
Your Face Is Not a Bar Code (2003) - ironchief
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/bar-code.html
======
abecedarius
> In twenty years, at current rates of progress, it will be feasible for the
> Chinese government to use face recognition to track the public movements of
> everyone in the country.

When this note was published in 2001, I didn't expect the tech to become that
good that fast. I was wrong. (Not that I thought it wouldn't happen, just that
there'd be more time.)

~~~
sgroppino
Every breath you take, every move you make... I'll be watching you. Oh can't
you see? You belong to me... The Police

------
davemp
I’m of the opinion that identification should be the individual’s choice, ie
supplying credentials.

When organizations gain the ability to identify without consent, the door is
opened for some very malicious practices.

~~~
bb88
The argument for public safety though has been pretty overwhelming.

Britain just scored a big win in the novichok poisoning case by being able to
trace the movements of Russian operatives using cameras.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/world/europe/russia-uk-
no...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/world/europe/russia-uk-novichok-
skripal.html)

This trend will continue as long as the wins are bigger than the abuses.

~~~
lxmorj
This is a trap. You can't just say "well the wins are worth it at the moment"
and not consider what happens when someone else - possibly with antithetical
values to yours - inherits that power.

~~~
bb88
Your argument is an appeal for more personal liberty. And that's an honorable
argument to make.

If, however, crime reduces your personal liberty to the point where you are
uncomfortable walking outside, then cameras (and facial recognition software)
will seem to add more liberty than it takes away. People buy products like
Ring and security cameras for this very reason, they want to feel safe.

You might say, "Okay, but that's security theater. The real issue is because
Donald J Trump, or an unchecked NSA might use them for more nefarious reasons.
And it's not even clear they work to reduce crime..."

At which point the average person says, "I just want to feel safe at night
when I walk the dog. And frankly, the investment in cameras are worth it if
they help catch Russian spies..."

------
buboard
> A free society is a society in which there are limits on what the police can
> do. If we want to remain a free society then we need to make a decision

I think the amount of legislation that effectively limits privacy / freedom in
the past years shows that western societies no longer want to. It includes
increased bank regulations / attempts to abolish cash / hate speech
regulations / surveillance regulations / GDPR etc. The question is no longer
whether the private information of people should be owned by others, but about
who should own it, businesses or the State.

~~~
jacobush
GDPR is an attempt to grab some of the power back to the individual.

~~~
closeparen
Governments are exempt from GDPR. Further it is regulators, not individuals,
who determine which data processing activities are lawful. GDPR certainly
takes power away from companies, but it transfers that power to the state, not
to individuals.

~~~
pjc50
Not exactly: _law enforcement_ has GDPR exemption, but it should apply to
other branches of government. There's a controversy over this in the UK:
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/05/uk_government_legal...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/05/uk_government_legal_challenge_immigration_exemption_data_protection_bill/)

Should the government be obliged to allow you to correct information that may
otherwise be used to deny you residency? Absolutely.

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
Average end user doesn't care as long as Instagram, Facebook, et. al. keep
them engaged constantly with their devices.

Smartphone's are the new crack.

