Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere(wired.com)
wired.com
Face recognition is being banned, but it’s still everywhere
https://www.wired.com/story/face-recognition-banned-but-everywhere/
144 コメント
Pre-crime facial recognition surveillance is authoritanism. Post-crime facial recognition of surveillance is investigative process. The cat is out of the bag, the only thing that prevents it's inevitable abuse is strict legal framework for its implementation
There's really no chance of that happening in the USA within a generation. The US federal government has decided that it alone is trustworthy, and that everyone and everything is a potential threat, and that it is entitled to unlimited and unrestricted surveillance of the entire country (and several others), regardless of what is or is not written into law.
Snowden even blew the lid off of it, and nothing changed. That's how you know it's permanent.
Snowden even blew the lid off of it, and nothing changed. That's how you know it's permanent.
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. If anything, your comment is sadly an understatement.
> 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.
And that might turn this technology into something that only big company can afford, artificially created a pro-monopoly environment.
The problem is complex.
When did we decide that this should have a low barrier to entry. Is there any reason to think increased competition between surveillance providers will lead to more ethical surveillance?
This is not a market problem at all, I don't see why you'd use market-brain constructs like monopoly to engage with it.
One provider or thousands, the problem is the social dynamics and the power structures, not a product-consumer relationship.
This is not a market problem at all, I don't see why you'd use market-brain constructs like monopoly to engage with it.
One provider or thousands, the problem is the social dynamics and the power structures, not a product-consumer relationship.
"When did we decide that this should have a low barrier to entry..."
That's not the argument I took away from that. Poster includes a summation, "it's complex" and is noting that simply adding regulation that only increases costs of compliance may just enable the formation of a tent seeking monopoly and does not necessarily result in a better outcome for citizens. The poster could advocate for a ban (or not advocate for anything) rather than deregulation as implied.
That's not the argument I took away from that. Poster includes a summation, "it's complex" and is noting that simply adding regulation that only increases costs of compliance may just enable the formation of a tent seeking monopoly and does not necessarily result in a better outcome for citizens. The poster could advocate for a ban (or not advocate for anything) rather than deregulation as implied.
Problem with a strict legal framework for implementation is that it takes 1 person just a few days to get a face recognition system working using generic frameworks for deep learning.
The laws can be as strict as you like, but its like introducing a law saying you cant watch nude cartoons at home. Even if you somehow eliminated all the existing ones, its just a pen and paper away.
The laws can be as strict as you like, but its like introducing a law saying you cant watch nude cartoons at home. Even if you somehow eliminated all the existing ones, its just a pen and paper away.
Is that really a problem from a legal perspective?
There are plenty of things that are easy to do but have strict legal frameworks around them. Quick examples include copyright laws, use of force/violence and driving rules.
There are plenty of things that are easy to do but have strict legal frameworks around them. Quick examples include copyright laws, use of force/violence and driving rules.
and how well are those laws preventing these actions? Long term there are few things more damaging to a societies justice system than wide spread breaking of laws. Go on long enough, and people stop taking every law seriously, while at the same time political reasons for prosecution starts dominating.
Huh? Driving laws are working really quite well on the standards of comparison to their total abolition?
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.
Well that's what the strict legal framework is for, right? To ensure ethical operation instead of relying on good faith?
You have presupposed that said monopoly will not have already bought the necessary legislation required to maintain its position through regulatory capture. The current system positively rewards monopolies in most sectors.
Replace the words "facial recognition software" with "location data", a comparable commodity in this context, then it's immediately clear what would go wrong. See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/its-time-google-resist...
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.
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.
> strict legal framework for its implementation
and strict legal framework enforcement
It's also trivially easy to regulate. Mandate that all cameras recording public spaces record to encrypted storage. The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant, with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping or raiding a home or searching someone's computer.
> The key is in possession of the judicial system. It can only be decrypted and examined with a warrant, with probable cause, as you would need for wiretapping
That's how you end up with the NSA and CIA being inside every single camera in the country :)
That's how you end up with the NSA and CIA being inside every single camera in the country :)
As if they aren't already.
are they? or is this baseless speculation
No quite baseless, more like speculation with established precedent, motive and opportunity.
Snowden leaks
did the snowden leaks say they were in every camera
For practical purposes, yes. The leaks showed how NSA has built a multi-layered data harvesting-archiving-searching machine that works not only through compromised hardware (including cameras), but also big company infrastructures, phone/email/SMS/internet browsing records and content, fiber optic cable tapping, hacking, installing bugs, spying and more.
If the camera itself is not bugged, it likely is harvested at another step at some point and nothing's more clear that if NSA wants to see what a camera sees, they are able to tap it if needed. Sure, untapped cameras exist, but it doesn't really make a practical difference. The NSA will still have your information if it wants, and likely already has most of it.
If the camera itself is not bugged, it likely is harvested at another step at some point and nothing's more clear that if NSA wants to see what a camera sees, they are able to tap it if needed. Sure, untapped cameras exist, but it doesn't really make a practical difference. The NSA will still have your information if it wants, and likely already has most of it.
I don't know how long the records persist, but presumably for things like video surveillance footage the decay period would be quite fast. For full-text contents, less speedy but still fast. I can only truly envision long-term collection and storage of metadata - and even then, it's a big question how much is feasible and reasonable to store indefinitely.
It's likely that for your security camera footage to be accessed you would have to be targeted. It's likely that such targeting would only affect footage in the future or very recent past. But I'd grant that pervasive attackers can probably capture exponentially-decaying single video frames from millions of cameras if they were appropriately motivated, and those single frames could go back quite far.
The real problem here is the existence of such a system creates a kind of panopticon [0], with chilling effects not only on activity and discussion contrarian to the current administration, but also any future administration that may have access to electronic surveillance records. Without knowing how long records are kept, it is quite plausible that a future authoritarian state will misuse past records to target civilians.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
It's likely that for your security camera footage to be accessed you would have to be targeted. It's likely that such targeting would only affect footage in the future or very recent past. But I'd grant that pervasive attackers can probably capture exponentially-decaying single video frames from millions of cameras if they were appropriately motivated, and those single frames could go back quite far.
The real problem here is the existence of such a system creates a kind of panopticon [0], with chilling effects not only on activity and discussion contrarian to the current administration, but also any future administration that may have access to electronic surveillance records. Without knowing how long records are kept, it is quite plausible that a future authoritarian state will misuse past records to target civilians.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
You can regulate the NSA and CIA too, if you really want.
In theory, yes. In practice... no, unfortunately. The people of America seem to be fine with it.
Actually, as another commenter mentioned, they probably already are doing it. It would be stupid to think otherwise.
Actually, as another commenter mentioned, they probably already are doing it. It would be stupid to think otherwise.
>> If you really want
> The people of America seem to be fine with it.
The people don't care that they're being watched. That's the main lesson I took from the snowden leaks. I think most people might even like it because they think it means there will be less crime.
> The people of America seem to be fine with it.
The people don't care that they're being watched. That's the main lesson I took from the snowden leaks. I think most people might even like it because they think it means there will be less crime.
Those agencies both monitor and retaliate against members of Congress. The NSA and CIA regulate government, not the other way around.
The NSA and CIA are both foreign focused. The FBI is internally focused within the US.
Both agencies have a long history of illegal domestic surveillance.
The NSA's warrantless surveillance program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(...) and the CIA's Operation CHAOS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS) are two examples of this behavior.
The NSA's warrantless surveillance program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(...) and the CIA's Operation CHAOS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS) are two examples of this behavior.
Tell that to John Kennedy.
Including your phone ;)
Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that?
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.
What you propose would require massive changes to essentially any camera that has any part of its view covering an outdoor area, and probably many indoor areas (malls, etc.).
Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much. You'd need to implement something like an HDMI-style encryption to control what devices/processors/whatever can connect to a live video stream from a camera to try and control exactly how the streams are processed.
What you propose would require massive changes to essentially any camera that has any part of its view covering an outdoor area, and probably many indoor areas (malls, etc.).
Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much. You'd need to implement something like an HDMI-style encryption to control what devices/processors/whatever can connect to a live video stream from a camera to try and control exactly how the streams are processed.
> 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 just that. 24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Law was clearly about recording usage that does not amount to surveillance.
> Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much.
Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.
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 just that. 24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Law was clearly about recording usage that does not amount to surveillance.
> Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much.
Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.
>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, almost nothing records at 24fps, 15fps is more common.
>Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.
In most cases and camera and recording/viewing software come from different companies, so you'd still need some kind of key management system.
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, almost nothing records at 24fps, 15fps is more common.
>Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.
In most cases and camera and recording/viewing software come from different companies, so you'd still need some kind of key management system.
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?
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.
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.
And how does one view the feed from the camera if it's encrypted? That's the whole point of the camera itself.
Anywho, sounds like we're jumping through hoops without really understanding the requirements. Like, what is really bad about recording people in public? What is really bad about performing facial recognition?
But I'd go a step further, what is it that we're trying to prevent from happening by making facial recognition illegal? This is the juicy part and the one where the "problem" becomes wishy-washy. We get reasons like: "Prevent stalking by government officials", or "stop widespread surveillance from...[something]". All present their own challenges and implied slippery-slopes, but all have different ways of being solved without necessarily making public recording and facial recognition blanketly illegal.
Anywho, sounds like we're jumping through hoops without really understanding the requirements. Like, what is really bad about recording people in public? What is really bad about performing facial recognition?
But I'd go a step further, what is it that we're trying to prevent from happening by making facial recognition illegal? This is the juicy part and the one where the "problem" becomes wishy-washy. We get reasons like: "Prevent stalking by government officials", or "stop widespread surveillance from...[something]". All present their own challenges and implied slippery-slopes, but all have different ways of being solved without necessarily making public recording and facial recognition blanketly illegal.
Where I am the law is very strict although somewhat arbitrary. I can shoot a video of a public place. I can publish the material (although commercial use requires sign off naturally).
But here is the interesting bit: I can’t set up a fixed camera to record a public space without permission. And I won’t get that permission. Meaning basically that recording in public spaces is only done by humans, limiting the scope of how widespread it can be. I like this.
It also means, that it’s not allowed to put up a camera on my porch that covers the street in front of my house. I suspect a lot of ring/nest users are in violation.
But here is the interesting bit: I can’t set up a fixed camera to record a public space without permission. And I won’t get that permission. Meaning basically that recording in public spaces is only done by humans, limiting the scope of how widespread it can be. I like this.
It also means, that it’s not allowed to put up a camera on my porch that covers the street in front of my house. I suspect a lot of ring/nest users are in violation.
Do you have the text of the law for this? I suspect you're overstating the restrictions.
Which part of the law? That I can’t set up a camera on my house to film a street crossing?
That’s almost impossible to get permission for. A private citizen can not get permission to film a Street corner. The difficulty in getting permission obviously isn’t written in the legal text, but individuals don’t get permission and businesses only very rarely do.
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-f...
That’s almost impossible to get permission for. A private citizen can not get permission to film a Street corner. The difficulty in getting permission obviously isn’t written in the legal text, but individuals don’t get permission and businesses only very rarely do.
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-f...
Don’t tell Nest…
Seriously, this means every home outdoor security camera is potentially illegal. This can’t be true.
Seriously, this means every home outdoor security camera is potentially illegal. This can’t be true.
Of course it is. You can’t put up a camera on your porch and shoot your driveway and part of the street. To follow the law you have to point it so it’s only covering your driveway or lawn and no public space. It’s pretty simple restrict the field of view with a screen in front or bit of tape over the camera if needed.
Does everyone do that? Probably not. But that doesn’t change how the law is written.
Does everyone do that? Probably not. But that doesn’t change how the law is written.
Sounds like Japan. But most countries that is not the case. People want to protect their property. Also with hidden cameras it would be trivial to do so and not be detected so in your country those who want to record are already doing it just quietly. So again it is a law that only effects non criminals.
If someone throws a rock through a window, why shouldn't it be legal to run the surveillance through facial recognition? A crime was committed, we have a pic of the perpetrator.
Because recognition is incredibly flawed and biased and leads to false accusations ruining lives and costing people tens of thousands of dollars
So is eyewitness testimony. That's why we have trials. The problem in the case of a crime committed like that is not that the technology is used, it's when people assume the technology is infallible, when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary (just like there's not plenty of evidence that eyewitness testimony is not infallible and often subject to a bunch of problems).
If facial recognition is perceived as low accuracy, but can yield some leads for investigators that can be independently corroborated, that seems like a fine use of the technology. If we're worried about the public assuming it's more accurate than it is if used as evidence in trials, we can either pass some laws about its use as trial evidence (which is not the same as using it as a lead), or train defense attorneys and the public (often done through TV...) that it's use in the role of proving guilt is extremely limited because of it's false positive rate.
If facial recognition is perceived as low accuracy, but can yield some leads for investigators that can be independently corroborated, that seems like a fine use of the technology. If we're worried about the public assuming it's more accurate than it is if used as evidence in trials, we can either pass some laws about its use as trial evidence (which is not the same as using it as a lead), or train defense attorneys and the public (often done through TV...) that it's use in the role of proving guilt is extremely limited because of it's false positive rate.
True, it should not replace an eyes on review of matching suspects. But is a useful tool to reduce the pile you need to go through.
Really, facial recognition just isn't getting weighed properly judicially.
Really, facial recognition just isn't getting weighed properly judicially.
Everything is flawed and leads to false accusations, even something ridiculously black and white like electronic bank records. Witnesses, intoxication, bias, outright lying, guilt, etc. All evidence has flaws and potential bias. One need only look at all the false imprisonments that have happened over the years due to various bits of "evidence" to see that.
Instead, we should take the opposite approach: Invest heavily in this tech, and lightly-regulate glaringly bad aspects of it. E.g. For facial recognition, we can put down laws that punish unfair punishment of suspects. Or if we find employers that misappropriate facial recognition developed to record hours worked on the factory floor to punish them for chatting or going to the bathroom too many times, and we don't like that, then we regulate that.
We really went down the wrong path here somewhere, applying a black and white approach to things instead of just riding the in-between strategically and fairly. That's how we move forward as a society instead of legislating ourselves into irrelevance.
Instead, we should take the opposite approach: Invest heavily in this tech, and lightly-regulate glaringly bad aspects of it. E.g. For facial recognition, we can put down laws that punish unfair punishment of suspects. Or if we find employers that misappropriate facial recognition developed to record hours worked on the factory floor to punish them for chatting or going to the bathroom too many times, and we don't like that, then we regulate that.
We really went down the wrong path here somewhere, applying a black and white approach to things instead of just riding the in-between strategically and fairly. That's how we move forward as a society instead of legislating ourselves into irrelevance.
Facial recognition should never be considered evidence. It is a clue. A way to sift through tens of thousands of possible entries and narrow it down to 5 for a human to review. We need the legal framework to ensure its not used as evidence by itself, but the investigatory tool is very useful.
Now explain that to a lawyer.
They won't get it. Trust me.
They won't get it. Trust me.
[deleted]
The network effects of large databases lead to an imbalance of power between surveillance and sousveillance: a personal face recognition DB will never match a government one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
As such, we can not, say, catch not-so-publically-known but well-connected public officials where they should not be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
As such, we can not, say, catch not-so-publically-known but well-connected public officials where they should not be.
Obviously, a government has more power and more means than an individual.
But when it comes to databases, individuals have access to ridiculously large databases too. With Facebook and Google you can peek into the private life of most people, even the police does it because there is more data there than in their own files. And I am just talking about ordinary access. Not what Facebook and Google can do as a company.
Add a bit of social engineering and crowdsourcing and no one is safe if enough people want to find them. There have been some pretty impressive "doxing" in the past.
And staying off social media is pretty hard if you want to live a normal life. You may not have a Facebook account but your friends do, you may find your picture on your company website, maybe even in a local newspaper. And officials are no different, if they want to live normally, they are going to be exposed.
But when it comes to databases, individuals have access to ridiculously large databases too. With Facebook and Google you can peek into the private life of most people, even the police does it because there is more data there than in their own files. And I am just talking about ordinary access. Not what Facebook and Google can do as a company.
Add a bit of social engineering and crowdsourcing and no one is safe if enough people want to find them. There have been some pretty impressive "doxing" in the past.
And staying off social media is pretty hard if you want to live a normal life. You may not have a Facebook account but your friends do, you may find your picture on your company website, maybe even in a local newspaper. And officials are no different, if they want to live normally, they are going to be exposed.
> 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
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.
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.
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.
My point is that by the time a biased selection happens, much of the damage to the overall process is already irreversible. If the algorithm is biased (and I'm not saying it is, just that it's valid to ask the question), making the final decision manual is more of a fig leaf than an actual fix.
At least at airports, CBP never bounces anyone back at the first instance. At the immigration counters, the dude either lets you in or sends you to secondary.
Note the immature (on purpose?) nature of some of these bans: some ban the local government only, some ban only one city of a multi-city district, and nearly all of them leave the option of hiring a private agency (with zero pubic oversight, because they are private) to do the FR for them. And that private agency happens to be owned by the step-son of one of the law makers. This type of legal nonsense is everywhere they are trying to regulate facial regulation.
The annoying part is that there's no opt out. And when there is, it's obscure (you can express that to the staff), and makes you look hella suspicious.
I believe that the efforts to ban technologies such as this one are futile. Pandora's boxes can only be opened, never closed.
Even with all our efforts, murder still happens, so I guess it’s time to throw the towel in on that as well.
We banned mines, too, and it‘s been fairly successful. Not 100%, sure, but just imagine a world were mines weren’t banned, and what Europe and the US would look like, and you know the ban was very effective.
Most countries banned mines, but not US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
That's a fact the US should be deeply ashamed of. I had no idea how bad the land mine and unexploded bomb situation is until I visited Cambodia and Laos where even 50 years after the war people are still getting their limbs blown off.
Read up on the difference between persistent and non-persistent land mines [1]. The US only uses non-persistent mines that last usually 24-72 hours. The issue with 50 years later is not accurate since non-persistent mines haven’t been commonplace for decades and officially outlawed in 2004 [2]. Only place the US allows persistent mines is at the DMZ. There’s also a distinction between anti-personnel mines and anti-vehicle mines, which the US has a clearer distinction about than others. The Ottawa Treaty only bans anti-personnel mines [3], so the US in one of few countries that has a policy banning the use of persistent anti-vehicle mines.
[1] https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2021/04/12/understanding-u-s-...
[2] https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/pm/wra/c11735.htm
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
[1] https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2021/04/12/understanding-u-s-...
[2] https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/pm/wra/c11735.htm
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
How many of the non persistent mines will fail to disarm and still be a danger? I would expect quite a few.
In my mind they should have been banned like biological weapons. And the US could take leadership
In my mind they should have been banned like biological weapons. And the US could take leadership
I’m sure Russia and China have similar excuses :->
All the countries that didn't ban land mines are all the same countries that were, essentially, expecting to fight wars in the near future.
Ottawa treaty only bans anti-personnel mines, not anti-vehicle or command activated. The US bands persistent anti-personnel mines, but not mines that only last a day or so. This argument gets more convoluted once you read up on it. As I mentioned in spaetzleleeser’s comment below, the US is one of a few countries that has a policy banning persistent anti-vehicle mines (they ban all persistent mines in general), so in some ways is more strict than others.
Anti-vehicle mines don’t really matter, they pose no threat to civilians.
Definitely. It is known that civilians never use vehicles.
“Anti-vehicle mines” are rally anti-tank mines, and as such:
1. They require tons of pressure to detonate; it’s adjusted for a tank, not ordinary car, and
2. They don’t end up in unexpected places - they are placed on the roads, and thus are easy to find and detonate.
1. They require tons of pressure to detonate; it’s adjusted for a tank, not ordinary car, and
2. They don’t end up in unexpected places - they are placed on the roads, and thus are easy to find and detonate.
Any truck or bus has higher road pressure than a tank, because wheels footprint is much smaller than that of a tank tracks.
A very quick search also proves that deaths from anti-vehicle mines number at thousands each year. Even on the very UN website [1] we read:
> The Secretary-General calls on all countries to also regulate the use of anti-vehicle landmines. Such weapons continue to cause many casualties, often civilian. They restrict the movement of people and humanitarian aid, make land unsuitable for cultivation, and deny citizens access to water, food, care and trade.
I believe we can safely assume that anti-vehicle landmines DO pose a deadly threat to civilians.
[1]: https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Landmines/
A very quick search also proves that deaths from anti-vehicle mines number at thousands each year. Even on the very UN website [1] we read:
> The Secretary-General calls on all countries to also regulate the use of anti-vehicle landmines. Such weapons continue to cause many casualties, often civilian. They restrict the movement of people and humanitarian aid, make land unsuitable for cultivation, and deny citizens access to water, food, care and trade.
I believe we can safely assume that anti-vehicle landmines DO pose a deadly threat to civilians.
[1]: https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Landmines/
Huh, I’ve learned something, thank you!
Earthquakes and landslides still can happen. I wonder if some of those could be still activated eventually in the middle of a different emergency
That's a cop-out. Regulation can happen, of course, if there's political will for it.
"We need to live with surveillance"
London is the surveillance capital of the world:
London is often called the CCTV capital of the world, and for good reason. The city is home to hundreds of thousands of CCTV cameras, and the average Londoner is caught on CCTV 300 times a day.
https://www.cctv.co.uk/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-there-in-lo...
Facial recognition software is being integrated now into this network. No one seems to mind at all. It seems that the same is in most of the rest of the world.
London is often called the CCTV capital of the world, and for good reason. The city is home to hundreds of thousands of CCTV cameras, and the average Londoner is caught on CCTV 300 times a day.
https://www.cctv.co.uk/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-there-in-lo...
Facial recognition software is being integrated now into this network. No one seems to mind at all. It seems that the same is in most of the rest of the world.
Not everywhere though, in Spain it's illegal to film the street. "In Spain, the law protects the rights of citizens to use public spaces, which is free from interference (Clavell et al., 2012)"
If you want to live a functioning non-Orwellian society, move here.
Spain seems really competent right now compared to the UK, they even have a digital nomad visa for people outside the EU.
With remote working being mainstream going forward I'm certainly going to consider somewhere with more sunshine and less harsh winters...
With remote working being mainstream going forward I'm certainly going to consider somewhere with more sunshine and less harsh winters...
The other easier option (although doesn't solve the sunshine problem..) is moving out of cities into rural areas. Very few cameras where we live in Cornwall.
[deleted]
If you do video calls through teams or similar when working remotely, internet speed would be a big issue, coupled with the abandon of a lot of rural areas in spain
Starlink is fixing that, available in Spain 2022
They have bad economics and were living under a dictatorship in living memory. Those countries can do the best for a while once they free themselves from dictatorship.
Bad economics is very debatable. Still a top 15 country by GDP, it virtually matches the economic output of Australia. Pensions are 20 times higher (!) from the country I'm originally from, that is still in the European Union. So yeah, if you are from US, it might look 'bad', but for about 6 Billion people it's a dream place.
But also, they certainly don't work themselves to death. Live to live, not work.
Explain this to the folks at home: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/85qnx5/george_orwel...
yes, having one CCTV is exactly the same situation as covering every square meter like in London. /s
I most certainly didn't imply that (:
But you did say it was illegal. Seems to me there are exceptions if that picture is to be trusted.e
But you did say it was illegal. Seems to me there are exceptions if that picture is to be trusted.e
* London is the surveillance capital of the world*
That's only because China does not release much information publicly about their surveillance systems, but many parts of China are most likely far more surveilled than London.
That's only because China does not release much information publicly about their surveillance systems, but many parts of China are most likely far more surveilled than London.
Hell. Walmart's security DVRs by Verint all have facial recognition enabled on the firmware, along with other security analytics options.
The apartment building I lived in from 2009-2010 had facial recognition.
When you walked through the main lobby, your face appeared on a screen for the inside doorman so he could grant you access to the elevator lobby. It also showed your name, apartment number, and lease end date.
That was over a decade ago. I can't imagine what new tech must look like.
When you walked through the main lobby, your face appeared on a screen for the inside doorman so he could grant you access to the elevator lobby. It also showed your name, apartment number, and lease end date.
That was over a decade ago. I can't imagine what new tech must look like.
Looks like it's being deployed more everyday, rather. For example, a document-less airport experience pilot[1] is being tested in Barcelona (Spain)
[1] https://identityweek.net/josep-tarradellas-barcelona-el-prat...
[1] https://identityweek.net/josep-tarradellas-barcelona-el-prat...
As I heard "somewhere", 'now that they have forced you to wear a mask, dont remove it ;)'
(I know the profiling works even whit only the eye section yet you get the gist)
(I know the profiling works even whit only the eye section yet you get the gist)
"I wear my sunglasses at night, so I can so I can..." avoid an automated surveillance state.
[deleted]
It was suggested in the early 2000s that a face could be tracked moving across London by the security services. What do we think, was it possible then? I have to assume by now they have intent monitoring everywhere and can probably tell when someone is doing things like planning a bombing etc.
Well, the Independent claimed in 2004 that the average Briton is caught on camera 300 times a day. [0] Since London probably has more than the average number of cameras per area, even if we wind the clock back 3-4 years, I suspect the answer is yes.
---
[0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-avera...
---
[0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-avera...
The vast majority of cameras in London are private installations, rather than something hooked up to some central system.
There are the ring of steel cameras, but that area hasn't been widened recently. TFL cameras are possibly linked into some security service, and there's a fair few of them, but they're mainly pointed at roads.
There are the ring of steel cameras, but that area hasn't been widened recently. TFL cameras are possibly linked into some security service, and there's a fair few of them, but they're mainly pointed at roads.
Which is an amazing number yet the MET seem incapable of solving most crimes.
Solving real, victim-reported crimes requires effort, rarely scales and pretty much never brings any political clout.
Solving bullshit manufactured crimes such as drug-related ones scales better, doesn't even require a victim to complain and provides seemingly-decent political clout and a veneer of "we're doing something, see?".
What's the last time you heard about stolen bikes or phones being recovered on the BBC? Personally, never. But drug-related stuff is common.
Solving bullshit manufactured crimes such as drug-related ones scales better, doesn't even require a victim to complain and provides seemingly-decent political clout and a veneer of "we're doing something, see?".
What's the last time you heard about stolen bikes or phones being recovered on the BBC? Personally, never. But drug-related stuff is common.
Probably because most of the cameras aren’t hooked to anything centralised or necessarily known about. Which necessitates an enormous data gathering and combing operation to find any useful of which there might not actually be anything. Cameras aren’t magic.
So why is that? Isn't this amount of surveillance basically a god tool?
It's a very large haystack.
Because it's apparently taboo and dystopian to perform facial recognition and surveillance to help victims. Most of those cameras' and their recordings go into the void instead of some sort of central database that can be used for tracking criminals.
"Intent monitoring" is fictional and does not exist beyond scifi stories and the journalist written articles selling fear about facial recognition. I work in the industry, there is no such thing as "intent monitoring".
"Intent monitoring" is a euphemism for detecting the presence of the "wrong kind of people". It's not fictional at all.
If they ban facial recognition then companies will start using other tech like gait recognition. So are we wanting to ban facial recognition or is it something more like the right to not be tracked(if that even is a right). I think we need to establish what our end goal is because you know clever companies will find a way around such restrictions and find other creative ways. They will use shoe detection instead or something maybe not as accurate but enough to get them around the law but still detect a percentage of criminals. Or jewelry detections or tattoo or whatever isn’t banned by law.
This is the same issue I have with 'right to repair' laws.
When you create a tangle of specific laws banning or regulating specific things all that you really have done is created a world where he who has the most lawyers wins.
What is the end goal with banning face recognition? I think this is all about asymmetry of information.
What is the end goal with banning face recognition? I think this is all about asymmetry of information.
Switching from defending the right to privacy to the right to not be exploited due to power/information asymmetry would solve a great many problems.
Seems rather obvious to me that will remain the case.
Both encryption and face recognition software rely on math and programming simple enough that a single person can make a functional one in less than a year from scratch. However, if using existing open source frameworks anyone can put it together either in a few days, though collecting a face database takes slightly longer, though in most cases anyone with an existing app of some kind can very easily collect the data largely automatically. Arguably I would not trust an encryption framework put together like that, but when it comes to face recognition I would.
So the question of if governments will be able to prevent non-sanctioned face recognition systems from the public sphere is rather similar to the question of if they are able to prevent the use of non-sanctioned encryption.
How is that going these days?
Both encryption and face recognition software rely on math and programming simple enough that a single person can make a functional one in less than a year from scratch. However, if using existing open source frameworks anyone can put it together either in a few days, though collecting a face database takes slightly longer, though in most cases anyone with an existing app of some kind can very easily collect the data largely automatically. Arguably I would not trust an encryption framework put together like that, but when it comes to face recognition I would.
So the question of if governments will be able to prevent non-sanctioned face recognition systems from the public sphere is rather similar to the question of if they are able to prevent the use of non-sanctioned encryption.
How is that going these days?
I just flew to Dubai and back.
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.
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.
Should police collect iPhones away in those cities where face recognition is banned?
You should also collect Sony Alpha cameras too. Many of them have a preferential focus feature which uses face recognition.
You add up to five faces, prioritized, and it focuses to them if it recognizes in the crowd of people.
You add up to five faces, prioritized, and it focuses to them if it recognizes in the crowd of people.
TIL, and this sounds actually rather useful.
Do you have information on which ones would support that? Especially in the range a curious hacker (who else is HN for?) would be interested in.
It's especially useful in crowd gatherings, group photos and such. I think it's rather designed for concerts, weddings, etc.
My A7-III has it. Since it uses Eye-AF and Face-AF pipelines (it generates a face model from the photo you take for that feature only), it needs AI autofocus stack inside the camera. A7-C should have it, maybe latest APS-C lines (6600 for example) have it.
Sony's AF tech is insane. Point to a person with sunglasses, and it marks the eye instantaneously. What the actual sorcery?
My A7-III has it. Since it uses Eye-AF and Face-AF pipelines (it generates a face model from the photo you take for that feature only), it needs AI autofocus stack inside the camera. A7-C should have it, maybe latest APS-C lines (6600 for example) have it.
Sony's AF tech is insane. Point to a person with sunglasses, and it marks the eye instantaneously. What the actual sorcery?
Well the goal is to recognize a face, not to match a specific face to a specific person. So you can train an AF model to to center focus on the center of the sunglasses. Even with the 'track these specific faces' features, since your still not trying to unique identify someone, the model can latch on to generic features like "red sunglasses, brown skin, surgical mask & this general shape".
Wow - didn't know about this preferential focus feature. Sounds extremely useful...
Face detection (that is, only identifying a face in a picture) is not face recognition (identifying the person behind the face).
That depends what the law says. Some of the pressure here is to stop the police themselves from using the tech, I wouldn’t know if any given law prevents personal use.
It’s a government ban. Not a generalised ban.
Sorry, I am out side of US. What's the difference?
Government ban means banned for use by government officials/entities. So it doesn't really apply to the general public or corporations(Unless the corporation specifically has a contract with the same requirements to do work on behalf of the government)
I don't care too much about face recognition for check in. But I don't like it for bag drop. If it mis-matches me, I may never see my bag again!
I see us wearing masks as a more general trend in the future. That would probably mess with all facial recognition systems
Gait analysis/recognition covers that.
Gait analysis/recognition covers that.
My wife has a hundred pairs of heels of varying heights and widths. Good luck with that.
My wife has a hundred pairs of heels of varying heights and widths. Good luck with that.
wait until you put a pebble in your shoe
I'd actually love to see if gait recognition gets screwed up by changing someones shoes (pebbles, extra size up, uneven platform height, etc)
Agreed. My guess is that post pandemic, mask advocacy will flip to more reactionary elements as well.
Once the genie is out of the bottle...
Can’t stop a idea whose time has come.
Everything is touching everything