Facial Recognition and Privacy Rights

[NobleSavage]

There was a very good discussion about this last nite on On Point with Tom Ashbrook (NPR).

You can listen to the show here: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/06/18/facial-recognition-software-technology-scan

 

[J842P]

We're all fucked.

 

[NobleSavage]

We're all fucked.

Yeah, I'm not counting on any regulations to slow this down. It a wet dream for the big corps and government.

 

[NobleSavage]

This is fun: http://cvdazzle.com/

 

[TV and credit cards]

We don't care. We pretend to, but we don't. We won't give up a lick of our social technology in the interest of privacy. So, why not our faces too? Anybody willing to go off the grid? Boycott internet?
Sorry. Wrong crowd.
If an entity was capable of logging everything you've ever posted on the internet, what would they (it) know about you in totality? Probably more than I ever admitted to in a security clearance questionnaire.
There I go again.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Where do I find the transcript?

 

[Valjean]

I've found the solution: http://www.amazon.com/Officially-Licensed-Groucho-Marx-Glasses/dp/B002R7XO3Y

 

[NobleSavage]

Where do I find the transcript?

I just checked. They don't have them. The radio station is WBUR out of Boston and they say it is too expensive for them. Can you not hear? I'll summarize the main points if you like.

 

[NobleSavage]

We don't care. We pretend to, but we don't. We won't give up a lick of our social technology in the interest of privacy. So, why not our faces too? Anybody willing to go off the grid? Boycott internet?
Sorry. Wrong crowd.
If an entity was capable of logging everything you've ever posted on the internet, what would they (it) know about you in totality? Probably more than I ever admitted to in a security clearance questionnaire.
There I go again.

I hate this line of thought. It IS possible to have nice things and the internet without a huge spy network. Anyhow, the new image algos combined with the "Internet of Things" will be a whole new level of fucked up.

 

[NobleSavage]

Check out the Tor usage stats. People do want privacy:

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Where do I find the transcript?

I just checked. They don't have them. The radio station is WBUR out of Boston and they say it is too expensive for them. Can you not hear? I'll summarize the main points if you like.

No, but I don't always feel like listening to podcasts, the same way if someone links an hour long YouTube video, I probably won't watch it. A summary would be fine.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

There's not a lot about it in the law. Thus far it appears that it's not considered a violation of the the 4th Amendment's search protections because one doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in public.

When it comes to private companies like Facebook, I'm guessing that the argument is that you don't have to use Facebook. But in agreeing to use Facebook you probably agree to all kinds of shit you didn't know about. That doesn't necessarily make it legal but I don't know how successful a suit of any kind would be. For example, you might try to get an injunction against a company that would prevent them from using facial recognition technology, but it would depend on the circumstances.

If you really want to feel like your 4th Amendment rights are getting raped, leave the U.S. and then come back in with your cellphone and laptop.