Should there be a wide ranging ban of facial recognition technology?

[public hermit]

Dr. Evan Selinger and Dr. Woodrow Hartzog say there should be:

"Stopping this technology from being procured — and its attendant databases from being created — is necessary for protecting civil rights and privacy. But limiting government procurement won’t be enough. We must ban facial recognition in both public and private sectors, before we grow so dependent on it that we accept its inevitable harms as necessary for “progress.” Perhaps over time appropriate policies can be enacted that justify lifting a ban. But we doubt it."

Opinion | What Happens When Employers Can Read Your Facial Expressions?

For the faithful, there is Churchix:

"Facial recognition software by Churchix identifies people in videos and photos. This biometric attendance system identifies members, suspects, employees, students and basically anyone you have interest in. All you need to do is enroll photos of your members into the software, then connect a live video USB and/or IP camera and Churchix facial recognition software will identify your members!"

https://churchix.com/

 

[timothyu]

Yes but it won't happen. Power will not give up yet another tool to control the masses. Religion will take a back seat in that category until people smarten up and pull the plug on electricity. Show me any willing or able to live without it except those traditionally off the grid anyway. The element of society many look down upon will be the only survivors. lol God has a sense of humour, but then again, that is what Jesus taught.

 

[AvisG]

Yet another reminder that I'm glad I'm almost 70 years old, retired, and living in a teeny-tiny Podunk where I can walk 95% of the places I need to go.

My attitude toward all of these technological horrors is sort of like my attitude toward guns: Yes, if I were starting a country from scratch, all guns would be banned. But the horse is so far out of the barn, at least in the U.S., that any discussion of "gun control" is almost comical.

Ditto for technology. The intrusion of technology into every area of our lives is already so pervasive that any notion of "preserving privacy" is almost comical.

It's kind of ironic that the company is called churchix and they specifically say their product "is designed for Churches." I guess we want to be sure that was really Fred we baptized!

 

[timothyu]

It's kind of ironic that the company is called churchix and they specifically say their product "is designed for Churches." I guess we want to be sure that was really Fred we baptized!

And who was at the liquor store.

 

[timothyu]

It wasn't long ago you could walk around with a paper bag with eye holes over your head and people just thought you were nuts. Today it could get you arrested. Isn't life a hoot?

 

[zephcom]

Dr. Evan Selinger and Dr. Woodrow Hartzog say there should be:

"Stopping this technology from being procured — and its attendant databases from being created — is necessary for protecting civil rights and privacy. But limiting government procurement won’t be enough. We must ban facial recognition in both public and private sectors, before we grow so dependent on it that we accept its inevitable harms as necessary for “progress.” Perhaps over time appropriate policies can be enacted that justify lifting a ban. But we doubt it."

Opinion | What Happens When Employers Can Read Your Facial Expressions?

For the faithful, there is Churchix:

"Facial recognition software by Churchix identifies people in videos and photos. This biometric attendance system identifies members, suspects, employees, students and basically anyone you have interest in. All you need to do is enroll photos of your members into the software, then connect a live video USB and/or IP camera and Churchix facial recognition software will identify your members!"

https://churchix.com/

I just read a book about this very thing. Fiction book of course, but in the book the entire society had both video and audio recordings from everywhere including homes. Anyone could look in on what others were doing. Anyone's handheld could be used to check the recordings of anyplace they wanted.

The police did solve crimes the old fashioned way. They just looked at the recordings, scrolled the recordings forward and backward to track their suspect. Everything worked great until some people discovered that if you knew the right people and had enough money, you could get yourself erased from the tapes.

The real problem with something like this is not the privacy violations that people think they might be, but the ability to circumvent anything that is created to watch the masses if one has enough power or money to accomplish it.

We are being watched even now. The down side is we are being watched by private corporation for the purpose of extracting more money from us. If we were all being watched by everyone equally and we could watch everyone else everything would remain on equal footing.

I discovered my cell phone was using GPS to record everywhere I went and time stamped it even though I had GPS turned off. It even named the restaurant I went to. Google says I can turn that 'feature' off. I did. But what assurance do I have that turning that feature off isn't just designed to keep me from seeing what I did. How do I really know that Google isn't still tracking me and just making me believe it isn't?

If we are to have these systems, we need them available to everyone or not have them at all. If my life is going to be an open book, I don't want some people to make money from while they block others from making money from.

Jus' sayin'

 

[timothyu]

What was that movie where the tracked were given the ability to track their trackers thus defeating the advantage?

 

[renniks]

Read Fahrenheit 451... except for the book burning, it sounds frightening familiar... especially the scene of being chased by the police and watching himself be chased on screens in almost real time. Bradbury was a prophet in a lot of things about the future.

 

[public hermit]

We are being watched even now. The down side is we are being watched by private corporation for the purpose of extracting more money from us. If we were all being watched by everyone equally and we could watch everyone else everything would remain on equal footing

That's an interesting point of view. My default position is let's not do this facial recognition thing at all. Of course, I'm cynical, and assume anything humans can come up with, good or bad, it will be used. But, you're saying if it is going to be used, then let everybody watch everybody. Hmm, that sounds terrible to me. But, your point seems to be if everybody is watching everybody, then it will take away the profit from corporations who use it now to learn our wants, and habits, and such. Is that right? How would that work?

 

[timothyu]

Thanks to books like that, we were able to easily envision today over 55 years ago in our youth right down to the power of computers (which barely existed then) to control man.

 

[timothyu]

But, your point seems to be if everybody is watching everybody, then it will take away the profit from corporations who use it now to learn our wants, and habits, and such. Is that right? How would that work?

Whatever starts out as good is always used for evil in the end. It's what we do.

 

[public hermit]

Whatever starts out as good is always used for evil in the end. It's what we do.

I agree. I think anything we get our hands into will be used for evil. Is that a reason not to use it? No. Virtually anything can be used for evil. But, if the downside outweighs the upside, then let's not do it. I don't know that catching a few criminals, or making things more convenient, are good reasons to allow facial recognition technology to proceed unhindered. Then again, I don't think it will be properly regulated until it gets out of hand. But, I'm up for a different point of view.

 

[timothyu]

Then again, I don't think it will be properly regulated until it gets out of hand.

Properly regulated? In the end it will only be allowed use to serve those in power.

 

[zephcom]

That's an interesting point of view. My default position is let's not do this facial recognition thing at all. Of course, I'm cynical, and assume anything humans can come up with, good or bad, it will be used. But, you're saying if it is going to be used, then let everybody watch everybody. Hmm, that sounds terrible to me. But, your point seems to be if everybody is watching everybody, then it will take away the profit from corporations who use it now to learn our wants, and habits, and such. Is that right? How would that work?

It doesn't necessarily take away the profit, it takes away the exclusivity of the knowledge. IOWs anyone can use it to make profit. And everyone could look up -why- they are getting these ads. Google, for instance, would not only know I was researching ovens, but that I bought one. People wouldn't have to wonder what is being said in the corporate boardroom, they could just watch.

From the personal POV, no one would ever have to worry about whether a spouse was cheating or not because anyone can follow them around. Or if a friend says, so-and-so has been spreading rumors about you, you can check and see if it is true. Secrets would become a thing of history.

It would become transparency on steroids. The only thing that could mess the whole thing up is if a tiny portion of the population figured out how to avoid being 'visible'.

 

[timothyu]

The only thing that could mess the whole thing up is if a tiny portion of the population figured out how to avoid being 'visible'.

They already have.. extreme makeup which of course will become illegal soon, no doubt for the baloney reason of national security. In the same way everyone will take the mark.

 

[public hermit]

People wouldn't have to wonder what is being said in the corporate boardroom, they could just watch.

From the personal POV, no one would ever have to worry about whether a spouse was cheating or not because anyone can follow them around. Or if a friend says, so-and-so has been spreading rumors about you, you can check and see if it is true. Secrets would become a thing of history.

Good point. All of our cards would be on the table, so to speak. I can see how it would eliminate a lot of nonsense, double-dealing, and general dishonesty. So, why do we value privacy so much? I know I do, but your comments make me wonder why. Is it simply privacy, or is it because we don't want people to see what we're doing? I'll be honest, I don't necessarily want people watching me even if what I am doing is completely golden. I just don't like being watched. It's unnerving. But, like everything else, I am sure we would (will) get used to it.

 

[timothyu]

It's unnerving. But, like everything else, I am sure we would (will) get used to it.

It's when they can hear what we are thinking versus what outward appearance we may display.

Imagine at the resurrection everyone's life was replayed in front of everyone, except the inner thoughts spoke rather than the outer voice. Ooops.

 

[public hermit]

It's when they can hear what we are thinking versus what outward appearance we may display.

If they (whoever they are) figure out the technology to know our thoughts, we're sunk. And talk about people with power misusing it. Lord have mercy.

Mind-reading technology is closer than you think

 

[timothyu]

If they (whoever they are) figure out the technology to know our thoughts, we're sunk. And talk about people with power misusing it. Lord have mercy.

Look at what they are doing with the Chinese and that surveillance program they are testing where people are constantly watched and shipped of for reprogramming if they fail to please the authorities.

 

[public hermit]

Look at what they are doing with the Chinese and that surveillance program they are testing where people are constantly watched and shipped of for reprogramming if they fail to please the authorities.

Yes, and their "social credit" system is creepy, at best.