[HN Gopher] Las Vegas police could boycott working NFL games ove...
___________________________________________________________________
Las Vegas police could boycott working NFL games over new facial ID
policy
Author : oneseven
Score : 27 points
Date : 2024-08-31 19:13 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reviewjournal.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reviewjournal.com)
| jarsin wrote:
| Interesting concern given all of our pictures were already sold
| by META to every data broker on the planet..
| codedokode wrote:
| Not everyone's but only of those who uploaded them.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Nope. If someone uploaded a picture with you in it and tagged
| your name, they have you too.
| 121789 wrote:
| They don't sell data, they just collect it to target relevant
| ads. If you can find an instance of them (or Google) actually
| selling data to brokers, please share
| jarsin wrote:
| Brave ai summary:
|
| Facebook's Facial Recognition Data Collection and Potential
| Sales to Third Parties in Texas
|
| Based on the provided search results, here are the key
| findings:
|
| In 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Meta
| Platforms, Facebook's parent company, alleging that it
| collected facial recognition data without users' consent,
| violating Texas state law.
|
| The lawsuit claimed that Facebook repeatedly captured and
| commercialized biometric data in photos and videos for over a
| decade without informed consent, sharing the data with third
| parties and failing to destroy it in a reasonable timeframe.
|
| The state alleged that Facebook's actions put Texans' well-
| being, safety, and security at risk, and sought damages of
| "billions of dollars."
|
| In 2024, Meta agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement in the
| biometric data lawsuit, related to the unauthorized use of
| personal biometric data from uploaded photos and videos on
| Facebook.
| acchow wrote:
| Meta and Google want to retain their data moat to maximize
| their ad premiums over competitors. They really do not want to
| sell any data.
| Retric wrote:
| Google is handing real time location data, browsing
| histories, etc to 3rd parties while not technically selling
| it. Ex: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-
| doesnt-...
| elmerfud wrote:
| This kind of biometric security is getting a bit ridiculous. It
| would be different if it was done in a secure way and by that I
| mean secure in the sense that the person who provides the
| biometric data you had the ability to secure it wherever it went.
| This could absolutely be done but the reason it's not is
| companies totally want to gather this data from people and then
| sell it to other companies for machine learning and other
| purposes. Same with our government that wants to gather this kind
| of data.
|
| It would be quite straightforward to make your biometric identity
| a public private key kind of setup. Companies have access to your
| public key and you yourself carry your private key as some sort
| of physical identification that is unlocked with a two-factor
| method. This way any physical biometric thing is done on a device
| you own that could be mandated to be open technology completely
| auditable to be secure and all you do is use your physical doodad
| to interface with their thing to authenticate that yes you are
| the private key holder for this given public key.
|
| It would be much more secure than identification cards that we
| have now such as driver's licenses or passports. It would also be
| far more secure than the biometric style authentication they want
| to do now with them essentially owning a copy of your biometric
| data. But there is no profitability in true security and privacy
| for the citizens.
| crooked-v wrote:
| The Apple and Google pushes for digital IDs are basically that,
| but support is limited at best since it's depending on 50+
| different local governments to get up to speed on all this tech
| stuff.
| perihelions wrote:
| Worth remembering the US Army built a biometric database of
| Afghan officials (police officers included) and they lost
| control of it to the Taliban. They sold it as a "for your own
| safety", and now it's a kill list.
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/taliban-afghanistan-biome...
| ( _" Taliban likely to have access to biometric databases of
| Afghan civilians who helped US"_ (2021))
|
| - _" The biometrics initiative was initially tested in 2002.
| Its goals then were to prevent criminals and Taliban insurgents
| from infiltrating the Afghan army and police force[...]"_
|
| - _" The Taliban may also be using the Afghan government's
| biometric-based ID card known as the Tazkira to track and
| target people, Ramanjit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy
| Director at Access Now, told news agency Reuters."_
|
| - _" Particularly at risk are individuals in central positions
| in the Afghan military, police and investigative units."_
| rightbyte wrote:
| It doesn't matter if it is Napoleon, Hitler or who ever.
| Asking about winter boots and blankets is a no go. Plan for
| the plan.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > It would be quite straightforward to make your biometric
| identity a public private key kind of setup.
|
| There is no repudiation, attestation or key rotation in this
| setup, with all the attendant problems that creates.
| exe34 wrote:
| you can always save up for plastic surgery!
| akira2501 wrote:
| "In response to this data breach we are offering you free
| Experian plastic surgery services for the next year."
| dfox wrote:
| The main issue there is that the mantra something you know,
| something you own, something you are is completely wrong in the
| authentication context. The issue there is that the biometric
| "something you are" cannot be revoked and also depends on the
| relying system having some kind of secure path to whatever
| sensor measured it. So in the end as an authentication it is
| only useful as convenience feature (eg. how TouchID/FaceID
| works on Apple platforms). Identification is another thing and
| obviously biometrics are useful there, but well, there are not
| that many ethical uses for system that does identification
| without authentication.
| adolph wrote:
| > It would be quite straightforward to make your biometric
| identity a public private key kind of setup.
|
| How would that work? Maybe the biometric part acts as a domain
| name from which the public key might be downloaded? Who is the
| custodian of face-public key pairs?
| lucaspfeifer wrote:
| Seems like the key issue here is this: what is the purpose of
| conducting the authentication? In the case of personal
| accounts, it's for the benefit of the individual. They get
| their own account to safely store personal data. Here, the
| individual management of biometric authentication devices, as
| you described, is a great thing. A passkey can be generated
| without exposing biometric data. The individual has the
| responsibility and incentive to keep their devices secure.
|
| But the above article is an example of the opposite case, where
| the authentication is for public security. In this situation,
| the individual cannot be entrusted with their own auth, so if
| each person were to use their own device, it would need to be
| quite tamper-proof. Seems far simpler at this point to do face
| / fingerprint auth, where the security guard ensures that no
| one is wearing a mask or fake finger. Yes, there is the concern
| that the bio-data could be stolen / misused, and for that
| reason I think that bio-auth for public safety should be
| limited to a single standard type (e.g. face), with the others
| being reserved only for private auth. That way, a compromise
| can be reached between public safety and individual privacy.
| codedokode wrote:
| Don't be naive. Today they require photos from cops, tomorrow
| from fans.
| xnyan wrote:
| AI is already being used to keep out fans they don't want, they
| don't need them to submit photos or give permission[1]. In
| addition to being a vastly smaller and harder to replace group
| than fans, police are also far more organized than fans. That's
| the only reason they are being asked.
|
| [1]:https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-
| square-g...
| HillRat wrote:
| This is the same police union that's argued that releasing the
| names of police formally accused of misconduct is a privacy
| violation, their concern for privacy does not extend further
| than the ranks of their union and certainly not to the broader
| citizenry.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| They already have facial recognition entry at events in some
| cities like Seattle. It's dystopian seeing everyone accept it
| without question.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| They are probably more annoyed that it will be harder to pull off
| no-show or low-show details.
|
| These are usually pretty sweet overtime or moonlighting gigs, and
| where there's a sweet gig for cops, there's always an asshole or
| two ready to milk it.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| The title confused me because here in Germany the police are
| civil servants and they generally don't have a right to strike or
| just choose not to do their job as they're an executive organ of
| the state but apparently here the police is just.. side hustling?
|
| _" conversations with officers "making them very well aware of
| what they're agreeing to." But the decision may come down to what
| individual officers are comfortable with, Grammas said. Overtime
| security work is not mandatory for officers, but voluntary."_
|
| Maybe it's a cultural thing but blurring the line between an
| officer in their public capacity and what is basically private
| security at a sports event should be two separate things. Hiring
| the police out as a private security force where they then get to
| negotiate what rules they have to play by has a Judge Dredd vibe
| to it
| lokar wrote:
| Often at large private events the city will require a certain
| number of police, that the host must hire. And they can only
| hire from local departments that have worked out these deals
| letting officers do this on their own time, but in uniform.
|
| It's weird, and often sort of extortion
| xp84 wrote:
| yeah, this is super common here in the US. Off-duty cops are in
| demand as security guards and they can work in uniform, which
| to me is all kinds of weird. You can literally "rent a cop" (an
| expression used as a joke about mall security guards who are
| typically not cops at all) this way, complete with full police
| powers.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Hiring the police out as a private security force where they
| then get to negotiate what rules they have to play by has a
| Judge Dredd vibe to it
|
| The work is voluntary overtime work.
|
| They're not forced to accept voluntary overtime work. It's an
| optional thing they can choose to do above and beyond their
| base job, if the pay and terms are interesting enough.
|
| I don't see why it's a problem. What are the alternatives?
| Forcing police to do security for private events inside of
| private venues as part of their job?
| PeterisP wrote:
| It should be impossible to negotiate this with individual
| policemen - if the state or municipality has the requirement
| and authority to provide security for something, then the
| conditions for that should be handled by the government (and
| then the officials would execute that as part of their
| ordinary non-negotiable orders of what duties their service
| requires), and if the government does not do that thing, then
| police officers should not be involved at all, this should be
| handled by private security, in which case even if someone
| from police participates off-duty, they shouldn't be
| permitted to have uniforms/badges/official authority, as they
| are not there as representatives of the state but as
| civilians.
|
| There shouldn't be any middle ground - either the government
| sends the police to do whatever the government requires, or
| it does not - the policemen themselves should not get a
| choice, they exist to execute and enforce the government
| decisions, not make them.
| jltsiren wrote:
| The way it works in Finland:
|
| Police officers are public officials. As such, they do not
| have the right to have a second job or a side business by
| default. They may apply for a permit for a specific job, and
| it is usually approved if there are no obvious conflicts of
| interest or other reasons that could compromise their
| impartiality. Some jobs, such as private security, are
| automatically out of question.
|
| If your event needs security, you hire private security.
| Police officers may have been involved in training the
| security personnel, but they can't work in the field. And if
| a uniformed police officer shows up at the event, it almost
| always means something has gone wrong.
| dmurray wrote:
| Have private security work the private event. Send a token
| number of police along, at the city's expense (the same
| number they'd normally assign to an area with 50,000 people
| out and about, so the sports event isn't sucking
| disproportionate resources).
|
| If the stadium is such a hotbed of crime and disorder that
| private security can't handle it and they really need to
| escalate constantly to involve armed law enforcement, stop
| allowing it to host games at all.
| enricotr wrote:
| This site asks permission to send data to more than 160 servers.
| To read an article.
| susiecambria wrote:
| https://archive.ph/QdyLy
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-31 23:01 UTC)