An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." (/Thread-An-Act-establishing-a-moratorium-on-face-recognition) |
An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - treee - 01-24-2020 "... and other remote biometric surveillance systems" Check out this Moratorium effected by the Massachusetts legislative branch: Quote:WHEREAS, the Massachusetts General Court finds that government use of face recognition poses unique and significant civil rights and civil liberties threats to the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's good that some states are recognizing the potential issues with facial recognition and associated technologies. The penalties in their bill seem a bit soft to me though. Source: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/S1385 RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - Au165 - 01-27-2020 (01-24-2020, 08:51 PM)treee Wrote: "... and other remote biometric surveillance systems" This is interesting as the roll out of facial recognition in airports is coming hard and fast. While the Mass. government won't be able to use it there won't be any slowing down the federal government based on some conversations I have been having with other industry professionals. People should prepare themselves because it's coming to corporations too, in fact some are already using it without anyone really noticing. RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - TheLeonardLeap - 01-27-2020 I'm all on board with facial recognition not being allowed in the US. It's probably a good tool for our military to use overseas against our enemies, but I don't think it should be allowed to be used in the US and on US citizens. Maybe if enough states follow their lead, there will be a federal level enactment. Probably would include provisions that they could use it in airports and government buildings, but so long as it's out of the public, I can live with that as a compromise. RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - Au165 - 01-27-2020 (01-27-2020, 12:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm all on board with facial recognition not being allowed in the US. It's probably a good tool for our military to use overseas against our enemies, but I don't think it should be allowed to be used in the US and on US citizens. This is going to come across like I am all about big brother, but why is a facial recognition checking you against a crime database different then a cop sitting on a street corner flipping through wanted posters trying to match faces? It's more accurate in reality even with the current flaws (which will get better over time) but even beyond that we have always held that there is no expectation to privacy in a public place so I'm not sure where the issue is other than it's just too good at doing what it does. Should a positive identification be treated as a conviction? No. Officers should then continue on their normal investigative procedures to ensure the person is who the system believes they are and if in question should yield on the side of caution. Cops already have licenses plate readers where they drive around parking lots or even down roads and they scan all license plates in seconds and can tell you any warrants that are out for the owner of the vehicle. Red light cameras and speeding cameras are a less sophisticated version of all this where they send the pictures of the offense back and they are checked against DMV registrations and then citations issues. Really most people's issues with these things are that they feel like if no one (actual people) are there to catch them breaking the law then they should be able to. Now there is some research in the U.S. around accidents being caused by people trying to avoid these as well as some corruption to their application, however the general reasoning behind them really shouldn't be contested if people truly believe laws should be enforced. Where people should be scared is the commercial uses of facial recognition. Google Glass for instance had a lot of concerns about real time facial recognition matching people on the street to their social media pages. While again this would be in public with no expectation of privacy, the issue is people approached their online behavior historically with a false assumption of future anonymity but that isn't the case. There is a whole generation of amateur nude models/ porn actresses or actors who don't realize within the next five years you will essentially be able to google their faces and within seconds know exactly who they are based on all their other social media interactions or online pictures or media. RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - fredtoast - 01-27-2020 People do not have any expectation of privacy while out in public. There are already cameras everywhere. Facial recognition gets a bad name because oppressive regimes are using it for "security" purposes, but there is really nothing wrong with the technology. You can't keep a good technology down just because it could be abused by a tyrannical government. Pretty soon you will be paying for purchases by looking into a camera. RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - Mike M (the other one) - 01-27-2020 (01-27-2020, 01:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: This is going to come across like I am all about big brother, but why is a facial recognition checking you against a crime database different then a cop sitting on a street corner flipping through wanted posters trying to match faces? It's more accurate in reality even with the current flaws (which will get better over time) but even beyond that we have always held that there is no expectation to privacy in a public place so I'm not sure where the issue is other than it's just too good at doing what it does. Should a positive identification be treated as a conviction? No. Officers should then continue on their normal investigative procedures to ensure the person is who the system believes they are and if in question should yield on the side of caution. That is a bit too much and shouldn't be allowed unless the person has agreed that they can be matched up to public facial recognition software. The Fed I consider private. It is dangerous as well. If a thief finds out your daily schedule then they know exactly when you are not home and how long you will be gone. Not a good idea for Google to have access to and release that info RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - Au165 - 01-28-2020 (01-27-2020, 08:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That is a bit too much and shouldn't be allowed unless the person has agreed that they can be matched up to public facial recognition software. The Fed I consider private. It is dangerous as well. If a thief finds out your daily schedule then they know exactly when you are not home and how long you will be gone. Not a good idea for Google to have access to and release that info Again, I can walk down the street and take your picture right now and it's perfectly legal. I can then take your picture and search through Facebook until I find you. People actually do this now online with social media celebrities, it's called doxing. The reality is these systems aren't doing anything unique or special they are simply doing a process a human could do but at a million times the speed. My issue with trying to limit technology is it creates a dangerous precedent that starts with simple technologies that people think are "creepy" and then start applying to technologies that disrupt markets of large lobbyists. Side note here, google actually killed the ability for this to work because of their fears of someone using it to stalk someone. That said these things should be left up to the companies. When they release these kinds of devices they are assuming the liability that could potentially be established because of their use. The market will kind of steer what is or isn't acceptable and we should avoid trying to legislate away technology. It's actually funny once upon a Universal Studios (along with other studios) tried to essentially kill the VCR via lawsuits. They claimed that the device was a pirating tool that would essentially kill their industry. 30 years later the studios are still alive and pirating has just taken on a new form. The funny thing about technology is it will always be ahead of legislation and the ones who are looking to use it for nefarious activities are usually at the forefront of those technologies. Look at deep fakes and such. Some of the most common early usages of it was in the fake porn industry where hey used it to generate celebrities into porn content. Main stream people are just kind of catching on to deep fakes but they have been around for years. RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - Benton - 01-28-2020 I don't see any issue with it in public places. As Au said, it's no different than a cop walking through a public place and recognizing a criminal. Except it's more cost effective, potentially safer and faster. RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - Mike M (the other one) - 01-29-2020 (01-28-2020, 08:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: Again, I can walk down the street and take your picture right now and it's perfectly legal. I can then take your picture and search through Facebook until I find you. People actually do this now online with social media celebrities, it's called doxing. The reality is these systems aren't doing anything unique or special they are simply doing a process a human could do but at a million times the speed. My issue with trying to limit technology is it creates a dangerous precedent that starts with simple technologies that people think are "creepy" and then start applying to technologies that disrupt markets of large lobbyists. Ofc you can, but it's not instant and by the time you figure all of that out. You have no idea where I am anymore, unless of course your stalking me. Some of the chat apps have location finders in them. Used to be set "on" by default, but I could look up anyone really and find out where they were at any given time and follow their daily timeline. Google time line does this already. I keep mine turned off. Default on most tracking apps now is "off", you have to turn it on to track now. Which is fair, cause you accept that choice. I don't. EDIT: Maybe I wasn't clear in my first post. I have no problem with Authorities having access to it, but the common person should not. RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - michaelsean - 01-29-2020 I think just because you don't have a right to privacy in a public place it doesn't mean we should do everything we can to eliminate it. RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - NATI BENGALS - 01-30-2020 Looks like the cat is already out of the bag. Solid attempt by a state to look out for a person's rights. But too little too late. One of the reasons I like Yang as a candidate. He at least has the brains and balls to acknowledge where we are and the route we have already selected. Most of us have been walking around with a camera, microphone, and location device in our pocket for years. RE: An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..." - treee - 03-03-2020 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/ryanmac/clearview-ai-fbi-ice-global-law-enforcement?__twitter_impression=true |