands of the government is a viable solution. The sensitive data needs to not be collected in the first place via technical and social solutions, as well as legislation to impose costs on data collection.

- Teaching that "the cloud is just someone else's computer"

- E2EE cloud

- Some way of sharing things that don't involve pushing them to the whole internet, like Signal's stories.

- GDPR type legislation which allows deleting, opting out, etc

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

#89

Post by digiown »

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 rat you out the government in the same way that a private citizen can report you to the police. I don't see a reasonable way to change this.

The government should be held to higher standards in terms of being able to appeal its actions, fairness, evidentiary standards. But the government shouldn't necessarily be prevented from acquiring and using information (which is otherwise legally obtained).

I don't disagree that we should perhaps more restrictions on private processing of data though -- GDPR style legislation that imposes a cost on data collection is probably sufficient.

Post reply on HN