[HN Gopher] Facial recognition technology: How to opt out at the...
___________________________________________________________________
Facial recognition technology: How to opt out at the airport
Author : walterbell
Score : 94 points
Date : 2021-09-11 08:35 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cntraveler.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cntraveler.com)
| mbg721 wrote:
| You could obscure your face and wear special contact lenses, and
| then you'd be instantly recognizable as "that guy whose license
| plate is all I's and ones".
| kylegordon wrote:
| How to Opt Out (of voluntarily Facial Recognition) at the Airport
| beckman466 wrote:
| Yes... because they take their time to sit down and explain
| that to each person, right? /s
| macawfish wrote:
| Face recognition is one thing. Device free localization and
| identification by spectral/topological analysis of mm-wave
| antenna array data is even more invasive.
|
| Hint: I'm talking about 5G and its big surveillance application,
| an open secret.
| minton wrote:
| Did you mean device-free? Are you saying 5G can track and
| identify people without using their phones?
| White_Wolf wrote:
| I don't remember all the details for sure sure but I read
| some research a while back about using some form of radar
| "thing" to identify people using a details like gait, ear
| shape and size, neck length and shape, upper back shape and
| width, arm length and a few other things that I really can't
| remember. I think gait was the main factor along with height
| and then rest were used as filters.
|
| Edit: Forgot to mention this was pretty crude 10 years ago.
| I'm assuming op is talking about a practical application for
| something similar.
| aiisjustanif wrote:
| This leads to the an even bigger question. Will kids be able to
| opt-out in schools? [1][2] [1]:
| https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/safer-management
|
| [2]: https://www.safermgmt.com/
| elmalto wrote:
| Global entry / TSA-Precheck only required my face when I entered
| the the US last month (LGA airport). While I have gotten used to
| having my picture taken at US airports, it was a weird yet
| incredibly fast experience
| mlindner wrote:
| I've never used facial recognition in the US and I never will. If
| they start requiring it for certain places/method of travel then
| I'll no longer use them.
| deepsun wrote:
| What's the difference if in order to fly an airliner you already
| have surrendered your ID?
| latortuga wrote:
| Because people lie and when they say "we don't store" they
| really actually do. It's the difference between checking a
| single ID photo at a time and having a database full of photos
| every time you submit to it.
|
| A lot of defeatism in this thread but I for one will opt out,
| just like the body scanners.
| caymanjim wrote:
| Exactly. This is a giant nothingburger. You can't get through a
| gate at the airport without showing government-issued ID, by
| which point they know exactly who you are, and every detail
| about your life. What exactly are you opting out of? You're
| still being recorded by dozens--if not hundreds--of TSA/airport
| security cameras every step of the way, and even if there isn't
| software automatically identifying and tagging you, it would be
| trivial to determine who you are. You're on camera when you
| arrive at the airport, you're on camera when you check in,
| you're on camera when you go through security, walk to the
| gate, and board the plane. It's unlikely a single second of
| your activity in the airport is off-camera (bathrooms
| notwithstanding).
|
| I don't like the surveillance state, in particular the ubiquity
| of cameras in public open spaces where there's no compelling
| reason. I don't like the networks of private cameras people
| have attached to their front doors, all fed to Amazon and
| Google (and the state, most likely). If we're going to have
| cameras anywhere, though, the airport is the place I have the
| least problem with.
|
| We're way past opting out, whatever that even means in this
| scenario.
| moron4hire wrote:
| There's a flip side to this "nothingburger" argument. If it
| isn't such a big deal/difference over the status quo, then
| why do the airlines want it?
|
| You say, "I don't like the surveillance state, in particular
| the ubiquity of cameras in public open spaces where there's
| _no compelling reason_. " You are assuming there is no
| compelling reason because you do not personally know what
| that reason may be. Someone, somewhere, thought they had a
| compelling reason to go through the expense and hassle of
| developing and installing the surveillance system. It wasn't
| just "IDK, it's kinda neat".
|
| It's clear from the gaping, empty space between our
| understanding of these systems and the desire of institutions
| to have them that something must be filling it. Whatever that
| "it" is should not be hidden from the public and communicated
| _clearly_ , and not just hidden in a TOS-like document locked
| in a room with a tiger in the basement.
| landemva wrote:
| Airlines want ID check to stop the mileage points resale
| trade. TSA are the airlines' frequent flier (free tickets
| to Hawaii) mall guards.
| tpc3 wrote:
| I suspect it's the combination of the defensive medicine
| effect (if something does go wrong, no one wants to be the
| one to take responsibility for having said no to a system
| that someone else will argue (true or not) that that system
| could have stopped the event), the belief that the security
| theater aspect makes customers feel safer, the belief that
| more data and whiz-bang technology is always better, and
| the decision makers don't have the technical expertise to
| understand that it is not getting them much in terms of
| increased security, and they can always make some money on
| the side by selling the data that they collect.
| landemva wrote:
| Not quite true about ID being required to get to gate. In
| USA, under 18 are waived through without ID. Over 18, I have
| gone through without ID. Be polite, say you misplaced it, and
| they will make you sign a form. Then on your way.
|
| Most of the airport security theater is voluntary. Full body
| scans are also voluntary. Most soy boiz are too lazy to opt
| out.
| [deleted]
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| What about the real id reqs?
| pabl8k wrote:
| It's not a nothingburger. An ID card has biometric
| information from years ago. Correlating a photo match with a
| ticket at gate check in gives confirmation for updating the
| stored id-face model, which means the recency and fidelity of
| the biometric data stored by e.g. the airlines or CBP is
| higher than that from the ID card.
|
| Random surveillance video in an airport probably can't be
| used to update records because you have lower confidence of a
| match absent the other known factor that confirms ID.
| Moreover, masks/face covering is a norm that will also help
| subvert ambient face ID and model updating.
|
| The data won't stay in the airport--the updated id-face model
| will be used in places where we expect or should expect more
| privacy of identity.
|
| We as a society could decide to limit the legality of this.
| As individuals we can opt out and likely make a small but
| meaningful difference in the recency and fidelity of our
| collected and shared biometric data.
| patrick451 wrote:
| Why should we have to show ID in order to board an airplane?
| Frankly, that's none of the governments business. It's a
| tyrannical, invasive policy that should be reversed. Instead of
| doubling down on more of the same big brother overreach, why
| not fight it?
| nerdponx wrote:
| ID makes sense for a variety of reasons, but "proof of
| citizenship" certainly does not, which will be required in
| the next few years.
| baby-yoda wrote:
| had my first experience with this a couple months ago at the
| gate, had no idea it was even a thing. it probably did improve
| boarding time for the entire plane (A350 transatlantic, 300ish
| passengers) but after understanding how the tech works I'm more
| impressed with how quickly the scan is validated against the CBP
| database - literally a second or so.
| lucb1e wrote:
| > Facial recognition technology: How to opt out at the airport
|
| in the US*
|
| I thought this might be some China thing since the domain is
| cntraveler, or indeed a US thing since it seems also in line with
| both HN and the kind of stuff US airports do, but the title isn't
| quite clear so one has to click...
| Animats wrote:
| People can recognize you with face recognition. Cops spend time
| looking at picture books of wanted people. Store clerks remember
| customers. Vegas casinos hire people with unusually good face
| recognition skills.
|
| We're looking at the wrong end of the problem. We need to limit
| what consequences can come from being recognized. Like an "you
| can only be hassled once a year" policy for cops.
|
| Meanwhile, watch the Hikvision Corporate Channel and get over
| it.[1]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3trCnFdh6i8
| tzs wrote:
| > We're looking at the wrong end of the problem. We need to
| limit what consequences can come from being recognized. Like an
| "you can only be hassled once a year" policy for cops.
|
| In some of Asimov's science fiction mystery short stories there
| was something like this [1]. Police had technology called a
| "psycho-probe" that could essentially read your mind, with a
| slight risk that doing so would cause permanent severe brain
| damage. Because of this risk the law was that a person could
| only be probed once.
|
| That had some interesting consequences.
|
| First, if someone who had never been probed was tried for a
| serious crime juries were reluctant to convict.
|
| Second, a lot of criminals tried to get charged with crimes
| serious enough to get probed. Confess to a crime you didn't do
| in hopes of getting probed, cleared, and gaining immunity from
| probing for any future crimes you do. Even if you actually have
| to do a serious crime to get probed, it could be worth it to do
| so and serve your time to get that immunity for when you resume
| your criminal career when you get out.
|
| [1] Definitely in at least one of the "Wendell Urth" mysteries
| collected in "Asimov's Mysteries" [2]. I'm sure probing is a
| big part of "The Singing Bell" and I think it was at least
| mentioned in "The Dying Night".
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimov%27s_Mysteries
| oramit wrote:
| This has been my recent thinking on this as well. I wish we
| didn't have ubiquitous surveillance and I wish there was a way
| to stop it from expanding even more but that's not the world we
| live in. Privacy advocates who think they can stop this at the
| technology level are fooling themselves. The ship has already
| sailed.
|
| What's left is to create a culture where the abuse of
| surveillance is heavily stigmatized. There are a lot of laws
| that could be passed to minimize the time that data is stored
| and how it is shared. The government is the only entity with
| the power to make rules to stop this, and the government is the
| entity that controls the spy agencies (who are the most
| frightening abusers of surveillance power) and could reign them
| in. But privacy advocates are almost always maximally skeptical
| of government power so they reject out of hand to work "in the
| system" as it were, to make changes.
| andfer29 wrote:
| Sorry, this may be a silly question, but what are some ways to
| explain why this may be bad to someone? I personally don't care
| if an airport or a mall know who I am and track me so trying to
| understand why it's not great.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Information is power. Giving it away puts you at a
| disadvantage. History has shown that government and business
| will often use their power for evil. Need examples? Read the
| Bill of Rights and then the reasons they were written.
| zahma wrote:
| I saw face-scan boarding an international flight at Atlanta last
| year. The reps for Delta did make it clear we could opt out by
| saying so, which meant them having to swipe my boarding pass.
| What was shocking is how few people bothered to question the
| system. Perhaps I am naive, but I trust CBP a lot more with my
| image than Delta. Maybe I shouldn't trust either, but airlines
| seem to have gotten into the business of security. I do not trust
| them to keep their meandering and profiteering ways siloed off
| from passenger security systems.
| mcculley wrote:
| Ubiquitous facial recognition is inevitable. Governments that are
| prohibited by law from tracking faces and locations/times will
| just buy it from private companies, like has happened with
| automated license plate readers on tow trucks.
|
| It is pointless to argue about legislation at this point. We have
| to assume governments and corporations will have this data. The
| only mitigation is to limit the overall power of governments and
| corporations.
| colechristensen wrote:
| It really isn't pointless. Building, selling, or possessing
| facial recognition products or data obtained could easily be
| made illegal or extremely restricted.
|
| We need to build an expectation of public privacy concept where
| everyone has the right to go about their public lives with only
| human levels of tracking, recognition, and memories. That is
| being seen and remembered a short while is acceptable, having
| every move recorded and attributed to me is not.
| mcculley wrote:
| How could it easily be restricted? As long as people or
| corporations are allowed to sell timestamped, geostamped
| photos and videos, the aggregation can be done.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| Many states have two party consent laws that make it
| illegal to record private conversations without consent
| even in a public place. I fail to see how the same thing
| couldn't be done with video.
|
| Of course finding the political will to restrict things
| like security cameras is a different matter, but I don't
| think it'd it'd case that we couldn't write effective laws
| to prevent this.
| mcculley wrote:
| As I wrote, we are already seeing this. Tow truck
| companies sell ALPR data to aggregators. Ring and Amazon
| are collecting security camera data. Please explain what
| legislation you would propose.
| rt4mn wrote:
| Just because something can be technically done does not
| mean that we cant impose restrictions that make it to
| costly to use except in the most constrained and extreme
| circumstances.
|
| This is an oversimplification of a complicated story, but a
| great example is when the NSA stopped doing mass phone /
| text analysis because of the additional regulatory burdens
| imposed by the USA Freedom Act. The NSA contends that the
| data is still useful, but also that the difficulties of
| complying with the law make it not worth it.
| mcculley wrote:
| I am not understanding how you get to possible
| restrictions.
|
| How could I, as a private citizen or owner of a property
| be prevented from selling photos/videos with timestamps
| and geostamps?
|
| How could a company be prevented from buying and
| aggregating that data (even in other jurisdictions)?
|
| How could an end user be prevented from buying aggregated
| data as the cost plummets?
|
| Do you really think the NSA is not buying all available
| data sets?
| pope_meat wrote:
| Probably the same way you're prevented from selling CP,
| and fully automatic fire arms out of your home? It won't
| stop it 100%, but it certainly has an effect.
| mcculley wrote:
| Would you eliminate sales of Internet-connected security
| cameras? Or just the sale of the data they collect? I am
| trying to understand how you think this is a genie that
| can be rebottled.
| mLuby wrote:
| Banning individual product classes is a sure-fire way to
| keep regulators forever playing catch-up with industry.
|
| Most ideal: make personal data a massive business
| liability, such that _personal data is rarely even
| collected,_ let alone stored. This is _much_ more
| possible than people believe (even making exceptions for
| current regulations like KYC). Does the local pizza place
| need to know anything more than my order, where to
| deliver it, and that the money arrived in their
| account?++ Does a hotel or airline need anything other
| than a confirmation code to hand over the room key or
| seat? And yes, this may kill off or force pivots from
| businesses that exist today solely to spy on us--that 's
| the point!
|
| Only okay: personal data isn't shared or sold to third
| parties. Businesses can collect data on their own users,
| but it can't leak beyond the corp firewall or else big
| penalties come into play. Only okay because leaks are
| almost mathematically inevitable, so there will be
| constant lobby pressure to relax regulations, or
| enforcement thereof.
|
| Not good: personal data can be collected, retained, and
| sold by basically all companies, and the penalties for
| unintentionally disclosing those data are just slaps on
| the wrist. At least it can't get much worse though,
| right? Right??
|
| _Businesses will adapt to any set of regulations--it 's
| up to us citizens to demand the laws we want._
|
| ++But what about remembering your favorite orders, or
| saving customers time by not entering their info for each
| new order? One options is to let them bookmark the page,
| so their device can get back to it easily.
| mcculley wrote:
| I am not arguing for any laws. I am saying that I don't
| see how any legislation will stop this technology from
| being used to identify and track people.
|
| We saw how eager people were to install Google Analytics
| on their websites. They don't care what they do to their
| users.
| pope_meat wrote:
| It's worth trying to get at least some of the genie back
| in the bottle. The laws against CP and automatic fire
| arms aren't 100% effective either, but that doesn't mean
| we abandon the idea of trying to regulate the activity
| completely, does it?
| mcculley wrote:
| I am not arguing it would not be worthwhile to try. I
| argued that this data being collected and aggregated is
| inevitable. I still have not read a convincing reply
| otherwise. The ALPR data market is a perfect example of
| where we are heading.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| The problem of preventing the transfer of uncomfortable
| data has already been tackled by copyright.
| mcculley wrote:
| Please elaborate. There are many markets for buying and
| selling photos and other data.
| acover wrote:
| How can you be prevented from murder? How was private
| ownership of gold illegal for decades? How was a farmer
| growing hay to feed their own horses illegal?
|
| The government has pretty wide reaching powers.
| mcculley wrote:
| I still have not heard a realistic way these capabilities
| would be limited. Ordinary consumers and corporations
| will have this technology. It will continue to get
| cheaper. How would governments not have it?
|
| The same people who sold browsing data to advertisers
| have this technology.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| NSA cares about laws?
| colechristensen wrote:
| Write data privacy laws which apply to surveillance cameras
| which require commercial entities to disclose what
| information is being collected, how it is being shared with
| provisions banning certain kinds of collecting, sharing,
| and storage with regulatory fines, criminal penalties, and
| provisions enabling class action lawsuits for misuse or
| other banned disclosures.
| mcculley wrote:
| Disclosure is insufficient to prevent aggregation. The
| same kind of people who sold browsing data to advertisers
| are selling this data. If you do not want to be tracked,
| you have to get those around you to not provide the data.
| colechristensen wrote:
| That would be why i listed many things more than
| disclosure.
| mcculley wrote:
| I misunderstood. Would you eliminate Facebook and the
| existing ALPR data aggregators? I am wondering how such
| restrictions would be possible.
| colechristensen wrote:
| You would come up with a decent legal definition of a
| surveillance camera with a distinction from a person
| taking pictures. You would add disclosure provisions, if
| an observed person could reasonably be expected to see
| and make a choice (say entering a business) there would
| be one set of rules, when a person couldn't see a notice
| or make a choice (say a camera on a vehicle) there would
| be much more restrictive rules.
|
| You would make it a crime to violate the rules but
| administered like and possible to sue in civil court for
| victims. The crime would be on the owner/operator of the
| camera and special provisions would be added for storage
| providers.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| >could easily be made illegal or extremely restricted.
|
| What bunker do you live in?
| colechristensen wrote:
| This is an inappropriate comment for HN.
| humanistbot wrote:
| > Governments that are prohibited by law from tracking faces
| and locations/times will just buy it from private companies,
| like has happened with automated license plate readers on tow
| trucks.
|
| Because of this, the current battles that many anti-
| surveillance activists are fighting is in procurement and
| vendor/contractor policies, mostly at the city and county
| levels. Lots of West Coast cities and counties (Santa Clara,
| Oakland, Seattle, San Diego) have enacted all kinds of new
| bureaucratic hurdles on any public funds used to pay for
| surveillance. These include requiring RFPs with open
| competitive bidding, public hearings, testing and certification
| that it actually works with an acceptable false positive rate,
| and approval in a public vote by the city/county council.
|
| The Nation has a good overview of this shift in tactics, which
| is also opposed by some progressives who take a more
| abolitionist stance to surveillance and say that they don't
| want it to be legitimized if it passes all the bureaucratic
| hurtles: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/mass-
| surveillance-...
| mcculley wrote:
| I respect the intent behind these efforts. I just don't see
| how they will prevent ubiquitous surveillance.
|
| Imagine this possible near future: Many property owners have
| installed smart doorbells and security systems with cameras.
| The data is being fed into aggregation systems and sold, just
| like clicks today. I can subscribe to an app on my phone for
| a few dollars a month (below the limit required to get formal
| approval in most organizations) that shows me where a face
| has been seen.
|
| How will this not happen?
| 542458 wrote:
| I don't see why we couldn't pass a law that says that the
| government can't use $technology_x, and that this applies
| to government contractors and services purchased by the
| government or used by government employees acting in their
| professional capacity.
| mcculley wrote:
| What technology would you prohibit?
|
| If a police officer can look up a suspect on Facebook,
| why couldn't he use one of many other services that are
| aggregating data?
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| Your attitude on this doesn't make any sense to me.
|
| A single man can record videos yes, but they can't record
| millions of videos and aggregate them into a searchable
| database. For that you need larger groups of people and a
| significant amount of infrastructure. You could
| absolutely limit the ability to do this without having to
| outlaw cameras or social media or anything like that.
|
| Are you making some blanket assumption that laws can't
| have an impact on private businesses? Because that's
| clearly not true.
| mcculley wrote:
| No, I am not making a blanket assumption that we cannot
| have laws. I don't see how we can make collection and
| aggregation of data illegal, at least in the United
| States. Maybe it is possible in more authoritarian
| cultures, but those are the ones who will use it the
| most.
|
| Databases of aggregated ALPR data exist and have economic
| value. Facebook exists and aggregates data. Can you
| elaborate on what kind of law you think should exist to
| prevent that?
| 542458 wrote:
| I mean, you could ban "systems who's primary purpose is
| to aggregate personal data on non-criminals" (please
| don't nitpick the phrasing, I'm obviously not a lawyer)
| or something similar. I'm not sure why people are acting
| like this is an unsolvable problem - patent lawyers can
| write descriptions of fairly vague technological systems
| that hold up in court.
| mcculley wrote:
| I am genuinely interested how this can be prevented. I
| don't see how it can. We are not far away from people
| having eyeglasses that are able to upload photos and
| download aggregated data. Everyone in your field of
| vision will have a dossier. It won't just be governments
| using this. It won't require some prior written
| permission. The same people that sold browsing data to
| advertisers will have this technology.
| landemva wrote:
| Remove the funding.
| mcculley wrote:
| Please elaborate. What funding? Every cop can buy a
| smartphone.
| landemva wrote:
| Reduce your contributions to government. This thread is
| about government.
|
| Anyone can personally purchase whatever they desire.
| mcculley wrote:
| That is exactly what I wrote. Any government
| official/employee will be able to use this technology. If
| you are proposing some kind of libertarian non-
| government, that would be consistent with my original
| statement that the only way to limit this is to limit
| government.
| 542458 wrote:
| Every school teacher can buy a baseball bat, but we don't
| act like it's a given that teachers will beat students
| with baseball bats.
| mcculley wrote:
| I don't see how that explains a way to prevent anyone
| from using facial recognition technology.
| inspector-g wrote:
| > like has happened with automated license plate readers on tow
| trucks.
|
| Do you have any good links that provide more info on this?
| mcculley wrote:
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/license-plate-data-not-
| ju...
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190918/14224343020/priva.
| ..
| alexashka wrote:
| > The only mitigation is to limit the overall power of
| governments and corporations.
|
| Why is this the _only_ mitigation?
|
| By the way, _who_ is going to limit the overall power and _who_
| is going to limit the power of those limiting the power and
| _why_? :)
|
| At the end of the day it's people making decisions. The best
| way to have them making better decisions, is having more of
| them having a view of the world that reflects reality.
|
| More reality, less bullshit -> better outcomes. Pretty simple.
| mcculley wrote:
| I don't think anyone will successfully limit these systems.
| That is why it is inevitable.
| JohnFen wrote:
| At this point, there's only one way that I can see to opt out of
| this nonsense. Don't fly.
|
| I've been fortunate in being able to avoid flying for years now.
| avipars wrote:
| Doesn't this just make you more of a target for them?
| asah wrote:
| Enemy of the State (1998, Will Smith):
|
| https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tTP1TcwNirOiTdg9BJ...
| paulpauper wrote:
| If you bought a ticket it is already too late. This will do
| nothing. Take a cab or greyhound instead if privacy is paramint.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| It is already too late, first it is opt in, then it is opt out,
| then it is compulsory. This will happen if we let it have any use
| at all. Write your congressman now if you have a desire for this
| not to come to pass.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > The only snag is for non-U.S. citizens.
|
| As always
| vinay427 wrote:
| To be fair, there was previously no systematic exit control
| process in US airports unlike in many countries including the
| Schengen area bloc, and many other countries have also long
| required photographs of non-citizens/non-residents along with
| exit controls. The US is more in line with the UK, Canada, etc.
| approach that doesn't allow any way of way of definitively
| knowing whether someone on a visa or restricted permit actually
| left the country if they were supposed to.
|
| While I would have preferred a non-biometric approach for
| everyone, I'm hoping that moving some of the burden to exit
| control 1. lessens the workload of immigration enforcement
| domestically, and 2. encourages a very slow transition towards
| more seamless international transfers given that US airports
| usually weren't built for this, although a lot more work would
| be needed here.
| refurb wrote:
| My understanding is the that airline passenger lists are the
| equivalent exit "check" for the US and Canada. They are
| shared freely between the two countries as are entry checks
| into respective countries (hence the US or Canada can confirm
| an exit based on entry to the neighboring country).
|
| That said, I think it's mostly just "we can check if needed"
| and it's not matched up automatically though that might have
| changed? I know if you're an immigrant and you check your
| I-94 record with USCIS is usually wrong and missing data.
| sneak wrote:
| To be fair, the concept of passports (in the modern sense of
| a document required to cross a national border) is a
| relatively modern invention, on the close order of only about
| a hundred years.
| yardstick wrote:
| Tangentially related, I wonder what happens if you wear a shirt
| that has a benign picture that matches a CSAM hash? Will everyone
| who takes a picture of you end up getting flagged by detection
| algorithms? I'm thinking in a similar vein to the magic DVD AACS
| number people printed on T-shirts mugs etc.
|
| Will this become a great way for camera shy people to pollute any
| paparazzi shots of them?
| eptcyka wrote:
| This isn't related to the story at all. CSAM doesn't hash parts
| of a picture, so your shirt would only trigger it if somebody
| took a photo of just the shirt at a right angle.
| yardstick wrote:
| Hence me going on a tangent :) So the solution for abusers is
| to just layer their photos inside subsections of normal
| photos to work around CASM?
|
| Anyway was just a thought experiment on how to automatically
| opt out while "sticking it to the man", so to speak. Maybe I
| should look into EUrion constellation marks instead!
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| Maybe you can at the boarding gate and in some other points but
| when you get out of the fly/plane and you enter in the airport,
| there's a(t least one) camera above your head and you can't walk
| in other directions. Maybe you have to wear hat, sunglasses and a
| mask...
|
| Others critical points are at the temperature scanning at the
| entrance and at the passport check. I don't think you can avoid
| those.
| andai wrote:
| Do they use some fancy thermal cameras to check for fever?
| brk wrote:
| Thermal cameras absolutely suck for body temperature
| measurement. Those fever cameras are all security theater
| garbage.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| Yes, due to Covid-19.
| bm3719 wrote:
| The facial recognition battle is lost. The only power we have is
| over how we behave as the losing side.
|
| Of the few options we have, one is normalizing wearing
| recognition-scrambling makeup/masks. Another would be to get
| stickers of eyes, brows, and noses, and place them in random
| places around your face.
|
| It'd be interesting to see some studies of the effectiveness of
| the different methods.
| 65 wrote:
| Well, until they ban facial recognition scrambling masks. If
| the burqa is banned in many European countries I don't see why
| facial recognition evasion devices don't also get banned.
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| Sadly, I think we are beyond opt-out with any facial recognition.
|
| I recently showed[1] to my daughter (10) as teaching her python,
| how easy it is to build some basic facial recognition using
| modern libraries and models.
|
| I had it running with one of her pictures, and i just asked her
| to come in front of the computer for a second to check something
| out, and she was completely shocked when the video put her name
| below her face, and my name below my face. She was shocked, a bit
| curious, and a bit revolted.
|
| On the next day when I took her to school, I just showed the
| amount of cameras on the way, and in the mall. At first she
| thought that its not an issue, as every camera only sees locally
| around it, so they cant connect her journey, but then she
| realised someone can own many cameras.
|
| I think we need to invest much more into adversarial machine
| learning[2] and possibly form some sort of organization to fund
| it. (I hope it will be called move-78 as Lee Sedol's hand of god
| move against alpha go)
|
| [1]: https://github.com/jackdoe/programming-for-
| kids/blob/master/...
|
| [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxbazQ6wJlU
| aiisjustanif wrote:
| Ironically YCom just just backed this [1] and it is facial
| recognition in schools [2].
|
| [1]: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/safer-management
|
| [2]: https://www.safermgmt.com/
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| hahaha i cant help but to laugh in despair
|
| look what we have built
|
| this is the internet we made
|
| for our children
| JohnFen wrote:
| Not just the internet. This is the world we have made for
| our children. It is highly distressing.
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| I just feel somehow personally responsible for the way
| things went with the internet and surveillance
| capitalism.
|
| I remember in early 2000s how I used to download some
| programs[1] to pay me to watch ads. I didn't pay content
| creators anything, didnt donate, I didnt have money, but
| I could've spared some.
|
| I just didn't do anything to stop it.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_to_surf
| pilingual wrote:
| > she realised someone can own many cameras
|
| Or that the cameras are insecure, effectively public, and a
| motivated person or state could do the same.
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| haha i didnt tell her that yet, she is only 10 :D
| telesilla wrote:
| It's debatable how effective this is but CV Dazzle may just
| become a trend for youth. I'd support that but I'd expect
| to start seeing schools and commercial areas ban such
| practices.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/make
| u...
| analognoise wrote:
| It's not debatable. It's ineffective.
| telesilla wrote:
| I saw other reports of people who wear full face scarves
| or stickers of noses and eyes, are there better
| techniques that work?
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| This article was precovid
|
| Covid masking with sunglasses and a cap make someone
| effectively anonymous.
|
| Masks are a big finger to the NSA.
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| keep in mind mask alone is not enough
|
| https://github.com/jackdoe/programming-for-
| kids/blob/master/...
|
| and glasses + mask as well
|
| https://github.com/jackdoe/programming-for-
| kids/blob/master/...
|
| and this is https://github.com/ageitgey/face_recognition
| completely out of the box, no tuning or anything, just
| copy pasted the example
| [deleted]
| Retric wrote:
| You really need huge sample sets for this stuff to apply
| in the real world. We started using fingerprints because
| of how hard it can be to tell people apart.
|
| Start talking 100 million faces + public cameras and it's
| difficult. Where AI really stands out it having a
| specific face and looking for that in days of video
| footage. But, even then you want to train for false
| positives.
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| thanks for the link! i immediately tried it
| https://github.com/jackdoe/programming-for-
| kids/blob/master/...
|
| its a screenshot of detecting me despite the paint, and i
| tried whole bunch of colors and etc to trick it that my
| eyes are not where they are, and it did not work, I think
| it was easier in 2014, seems you really need to hide your
| eyes now, and its gonna be quite annoying for bald people
| like me haha
|
| anyway, i updated the book as well, with the link
|
| thanks!
| sologoub wrote:
| Pretty incredible for 10 year old to make such projects and
| to then apply to the world around her! You must be so proud
| :)
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| you have no idea :)
| jfk13 wrote:
| > I think we need to invest much more into adversarial machine
| learning
|
| That just becomes an ever-escalating arms race. We need to
| invest in political and social systems that regulate the use of
| technology, not imagine that we'll overcome the dystopian use
| of technology by applying yet more technology.
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| we should do both
|
| as political changes are incredibly slow, in the meantime we
| need to make it harder to collect
|
| you know very well no data will be deleted, in the modern
| 'data is money' mode of operation
|
| its not even on purpose, its just hard to delete from
| petabytes of hadoop garbage
| NotSammyHagar wrote:
| Don't you people read the classics? Neal Stephenson seems to
| write books 10 years ahead of time that predict all
| technologies (crypto, metaverse, etc).
|
| "Reamde" has multiple cool ideas (the miasma, basically our
| dystopian internet information sphere we live in today), but
| one of them is people walking down the street with glasses
| that have some kind of light device that shines on your face
| to confuse facial recognition.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Why? Every time people make new technology to subvert the
| government, they must raise their tyranny in order to regain
| control.
|
| Encryption, for example. It denies the government
| information, evidence. There's nothing it can do about that.
| So will it criminalize encryption itself? Will it presume
| guilt if you refuse to decrypt? Will it ban free computers
| that run software not signed by the government?
|
| After enough iterations, we'll either end up with an
| uncontrollable population wielding ubiquitous subversive
| technology, or an omnipotent totalitarian state that defeats
| any attempt at subversion before they can develop.
|
| I hope for everyone's sake that the governments will discover
| their own limits before either outcome.
| sjtindell wrote:
| Love the name move-78.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-11 23:01 UTC)