
The Feds are building an America-wide face surveillance system and ACLU is suing - CapitainEvident
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/31/aclu_facial_recognition/
======
trenning
I can't be the only one who gets depressed reading the news on here.

Everyday it's another article about your private information being sucked up
and sold for advertising or hacked and sold to be used for stealing your
identity or other nefarious shit.

Then there's the public side of gov't agencies monitoring everything in your
life. At any point they can send an email to any tech company and get a full
dump of your information. They're tracking everything you do online, they have
cameras on every intersection recording your face.

Every cop car and repo truck is driving around collecting your license plate
information tracking all your 'off-line' movements.

You can't walk around your neighborhood without your face being recorded by
every paranoid household with a doorbell camera and feeding the government
databases of your whereabouts.

You book a vacation and the next day every device you use connected to the
internet is sending you ads about your vacation destination even though all
you did was book a flight and get an email confirmation.

This sounds like some conspiracy tinfoil hat old man rant (I swear I'm non of
those), but I hear regular "non-tech" people airing the same complaints more
and more. It's just disappointing that there isn't an option to not
participate I guess. Sorry for the long (mostly off topic) rant

~~~
MisterTea
> _I can 't be the only one who gets depressed reading the news on here. .....
> This sounds like some conspiracy tinfoil hat old man rant (I swear I'm non
> of those), but I hear regular "non-tech" people airing the same complaints
> more and more. It's just disappointing that there isn't an option to not
> participate I guess. Sorry for the long (mostly off topic) rant_

Rant on my friend. Rant on. You're not the only one getting depressed about
all this lunacy. How about that yahoo article about white male depression or
something. I'm sure shit like this is just another heavy rock on the pile of
life we're carrying on our backs, white, male or not. It's a problem for
everyone. Nineteen Eighty-Four is coming to life before our eyes. It's a damn
prophecy.

I have friends who fully understand whats going on and chose to have alexas
and rings in their home because they're lazy in the sense that they want to
maximize their recreational and leisure time. They don't want to fiddle with
the complexity of setting up their own cctv cameras, running wires and then
figuring out how to remotely access it without leaving your home open to a
hack. They don't want bulky PC's. They have careers, kids and a babysitter so
easy peasy iot cameras with mobile phone apps are a godsend for them. They
don't believe they are special enough to warrant surveillance. They say
they'll just bore some eavesdropping spook. Ain't got nothing to hide.

I recently spoke with a musician who randomly complained about: operating
systems that they couldn't control, phones tracking everything, ads tracking
them, microphones and cameras everywhere which could be hack or backdoored,
email spying by the provider, etc. They had a pretty good grasp of the
situation as well. They even became proactive and opened a paid protonmail
account. Then they asked about purism laptops and if they could live with
using Linux.

~~~
Ancalagon
Was even more crazy, and to your point, even tech that you wouldn't expect to
be watching you is now. Google's new wifi router has microphones and speakers
in it! This is insanity to me. I've converted my entire tech environment to
mostly apple devices, but apple doesn't make everything, and honestly with
their new business model I truly believe its only a matter of time until they
too start aggregating data like Google and Amazon do.

~~~
MisterTea
Be careful with putting all your eggs into one basket. I'm weathering my
Windows 7 desktop but I'm going to move to Linux. I have no desire to move to
windows 10 and no interest in Apple products.

As for a router, have a look at the PC Engines apu2 then run pfsense on it.

------
sramsay
In 2012, in a concurring opinion on a case involving warrantless GPS tracking,
justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote:

"More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an
individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily
disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in
which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third
parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks."

Just wondering when we're actually going to reconsider that premise and its
legal cognates.

~~~
Rooster61
I hate getting political, but this is one of Andrew Yang's platform staples
and is immediately relevant to your question. Look up his ideas about Data as
a Right.

~~~
j8014
If it is to be political, I would rather target the legislative branch who can
actually do something about this. It doesn't make sense to worry about the
promises of a politician trying to get elected into the executive branch.

~~~
longerthoughts
I don't think Andrew Yang has any expectation of actually becoming the
Democratic candidate, let alone getting elected. Seems like he's just trying
to bring new ideas to the debate stage because candidates actually trying to
get elected won't risk straying too far from familiar ideas.

------
skummetmaelk
We have all the ingredients for Minority Report.

Recording devices in people's homes (alexa, siri, google).

AI inference that can be trained to predict violent crimes based on data from
these always on devices.

Nation wide person tracking system, just using faces instead of eyeballs.

Yes yes, the always on devices are only on when you activate them with a
keyword. So what. Once MicroGoogleZon proves that they can "prevent crimes"
every non-tech person will want this in their home. We even see techies eschew
privacy and champion fall detection systems that can report someone falling
over in their home to the authorities.

Is it worth it?

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
My girlfriend's cellphone displays ads pertaining to our conversations. No
wake word needed when some app has managed to seize mic access.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Where/when does it display the?

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
A few seconds later in browser.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Holy shiitake, pardon my Japanese.

------
kemiller2002
One thing that not one has brought up yet is the amazing ability for the U.S.
government to mishandle data in their possession. Office of Personnel
Management can't even securely handle data for government workers and
contractors. Are we to believe the F.B.I. is going to be any better with data
about the American public? I'm sure they'll try harder this time to keep data
safe from foreign governments.

------
linuxftw
Weird. Nobody wants to limit the authority of the government until the
government is infringing upon something they care about.

If only there was some concept where we could specifically enumerate powers to
the government, and that's all the government was allowed to do.

~~~
kd3
The best government is no government.

~~~
daerogami
Only on paper in a utopia. That does not work on a landmass with 327 million
people that are trying to engage in commerce, build homes and maintain
infrastructure in their communities. You need some managing body to
orchestrate the funding, management and execution of a civilization whether
its a handful of families or a nation covering half a continent. Having no
government for those is a logistical impossibility.

Better to say "the best corruption is no corruption". That is at least
marginally less refutable.

~~~
kd3
Not necessarily a utopia. It could work; if you want an explanation of how
check out the following book:
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/yd18waixbva1jae/WhatAnarchyIsnt-
FR...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/yd18waixbva1jae/WhatAnarchyIsnt-
FREEBIE.pdf?dl=0)

------
mikece
I recall a story about street performers in London demanding -- and getting --
copies of the videos of them doing their thing which were captured by CCTV.
Just because something is performed in public doesn't make it legal to record
it, and unless you sign a contract to the contrary, in the US you retain
copyright to all original performances.

So... if you posit that your life is an act of performance art can you sue the
intelligence agencies for violation of copyright by making and storing
recordings of your original artwork (especially if you have the habit of
working on your Silly Walk and speaking in impressionistic voices throughout
your day)?

~~~
voxic11
There is precedent in the US that this could be fair use.

> After considering the four factors in the aggregate, the court finds that
> the fair use doctrine does apply to the City of Radford Police Department's
> use of Shell's photographs and other works. As long as the use remains
> solely for the dual purposes of permitting City of Radford law enforcement
> officers to properly investigate allegedly criminal acts and to use that
> evidence in any subsequent criminal proceedings, it will be a fair use and
> not a violation of the Copyright Act.

[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2407651/shell-v-
city-o...](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2407651/shell-v-city-of-
radford-virginia/)

~~~
mikece
The key point is that it's part of an active and specific law enforcement
investigation. This would NOT apply to full-spectrum, dragnet
surveillance/copying of the performance art I call my life, especially when
there's not even the suspicion of me being involved with anything more devious
than questioning the existence of the GPL.

------
oblib
I just posted a link to this on my FB page and a friend responded with this:

"I was protesting at Bohemian Grove several years ago when an FBI agent came
up to me, took a pic of my face and said have you heard of facial recognition
technology? I was shocked but not surprised. As an intimidation tactic, it was
pretty effective."

------
drumttocs8
Real question- could face surveillance be one of the reasons multiple
governments have banned niqabs or face veils?

~~~
buboard
It's certainly the excuse given. "You can't hide your face in public spaces
with niqabs or balaclavas for security reasons". The worrying part is that
people are OK with it

~~~
justinclift
Perhaps the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should add niqabs to their
official clothing list, as an initial counter to this face surveillance crap.
Could be useful at least in the jurisdictions that don't ban them.

------
sodosopa
Previous and current discussion
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21412356](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21412356)

------
davidw
The ACLU is well worth donating to. Indeed, I just did, again.

------
Overtonwindow
They’ve been doing this for a very long time. I’m less worried about the
government and more worried about private corporations doing this.

~~~
save_ferris
Given the government’s history of regulatory capture, which we already
arguably see in areas of financial regulation, the possibility that the
government could be coopted by private corporations to carry out mass
surveillance cannot be ignored.

------
dredmorbius
See also from yesterday extensive discussion on ACLU's announcement:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21412356](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21412356)

------
CindrFricknElla
[http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1#!%2F](http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1#!%2F)

------
cmurf
I'm traveling in Europe and get a cookies/privacy notice on every single site.
There's no new information provided. It's just obnoxious.

------
CapitainEvident
Original title was too long: The Feds are building an America-wide face
surveillance system – and we're going to court to prove it, says ACLU

~~~
tunap
The freeway system in the US is logging traffic with cameras. This goes far
beyond the DOT's cameras in the cities & border patrol checkpoints. Would not
be surprised if every mile of concrete/asphalt in the national freeway system
is covered by cameras these days.

------
sailfast
I guess “they have your old drivers license photo” is technically an America-
wide surveillance system?

Would you not want a law enforcement body to be able to query against photos
legally obtained?

Now, if they’re running additional programs with broader means (the FBI do not
answer the ACLU on this which is why they’re suing) that is a different
matter, but the ACLU does not assert this, only that it may be possible (and
for that reason it should be stopped).

~~~
LeifCarrotson
There's a huge qualitative difference.

Prior to this technology, a detective could certainly go with a _suspect 's
name_ to the secretary of state and compare a driver's license photo with a
security camera image. I have no issue with that, and I suspect the ACLU
doesn't either. Subsequently, they're able to passively monitor all security
camera images and compare them to millions of driver's license photos to track
the locations of people not under investigation: that's a vastly different
action.

This does far more than make it more difficult for the guilty to get away with
crimes. That's not a cause anyone would advocate for. What it does that people
are rallying against is that it makes it far easier for the innocent to be
wrongly charged. And the old maxim that it's better for 10 guilty to go free
than one innocent be punished would suggest it's wrong to pursue the former at
the expense of the latter. Institutions like law enforcement will always seek
to increase their power, that power needs to be limited by society's concerns
for the rights and freedoms of its members.

~~~
homonculus1
>This does far more than make it more difficult for the guilty to get away
with crimes. That's not a cause anyone would advocate for.

Actually, I'll advocate for it. What you're saying assumes a perfect law, but
actually there are plenty of crimes that should not be crimes. People _should_
be able to get away with those, despite being legally guilty according to a
standard set by whatever group is in power.

Imagine if everyone who ever carried an ounce of weed got caught and locked up
for it. A perfectly effective law enforcement system leaves no room for
societal adjustment and changing norms through noncompliance. There has to be
cost and human effort involved in enforcing the law.

------
chmaynard
How is this different than the FBI's longstanding fingerprint database? Just
asking.

~~~
tclancy
You ever had your fingerprints taken without you knowing and consenting/ being
under arrest?

~~~
sixstringtheory
I remember going on a “field trip” to the local police station early in
elementary school age where they demonstrated fingerprinting on all 10 digits.
Also had an Ident-a-kid ID, which had a thumbprint on it.

While I technically “knew” my fingerprints were being taken, I guess, I
certainly was not of any age where I could informedly consent to the action.
Who knows what’s happened to them? (Probably nothing, but that’s definitely
not a certainty in my mind.)

------
kd3
We're going to need the scramble suits from A Scanner Darkly.

------
no_opinions
Generally speaking, police and security agencies have more rights to collect
data and tap lines. This is true regardless of the country and how many
protections they have.

Judging by comments, GDPR is something people in US may like. It may satiate a
lot of concerns consumers balk at.

Did you know GDPR doesn't apply to law enforcement/security agencies
collecting data?

Even if US changed (whatever that would mean, I don't know) regulations/laws
in this respect, there's still going to be mechanisms where data has to be
bulk collected for a security purpose.

The reason why is nobody has devised a way to know for sure what's
interesting, at the time, while it goes through the wire, reliably, because
it'd require being able to predict the future.

