91–100 of 145 posts
On the way in, they scanned my face at the immigration counter.
On the way out, you go through a locked turnstile that scans your face and won't open until it recognizes you.
It took about 2 seconds for the doors to open. Pretty amazing and creepy at the same time.
> CBP says it has processed more than 100 million travelers using face recognition and prevented more than 1,000 “imposters” from entering the US at air and land borders. I wonder how many of those 1000 were incorrectly bounced back
The software only flags people for manual review. It’s not an automatic software-only rejection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. > Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely. This is irrelevant, because scale changes nature of things. Single photo of your person is jus…
>Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works? >24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Sure but we're nowhere near that point, or likely to be at that point. Also,…
There are legit arguments to be had about personal freedom here, but it’s plainly untrue regulation intrinsically can’t work. It works for many, many things - and works for gun ownership in basically every other developed nation in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The software only flags people for manual review. It’s not an automatic software-only rejection.
If a selection process is screwed at the outset, I don't think one can generally un-screw it with any amount of post-hoc analysis or manual review.
But speaking of selection, there is no perfect process in any system involving humans, so whether it's a flawed facial recognition algorithm, or a biased, tired, overworked human doing it, having a manual review step and post-hoc analysis is pretty useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. I don't mind there being a near-monopoly on facial recognition software if it takes a large company to handle the needed guidelines and potential liabilities.
One doesn’t mind until it turns on one, typically. It’s all fine until the monopoly stops operating in good faith and it’s too late to stop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a selection process is screwed at the outset, I don't think one can generally un-screw it with any amount of post-hoc analysis or manual review.
Your comment seems unrelated to the comment you're responding to. That comment is about automatic rejection, not selection. But speaking of selection, there is no perfect process in any system involving humans, so whether it's a flawed facial recognition algorithm, or a biased, tired, overworked human doing it, having a manual review step and post-hoc analysis is pretty useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> strict legal framework for its implementation And that might turn this technology into something that only big company can afford, artificially created a pro-monopoly environment. The problem is complex.
Not really. I don't mind there being a near-monopoly on facial recognition software if it takes a large company to handle the needed guidelines and potential liabilities.
If the bureaucratic obstacles for using a technology are so high that only very well funded companies can overcome them, then those companies effectively form a cartel with the state in the use and abuse of those technologies.
If citizens had stronger protections against the application of the third-party doctrine in the US, we might have less to fear. Currently though, the greatest oppressor of personal freedoms through technology is the United States Government. They can and will use "guidelines and potential liabilities" to weaponize new technology while making it next to impossible to counter the threat.