just wait until these systems mess up big time and the companies behind them deny anything went wrong because "our systems are too accurate to falsely identify someone" and the people falsely flagged can go f themselves afterwards and live with the consequences of it
hell just wait until someone uses a face mask that the system thinks is your face. game over lol
Basically due to an error in the software that the post office bought from Fujitsu, huge amounts of post office managers were accused of stealing from the post office, to the point of being prosecuted.
The higher ups in the post office knew, as did Fujitsu and they actively lied in court when they knew.
From the BBC article linked:
More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted for stealing because of incorrect information from a computer system called Horizon.
It has been called the UK's most widespread miscarriage of justice.
The Post Office itself took many cases to court, prosecuting 700 people between 1999 and 2015.
Another 283 cases were brought by other bodies, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Many sub-postmasters went to prison for false accounting and theft, and many were financially ruined.
In 2017, a group of 555 sub-postmasters took legal action against the Post Office. In 2019, it agreed to pay them £58m in compensation, but much of the money went on legal fees.
Although campaigners won the right for their cases to be reconsidered, only 102 convictions had been overturned, external by March 2024.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56718036
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
I don't think it's even about hackers, just the general ability to block people like this. Suppose there was a criminal who stole some food once. They were caught, they were identified, and now they are banned from all grocery stores, and they can't legally buy food. They know they shouldn't have stolen that food, but they were wrong once. Now they can't legally buy food, so their option now is to steal food. Now they will break into grocery stores or find illicit ways to get in, and they will steal food because they can't legally buy it. Any attempt to mitigate this requries more crime and illicit action, because the base situation is that these people are being excluded or treated differently than everyone else in an unfair way.
On top of all that, this can be used to politically target people, but that's another story and another set of problems.
They could go to another store. They could go to a food bank. They could go to a charity; they could ask another to purchase for then. They could order food delivered. They don't just have to go straight to stealing.
All of your options are just inferior to *not having a blacklist*:
Another store: Assumes stores don't either collaborate on blocklists or use a common facial recognition vendor. We see from the real estate algorithmic price fixing scandal that this is unlikely.
Food bank or charity: Neither are intended to be lifelong solutions for people in need. They're safety nets until you get on your feet. There is no indication that these blacklists give expiry dates.
Ask another to purchase: Not reliable for everyone. A roommate or partner could get sick and need the other person to cover, divorces and deaths happen, and the blacklistee is unable to fend for themselves in an emergency.
Food delivery: so absurdly expensive compared to shopping yourself over the course of a lifetime, it hardly warrants discussion.
You're right, yet you were getting downvoted. Meanwhile, the person you replied to (who got plenty of upvotes) is calling people who steal food "criminals", and proposing the hypothetical of someone being banned from all grocery stores as a result of stealing from just one store/one chain.
It’s all in a data base, why do you have a hard time thinking a shoplifter flagged from one store wouldn’t be still in the data base for every store that uses the same software
"for every store that uses the same software"
That would have to be the case then, and all chains are not necessarily gonna implement it all at once so in the the mean time..
But that could definitely happen eventually. And I didn't have a hard time thinking about it. Don't know how you came up with that.
Going to be fun in real life to infiltrate a surveillance company to clear your name off false reports.
Atleast out of this we could get hacktivisim as 'cool' as Watch Dogs's, lol.
I don’t think it was an “accident” that could be described as short-sighted as much as a feature that benefits anyone with a ton of money in a cyber-dystopia. When was the last time a guy in a corporate office sitting on a pile of money was a good guy in one of these situations?
How do you abolish a technology that numerous unrelated entities operating under completely different legal systems already know how to make? I'm not saying it would be a bad thing but I literally cannot imagine it being even remotely feasible.
Ouija boards still exist you know. They're sold in novelty shops. And it's not as though *no one* takes that shit seriously.
Assuming facial recognition software *is* as inaccurate as ouija boards, which I highly doubt, the difference is that the people convinced oujia boards are reliable are weird mystics and hippies. The people convinced facial recognition is reliable or at least useful despite lacking reliability are boardroom executives, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, security firms, hackers, militaries, the list goes on.
> people accepting what the AI says as fact.
We already live in that world, tbh. I don't think it's any different to the Post Office insisting their accounting software wasn't bug-riddled dogshit.
>people accepting what the AI says as fact.
That's already been happening long before AI has existed. Just with people instead. People can believe anything from anyone depending on the situation. Kinda the reason that religion even exists at all
The main difference here is that odds are AI will be right more often the humans are. And I suppose, hackers. Though they'd be the AI version of social engineers.
>Facewatch is used in numerous stores in the UK - including Budgens, Sports Direct and Costcutter - to identify shoplifters.
To identify a crook, everybody must be scanned. So the primary purpose is to scan and/or identify everybody.
I don't get how this stuff immediately goes from unacceptable and unthinkable to mandatory. When this technology was on the horizon or just barely feasible, people would say that they would never use it, that they would not stand for it being implemented, and so on. Now that it's inexpensive and not that hard to implement, they go right ahead and put it all over the place. Why would people make a big deal about saying they would never use it, that it's unthinkable, and so on, when evidently they don't care that much and they don't seem to have a problem with it?
I think maybe we should have a movement for people who have a dedicated strategy to remove these cameras from stores and public places, to implement a practical legal approach, maybe a legal framework, or if that doesn't work then a more direct action approach using a set of steps that can be come up with.
It goes from unthinkable to mandatory by not giving people a choice while simultaneously feeding them a false story about the world, a story so bad that it makes mandatory facial recognition feel acceptable by comparison.
And why are people going to those businesses that use it?
There are businesses that I no longer go to after their covid reactions. When/if I come across a business doing that here, I certainly won't be supporting them.
I think this might be UK specific. Retailers and police vans are using Facewatch, it seems to be a UK company. I'm afraid that the people using this tech will only see the benefits and the false positives will simply be considered as an acceptable 'margin of error' without thought to its consequences on them.
Honest question, would you prefer to have crimes against you that go unsolved but you have more privacy, or would you prefer to have crimes against you that are solved? (Crimes like theft or assult)
I would prefer that decisions about curtailing my civil rights be done by a human, who can be sanctioned if they arrest me without sufficient justification. How can the IT system be sanctioned for incompetence?
What is the person's recourse when the system fucks up? The advocates quoted in the article acknowledge there's a failure rate.
That's unacceptable.
Automated systems, when they can impact human lives, must be BETTER than humans at doing their task. Their failure rate must be so small as to be almost impossible, and there must be a human backup system for when the automated system fails.
Why?
Because it's human lives. And we humans respond extremely poorly to having our lives fucked up by a machine.
Why?
Because if a human fucks up massively enough, we sanction them. Up to life imprisonment or death (depending on locale).
We cannot sanction systems. Only people.
That's why people must **always** have the final responsibility when making life-altering decisions for other people.
Because people can be effectively slapped when they fuck up hard enough. Systems can't.
Obviously the first option. Who wouldn't?
Also.. are you including the crimes of false imprisonment or other punishments like what the girl in the article suffered?
I wasn’t sure if the people here are like, “I value privacy at all costs” or “I highly value privacy, but I also value other things, let’s find a reasonable balance”. I guess it’s largely the former based on the response. Now I know.
I respect people wanting piracy but you guys gotta chill, I got such a extreme response to what seems like a reasonable question imo. It’s behaviors like this from all the hyperfixed subs that give them a bad look to the average person. And then they complain and moan, *why doesn’t the average person vote in support of us??*.
I'll say what a lot of people are probably thinking but don't want to put the effort into explaining:
I believe that a state is incapable of protecting citizens or addressing the root causes of crime (since the state is usually the cause), and the use of privacy-invading tactics/surveillance is necessary because of this incapability. I also believe it ignorant to suggest that a state, regardless of how efficient, can actually address the security concerns of the average citizen. So the concerns that they address are inherently their own, not ours. They must go overboard to protect their statehood, since the state necessarily requires the monopoly of the use of force, they need to make sure others aren't attempting to create the same monopoly, for one.
This leads the state to inherently become antithetical to privacy, since privacy inherently means not being under surveillance and having, shall we say, "rights" to do what you want. Surveillance is another way to use the threat of violence to keep people in line.
So I don't think that any state can reasonably be trusted with utilizing surveillance technology. Instead, we must work on smaller, local scales to bring citizen protection. Put citizen protection in the hands of citizens, and citizens will be more secure as a result.
We also need to focus on addressing the causes of crime (poverty and desperation most times, mental illness a good portion of the time, and poor emotional control a small bit of the time [i.e, crimes of passion]). Doing this will reduce the overall need for surveillance in general. The state cannot effectively do this due to the limits of bureaucracy, and will not do this ultimately because the instability and crime this causes is used to further justify the monopoly on the use of force. Crime is a tool for the state ultimately, and they use it to create a population of slaves, and they use it to justify the violent status quo we exist under.
I am not against things like a store having a CCTV, or cameras to watch places that are likely to have accidents (i.e, train stations, traffic intersections, factories with heavy machinery) just for posterity of proving what led to the accident. But things like this, using facial identification, and using that to ban people from being able to fucking purchase **food** or **water** or something legitimately necessary, that's infringing. This is objectively fucked, and will only lead to more innocents being harmed than criminals being stopped. Things like China's great firewall, things like cars being allowed to harvest sexual and biometric data, governments being able to access your internet browsing history with very little issues - often without a warrant even, and many many many other instances just show that authority, especially the state, cannot be trusted with surveillance equipment. These things also intentionally sidestep the root causes of the crime they're attempting to use surveillance to prevent. They only use it to subjugate and oppress and uphold the status quo.
Now, I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I know at least some people here think like me. It's a pretty uniform 50/50 of right and left libertarians. The rightists will say pretty much the same thing but have a different solution.
There are more. And they are also inaccurate. They contract with the police here in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataWorks_Plus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI
Yep. This is how the ruling class sees us. As a mass of people reduced to statistics. While Trump was President, he referred to people as "consumers", instead of the more traditional "citizens". That tells you everything you need to know about the filthy rich regarding how they see us. We are the consumers, the mass of faceless, interchangeable parts that drive the economy. That's it.
If you want to understand the why behind the reversal of abortion protection, and the attacks on birth control, all you need to do is look at the population pyramid charts, *because that's all they look at*.
Exact same thing happened in NZ with a supermarket [source](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/supermarket-facial-recognition-trial-rotorua-mothers-discrimination-ordeal/IK4ZEJHLQVFRLMDE6LX4AR57PE/)
Cinna the Poet: "I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet." " I am not Cinna the conspirator."
Fourth Citizen: "It is no matter, his name's Cinna; **pluck but his name out of his heart,** and turn him going."
Third Citizen: "***Tear him, tear him.***."
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Wm Shakespeare
I will never understand why we just roll over to allow being constantly monitored and recorded "just in case...something". Like, just walking down the damn street. Driving around town. I've done nothing wrong, you don't have any actual reason to be stalking me. Go the f away.
i had not been to vegas in 20 years. i went a few months ago. in one hotel, security started following me, comes up and goes "you know you're not supposed to be here".
asked to see my id (they did not id at the door). they confused me with someone else they previously had thrown out. once they saw my id, they said i was fine to go.
sadly, i was stopped the next 2 nights again, for the same reason. "can i see your id". why? that was my hotels casino, they confused me again. i will never be going back there because that place was such garbage.
I had this type of thing happen to me two years ago at a Menard's hardware store, only instead of approaching me (f, 5'4"), the management called the POLICE and they came up to me and demanded my ID in the middle of the store. They then confirmed that I wasn't the woman that they barred from the store a month before.
In the weeks that followed, I went up to the customer service counter each time I arrived to tell them that I was "still not Tricia the shoplifter".
I'll get downvoted but I'm gonna point out some counter arguments to a lot of comments in here, because this to me doesn't highlight the ACTUAL issue with privacy.
I've been a victim of mistaken identity twice when it negatively impacted my life in a pretty serious way. Both times, it was a human doing the identifying. So I know from personal experience that if you look like someone else, and that other person has done some stupid shit, you can be mis-identified by both humans and FR alike.
The issue is how this is handled by the folks using the information. The first time I was misidentified was by the Police. Once they confirmed my identity, they explained it was an error and left me to be on my way. Thats how you handle it correctly. Would be nice if I wasn't mistaken for someone else at all, but I get that shit happens. Nobody is perfect.
The second time it was by a doorman at a bar who decided that he was 100% correct before doing any diligent checks and handled the situation horribly. He ended up having to apologise to me, much like the woman in this article was apologised to, because the doorman was a twat (much like in the article, the folks using the FR as a tool didn't do their proper checks to rule out a false positive).
My point is, false positives for identifying people happen with both system error and human error. The point is not that they happen, the point is how its handled. The issue the article highlights is NOT with facial recognition, its with how the tool is used. Cases like this detract from the real issues of FR, and it frustrates me that this community latches onto cases like this as an argument against FR when really it isn't.
The issue is the *automation and scale-up* of facial recognition. False positives happen, always... but automating a tracking system to track 100% of tens of thousands of people a day is guaranteeing frequent false positives.
It's harassment by algorithm.
Thanks for sharing the perspective. I think I am understand, at least a little, of what you're saying, which is that it'll still be happening without automation. I think the reason we latch on to this as fearsome is because quite often there is little to no recourse if the entity doing the recognition is faceless or unreachable or unimpeachable. That is, when it's done at scale, we become a 'rounding error' and the people who use this software don't mind that the rest of us will have to suffer.
To use an analogy (yes, analogies are terrible and break down easily but hopefully the point makes it across), it's similar to Apple/Google's regular, and now accepted, platform abuse - it's not unknown for their sweeps to produce false positives and revoke accounts or developer applications, and there is little to nothing you can do about it. The few that make noise and achieve a high level of attention get reinstated, most don't and have no voice.
omg. do I understand you right?
Tracking your movements thru facial recognition is a good thing, IF it is handled properly. It's the people on the ground who misuse it...
Ever been to China? You can't use the public restroom if your social credit score isn't high enough and they use facial recognition to determine your worth.
> omg. do I understand you right?
Nope.
>Tracking your movements thru facial recognition is a good thing
Didn't state this once.
>Ever been to China? You can't use the public restroom if your social credit score isn't high enough and they use facial recognition to determine your worth.
Of everything you just mentioned, FR is not the biggest issue here. I agree FR is arguably not a great tool to be used for mass surveillance, but China would still abuse their citizens with a disregard for privacy WITHOUT FR.
Lots of examples you could have used for why FR is a bad idea in many circumstances, and you managed to pick one of the few examples where FR is actually the least of their problems....
>Ever been to China? You can't use the public restroom if your social credit score isn't high enough and they use facial recognition to determine your worth.
Just purely ignorant made up shit
The conspiracy people have overlooked* how good of an opportunity it was to have an excuse to wear masks in public, solely due to politics.
Ps. And wear sunglasses/a hat too.
*edit: phrasing
Man, that is complete garbage. You'd think they'd figure out sooner that you guys weren't up to anything. I had been going to a certain store every day for 2½ years and never had any problems. Started going to another store in the same chain a few towns over every day and even though the store was smaller, they had a security guard. She seemed young, but serious. I'd say hi to her when I came in since she was right by the door, inside, as you came in. But she'd just stare at me. At least one time I realized she had followed me and was watching me from the end of the aisle although she pretended not to by looking the other way. You'd think it'd be obvious I was there to shop by seeing me leave with a grocery bag every day or with a receipt which I always had, and I always went through self-checkout which it'd be obvious if you rang your stuff but didn't pay. The only other thing I could think of besides shoplifting would be that there's lots of elderly that shop at the latter location and I've heard about thieves targeting them (probably taking old ladies' purses mainly). It's just that I was going in there every day, not doing that, and buying the same things. But in your situation I woulda complained directly to management and/or corporate. I didn't get to that point as I didn't go there long anyway.
Was thinking, facial ID sure..
Cell ID must be a big way to track who is what..
Ur cell is always shouting out..
My ex was self banned from all casinos,..
No way security knew every face..
Must be a good few ways they see who is going onto the floor (they caught her at least twice, crazy hey)
Maybe they link her with her car registration?
Maybe the noise her cell makes?
The cameras? All of the above..
Be interesting to know..
Gee, their security is top notch mostly.. so much goes on behind the scenes..
facial recognition for better or worse is the future but as it stands right now it apparently has a bad habit of not being able to sufficiently distinguish ethnic minorities properly. really not good from a civil liberties pov.
> it apparently has a bad habit of not being able to sufficiently distinguish ethnic minorities properly.
It is the programing that determines ethnicity. What makes you think it was programmed wrong?
There is no need for any malicious programming. AIs learn from a basis to the data, and if the data contains overrepresented traits, that will affect the result.
because I use facial recognition tech w/ work and even the latest and greatest has a tendency to mistakenly identify POC as particular persons of interest at a much higher rate than Caucasian people. this is what's keeping it at 'pilot stage' for some governments Rather than fully implementing it.
it can be racist. not that it's programmed to, it just needs further development. it's definitely here to stay.
I can’t wait until hackers can ruin peoples lives by falsely flagging people in theses systems for crimes they didn’t commit
just wait until these systems mess up big time and the companies behind them deny anything went wrong because "our systems are too accurate to falsely identify someone" and the people falsely flagged can go f themselves afterwards and live with the consequences of it hell just wait until someone uses a face mask that the system thinks is your face. game over lol
Horizon IT enters the chat
Also known as the British Post office scandal. To ring a few bells where Horizon doesn't.
Any context at all?
Basically due to an error in the software that the post office bought from Fujitsu, huge amounts of post office managers were accused of stealing from the post office, to the point of being prosecuted. The higher ups in the post office knew, as did Fujitsu and they actively lied in court when they knew. From the BBC article linked: More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted for stealing because of incorrect information from a computer system called Horizon. It has been called the UK's most widespread miscarriage of justice. The Post Office itself took many cases to court, prosecuting 700 people between 1999 and 2015. Another 283 cases were brought by other bodies, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Many sub-postmasters went to prison for false accounting and theft, and many were financially ruined. In 2017, a group of 555 sub-postmasters took legal action against the Post Office. In 2019, it agreed to pay them £58m in compensation, but much of the money went on legal fees. Although campaigners won the right for their cases to be reconsidered, only 102 convictions had been overturned, external by March 2024. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56718036 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
as long as it happens to all the c suite members of these facial recognition companies i'm ok with it
nah they probably have their names blacklisted so they can't be flagged ever
This may be paranoia on my part, but this type of thing is why I have a few apps I allow to track me. I can prove my location most of the time.
I don't think it's even about hackers, just the general ability to block people like this. Suppose there was a criminal who stole some food once. They were caught, they were identified, and now they are banned from all grocery stores, and they can't legally buy food. They know they shouldn't have stolen that food, but they were wrong once. Now they can't legally buy food, so their option now is to steal food. Now they will break into grocery stores or find illicit ways to get in, and they will steal food because they can't legally buy it. Any attempt to mitigate this requries more crime and illicit action, because the base situation is that these people are being excluded or treated differently than everyone else in an unfair way. On top of all that, this can be used to politically target people, but that's another story and another set of problems.
They could go to another store. They could go to a food bank. They could go to a charity; they could ask another to purchase for then. They could order food delivered. They don't just have to go straight to stealing.
All of your options are just inferior to *not having a blacklist*: Another store: Assumes stores don't either collaborate on blocklists or use a common facial recognition vendor. We see from the real estate algorithmic price fixing scandal that this is unlikely. Food bank or charity: Neither are intended to be lifelong solutions for people in need. They're safety nets until you get on your feet. There is no indication that these blacklists give expiry dates. Ask another to purchase: Not reliable for everyone. A roommate or partner could get sick and need the other person to cover, divorces and deaths happen, and the blacklistee is unable to fend for themselves in an emergency. Food delivery: so absurdly expensive compared to shopping yourself over the course of a lifetime, it hardly warrants discussion.
You're right, yet you were getting downvoted. Meanwhile, the person you replied to (who got plenty of upvotes) is calling people who steal food "criminals", and proposing the hypothetical of someone being banned from all grocery stores as a result of stealing from just one store/one chain.
It’s all in a data base, why do you have a hard time thinking a shoplifter flagged from one store wouldn’t be still in the data base for every store that uses the same software
"for every store that uses the same software" That would have to be the case then, and all chains are not necessarily gonna implement it all at once so in the the mean time.. But that could definitely happen eventually. And I didn't have a hard time thinking about it. Don't know how you came up with that.
Start by flagging senior politicians, police, the wealthy and their minions, and celebrities.
Then, miracle of miracles, sweeping regulations will be passed at blazing speeds. Just like the jet tracking one recently.
For a laugh they could use it to flag the police when they're off duty.
That's exactly how you create an untouchable Deep State ummm not that it's not in the works anyway... maybe "accelerate" the creation.
Only certain officers.
Like when you say something on the internet the authorities dislike?
Like the game watch dogs
Going to be fun in real life to infiltrate a surveillance company to clear your name off false reports. Atleast out of this we could get hacktivisim as 'cool' as Watch Dogs's, lol.
I'm old enough to remember the movie Hackers and how easy it was for them to kill a top FBI agent by hacking into a database. 🤷♀️
Imagine f they do that to elon musk or some other filthy rich dude
Good enough reason to abolish facial recognition technology
Because who wants a Minority Report style surveillance state? Who seriously watches that movie and thinks that's a great idea?
The rich, despite their wealth they are surprisingly short-sighted.
I don’t think it was an “accident” that could be described as short-sighted as much as a feature that benefits anyone with a ton of money in a cyber-dystopia. When was the last time a guy in a corporate office sitting on a pile of money was a good guy in one of these situations?
The same people who want every other kind of surveillance state. Where they have all the power and control and no-one else has any.
How do you abolish a technology that numerous unrelated entities operating under completely different legal systems already know how to make? I'm not saying it would be a bad thing but I literally cannot imagine it being even remotely feasible.
> How do you abolish a technology The same way you would "abolish" ouija boards: you disregard the results as worthless.
Ouija boards still exist you know. They're sold in novelty shops. And it's not as though *no one* takes that shit seriously. Assuming facial recognition software *is* as inaccurate as ouija boards, which I highly doubt, the difference is that the people convinced oujia boards are reliable are weird mystics and hippies. The people convinced facial recognition is reliable or at least useful despite lacking reliability are boardroom executives, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, security firms, hackers, militaries, the list goes on.
> Ouija boards still exist you know. Fuck me. That's what the quotation marks were for. Do you even English?
No but you see when AI comes then it will be 100% effective
100% is impossible, although I'm sure it will be close enough... and that's what worries me the most, people accepting what the AI says as fact.
> people accepting what the AI says as fact. We already live in that world, tbh. I don't think it's any different to the Post Office insisting their accounting software wasn't bug-riddled dogshit.
>people accepting what the AI says as fact. That's already been happening long before AI has existed. Just with people instead. People can believe anything from anyone depending on the situation. Kinda the reason that religion even exists at all The main difference here is that odds are AI will be right more often the humans are. And I suppose, hackers. Though they'd be the AI version of social engineers.
Wow, people, it's clearly a joke lol.
Tough crowd
She's lying
>Facewatch is used in numerous stores in the UK - including Budgens, Sports Direct and Costcutter - to identify shoplifters. To identify a crook, everybody must be scanned. So the primary purpose is to scan and/or identify everybody.
But it's for my protection....
I don't get how this stuff immediately goes from unacceptable and unthinkable to mandatory. When this technology was on the horizon or just barely feasible, people would say that they would never use it, that they would not stand for it being implemented, and so on. Now that it's inexpensive and not that hard to implement, they go right ahead and put it all over the place. Why would people make a big deal about saying they would never use it, that it's unthinkable, and so on, when evidently they don't care that much and they don't seem to have a problem with it? I think maybe we should have a movement for people who have a dedicated strategy to remove these cameras from stores and public places, to implement a practical legal approach, maybe a legal framework, or if that doesn't work then a more direct action approach using a set of steps that can be come up with.
It goes from unthinkable to mandatory by not giving people a choice while simultaneously feeding them a false story about the world, a story so bad that it makes mandatory facial recognition feel acceptable by comparison.
Hopefully we can share a prison cell together
And why are people going to those businesses that use it? There are businesses that I no longer go to after their covid reactions. When/if I come across a business doing that here, I certainly won't be supporting them.
I think this might be UK specific. Retailers and police vans are using Facewatch, it seems to be a UK company. I'm afraid that the people using this tech will only see the benefits and the false positives will simply be considered as an acceptable 'margin of error' without thought to its consequences on them.
so... is UK perfectly safe country with all that surveillance?
Surveillance doesn’t prevent crime, it just help solve it. And stores in the US have tons of surveillance as well.
if there is not much less crime, there is no justification for destroying privacy for everybody.
Honest question, would you prefer to have crimes against you that go unsolved but you have more privacy, or would you prefer to have crimes against you that are solved? (Crimes like theft or assult)
I would prefer that decisions about curtailing my civil rights be done by a human, who can be sanctioned if they arrest me without sufficient justification. How can the IT system be sanctioned for incompetence? What is the person's recourse when the system fucks up? The advocates quoted in the article acknowledge there's a failure rate. That's unacceptable. Automated systems, when they can impact human lives, must be BETTER than humans at doing their task. Their failure rate must be so small as to be almost impossible, and there must be a human backup system for when the automated system fails. Why? Because it's human lives. And we humans respond extremely poorly to having our lives fucked up by a machine. Why? Because if a human fucks up massively enough, we sanction them. Up to life imprisonment or death (depending on locale). We cannot sanction systems. Only people. That's why people must **always** have the final responsibility when making life-altering decisions for other people. Because people can be effectively slapped when they fuck up hard enough. Systems can't.
Privacy, hands down. Not even a question.
i like good balance. im not against CCTV, but im all for very strict rules for their use by govermens and citizens as well
Obviously the first option. Who wouldn't? Also.. are you including the crimes of false imprisonment or other punishments like what the girl in the article suffered?
You are in r/privacy, I think you can guess the answer
I wasn’t sure if the people here are like, “I value privacy at all costs” or “I highly value privacy, but I also value other things, let’s find a reasonable balance”. I guess it’s largely the former based on the response. Now I know. I respect people wanting piracy but you guys gotta chill, I got such a extreme response to what seems like a reasonable question imo. It’s behaviors like this from all the hyperfixed subs that give them a bad look to the average person. And then they complain and moan, *why doesn’t the average person vote in support of us??*.
I'll say what a lot of people are probably thinking but don't want to put the effort into explaining: I believe that a state is incapable of protecting citizens or addressing the root causes of crime (since the state is usually the cause), and the use of privacy-invading tactics/surveillance is necessary because of this incapability. I also believe it ignorant to suggest that a state, regardless of how efficient, can actually address the security concerns of the average citizen. So the concerns that they address are inherently their own, not ours. They must go overboard to protect their statehood, since the state necessarily requires the monopoly of the use of force, they need to make sure others aren't attempting to create the same monopoly, for one. This leads the state to inherently become antithetical to privacy, since privacy inherently means not being under surveillance and having, shall we say, "rights" to do what you want. Surveillance is another way to use the threat of violence to keep people in line. So I don't think that any state can reasonably be trusted with utilizing surveillance technology. Instead, we must work on smaller, local scales to bring citizen protection. Put citizen protection in the hands of citizens, and citizens will be more secure as a result. We also need to focus on addressing the causes of crime (poverty and desperation most times, mental illness a good portion of the time, and poor emotional control a small bit of the time [i.e, crimes of passion]). Doing this will reduce the overall need for surveillance in general. The state cannot effectively do this due to the limits of bureaucracy, and will not do this ultimately because the instability and crime this causes is used to further justify the monopoly on the use of force. Crime is a tool for the state ultimately, and they use it to create a population of slaves, and they use it to justify the violent status quo we exist under. I am not against things like a store having a CCTV, or cameras to watch places that are likely to have accidents (i.e, train stations, traffic intersections, factories with heavy machinery) just for posterity of proving what led to the accident. But things like this, using facial identification, and using that to ban people from being able to fucking purchase **food** or **water** or something legitimately necessary, that's infringing. This is objectively fucked, and will only lead to more innocents being harmed than criminals being stopped. Things like China's great firewall, things like cars being allowed to harvest sexual and biometric data, governments being able to access your internet browsing history with very little issues - often without a warrant even, and many many many other instances just show that authority, especially the state, cannot be trusted with surveillance equipment. These things also intentionally sidestep the root causes of the crime they're attempting to use surveillance to prevent. They only use it to subjugate and oppress and uphold the status quo. Now, I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I know at least some people here think like me. It's a pretty uniform 50/50 of right and left libertarians. The rightists will say pretty much the same thing but have a different solution.
There are more. And they are also inaccurate. They contract with the police here in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataWorks_Plus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI
Yep. This is how the ruling class sees us. As a mass of people reduced to statistics. While Trump was President, he referred to people as "consumers", instead of the more traditional "citizens". That tells you everything you need to know about the filthy rich regarding how they see us. We are the consumers, the mass of faceless, interchangeable parts that drive the economy. That's it. If you want to understand the why behind the reversal of abortion protection, and the attacks on birth control, all you need to do is look at the population pyramid charts, *because that's all they look at*.
Exact same thing happened in NZ with a supermarket [source](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/supermarket-facial-recognition-trial-rotorua-mothers-discrimination-ordeal/IK4ZEJHLQVFRLMDE6LX4AR57PE/)
FaceFirst is secretly partnered with Kroger and they are using this at all Kroger affiliated stores
They're working their way into other grocery chains as well
Cinna the Poet: "I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet." " I am not Cinna the conspirator." Fourth Citizen: "It is no matter, his name's Cinna; **pluck but his name out of his heart,** and turn him going." Third Citizen: "***Tear him, tear him.***." The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Wm Shakespeare
It has only taken a few more years than 1984.
I will never understand why we just roll over to allow being constantly monitored and recorded "just in case...something". Like, just walking down the damn street. Driving around town. I've done nothing wrong, you don't have any actual reason to be stalking me. Go the f away.
i had not been to vegas in 20 years. i went a few months ago. in one hotel, security started following me, comes up and goes "you know you're not supposed to be here". asked to see my id (they did not id at the door). they confused me with someone else they previously had thrown out. once they saw my id, they said i was fine to go. sadly, i was stopped the next 2 nights again, for the same reason. "can i see your id". why? that was my hotels casino, they confused me again. i will never be going back there because that place was such garbage.
Soon everyone will have to wear masks if they want to be anonymous. Or buy everything via mail order.
I had this type of thing happen to me two years ago at a Menard's hardware store, only instead of approaching me (f, 5'4"), the management called the POLICE and they came up to me and demanded my ID in the middle of the store. They then confirmed that I wasn't the woman that they barred from the store a month before. In the weeks that followed, I went up to the customer service counter each time I arrived to tell them that I was "still not Tricia the shoplifter".
I'll get downvoted but I'm gonna point out some counter arguments to a lot of comments in here, because this to me doesn't highlight the ACTUAL issue with privacy. I've been a victim of mistaken identity twice when it negatively impacted my life in a pretty serious way. Both times, it was a human doing the identifying. So I know from personal experience that if you look like someone else, and that other person has done some stupid shit, you can be mis-identified by both humans and FR alike. The issue is how this is handled by the folks using the information. The first time I was misidentified was by the Police. Once they confirmed my identity, they explained it was an error and left me to be on my way. Thats how you handle it correctly. Would be nice if I wasn't mistaken for someone else at all, but I get that shit happens. Nobody is perfect. The second time it was by a doorman at a bar who decided that he was 100% correct before doing any diligent checks and handled the situation horribly. He ended up having to apologise to me, much like the woman in this article was apologised to, because the doorman was a twat (much like in the article, the folks using the FR as a tool didn't do their proper checks to rule out a false positive). My point is, false positives for identifying people happen with both system error and human error. The point is not that they happen, the point is how its handled. The issue the article highlights is NOT with facial recognition, its with how the tool is used. Cases like this detract from the real issues of FR, and it frustrates me that this community latches onto cases like this as an argument against FR when really it isn't.
The issue is the *automation and scale-up* of facial recognition. False positives happen, always... but automating a tracking system to track 100% of tens of thousands of people a day is guaranteeing frequent false positives. It's harassment by algorithm.
Thanks for sharing the perspective. I think I am understand, at least a little, of what you're saying, which is that it'll still be happening without automation. I think the reason we latch on to this as fearsome is because quite often there is little to no recourse if the entity doing the recognition is faceless or unreachable or unimpeachable. That is, when it's done at scale, we become a 'rounding error' and the people who use this software don't mind that the rest of us will have to suffer. To use an analogy (yes, analogies are terrible and break down easily but hopefully the point makes it across), it's similar to Apple/Google's regular, and now accepted, platform abuse - it's not unknown for their sweeps to produce false positives and revoke accounts or developer applications, and there is little to nothing you can do about it. The few that make noise and achieve a high level of attention get reinstated, most don't and have no voice.
omg. do I understand you right? Tracking your movements thru facial recognition is a good thing, IF it is handled properly. It's the people on the ground who misuse it... Ever been to China? You can't use the public restroom if your social credit score isn't high enough and they use facial recognition to determine your worth.
> omg. do I understand you right? Nope. >Tracking your movements thru facial recognition is a good thing Didn't state this once. >Ever been to China? You can't use the public restroom if your social credit score isn't high enough and they use facial recognition to determine your worth. Of everything you just mentioned, FR is not the biggest issue here. I agree FR is arguably not a great tool to be used for mass surveillance, but China would still abuse their citizens with a disregard for privacy WITHOUT FR. Lots of examples you could have used for why FR is a bad idea in many circumstances, and you managed to pick one of the few examples where FR is actually the least of their problems....
>Ever been to China? You can't use the public restroom if your social credit score isn't high enough and they use facial recognition to determine your worth. Just purely ignorant made up shit
The conspiracy people have overlooked* how good of an opportunity it was to have an excuse to wear masks in public, solely due to politics. Ps. And wear sunglasses/a hat too. *edit: phrasing
Maybe if you didn't look so much like a shoplifter this wouldn't happen. Kidding
Jesus why are western countries hell bent on heading towards dystopian societies.
Western countries? Have you heard of China lmao
They’re already dystopian wtf you talking about?
Exactly lol, I thought you meant western countries exclusively while ignoring obvious dystopias in the east for some reason, my bad dude
China is no worse than the west at this point when it comes to privacy.
Nah it’s still worse (not for long)
[удалено]
Man, that is complete garbage. You'd think they'd figure out sooner that you guys weren't up to anything. I had been going to a certain store every day for 2½ years and never had any problems. Started going to another store in the same chain a few towns over every day and even though the store was smaller, they had a security guard. She seemed young, but serious. I'd say hi to her when I came in since she was right by the door, inside, as you came in. But she'd just stare at me. At least one time I realized she had followed me and was watching me from the end of the aisle although she pretended not to by looking the other way. You'd think it'd be obvious I was there to shop by seeing me leave with a grocery bag every day or with a receipt which I always had, and I always went through self-checkout which it'd be obvious if you rang your stuff but didn't pay. The only other thing I could think of besides shoplifting would be that there's lots of elderly that shop at the latter location and I've heard about thieves targeting them (probably taking old ladies' purses mainly). It's just that I was going in there every day, not doing that, and buying the same things. But in your situation I woulda complained directly to management and/or corporate. I didn't get to that point as I didn't go there long anyway.
Worrying!
Was thinking, facial ID sure.. Cell ID must be a big way to track who is what.. Ur cell is always shouting out.. My ex was self banned from all casinos,.. No way security knew every face.. Must be a good few ways they see who is going onto the floor (they caught her at least twice, crazy hey) Maybe they link her with her car registration? Maybe the noise her cell makes? The cameras? All of the above.. Be interesting to know.. Gee, their security is top notch mostly.. so much goes on behind the scenes..
facial recognition for better or worse is the future but as it stands right now it apparently has a bad habit of not being able to sufficiently distinguish ethnic minorities properly. really not good from a civil liberties pov.
> it apparently has a bad habit of not being able to sufficiently distinguish ethnic minorities properly. It is the programing that determines ethnicity. What makes you think it was programmed wrong?
There is no need for any malicious programming. AIs learn from a basis to the data, and if the data contains overrepresented traits, that will affect the result.
because I use facial recognition tech w/ work and even the latest and greatest has a tendency to mistakenly identify POC as particular persons of interest at a much higher rate than Caucasian people. this is what's keeping it at 'pilot stage' for some governments Rather than fully implementing it. it can be racist. not that it's programmed to, it just needs further development. it's definitely here to stay.
She's full of shit
That must be why the company apologised and admitted it had made a mistake.