|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 12, 2011 10:38:07 GMT -5
Years of experience. Watching every. Single. Example. of new "crime fighting" technology be misused and abused. Further, knowing just how fallible humans are when it comes to supposedly "confidential" information. You want the guy in the local CCTV office knowing everything you did in any given day, where you went, who you visited, who you spent time with? Good luck to you. I, however, realise there are a myriad perfectly legal things that I (and probably you) do on a regular basis that I don't necessarily want my friends, neighbours and co-workers knowing the intimate details of. So potential embarrassment trumps better efficiency at catching criminals? Personally I'd rather take my chances if it means less of the bastards roaming free. Which is precisely the mindset that allows totalitarian dictators to gain power. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 12, 2011 10:50:02 GMT -5
The plural of anecdote is not data, LHM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 12, 2011 10:53:22 GMT -5
So potential embarrassment trumps better efficiency at catching criminals? Personally I'd rather take my chances if it means less of the bastards roaming free. Which is precisely the mindset that allows totalitarian dictators to gain power. Yet law enforcement tech constantly advances though for some crazy reason things remain as democratic as ever. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Oct 12, 2011 11:30:21 GMT -5
You want the guy in the local CCTV office knowing everything you did in any given day, where you went, who you visited, who you spent time with? Good luck to you. What makes you think any random person watching CCTV would have access to the technology? It would make a lot more sense to send video/stills to a central database, rather than have every computer connected to it. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 12, 2011 12:14:28 GMT -5
The article says that current facial recognition technology isn't very effective, but there's plenty of time to work some of the bugs out. So the technology doesnt' work that well. But we'll still spend millions of dollars and arrest a few people until we do get it to work. Huh... it just seems this might have unintended consequences. And I know some will (and have ) said we are a free country so this should be ok. But if the US does stuff that dystopian technocracies do, then what's the measure of how "free" we are? In many parts of the country, it's illegal to weak masks for the purpose of hiding your identity. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 12, 2011 12:23:58 GMT -5
.... What makes you think any random person watching CCTV would have access to the technology? It would make a lot more sense to send video/stills to a central database, rather than have every computer connected to it. Well first, doing what you said would create information overload. Secondly, few computers are so isolated they cant' be hacked. Third, remember the full body scanners at airports and how some of the TSA working them got caught saving and sharing the scans? A policeman's job is only easy in a police state. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Oct 12, 2011 13:39:54 GMT -5
.... What makes you think any random person watching CCTV would have access to the technology? It would make a lot more sense to send video/stills to a central database, rather than have every computer connected to it. Well first, doing what you said would create information overload. No it wouldn't. It would work the same way fingerprints are handled today. When there is a need to check them, they are send to the database (it's housed in central WV) and compared. True. But those are skills your "random CCTV guy" most likely does not have. Nothing is stopping the "random CCTV" guy from doing that to video today. And what does that have to do with facial recognition software? |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 12, 2011 14:10:32 GMT -5
Well first, doing what you said would create information overload. No it wouldn't. It would work the same way fingerprints are handled today. When there is a need to check them, they are send to the database (it's housed in central WV) and compared. Ok first there is a lot more then information then fingerprints being taken here. secondly, this leads to another problem since finger printing is less likely to give false positives Third, if it is CCTV then you are not being identified because you did anythign wrong to get fingerprinted but because you were merely walking out in public. Yet this information gets out now and again. So apparently someone does have the skill. IF your defense of this is that the information doesn't get out, the reality differs. The info did get out despite assurances that it wouldn't and couldn't happen. And no, plain old video captures don't show you naked. But that wasn't the point anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 12, 2011 14:17:39 GMT -5
The plural of anecdote is not data, LHM. Not that I claimed that it did. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 12, 2011 14:19:02 GMT -5
Which is precisely the mindset that allows totalitarian dictators to gain power. Yet law enforcement tech constantly advances though for some crazy reason things remain as democratic as ever. R-i-i-i-ght... spoken like someone who has never been stopped and searched for illicit substances without probable cause, or experienced the joy and wonder of the US (soon to be seen in Australia) airport "security" provisions. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 12, 2011 14:19:45 GMT -5
You want the guy in the local CCTV office knowing everything you did in any given day, where you went, who you visited, who you spent time with? Good luck to you. What makes you think any random person watching CCTV would have access to the technology? It would make a lot more sense to send video/stills to a central database, rather than have every computer connected to it. Well let's hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 12, 2011 14:28:01 GMT -5
Because it's not about what is being done, it's about how it's being done. For example, fascist states are fond of staging mock elections. Doesn't make them a democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 12, 2011 14:30:12 GMT -5
Yet law enforcement tech constantly advances though for some crazy reason things remain as democratic as ever. R-i-i-i-ght... spoken like someone who has never been stopped and searched for illicit substances without probable cause, or experienced the joy and wonder of the US (soon to be seen in Australia) airport "security" provisions. Actually I have been stopped and searched for drugs (not necessarily without probable cause though) and it really wasn't that bad. I cooperated, I was found to in fact not be a drug dealer and was allowed to continue on my merry way. All in all, not so bad. In any case, the stuff you describe is not due to the technology itself, but how it's used. Blame bullshit like the Patriot Bill for excessive and largely pointless security measures. Blaming the tech is like blaming a the weapon of choice of a murderer for the murder in question. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 12, 2011 14:31:27 GMT -5
Because it's not about what is being done, it's about how it's being done. For example, fascist states are fond of staging mock elections. Doesn't make them a democracy. Or boosting police powers of surveilance under claims it is necessary for "public safety". |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 12, 2011 14:32:16 GMT -5
R-i-i-i-ght... spoken like someone who has never been stopped and searched for illicit substances without probable cause, or experienced the joy and wonder of the US (soon to be seen in Australia) airport "security" provisions. Actually I have been stopped and searched for drugs (not necessarily without probable cause though) and it really wasn't that bad. I cooperated, I was found to in fact not be a drug dealer and was allowed to continue on my merry way. All in all, not so bad. In any case, the stuff you describe is not due to the technology itself, but how it's used. Blame bullshit like the Patriot Bill for excessive and largely pointless security measures. Blaming the tech is like blaming a the weapon of choice of a murderer for the murder in question. I'm not blaming the tech. I AM blaming the way it is, and will be, used. |
|
