Europe edges closer to a ban on facial recognition(politico.eu)
politico.eu
Europe edges closer to a ban on facial recognition
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-edges-closer-to-a-ban-on-facial-recognition/
16 comments
> “We’re going to ban what we believe is not according to our values, the deployment [of biometric identification] in public spaces where we as Europeans, we believe that we need to be free of the risks of mass surveillance,”
That's unnecessarily dramatic rhetoric.
There should not be mass faces recognition (identifying everyone) in public but what grand "European value" is breached by, say, face recognition in public based on a database of wanted people (in a way that people not in that database cannot be identified at all because there are no face data on them available in the system)?
That's unnecessarily dramatic rhetoric.
There should not be mass faces recognition (identifying everyone) in public but what grand "European value" is breached by, say, face recognition in public based on a database of wanted people (in a way that people not in that database cannot be identified at all because there are no face data on them available in the system)?
Firstly, the guy never said anything about European values, he could just as well have been talking about his party. That said though, the "value" being breached here is the value of having a free society where you can exist outdoors without government cameras scanning, identifying, and tracking you. I would like to think it's more a human value than anything else.
In effect he invoked "European values" the way he phrased his claim. Looking further, his party's values and European values are the same thing according to them (See: https://www.reneweuropegroup.eu/what-we-stand-for/promoting-... ), which is again a nice rhetorical trick.
More importantly, he didn't say "free of mass surveillance", which is fair but you can have facial recognition in public space while staying anonymous as in my previous example. He said "free of risk of mass surveillance", which is very different and an absolute, extreme proposition. It's like saying that cars should be banned because people should be free of the risk of car crashes, ban the police to be free of the risk of police brutality, etc... It does not make sense and is indeed a rhetorical trick to make a blanket ban appear the only acceptable option.
More importantly, he didn't say "free of mass surveillance", which is fair but you can have facial recognition in public space while staying anonymous as in my previous example. He said "free of risk of mass surveillance", which is very different and an absolute, extreme proposition. It's like saying that cars should be banned because people should be free of the risk of car crashes, ban the police to be free of the risk of police brutality, etc... It does not make sense and is indeed a rhetorical trick to make a blanket ban appear the only acceptable option.
Sorry but I don't want to live in a country where the government scans my face and tracks my movement every time I leave my home. Nor can I even believe I even have to say this. Cars are deadly machines and regulating deadly machines is different to regulating and tracking human beings. And just because my name won't match in a criminal database and therefore I'll remain "anonymous" doesn't change that I don't want the government putting a leash around my neck, even if they promise not to strangle me with it unless they say I did something wrong.
> That's unnecessarily dramatic rhetoric.
Perhaps. But unnecessarily dramatic is also the account of security providers in all their forms. Since the start of the millennium we live in safer society and yet have increased surveillance by certain magnitudes. We need to change direction here because we already have negative repercussion in trust and other metrics that ironically make societies far less safe places to be.
There is just no rational argument for facial recognition for security purposes. So few in fact that emotional safety was often seen as reason enough. There are rational arguments against its usage though.
Perhaps. But unnecessarily dramatic is also the account of security providers in all their forms. Since the start of the millennium we live in safer society and yet have increased surveillance by certain magnitudes. We need to change direction here because we already have negative repercussion in trust and other metrics that ironically make societies far less safe places to be.
There is just no rational argument for facial recognition for security purposes. So few in fact that emotional safety was often seen as reason enough. There are rational arguments against its usage though.
> There is just no rational argument for facial recognition for security purposes.
That's a rather bold claim made with no explanation or arguments to back it.
That's a rather bold claim made with no explanation or arguments to back it.
For one it is actions you are relying upon preventing, not people. There will be no prior record in first time offenders. Masks (even if they must be a head box to obscure shape) defeat facial recognition. So if it cannot be relied upon to stop somebody from say, tossing a lit molotov into a crowded parliament, or a suicide bomber what good is it?
Well, if you think that it is useless then what's the need to blanket ban it?
It is certainly a bold claim. But there simply is no security problem to be solved without introducing new dangers through facial recognition and there are better alternatives for any other case.
New tools offer new benefits and new risks. There are obviously benefits to facial recognition, it's rather disingenuous to deny that, but of course there are also risks. A blanket ban is the irrational approach and, again, a worrying sign that everything has to be absolute and black and white nowadays without the possibility of open discussion and measured approach.
I disagree. The problem overall is indeed not black and white. There are psychological factors to be considered with constant surveillance and because western societies tend to be older, security already has a disproportionate focus. The only rational argument for more security measures are real threats. And these plainly don't manifest themselves.
What are the obvious benefits of facial recognition? We are not talking about medical applications here or unlocking your phone...
Video taping public places is the extreme position in my opinion. I lacks measure, focus and applicability. It would just be a waste of energy with even worse secondary effects.
What are the obvious benefits of facial recognition? We are not talking about medical applications here or unlocking your phone...
Video taping public places is the extreme position in my opinion. I lacks measure, focus and applicability. It would just be a waste of energy with even worse secondary effects.
Who mentioned constant surveillance, video taping public places, or what not?
There are already CCTVs all over the place, ANPR cameras here and there on the road (at least in the UK) that check for valid insurance and 'wanted' cars. This does not seem to have much of a psychological effect on people...
We could imagine CCTVs with face recognition in 'strategic' locations that could check for wanted people while not identifying and not recording anyone else, for instance, as I already mentioned. I don't see the outrage with that.
I remember discussions on using the tech to monitor entries and exists in schools or other places. That does not seem outrageous, either.
There are lot of things that could be done or tried, some would stick, some wouldn't. A blanket ban shuts the door on everything and as far as I can see this is for ideological and emotional reasons, not pragmatic ones. What's needed is a very strict legal framework, not a ban.
There are already CCTVs all over the place, ANPR cameras here and there on the road (at least in the UK) that check for valid insurance and 'wanted' cars. This does not seem to have much of a psychological effect on people...
We could imagine CCTVs with face recognition in 'strategic' locations that could check for wanted people while not identifying and not recording anyone else, for instance, as I already mentioned. I don't see the outrage with that.
I remember discussions on using the tech to monitor entries and exists in schools or other places. That does not seem outrageous, either.
There are lot of things that could be done or tried, some would stick, some wouldn't. A blanket ban shuts the door on everything and as far as I can see this is for ideological and emotional reasons, not pragmatic ones. What's needed is a very strict legal framework, not a ban.
No doubt they will carveout an exception for themselves
you don't need facial recognition to do most of the spying that government intends to.