U.S. Gov Privacy Watchdog Under Pressure to Recommend Facial Recognition Ban

[tictok4]

Good but don't exempt the government.

Many local cities are building out vast networks. Including my very own Miami Beach Police Department.

[t223]

Unfortunately ANPR is becoming ubiquitous - especially around A1A. I’d support banning this as well.

[stevehawk]

If you're out in public then what privacy are you expecting?

[thrwaway69]

Every thread with privacy debates make me more and more curious about what kind of things HN users want/need to hide so bad from the public ;)

Maybe they own goog stocks in secret.

Edit: this isn't serious.

[morpheuskafka]

Title is somewhat misleading, although not intentionally so:

> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), an independent agency, is coming under increasing pressure to recommend the federal government stop using facial recognition.

The PCLOB exists to advise the government on compliance with civil liberties and privacy principles, not to recommend bans on private activities. This proposal would only restrict federal agencies, not third parties--unlike proposals by the EU which would ban private data processors and companies.

[throwaway743]

Does this pertain specifically to facial recognition or does this also include other biometric markers? If solely facial recognition, then this means jack shit, as people will be identified with other measurements.

[pabs3]

Indeed, Schneier covered this in this essay:

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2020/01/were_bannin...

[tictok4]

How about just stop tracking people! We aren't prisoners don't treat us as such.

[vuln]

You’re 100% correct banning facial recognition means jack shit. I guess it’s a start though.

Chinese ‘gait recognition’ tech IDs people by how they walk https://apnews.com/bf75dd1c26c947b7826d270a16e2658a

[OrgNet]

It doesn't mean jack shit... it's a start that can be improved upon.

[xupybd]

This is a good start. We really do need to regulate this stuff. There are far too many ways this can be abused.

[boopmaster]

It would be helpful to have centralized reporting on what entities possess hashes or content that can be used to derive biometric telemetry, and tools that allow opt-in for of-age adults, and that offers accessible, no hassle options to destroy said data + severe penalties for violating said agreements (cannot do business in the region until data is purged to standards, etc.) I’d err on the side of “DELET THIS” ahead of worrying about the identity of the requestor.

[dr01d]

I'm using opencv with facial detection running in the browser as JavaScript. The technology is here and isn't going away.

Realistically, smartphones are tracking everyone all the time and provide rich datasets. Camera, microphone, and GPS. If you turn off location services your phone still connects to cell towers, WiFi access points, and Bluetooth beacons, as you drive or walk around throughout your day.

[AlexCoventry]

> The agency, created in 2004, advises the administration on privacy issues.

So the agency came into existence as a fig leaf for the Bush administration... Any reason to believe it's grown teeth since then?

[papito]

I was just thinking the other day how you won't even have to tap your card to pay for something - just walk up to the register. The future is bright, but most likely - dark and terrifying.

[snarf21]

The future is dark and full of terrors. 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 only scratched the surface. I truly expect in the future we'll voluntary put ourselves into the Matrix or the Oasis. It will be the only way to cope because real life will become so controlled.

[bsenftner]

And for your correct understanding: FR is not authoritative, is is not secure for financial transactions. Any company implementing FR alone as authentication to access sensitive, personal or financial data is stupendously foolish. Apple's FaceID is not 2D, it uses additional 3D data and multiple frames, so it is more secure, but not enough in my opinion for financial access.

[TylerE]

I don't think this sort of thing is constructive.

Biometrics is GOING to happen.

I'd rather companies be (potentially) honest, rather than move on the next thing and not publicize it.

[tjpnz]

Since when has a for profit corporation been completely honest with the public, especially when it comes to something as controversial as this.

[umvi]

Facial recognition tech could save so much time and money though. Imagine how many man hours would be saved if teachers no longer had to take attendance? Shoplifting would hit all time lows since you wouldn't be able to get away with it short of wearing a mask into the store.

[kick]

Students? You're proposing we track students? It says something that the first example that's used (not just you, I've seen it many times elsewhere, too) is that we track the only group of people who by-and-large cannot consent, and not only that, but in a way that has permanent implications for their right to privacy.

Further, the idea of facial recognition being used in every store is atrocious. Not only can they track you online, now advertisers and the government can track your offline spending habits and location at all times, too!

Why hasn't anyone proposed a use for facial recognition that isn't:

1. Useless (like it is in iOS)

2. Completely scummy (like it is in both of your examples)

3. Using it to increase surveillance on populations that cannot legally offer consent in any way, in areas that they're forced to go to?

I kind of expect it here on HN, given how large of a proportion of adtech and other surveillance-oriented employees there are here, but I see it everywhere, and it's just confounding.

[hdydhwhd]

As far as I can tell the core axiom of privacy activism is that it's a given that the trade is not worth it. It's why so much of the digital privacy movement is people who don't live in bad neighborhoods.

[deanCommie]

Don't forget toll booths! Each car could go through the booth seconds faster if each had Apple FaceID, and you could pay that way!

[jeroenhd]

Why waste all that money on cameras when you can just have a mandatory, government-issued ankle bracelet with GPS gear? Way cheaper to mass produce and businesses don't need to invest in their own hardware.

Systems like this could be very nice and useful but as long as companies make shady data deals and can't do basic data protection, implementing such a system is just a plain bad idea.

Tracking students should be opt-in anyway ("go study some place else if you don't like our tracking system" isn't opt-in) and I doubt you're going to get much support for tracking someone's exact movements every minute of the school day as long as the equifaxes of the world prove that data protection is none of their concern.

[piracy1]

Ya but at the price of general freedom.