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.
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.