Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Demands DHS Disclose Its Use of Facial-Recognition Tech (cnet.com)
The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday called on the Department of Homeland Security to disclose its use of facial-recognition software. The nonprofit also again pushed for an end of law enforcement's use of the technology. From a report: The ACLU's statements follow reports Tuesday that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials met this summer with Amazon. Around that time, the company pitched the agency on potentially using its facial-recognition software, called Rekognition, along with other Amazon products. A handful of US police agencies are already trying out Rekognition as part of their crime-fighting and investigative efforts. The ACLU since May has criticized Amazon's marketing of its facial-recognition software to law enforcement and has asked Congress and the public to debate whether the technology should be used. The nonprofit has argued that facial-recognition technology has the potential of being misused by policing agencies and misidentifying people.
Why would law enforcement give up the methods and tactics? I bet the terrorist cells would absolutely love that information. So much easier to plan your next attack successfully when you know how to avoid observation and identification.
You can't be this obtuse. You just can't.
How many police officers stand 24x7 in one spot, remember EVERYONE that EVER passes, remember them for DECADES, and simultaneously is in constant communication with all other officers doing the same, *AND* a collection of other officers back at the police station -- combining, correlating, and ensuring that every citizen that they see, is logged and tracked between every officer.
On top of that?
Those notes + all correlated data is hacked by foreign powers, corporations use that data for their own ends (as they provide backend services), and used outside of the scope of any warrant or judicial oversight.
There's an IMMENSE, MASSIVE, HUGE difference.
Troll much?
ACLU's stance is, law-enforcement endangers our civil liberties.
In this case anyway. That sneaky generalisation you snuck in there is sneaky, but not entirely honest.
Though it certainly might sometimes do that, criminals always do.
Eh? You're using that word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Criminals break the law. They don't necessarily take pictures of you then store them for 99 years for possible later use against you, along with your complete identity, travel history, physical characteristics, and whatever else they can get their hands on. The TSA does, down to the book you've been reading on the plane.
And remember that law enforcement has legal power criminals don't have, therefore we hold law enforcement to higher standards of conduct than we hold criminals, or for that matter anyone else. Or at least we used to.
Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner. The technology just greatly improves on the humans here, and is much cheaper.
I'd say that is materially different, good sir.
If it is Ok for a cop to stand there and observe the crowd — memorizing faces and pulling out those, who look like the pictures of the suspects on the "Wanted" list — it is Ok for a computer to do the same.
Not necessarily. It's not OK for computers to vote, or arrest you, and for good reason.
Indeed, the computer is less likely to engage in any deliberate harassment...
That's not a given. The thing does what it's told to do. If it's told to engage in deliberate harassment then it will do so. It won't do so of its own volition, but then, it won't not do it of its own volition either. Humans might do both.
Cameras are NEVER ok you sick retarded fuck
.
You'd better start packing your bags then, because the cameras are here to stay.
You are a stupid punkass worthless bitch pussy boy, and no one gives a fuck what you "think".
My butthoal brings David Boies to the bard,
and your mom, is ah effing tard
and your mom, is ah effing tard.
I could do you but your butt is large!
Especially when those who stand to benefit most from enforcement get to define what the laws. Moreso when those who define and enforce the laws get to decide who they'll treat as criminals. (Hint: they tend to excuse themselves and anyone with political influence.)
Anyone who's watched the news the last few decades knows that law enforcement does endanger civil liberties. In theory they're supposed to work for the common good, but far too much evidence reinforces the fact that power corrupts.
ACLU's stance is, law-enforcement endangers our civil liberties.
Citation needed for this plain assertion.
Assholes like you love to paint your opposition with a broad brush. Such a lazy style of discourse, and wrought with intellectual dishonesty.
So, do provide your citation now. We'll be waiting.
Cameraâ(TM)s ,license plate itentifiers, and facial scanners are the future of crime fighting. Itâ(TM)s never racial profiling unless of course more of one race commit crimes? Then somehow this is a injustice.
What were you charged with?
Mi makes the argument that because crime, we need to erode civil liberties. WHAT A FUCKING RETARD. The Founding Fathers would have put a hole through your face with Belgian pistols, Mi.
"Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner" YES, THEY ARE MORON. IT'S ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
Shaddap Mi you retarded head up your own ass faggot, you don't decide.
Cameras are now everywhere and there's nothing you can do about it. Get over it or suicide. Nobody cares.
* Not guy you were responding to *
While I agree with you the cameras are here to stay, it's not comforting. They can be used for good, as I assist with this in my own job. However, take having a mobile phone on your person and you happen to be having a meal in a nice restaurant and a massive protest breaks out outside the restaurant resulting in your mobile phone being "in the area" at the time and your IMEI, Mac address, et al, being assumed to be part of the protestors. This tactic is used all the time to arrest people, harass them, etc. The cameras there may see you and the people looking at the footage may assume you are part of the mob.
Cameras — and the face-recognition software behind them — are no different from a policeman on the corner.
Cameras are just the eyes for a central computer system. This central computer system can have thousands of eyes, never sleeps, it never blinks, it never forgets. It can track where every single person goes as it moves between the locations it can see, making a record of pace, stride and facial expressions used. It can search and recognize people out of a database of billions in a fraction of a second. It can then share all this information which is then processed in a master system that can track your movements, mood, interactions and other attributes over time while correlating it with other personal records. Your motives for collecting this information are not considered and it will continue providing this information regardless if you are helping make the world safer or systematically killing those deemed a threat to an oppressive agenda.
To compare such a system to officers of the law is naive in the highest regard or more likely extremely disingenuous.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
How many police officers stand 24x7 in one spot, remember EVERYONE that EVER passes,
I listen to the cops on the scanner to keep up with what is going on in my community. You would be amazed at the number of people that cops remember by sight. It is not unusual to hear one of them tell another that they've just seen Frank Smarkle someplace he was trespassed from, and the other one asks "isn't that the guy we dealt with six months ago ...". It's their JOB to remember people, especially criminals.
combining, correlating, and ensuring that every citizen that they see, is logged and tracked between every officer.
That's not a property inherent in facial recognition. It is debatably a misuse of a technology, but if you want to argue that a possible misuse of a technology renders it off limits for any use, then we'll have to talk about the use of anesthetic drugs during life-saving surgery just because a well-known person misused the technology. And then a thousand other technologies that can be misused but have valuable uses otherwise.
Humans don't do this because of biological rather than legal or ethical limitations. From the legal/ethical point of view, there is no difference.
And, because computers don't have the "biological" issues, they will neither deliberately harass anyone, nor let anyone "slip". An automatic speed-trap, for example, can not be suspected of racism, can it? Nor will it let a pretty girl go because she smiled at the cop, while fining a goth "to the full extent"...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why is this marked as 'troll'? The guy is making a valid point. What's becoming of /. is slightly unsettling.
"An automatic speed-trap, for example, can not be suspected of racism, can it?"
What if a disproportionate number of said speed-traps are placed in minority neighborhoods?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Look, the ACLU is desperate to get more (D) votes. DHS deliberately interferes with importing illegals, and therefore is a threat to the ACLU.
Oh, but you say, there's no evidence of illegals voting. Well no shit, you've deliberately destroyed any ability to discover it. We have no idea, which doesn't mean it isn't happening.
The guys a troll because he's championing for total survailance over our society.
It's not a fucking valid point. Also if you know mi, you know he's a fucking troll.
ACLU isn't a magical "help all retards out of their legal jam" organization. Sorry YOU FUCKING IDIOT. ACLU doesn't need retard support from you, they'll be fine. So like the cops no doubt told you, SHUT THE FUCK UP MORON.
A cop remembered someone's face
Therefore it's OK to record everyone's faces in perpetuity
Okie dokie.
You clearly don't live in an HOA. There are plenty of old people here who do damn near exactly that, watch what's going on in the neighborhood and remember every improper thing you've done wrong in the last 20 years, and they do get called in to testify occasionally. They also go to each HOA meeting to bitch about the "drug dealer" next door. He's not a drug dealer; he's got 3 teenage daughters.
I guess you won't mind if your neighbor sets up a tripod with a long-range camera lens pointed at your window. I mean the only difference between his eyes and the camera lens is "biological"
I'll be so glad when we catch all the terrorist & we can all have our rights back.
Any day now....
What if a disproportionate number of said speed-traps are placed in minority neighborhoods?
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that a speed trap gets to decide where it is placed, or are you claiming that the speed trap is programmed to give tickets only to people of a certain race? That's the only way an automated speed-trap could be racist.
There would have to be an awful lot of determined racists involved if the photo of a white criminal was identified as a black person and nobody bothered to reject that potential match before someone was arrested or even questioned. If that were true, pointing the finger at Rekognition would be an incredible waste of time; it did not create the problem.
It can track ...
If we reject every piece of technology that CAN be misused then I fear we'd be living in cave-man days. Actually, worse. We'd have rejected fire and caves because you can burn someone with fire or imprison them unjustly in a cave. The clubs we use to kill our food would be right out -- clubs can kill other humans as well as food.
I'd love to find some abuse for loin cloths but I can't really, so we do get to keep our clothes at least.
or systematically killing those deemed a threat to an oppressive agenda.
Yes, of course, the only reason police would like to be able to identify suspects easily is so they can kill anyone who is a threat to an oppressive agenda. "Come see the violence inherent in the system..."
Those are all very good things, yes.
Police could — and did — do these things to anyone they chose (for whatever reason). Now the computers let them do that to everyone.
But, if it was Ok before, it must be Ok today.
It is obvious, there are neither legal nor even ethical differences. You are just uncomfortable, that suddenly it may apply even to the lowly, mediocre, and insignificant you... Why?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What if a disproportionate number of said speed-traps are placed in minority neighborhoods?
That would tell me that a disproportionate number of minorities drive faster than the speed limit.
Why would you place speed-traps in places where people don't speed? Are you really suggesting that the same amount of resources be deployed to crime-free and crime-prone neighborhoods in some sort of twisted idea of fairness?
The argument makes more sense if you assume that rates of criminal behavior are equally distributed across racial groups (which they are not). Then the fact that you placed 8 sensors in minority neighborhoods and only 2 in "white" neighborhoods means you're trying to target minorities because the whites break the law just as often (they don't).
The fact that minorities are more likely to engage in criminal behavior is explained away because they're being targeted! It's circular reasoning to support the original flawed assumption. Just look at the crime rates by race in one of the large cities, it's obvious that the differences are not due to policing, but that certain racial groups do in fact have higher rates of criminality.
It is obvious, there are neither legal nor even ethical differences.
Wow, straight up gaslighting. Interesting but not an argument, just a lie.
But, if it was Ok before, it must be Ok today.
I would have been very concerned if that were actually true but it's not. Also, what about slavery? You think slavery is okay because it was okay in the past?
You are just uncomfortable, that suddenly it may apply even to the lowly, mediocre, and insignificant you... Why?
Oh, so you are going with the "if you have nothing to hide..." whataboutism?
You need to work on forming a coherent argument because all of these fail basic logic.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Why are criminals allowed to take advantage of new tech, but the police are not?
The original reason for things like the 4th amendment was so that the police couldn't just take someone they hated and then go fishing for crimes. It's not supposed to mean that they can't walk around in public watching for criminals.
If we reject every piece of technology that CAN be misused then I fear we'd be living in cave-man days.
Ah, the old false dilemma fallacy where absolutes are falsely used. If we reject some dangerous technologies then we must reject all dangerous technologies, right? Except what reason is there for that? The correct answer is none.
Yes, of course, the only reason police would like to be able to identify suspects easily is so they can kill anyone who is a threat to an oppressive agenda. "Come see the violence inherent in the system..."
You act as if it's never happened in history. However, my point clearly was that unlike police officers, it is fundamentally incapable of questioning or objecting to how the data it collects will be used.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I explained, why there is no difference. Multiple times. To call me a liar, as a minimum, you need to rebut those explanations.
Of course, it was true. There was never privacy — nor expectation of privacy — outside, in public. A policeman could follow you everywhere — no warrant needed. That they didn't follow everyone was simply because it was too expensive. Now computers can — and do.
Talk about whataboutism.
What I'm talking about is still Ok today. Police — and anyone else — can follow anyone else anywhere in public (with the possible exception of explicit restraining orders). It is also Ok — with very few exceptions — to record anything you can see and/or hear. And, of course, to hold on to that recording for as long as you wish.
Strawman, darling... I asked you, why is it Ok — legal and ethical — for police to focus their attentions on some people (without warrants), but not on all people. You've accused me of lying, questioned my deeply-flawed character, subpar education and frail mental faculties — but are yet to provide a coherent answer...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Would we accuse the speed-traps of racism? Or the humans that decided where/how to deploy them?
Actually, yeah.... when the recording is in a public place where anyone could be there lawfully, and anyone who was there could have also witnessed it. If it's not in a public place, then that's an *ENTIRELY* different story.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Ah, the old false dilemma fallacy where absolutes are falsely used. If we reject some dangerous technologies then we must reject all dangerous technologies, right? Except what reason is there for that? The correct answer is none.
When we reject *some* dangerous technologies, but not *all* dangerous technologies, we generally require a reason other than "it could potentially be dangerous if abused", correct?
Usually something about how it's *unreasonably* dangerous, or perhaps another unique attribute that distinguishes the thing we want to reject from the things we want to accept, right?
What reason is being presented to reject *this* technology?
Let's vote in all the right people to close and terminate DHS and TSA.
Will be great to find illegal migrants who thought they could stay hidden.
People with fake ID.
People sharing ID.
Illegal migrants trying to get the gov tax payers to pay for their full education using fake ID.
A person supporting banned groups in other nations trying to get in and out of the USA.
People with a criminal biography trying to use a fake ID to hide their criminal past.
Criminals, illegal migrants and people who should not be in the USA long term accessing city/state and federal services.
Illegal migrants using one type of state issued photo ID to create other US ID.
Criminals moving around the USA.
Criminals from other nations who thought they could buy a total new ID in one part of the USA and be safe for decades.
People setting up a tent city. Living long term in a RV on a city street.
People attempting to use fake ID to get many more city/state/federal support services under different names.
Illegal migrants trying to get more city/state/federal support services using fake ID all over the USA.
People working in the USA who did not apply for a work visa.
Criminals using payments and cash under different names all over the USA.
Illegal migrants and criminals trying to access the US banking system in new ways under different ID.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If nobody tells the police they can't then they'll give themselves the right to do it for this.
The only possible antecedent for "this" is my statement that they can use facial recognition to flag potential matches from their known-felon database much faster than doing it manually. Why don't they already have the right to do this? Why would you tell them they don't?
The Constitution already tells them they don't have the right to do a lot of abusive things with the technology, and there are already laws dealing with other criminal information. It's not like we're on new ground here.
Might as well argue that because I disagree with you I must be a looney
That's not what I said. If you don't know that already, then we clearly don't speak the same language at all.
Well before any action involving those people was taken someone would look at the images and say "no, that really isn't him".
There is no guarantee this actually happens.
Oh for fuck's sake. I don't know what country you live in, but it clearly isn't the US. Nobody is going to waste their time even talking to someone whose name pops out of the facial recognition without looking at the pictures. Why would they? They're going to have a hundred or more flagged images to deal with; they're not going to go out and interview a hundred or more people before taking simple steps to cut the list down a lot.
You seem to think that mindless police are going to go out rounding up every person who's image is flagged as a potential match just for fun. Here's a free clue: they don't need facial recognition if they were going to do that.
That's supposing there is a baby in that bathwater.
Of course there's a baby in the bathwater. Just cutting down the number of potential matches by a factor of, what, tens of thousands, is a HUGE baby in the bathwater. If you don't know what facial recognition is or what it does, please stop yammering about how bad it is.
Let's duke it out and decide whether this is tech we'd like the police to have.
Let's not "duke it out". Let's recognize the argument "this technology might be abused so you cannot have it at all" as the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
Ask them.
In other words, you don't know and cannot come up with a reasonable way they could know. Because you are posting as an AC you accept no responsibility for anything posted as AC, and I understand why you'd want to avoid having to explain such a patently absurd claim.
Yes yes I know you had far too much fun trying to be sarcastic in the 'merkin fashion
I was seriously asking someone who made an outrageous claim to explain why it was true. I gave reasons why it could not be true, but certainly, if an Anonymous Coward said it was possible, then it must be possible. ACs don't lie, do they?
And they break'em too.
Yes, of COURSE some people break the rules. Gee, did anyone say otherwise? You're trying to use a criminal act on the part of a vast minority of people as a reason not to allow the rest of them to use a technology that would make their jobs vastly easier, AND make their communities safer because serious criminals could be caught faster. Wow. Baby and bathwater down the drain, ignore the cries from the infant as it disappears.
Do you also argue that cops not be allowed to have cars to patrol in because they sometimes get in accidents?
The problem is that sort of thing doesn't fly in a functioning democracy,
Why aren't you ranting about fingerprints or driver's license photos while you are at it? DNA is another big one. Gosh, I have a camera in my front window that records people that pass by "in perpetuity", maybe I'm violating someone's rights, too? A "functioning democracy"
If we reject some dangerous technologies then we must reject all dangerous technologies, right?
And what is the fancy term for defining something as a "dangerous technology" and then arguing is has to be rejected because it is dangerous? Facial recognition isn't dangerous just because it can be misused, just as screwdrivers aren't dangerous just because they can be misused, or clubs, or fire, or caves.
The actual argument is that if you use the potential for misuse as an argument to prevent the use of one technology, then the potential for misuse of every technology becomes an argument for it's rejection. You cannot limit what "abusable technologies" that argument is applied to without being a hypocrite.
You act as if it's never happened in history.
You lack reading comprehension. I said that "the only reason they would like to be able to" use the technology, not that technology has never been abused.
However, my point clearly was that unlike police officers, it is fundamentally incapable of questioning or objecting to how the data it collects will be used.
So what? A club is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used. A syringe of propofol is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used. That's why there are humans in the system to manage such concerns.
By using this nonsentience of facial recognition technology as an argument against allowing it, you make it sound like there will be no humans involved in the process. You seem to think that the output of Rekognition will be sent directly to a fleet of autonomous vehicles which will then go out and detain the people whose images are flagged as potential matches, and no human will be looking at the potential matches to weed out false positives. That's just absurd. "Unlike police officers", but police officers will absolutely involved in making final decisions. How is the use of that technology "unlike police officers" when they are the users of the facial recognition output?
Nope.
See it and respond to it? Yes. Record it for perpetuity? Nope.
The actual argument is that if you use the potential for misuse as an argument to prevent the use of one technology, then the potential for misuse of every technology becomes an argument for it's rejection. You cannot limit what "abusable technologies" that argument is applied to without being a hypocrite.
The more power a technology gives an individual or small number of people, the more dangerous it becomes. There is a reason we try to keep a lid on dangerous technologies like nukes.
You act as if it's never happened in history.
You lack reading comprehension. I said that "the only reason they would like to be able to" use the technology, not that technology has never been abused.
So you were being serious when you wrote "the only reason police would like to be able to identify suspects easily is so they can kill anyone who is a threat to an oppressive agenda."? How is that supportive to your argument?
So what? A club is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used. A syringe of propofol is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used.
A club can only be used to hurt one person at a time. Explosives and drugs are tightly regulated for this exact reason. This system has the potential for large-scale abuse.
That's why there are humans in the system to manage such concerns.
The problem here is that it only takes a handful of people to run the system instead of the hundreds of thousands of uniformed officers that would be it's inferior analog. With so few people in charge it is far easier to keep their actions out of the public's knowledge. The problem is not that's powerful, it's that it's highly concentrated power.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Why? If there is nothing criminal with observing and remembering from personal observation, why does the fact that the record happens to be objectively permanent make any difference?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So wait... you think that relying on human memory is okay because it's subjective and can make mistakes?
In other words, you prefer an environment where it is possible to freely lie and be able to get away with it on the grounds that memory isn't necessarily perfect.
Got it.
You sound like you sort of want to be a lawyer, if you aren't one already.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I did something stupid in a public place many years ago. My friends laugh at it, but the details have been changed a bit over time.
The other people who where there and did not know me will most likely have forgotten it or at least have no idea who that idiot was.
I am sure, at least I hope, that youy have something stupid as well. Just ask your mom, she will know.
Now imagine that this will be held over your head every time you met somebody. Start telling the story when you are in a job interview. And do not try to sugarcoat it. Tell the facts.
Tell them more than you would tell a priest at confession.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"the whites break the law just as often (they don't)"
I agree whites don't get caught as much as minorities when breaking the law. I would put money on it that speeding is a crime that nearly 99% of the population does at some point and its practice is not tied to a particular race.
And looking at crime rates , the ever reliable wikipedia says "Research shows that the overrepresentation of some minorities in the criminal justice system can be explained mostly by disproportionate rates of crime, but also by socioeconomic factors and racial discrimination by law enforcement and the judicial system."
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
i think facial recognition should be used to find exploited kids. if a database of school photos was made then exploited photos could be run through amazons service and the face used to tell which school the kid went to to further follow up and save a child