Portland implements facial-recognition tech ban that Amazon lobbied against, as former NSA chief behind PRISM joins Amazon

[PlayStation 2]

What a shock, Amazon wants to get into the contracting and tracking game with former fucked-up government officials at the helm of it all.

I don't have many nice things to say about Portland, but honestly, good on them for giving facial recognition the middle finger. It's a very scary and slippery slope that's almost guaranteed to lead to change society for the worse.

[Delicieuxz]

21 minutes ago, poochyena said:

thats not a valid criticism though. People get arrested without the software too.

 

but thats already being done without cameras...

 

you keep saying that, and its fear mongering since it could be said about literally everything ever.

 

every single thing you list is already true without this tech. Literally all this does is replace people IDing people with cameras, which reduces cost.

All of those things become vastly facilitated, to the point that it re-shapes society, with facial-recognition technology. How easy something is to do plays a large part in whether it's done. And a ton of individual occasions for those things will only become possible with ubiquitous tracking technology.

 

That's why Hong-Konger protesters / rioters were wearing masks before Covid-19 made it cool, why they've been demolition face-recognition cameras, and why China banned wearing masks.

 

https://gizmodo.com/hong-kong-announces-ban-on-masks-and-face-paint-that-he-1838765030

 

 

[straight_stewie]

9 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Unfortunately the same can be said about many of the things we currently use. Smart speakers & doorbells are perfect spy devices, phones are mobile tracking devices, computers are personal data collection devices etc.

 

We've already passed the point where restricting future devices will have any affect.

I agree, and here's why:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754

 

This is a bill called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, which was signed into law in 2015. Among other things, it allows businesses the ability to share information which "may be viewed as indicating cybersecurity threats" to the federal government in exchange for "indemnity for liability of collecting said information".

Basically, the law exists to make the cloud and IoT devices work for the US intelligence community. It allows corporations to collect any data they want, even if it is otherwise illegal to do so, so long as they share the fruits of their collection efforts with the government.

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

I agree, and here's why:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754

 

This is a bill called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, which was signed into law in 2015. Among other things, it allows businesses the ability to share information which "may be viewed as indicating cybersecurity threats" to the federal government in exchange for "indemnity for liability of collecting said information".

Basically, the law exists to make the cloud and IoT devices work for the US intelligence community. It allows corporations to collect any data they want, even if it is otherwise illegal to do so, so long as they share the fruits of their collection efforts with the government.

Interesting.  Introduced by Richard Burr of (R) North Carolina in 2015.  Passed the senate but failed in the house 5 years ago.  So basically it’s nothing.  One of thousands of bills that never go anywhere every year. 

The dude that tried to put it through is this guy.  He’s apparently still in office.  He’s apparently under investigation for an insider trading scandal of some sort and has stepped down from heading the senate intelligence committee.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Burr

[poochyena]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

All of those things become vastly facilitated, to the point that it re-shapes society, with facial-recognition technology. How easy something is to do plays a large part in whether it's done. And a ton of individual occasions for those things will only become possible with ubiquitous tracking technology.

again, fear mongering. Its just a bunch of non-specific grand claims.

 

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

That's why Hong-Konger protesters / rioters were wearing masks before Covid-19 made it cool, why they've been demolition face-recognition cameras, and why China banned wearing masks.

which isn't specific to this tech, since, again, has been happening for a very very long time. You comment reads as if wearing masks to hide one's identity is some new thing brought about because of facial recognition cameras.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

again, fear mongering. Its just a bunch of non-specific grand claims.

 

which isn't specific to this tech, since, again, has been happening for a very very long time. You comment reads as if wearing masks to hide one's identity is some new thing brought about because of facial recognition cameras.

A repetitive issue I have seen in politics in general is a tendency to turn may into will.  May is dangerous enough, and a will can go either way from a may. Then it turns into “will” or “won’t” neither of which is totally true.  May is dangerous enough. Some things cannot even be risked.

[StDragon]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

again, fear mongering. Its just a bunch of non-specific grand claims.

 

which isn't specific to this tech, since, again, has been happening for a very very long time. You comment reads as if wearing masks to hide one's identity is some new thing brought about because of facial recognition cameras.

You never read any of George Orwell's stuff have you? That guy was near prophetic. Sadly.

[straight_stewie]

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Passed the senate but failed in the house 5 years ago.  So basically it’s nothing.  One of thousands of bills that never go anywhere every year. 

The bill failed the house on it's own.

But was later reintroduced into a "consolidated spending bill" and passed the House on December 15^th 2015, and was then signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 18^th 2015.

Here are some updates to the interpretation of the law by DHS and DOJ that CISA.gov published in 2018. Essentially, this paper is the policy that guides the implementation of the government side of CISA: https://us-cert.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/ais_files/Privacy_and_Civil_Liberties_Guidelines.pdf

[williamcll]

Inb4 NSA implants drug dealers in portland to increase crime rate even further

[Bombastinator]

32 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

The bill failed the house on it's own.

But was later reintroduced into a "consolidated spending bill" and passed the House on December 15^th 2015, and was then signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 18^th 2015.

Here are some updates to the interpretation of the law by DHS and DOJ that CISA.gov published in 2018. Essentially, this paper is the policy that guides the implementation of the government side of CISA: https://us-cert.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/ais_files/Privacy_and_Civil_Liberties_Guidelines.pdf

So not actually the bill that got passed, though the contents did get through. explains why it’s listed as not passed. 
 

I’ve heard of that happening.  Groups that have a bill that a lot of people don’t like sometimes attach it to “must pass” bills either to destroy the must pass bill and create gridlock, or to get their little bit of thing through.  There have been multiple attempts to make this impossible.  Not sure on the particulars.  I think line item veto was one.  I don’t know whether this thing was eligible for line item veto or not, or if there was other pressure that might have been brought brought to bear. Would require a deep dive into the history of what was going on in Washington in 2015. Kinda curious who appended it though and why.  Might even have been a Democrat that originally voted against the bill.  I understand there’s a lot of horse trading that goes on in Washington. Might have been a situation of a favor for a favor and the person who attached it didn’t even know what it was.  Obama was famous for passing bills that had clods of crap on them because it was better than not passing the bill at all.  There were something like 36 repeal obamacare grandstands that basically dragged government to a complete halt and getting anything done at all was near impossible. At any rate it happened and didn’t get stopped.  I think the concept that it probably should have been stopped somehow is pretty universal here, but I don’t know what the extenuating circumstances were.  

[Delicieuxz]

15 hours ago, poochyena said:

again, fear mongering. Its just a bunch of non-specific grand claims.

 

which isn't specific to this tech, since, again, has been happening for a very very long time. You comment reads as if wearing masks to hide one's identity is some new thing brought about because of facial recognition cameras.

You have to have some ulterior motive to be spinning and denying the obvious dangers of the tech that way.

 

We had theft and murder before and after there were laws against those things - which doesn't mean that having laws against those things doesn't affect their prevalence. But your argument says that because they already existed, the laws have no effect on them and might as well be abolished.

 

Seatbelts were made mandatory in cars to prevent car-accident deaths. Yet, there are car-accident deaths while we have seatbelt requirements for car manufacturers and laws mandating that people wear them.Therefore, according to your argument, there would be no difference if seatbelts were abolished.

 

There're cases of political persecution right now... and so ramping-up the means to target people from 2 to 100 won't have an effect?

 

There are corrupt police who engage in abuses of power now. So, making it far easier for them to do it won't affect how much it's done?

 

Your arguments here are, frankly, extremely silly. Fear was not the basis for my comments - sober awareness of what the technology enables and facilitates was. You've been given a lot of clear examples and real-world evidence and you're just denying it for some hidden motive.

[Unclescar]

18 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

I don't have many nice things to say about Portland, but honestly, good on them for giving facial recognition the middle finger. It's a very scary and slippery slope that's almost guaranteed to lead to change society for the worse.

Amen to everything here, including the first part. I've been to Portland, have family and friends that live nearby. It's a really neat city split across the river, but the culture there is incredibly toxic and undesirable in pretty much every way. I'm still glad they banned this tech, even if the timing is suspicious, but I don't want that tech anywhere near where I live either so I'm relieved there is already going to be some precedent.

[JZStudios]

16 hours ago, poochyena said:

again, fear mongering. Its just a bunch of non-specific grand claims.

 

which isn't specific to this tech, since, again, has been happening for a very very long time. You comment reads as if wearing masks to hide one's identity is some new thing brought about because of facial recognition cameras.

It's not exactly fear mongering when it's an obvious outcome that facial recognition will track you wherever you go regardless of your willingness or participation. Google already knows everywhere you go by tracking your phone unless you have location services turned off. Which obviously makes it a choice, because it fucking freaks me out when I get home and it asks me to rate the Mexican place I had for lunch. There's no opting out of facial detection.

 

Someone else mentioned that China might recognize it as a good security measure, which is ironic considering it's an authoritarian communist state which already tracks every citizen that isn't in a forced labor camp, and anyone they disagree with gets marked a black sheep and can't access trains or airplanes among other things.

 

It's not fear mongering, it's literally what's actually already happening. Facial detection just makes it easier to do so. As to groups being targeted, how about the IRS overcharging Republican organizations during the Obama period? What happens when that gets hacked, because it will?

13 hours ago, StDragon said:

You never read any of George Orwell's stuff have you? That guy was near prophetic. Sadly.

Could also even look at Minority Report or Psycho Pass which includes a "pre-crime" division in a totalitarian state that only allows access to things based on facial/eye/mental detection. Minority Report the guy had to swap his eyes so he could move around the city.

[poochyena]

On 9/11/2020 at 2:52 AM, Delicieuxz said:

But your argument says that because they already existed, the laws have no effect on them and might as well be abolished.

thats not even remotely what I said anywhere. I never said anything whatsoever about how this tech being legal or illegal will affect how often it is or isn't used.

 

On 9/11/2020 at 9:58 AM, JZStudios said:

Google already knows everywhere you go by tracking your phone unless you have location services turned off.

and the consequences of that has been ____

 

On 9/11/2020 at 9:58 AM, JZStudios said:

Facial detection just makes it easier to do so.

not easier, just cheaper. There is nothing this tech does that couldn't be done before.

[Bombastinator]

On 9/11/2020 at 9:58 AM, JZStudios said:

It's not exactly fear mongering when it's an obvious outcome that facial recognition will track you wherever you go regardless of your willingness or participation. Google already knows everywhere you go by tracking your phone unless you have location services turned off. Which obviously makes it a choice, because it fucking freaks me out when I get home and it asks me to rate the Mexican place I had for lunch. There's no opting out of facial detection.

 

Someone else mentioned that China might recognize it as a good security measure, which is ironic considering it's an authoritarian communist state which already tracks every citizen that isn't in a forced labor camp, and anyone they disagree with gets marked a black sheep and can't access trains or airplanes among other things.

 

It's not fear mongering, it's literally what's actually already happening. Facial detection just makes it easier to do so. As to groups being targeted, how about the IRS overcharging Republican organizations during the Obama period? What happens when that gets hacked, because it will?

Could also even look at Minority Report or Psycho Pass which includes a "pre-crime" division in a totalitarian state that only allows access to things based on facial/eye/mental detection. Minority Report the guy had to swap his eyes so he could move around the city.

Re; google knows nothing onlyif you refuse to use any google products or services.  It’s very very difficult to to and they work on making it impossible constantly.  The whole googles tracking thing is the single primary reason I bought an iPhone.

[JZStudios]

On 9/12/2020 at 1:56 PM, poochyena said:

thats not even remotely what I said anywhere. I never said anything whatsoever about how this tech being legal or illegal will affect how often it is or isn't used.

 

and the consequences of that has been ____

 

not easier, just cheaper. There is nothing this tech does that couldn't be done before.

You ever heard of the phrase "Give an inch, they'll take a mile?"

It regularly comes out that these companies are tracking and logging everything you do, with or without permission and their primary business function and method of making money is selling that data to the highest bidder.

 

At this point you're either willfully, blissfully ignorant, part of the Illuminati, or another useful idiot more than eager to sign away your rights and privacy.

In all 3 cases, the discussion with you has come to a close and there's no point taking it further.

[Trik'Stari]

On 9/10/2020 at 7:14 AM, Master Disaster said:

The issue is that what society classes as dystopian is slowly being eroded by social conditioning. People are being conditioned to give up basic rights in the name of security and convenience and what was deemed unacceptable even 10 years ago is now considered normal and even desirable. If you read Orwell now you'll notice that many of the things he writes about in his dystopian future are reality right now.

 

One example I saw on Reddit was back in the late 80s/early 90s there was an episode of the TV show The Rockford Files that saw an entire town start a campaign against a local business that wanted to keep their personal information on a computer. This was a great social commentary from that period as people were genuinely worried what the computer age would mean for the storage of their personal information. Fast forward to the 2010s and people are not only willingly handing over that information for free but also agreeing to let the company store the data and pass it on to others. Within 30 years we were conditioned to accept the fact that companies using our information as currency is just a normal part of life.

 

The same thing is happening on a much more macroscopic level too. I remember when I was in my early teens our local town council and police joined forces to raise funds to get 3 CCTV cameras installed around the town centre and people were furious about it. There was a huge town meeting held, people got really mad, petitions were signed to stop it. Now there are 7 cameras in the town centre alone not to mention every shop you even walk past has one looking at you and its not uncommon for houses to have them pointing out to the streets as well. We also have speakers listening to our every words, doorbells that record everything they see on a millisecond scale, all our cars are now fitted with cameras, the list goes on and on.

 

We are being trained by the corporations to accept things that spy on us as normal in the name of protection and convenience, the reality is its all about gathering data because in the information age, data is power.

The only thing I have to add to this is that it's not just corporations, but also governments pushing this conditioning.

 

But I agree entirely, either way. We really need a digital bill of rights, and it needs to be written by sane people who know what they're doing, and understand technology and the impact it has, so no one currently in congress basically.