Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Advocates Leave In Protest Over U.S. Facial Recognition Code of Conduct
Taco Cowboy writes: Nine privacy advocates involved in the Commerce Department process for developing a voluntary code of conduct for the use of facial recognition technology withdrew in protest over technology industry lobbyists' overwhelming influence on the process. "At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they've never heard of are tracking their every movement — and identifying them by name — using facial recognition technology," the privacy advocates wrote in a joint statement. "Unfortunately, we have been unable to obtain agreement even with that basic, specific premise." The Commerce Department, through its National Telecommunications and Information Administration, brought together "representatives from technology companies, trade groups, consumer groups, academic institutions and other organizations" early last year "to kick off an effort to craft privacy safeguards for the commercial use of facial recognition technology."
The goal was "to develop a voluntary, enforceable code of conduct that specifies how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights applies to facial recognition technology in the commercial context." But after a dozen meetings, the most recent of which was last week, all nine privacy advocates who have participated in the entire process concluded that they were thoroughly outgunned. "This should be a wake-up call to Americans: Industry lobbyists are choking off Washington's ability to protect consumer privacy," Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law, said in a statement. "People simply do not expect companies they've never heard of to secretly track them using this powerful technology. Despite all of this, industry associations have pushed for a world where companies can use facial recognition on you whenever they want — no matter what you say. This position is well outside the mainstream."
The goal was "to develop a voluntary, enforceable code of conduct that specifies how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights applies to facial recognition technology in the commercial context." But after a dozen meetings, the most recent of which was last week, all nine privacy advocates who have participated in the entire process concluded that they were thoroughly outgunned. "This should be a wake-up call to Americans: Industry lobbyists are choking off Washington's ability to protect consumer privacy," Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law, said in a statement. "People simply do not expect companies they've never heard of to secretly track them using this powerful technology. Despite all of this, industry associations have pushed for a world where companies can use facial recognition on you whenever they want — no matter what you say. This position is well outside the mainstream."
I'm perfectly fine with this, as long as their right to point their omnipresent cameras at me is balanced by my right (codified into law, of course) to point a fucking shotgun at said cameras as well as their sickening fucking heads.
I think their point is that they would have had zero say in the outcome anyway, and this way the public can be aware of that.
There has been a major push to get basically every security camera in downtown DC networked into the government systems. It's sold as a why-wouldn't-you-want-this measure, and IIRC almost everyone has signed on.
We'll see if CV Dazzle becomes fashionable.
Yes, given the laws that may pass, the public will have no option but to wear burkas, ski masks or gas masks on public streets.
At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they've never heard of are tracking their every movement — and identifying them by name — using their employees eyes and ears. When I walk up to a receptionist he/she better ask for my id. And how dare that fast food employee remember my normal order. Big Brother is here.
The goal was "to develop a voluntary, enforceable code of conduct
Because they work for/with the government, those privacy advocates are -- by definition -- adults. Yet they are so fucking naive as to make me wonder whether or not they are mentally retarded.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
yeah, right.
Maybe they could object by pointing out that various congress critters have a habit of being seen (and now recognized) with women other than their wives in locations other than their offices. That might strike closer to home for some of them. Just a thought.
Well by pulling out, they are also drastically reducing (some say by ~95%) the chance they will be held accountable for whatever deformed, mutated creature results from this unholy union.
I imagine they didn't want to be on the hook for the next 20 odd years for something they really had no control over in the first place? Sure it's 'voluntary' and 'enforceable', but sometimes people just say things like that as a lure. When really, they have completely contrary ulterior motives.
Gold digging special interest groups, the lot of them.
.
Privacy in cell phone communications was not commonplace until some Congress critter's cell phone calls were taped and made public.
Privacy in facial recognition will not become a reality until some Congress critter is caught and embarrassed via the use of facial recognition.
Congress does not care about privacy until they are the victims of the lack of it.
People should make sure the CEOs of these companies that track you are in the database. Then follow them, photograph them and post it on google maps with date and time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
ex: Canada
After several high profile protests, the Canadian Parliament introduced Bill C-309, which bans the wearing of masks during a riot or other unlawful assembly. The bill became law on June 19, 2013. Those convicted of it face up to 10 years in prison.
Now, what is "unlawful assembly"? Anything the government fucking wants.
Haven't people been complaining for decades that businesses don't recognize them anymore? There has often been nostalgia for a time when people were recognized by name when they walked into their bank.
Wouldn't this just be reviving the "Good Olde Days", at least for small town America? Or is facial recognition only okay when done by a MeatCreature?
By pulling out of the process, they're basically ensuring they will have zero say in the outcome.
Not quite. They're finally recognizing the plain fact that in the United States today, if a "corporate citizen" wants something badly enough, they get it, and the little people can go fuck themselves. /s
Is this a great country, or what?
Identity theft will now include your face. I for one, intend to wear my motorcycle helmet 24/7 and call myself "The Stig".
It should be noted that when facebook started their facial recognition stuff, I uploaded dozens of photos of Mark Zuckerberg to my profile, and identified them as me. Facebook still has no idea what I look like.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Everyone has family and friends. A percentage of those use social media. And in that percentage, most will think you're joking or a conspiracy nut if you ask them not to put photos of yourself online and will do it anyway.
Then there's cameras everywhere that can still "know" you until they can match with absolute certainty that you are Mr.X by checking purchases with credit/debit cards when you're the only one around, etc.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
If corporations are people as the US Supreme Court and former candidate for President Mitt Romney have said, then they are obviously people who can ignore laws and customs they don't like. If a human person were to use facial recognition on a widespread scale to follow the public movements of and to gain personal information about another individual, they would run afoul of several anti-stalking measures, at least.
Not so for our corporate ubermenschen
I said believably. That's hard when it is known that 100% of the privacy advocates declared the process broken beyond repair and walked away.