
China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017) - newsreview1
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/13/china-cctv-bbc-reporter/
======
mrich
The interesting part is not the story itself, but that they chose to demo it
to the BBC. Marketing at its best, they want everyone to be fully aware of
their capabilities. Wouldn't be surprised if they were overstated, so as to
keep citizens in check. The BBC willingly plays along and does not even
question the capabilities either way.

~~~
AFascistWorld
You have to understand that Chinese prefer security over freedom. They support
this kind of measures since majority of them probably won't be bothered by it
their whole lives, as their typical response: if you don't illegal things,
what's to fear for.

And the state media has been touting for years that China is the safest
country on earth that "you can buy skewers at midnight", that America is the
example of a failed society.

They mostly likely are sincerely and proudly presenting this as a superiority
over the tumultuous west.

~~~
varjag
I don't know, hongkongers seem to prefer freedom.

~~~
iiuytrty
Only the minority that are protesting.

~~~
NicoJuicy
"minority"

~~~
yyhhsj0521
This doesn't help the discussion. Also, anything less than half is a minority.

~~~
NicoJuicy
Not everyone participates, some are scared probably.

The hongkongers are protesting, so in Hong Kong your minority is 100% of the
residents.

Your statement is deceptive

~~~
yyhhsj0521
Are you saying that every Hong Kong resident would choose to protest if not
scared?

------
lysp
> For ordinary people we will only extract their data when they need our help.

> When they don't need help, we won't gather their data and it remains only in
> our big database.

In the same sentence:

"We won't gather their data"

and

"The data that we gather remains in a database".

~~~
pgeorgi
It's a common dialectic pattern in law enforcement circles world-wide that
data at rest that is never touched is data that doesn't exist.

That angle is based on the idea that this data "may as well not exist" but it
ignores the many issues with indiscriminate data collection: the data might
leak, or management might change and invent undesirable "new" purposes for old
data - which, within this theory, then begins to exist retroactively.

~~~
rebuilder
Or, rather, the automated systems that store and process the data will
increasingly do analysis as well, with humans only viewing the data when
prompted to by the system. Technically "the police" can be said not to access
the data. In reality it's even worse than if they did, because the automated
system , if it works as intended, is much more efficient than humans.

IOW: If it's a violation of civil rights for humans to process some data, then
leaving that job to software is just automating civil rights violations.

~~~
pgeorgi
Right, but I think that's already the next step: the theory of "we're not
looking so we don't collect" predates efficient automated large-scale
analysis.

It makes sense to me to fight both schemes, but they have different impact,
different risk and might need different approaches.

~~~
rebuilder
It seems to me law enforcement talks about data collection and analysis as if
automated tools didn't have privacy impacts. They often seem to deliberately
focus on whether or not a human has access to some specific information, which
IMO obfuscates the issue. They're not very willing to acknowledge that there
_are_ two schemes, as you call them.

------
rtpg
It's not just about this, but given all that is happening in the space of
facial recognition, I think it would be really valuable for researchers to
start looking at it like they would weapons research. Almost entirely
nefarious applications.

After WW2 the University of Tokyo banned weapons research from happening in
its research labs. I think we can be drawing more lines on research like this
and take a stand against a lot of this.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
Facial recognition itself isn't the problem. Arresting good people based on
bad laws is the problem.

~~~
zaroth
Technology itself is always amoral. Even splitting the atom can be used to
achieve wonderful and horrific outcomes.

So of course “facial recognition” per say is not the problem. But in this
particular example, we see how facial recognition combined with a couple
hundred million surveillance cameras funneled into a massive government data
processing pipeline can be extremely effectively used for persistent tracking
and nearly instant geolocation of “suspects”.

I’m pretty sure we’ve seen how this movie ends. There’s a reason we don’t
implant GPS trackers into babies at birth just because they might get lost one
day.

Maybe China will use this technology to build a veritable Eden free from crime
and lost puppies. Or maybe they are closing the grip on a dystopian nightmare.
I think you have to be pretty naive to think it’s not looking startlingly like
the latter.

~~~
roenxi
> There’s a reason we don’t implant GPS trackers into babies at birth just
> because they might get lost one day.

What reason are you thinking? I wouldn't support it myself, but I don't
usually represent public opinion.

GPS didn't really burst into the public imagination before 2007 and the
iPhone; in a sense the technology is only about a decade old or so in the
public sphere. Prior to 2000 the US government's official position was
something like "this is a military technology".

As the cost of sensors and radio chips goes down, we might reach the point
where we _do_ put a GPS sensor on everybody. Law enforcement would love it and
on the small scale it would probably save lives and reduce crime.

~~~
genera1
>As the cost of sensors and radio chips goes down, we might reach the point
where we do put a GPS sensor on everybody. Law enforcement would love it and
on the small scale it would probably save lives and reduce crime.

GPS chips are already cheap enough (single digit dollars), that it's an issue
of policy\public perception, not cost

------
zonidjan
This is entirely unsurprising. Facial recognition for personalized (in
public!) advertising is already a big market, and oh, various US localities
are using facial recognition. This is, of course, on top of other tracking
methods like ALPR and vehicle recognition, credit cards, cell phones, and so
on.

It is no longer possible to be "off the grid". And that's quite scary when you
realize that every single adult has committed many crimes (however minor) in
their life.

~~~
Gusmann
Let's just hope that other countries won't implement the 'social credit'
system like China did that for example bans you from travelling for committing
even like you say minor offenses

------
AFascistWorld
The fact that he's probably the only non-Chinese in the vicinity helps.

------
hardmaru
This article is 2 years old, but quite relevant to current situation.

Deep learning and computer vision has progressed quite a bit in the past 2
years, mainly due to incremental algorithmic advances / improved engineering.
Unlike fundamental advances, these can be scaled up with increased investments
in a more predictable way.

Face++, the unicorn company mentioned in this article, is actually the product
division owned by Megvii, a machine learning startup based in mainland China.
They are planning to IPO soon (see:
[https://reut.rs/2L7zzGn](https://reut.rs/2L7zzGn) ) to raise more funds from
overseas investors (hence IPO'ing in Hong Kong).

There's some irony when a China-based computer vision startup working on
facial recognition technology used in Xinjiang is filing for IPO in Hong Kong,
rather than in mainland China.

------
mirimir
Well, there is the fact that he's a white dude. And makes no attempt to alter
his appearance. And, I gather, started from a known location.

~~~
bhelkey
The local government is incentivised to catch the reporter quickly to showcase
their capabilities.

The reporter is incentivised to be caught quickly to make a more compelling
story.

------
chrischen
This tech works, and the only reason we don't have this in the US is because
of our cultural and political aversion to mass surveillance.

I'm genuinely curious of what this leads to in China, because this tech is
easy enough to deploy if you're willing and politically able. What I'm cynical
about is that I don't think China is competent enough to safeguard the data it
collects, or forever keep it out of the "wrong hands" like the last guy in the
video claims.

It's hard enough for US government agencies to protect data that should be
privileged (police often run illegitimate checks on license plates), I can't
imagine China can prevent its various factions from abusing this power.

It'd be ironic, but the incompetencies of their bureaucracy could actually
lead to their own downfall by way of this technology (their mass surveillance
apparatus) somehow getting coopted by dissidents. There's a misconception that
China somehow has an iron grip over its people because it's authoritarian, but
if that were true they'd have weeded out corruption.

------
Doubl
The demonstrators in Hong Kong are very aware of this technology. I hope the
masks and the umbrellas they use are effective but I doubt it

~~~
llarsson
Gait analysis (how a person moves around) is definitely also used these days,
so the masks may make it a tad more difficult, but certainly not impossible.

You know how you can tell that a person walking in the distance is your
friend, even though you can't see their face at that distance? Yeah, so can
algorithms.

------
louiskottmann
I believe the problem is not so much about finding and flagging criminals, but
treating the reasons criminals act like that.

These cameras do not explain how they got there. Who profits from it? Whoever
likes the situation that put criminals in that place.

Then there's no need to treat poverty anymore because they'll be dying in a
corner as intended, instead of stealing food.

~~~
drawkbox
The answer is almost always economics.

Unfortunately, in modern society, or really since the human condition has
existed, we address symptoms and short-term fixes not root cause analysis and
long term fixes.

Criminals don't usually want to be criminals, but sometimes that life is
alternatively better. For instance, cartels in Mexico or mafias in general
sometimes offer a better quality of life and protection that regular citizens
don't get, so it is an attracting force.

We could fight cartels with guns and enforcers, leading to ramped up violence
all around and making a health issue a dangerous violent criminal one that
decreases harm reduction and increases addiction, production issues and safety
issues.

Or to get at the root cause, we could fight cartels by ending the drug war
taking away their massive hundreds of billions of annual black market funds,
which gives them power of nation states over decades, and shift that to the
legal market to help regulate and make recreational/health uses safer with
harm reduction and addition support, as well as providing economic plans to
give people a positive legal market choice.

Unfortunately we choose wrong largely because of propaganda by the military
and prison industrial complexes and the incessant pressing haphazard decisions
to blame, fight and go to war with the human condition when
health/medical/personal freedom matters are criminalized.

We go to war on everything as a solution to peace and quality of life...
surveillance state comes from that same corrupted/short-term thinking place.

The surveillance state has been going on for decades now in all major
countries, there probably isn't much actual detective or investigative work
even being done anymore, nor a case by case analysis for justification of
these methods, just massive privacy breaches and lots of data noise. Smart
criminals and corporate espionage will learn how to use that lack of
investigative skill and manipulate the surveillance data, or gain access to it
to it and dominate.

------
namelosw
Not defending surveillance at all. But I want to mention that China's CCTV
network is an important part of the legal improvement on self-defense.

From ancient time, the law in most dynasties strongly discourages self-defense
because it's unjudgeable most of the cases. And it also could be a tool of
murdering. Modern China pretty much inherited this tradition. Although the
self-defense is defined in the law just like most countries, in practice it's
way too strict almost like non-existence for tens of years.

Until last year, a famous case[0] causes massive debate across the country,
and finally justified as self-defense. The main reason behind this is the
massive surveillance network makes legal apartments confident enough to judge.

[0]:
[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201809/03/WS5b8c877ea310add14...](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201809/03/WS5b8c877ea310add14f38926c.html)

------
geonnave
(2017)

~~~
newsreview1
Yeah, sorry it's a bit old, but I came across it in some of my reading today
regarding the San Francisco attempt to ban facial recognition software with an
ordinance passed back in in May and didn't see it had ever been shared.
Thought it was worth passing along. Cheers, just food for thought.

[https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-san-
francis...](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-san-francisco-
facial-recognition-ban-20190516-story.html)

------
dmix
> China has the largest monitoring system in the world. There are some 170
> million CCTV cameras across the country

I wonder how this compares to the UK per capita considering how massive China
is.

~~~
goblin89
I suggest that it’s pointless to compare entire countries, since stats would
vary by region wildly (at least, in China). Here is a recent comparison by
city: [https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-
surv...](https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-
cities/)

------
lbj
Is the kind of facial recognition only bad if wielded by a nefarious
government?

Partly I think that huge DNA databases, biometric databases and millions and
millions of cameras would be wonderful for catching criminals. On the other
hand, the opportunities for abuse are too many to number. Has anyone written
anything interesting on where/how to draw the line?

~~~
adossi
>Has anyone written anything interesting on where/how to draw the line?

I think the book titled '1984' touched on this subject a little

~~~
lbj
No, thats a nerfarious government.

------
quotz
Jesus... This is a very representative example of what happens when technology
is not used in a democratic way, and when it is. It can be abused as much as
it could be used for the public benefit

~~~
raxxorrax
CCTV doesn't help in democratic countries where crimes rates have been
plumeting for the last decade. They do create a lot of dissidents though and
rightly so in my opinion.

If I would be in reach of a public surveillance camera, I would certainly try
to sabotage it. Maybe roast the sensor because I happen to have a bright
flashlight in my pocket. Damn, I guess I have become a criminal now...

~~~
pinkfoot
> CCTV doesn't help in democratic countries

A trivial search shows otherwise:

1.in the UK where the Russian operatives were caught in Salisbury trying to
murder a real-life dissident

2\. in the UK, where the police have dedicated units of 'super-recognisers'
that review CCTV footage and solved many a crime.

[1] [https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7182071/cctv-russian-spy-
poiso...](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7182071/cctv-russian-spy-poisoning-
suspects-travel-london-salisbury/) [2] [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/nov/11/super-recogn...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/nov/11/super-recognisers-police-the-people-who-never-forget-a-face)
[2]

~~~
raxxorrax
Compare UK crime statistics with countries that do not employ it and you have
empirical evidence that says otherwise.

------
devoply
As people in Hong Kong have shown, it's as easy to tear all this shit down as
it is to put it up.

~~~
pishpash
Not really. At this point the HK government doesn't care to go after the
people tearing "all this shit down", but it wouldn't be hard. Protestors have
the fantasy that they are invincible, because they know nothing is actually
going to happen.

~~~
convivialdingo
Agreed - up to some breaking point at least. As long as they can reliably put
hundreds of thousands of protesters in the streets, they are almost
invincible.

China can handle thousands. Tens of thousands becomes a real problem. More
than that and it’s impossible without serious damage.

HK would never be governable again after a bloody crackdown of that scale. It
would either descend into hell and come out worth nothing, or it could spread
into the mainland.

Both are unlikely events - I think China is simply waiting it out and ramping
up the pressure. Visuals of army training and troop transports are having the
desired effect.

I think the likely next steps would be to cut services and if that doesn’t
work some rationing/price inflation of food and water. Start making the poor
resent the rich, and ramp up the propaganda.

------
azinman2
Dystopian nightmare.

~~~
de_watcher
Need to rewatch Person of Interest.

------
pishpash
You need to see this in the proper social context. Yes, it's technology and
seems like a new phenomenon ("dystopia"!), but that already existed and not
much has changed. What if I told you that the local security bureau there
always had all the information about people's whereabouts? If you were
burglarized, you called one of them up and the thieves were caught. China
never worked the way that most people understand.

