
Beijing bets on facial recognition in a big drive for total surveillance - apta
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/01/07/feature/in-china-facial-recognition-is-sharp-end-of-a-drive-for-total-surveillance/
======
YeGoblynQueenne
In China, the government watches your every move. In the rest of the world,
it's your phone.

Edit: No, but wait because this is published in the Washington Post, the same
Washington Post who was declaring "No Pardon for Edward Snowden" just last
September [1]. If its editors are so appalled by surveillance, as we should
all certainly be, why are they not as appalled about the mass surveillance
used by their own government on their own fellow citizens?

_________________

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-
doesn...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesnt-
deserve-a-
pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.071591ae401f)

~~~
PostOnce
I can choose to leave my phone, or buy a wifi only device, or take the cell
modem out.

I can't choose not to be tracked by computers and cameras I don't own,
generally. Therefore, the Chinese system is greatly more nefarious since there
is no opt-out.

~~~
dis-sys
1\. you can choose to stay in your private home not fitted with those cameras.
2\. you can choose to wear a mask when walking on streets, there is no law
stopping you doing that, going to a bank or metro station is a different
story. 3\. you can choose to live in remote areas. 4\. as a foreigner, you can
choose not to visit China. 5\. as a Chinese citizen, one can choose to leave
China and live in countries without such "problem".

~~~
zaroth
Yes you can opt-out of anything technically. Both are fairly large sacrifices
in the end.

------
leggomylibro
>a toilet roll dispenser at a public facility outside the Temple of Heaven in
Beijing reportedly scans faces to keep people from stealing too much paper,

I have several questions:

1\. Wait, am I stealing paper when I use a public restroom? Are those
dispensers like the 'take a penny, leave a penny' tills?

2\. Is there an acceptable amount of stealing which the facial recognition
limits, or does it alert the management any time that paper is dispensed and
leave the judgement to human beings?

3\. There are literally cameras in the stalls?

4\. How long is its memory? If it shuts me down, can I simply wait for someone
else to go in before resuming my theft?

~~~
alister
It's explained in the linked BBC[1] article: " _The machines dispense strips
of toilet paper measuring 60 to 70cm (24 to 27.5 inches) to each person. They
will not dispense more paper to the same person until after nine minutes have
passed. Visitors to the Temple of Heaven park 's toilets were taking excessive
amounts of toilet paper, some of whom were seen stuffing their bags._" The
photo in the article shows that the automated paper dispensers are located
outside the stalls. Without even talking about an Orwellian surveillance
society, this seems like an over-engineered, inconvenient, and expensive
solution to a minor problem.

[1] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
china-39324431](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39324431)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Before you had to bring your own toilet paper (when I visited the Temple of
Heaven for the first time in 1999), or you could buy some from the attendant
for a few mao (cents). Now that attendants are too expensive, they have to
come up with something else, while tourists from the lesser tier cities still
see bathroom provided toilet paper as a luxury.

~~~
blackbagboys
It seems like this problem could more easily be solved with a vending machine
than a complicated facial recognition apparatus.

~~~
strebler
I think they wanted to make it free but still deal with the fact that anything
that isn't nailed down will get stolen in China. Even toilet paper - you
should see the "rations" many hotels there give to guests for a night's stay.

~~~
boobsbr
> anything that isn't nailed down will get stolen

In Brazil as well.

------
EGreg
I am worried this is just the beginning.

Once control of the masses is centralized in one place, it will be too
tempting to tighten the screws - or just screw around - with some or all
people.

Want to make everyone dance to a new law? Easy peasy. Limit bathroom breaks?
No sweat.

Even enforcement can be made more "painless" via machine learning:

 _Gradually, a model of people’s behavior takes shape. “Once you identify a
criminal or a suspect, then you look at their connections with other people,”
he said. “If another person has multiple connections, they also become
suspicious.”_

Simply cut off that person's credit cards and WeChat accounts etc. Anyone seen
helping this person get food to eat is similarly penalized. Pretty soon the
person will learn to obey the system or starve. In fact it will be a nice
Pavlovian proportional response. Each infraction is punished by some
limitation of your ability to transact. And voila -- a population of docile
adults, perfectly conditioned by an ever more efficient system to do whatever
the new laws say they should.

Just like drones make war less costly, this will make law enforcement less
costly, leading to a proliferation of "easy"-to-enforce laws.

~~~
sdiepend
I guess we will have to escape into virtual realities(illegaly hosted
ofcourse).

------
pcurve
This is automation of what's already being done, but at larger scale.

My father used to do a lot of business in China. He has a lot of interesting
stories, but one of my favorites is one about how he was under constant
surveillance by government employees and party members.

They would monitor his movements and keep logs. He knew this because some
didn't even bother keeping it discrete. He'd see the same guys over and over,
and they would whip out a note pad and write things down.

Labor cost was cheap back then to do this type of low-tech surveillance.

~~~
murukesh_s
These are two different things IMO. In what I understand this is an isolated
usage of face recognition to replace a manned booth with automation. The
underlying need for manned booth may be questionable, but it's cultural so
let's leave it aside and look at the possibilities of automation, especially
when AI is so hot and threatening to eat into our jobs.

In this case there were human employees behind the dispenser to notice that
toilet paper was issued more that once to same person within a minute or so
and he is pocketing it(you may think it's toilet paper, but it's more that a
billion population and theft is a theft). Now with facial recognition they can
eliminate that job done by a human and make it compeletly automatic.

Of course they do use face recognition or other forms of AI to track civilians
(as seen from some videos openly put in YouTube) for surveillance but which
govt isn't?

~~~
vageli
> Of course they do use face recognition or other forms of AI to track
> civilians (as seen from some videos openly put in YouTube) for surveillance
> but which govt isn't?

How is reasonable? Does genocide become okay if multiple countries are
committing it simultaneously?

~~~
murukesh_s
Not at all, but the overall sentiment in the comments were biased towards
Chinese govt's mass surveillance program, which is a different beast than the
article was about.

What I was mentioning is this particular instance is a good practical non-
surveillance use of face recognition..

------
thewhitetulip
I read 1984 the book over the weekend and this is truly a disturbing news. At
this point in time, I am happy that we don't have such blatant dictatorship in
India and that our infra is shit, our software in government is a joke so that
they won't be able to build a system like this where Big Brother is looking
over everyone via the telescreen. It is scary to not have freedom of thought,
expression.

~~~
hux_
How much time have you spent reading what Chinese people have to say?

The American version of freedom of thought and expression doesn't seem to have
any problem producing never ending wars, a surveillance state of their own, a
dysfunctional culture that produces mindless consumption and celeb worship, a
Wall Street and Silicon Valley that openly tells govt - yes what we do has
negative uncorrectable effects at population scales, but we are too big to
fail so fuck off. This form of freedom isn't scary to you?

~~~
forapurpose
Nobody is saying the U.S. is flawless, but people in the U.S. are far more
free, prosperous, and safe than those in China. As one simple example,
Americans choose who governs them and can openly criticize them. As another,
Americans can do all these things you dislike, whether you or the government
like it or not.

All of the most prosperous, most free countries in the world are democracies.
The most prosperous, most free parts of China are democracies (Taiwan and Hong
Kong). As Churchill said (reputedly): Democracy is the worst form of
government, except for all the others.

I wish my brethren in China great freedom, prosperity and peace.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>people in the U.S. are far more free, prosperous, and safe than those in
China.

This sort of statement is entirely subjective. As a counterpoint, many people
in China would say the US is less free and less safe, because the US has by
far the most amount of people locked in cages and a higher per capita homicide
rate.

Whether or not one country is "better" than the other is nationalist
subjectivity.

~~~
forapurpose
>> people in the U.S. are far more free, prosperous, and safe than those in
China.

> This sort of statement is entirely subjective

It's not at all subjective. There are many objective measurements of
prosperity, such as income and wealth per capita, and freedom, such as human
rights. Freedom House is a good source for an an objective, annual review of
human rights (last I knew; I haven't looked at it in a little while).

------
mih
For those who want to see the system in action, take a look at this video by a
BBC correspondent - [http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-
china-42297153/surveil...](http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-
china-42297153/surveillance-state). In a small experiment, as soon as an alert
is issued, the reporter is identified via facial recognition and apprehended
within minutes as he walks through the city.

~~~
personlurking
Video in link doesn't work for me. This seems to be the same report.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNf4-d6fDoY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNf4-d6fDoY)

------
thisisit
There was a video posted by WSJ on how this surveillance is affecting people's
life:

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/twelve-days-in-xinjiang-how-
chi...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/twelve-days-in-xinjiang-how-chinas-
surveillance-state-overwhelms-daily-life-1513700355)

------
b1daly
Is Chinese public sentiment in favor of this ever increasing surveillance? As
an American, this is horrifying. But given the reports of the high levels of
crime and corruption, maybe citizens feel like it’s a net benefit.

I wonder if a mass movement to wear masks, of some kind, would be enough to at
least put a damper on such pervasive surveillance.

~~~
DashRattlesnake
> Is Chinese public sentiment in favor of this ever increasing surveillance?

How would you know? They have an internet that's openly censors and filled
with pro-government propaganda. Many of those articles are basically cheer-
leading for the technological infra structure for further control, such as
paying for everything on your phone with WeChat and the planned social credit
system. These articles play up the convenience to the people while leaving
unsaid the surveillance and control implications. I'd also guess they're
unlikely to allow Western-run surveys to be taken and even if you tried to
conduct one, the people would tell you what they think the government wants
you to hear.

------
woodandsteel
>Adrian Zenz, a German academic who has researched ethnic policy and the
security state in China’s western province of Xinjiang, said the government
craves omnipotence over a vast, complex and restive population.

This is short-sighted. The more rigidly a population is controlled, the less
flexibility and creativity it can provide when things unexpectedly go wrong.
And when all dissenting opinion is suppressed, the government after a while
gets the illusion that everyone supports it when actually their is anger
underneath waiting to burst out.

That is the great advantage of democracy. It is messy, but in the long term
far more adaptive.

China defenders say total social control is the traditional Chinese way, but
what we have today is not at all traditional. Under Confucianism, there was an
elaborate set of rules that everyone knew and that everyone, including the top
leadership, was obliged to follow. And everyone enforced it on everyone else,
and that included that if the masses judged that the leadership was no longer
following the rules, they had a right to overthrow it.

What you have nowadays with Xi Jinping is a highly secretive government that
is making up the rules as it goes along, and is invulnerable to public
inspection, much less judgement.

------
cryoshon
honest, good faith question: at what point do we say "no more surveillance"
and start smashing cameras?

the thoughts "we are free" and "total surveillance when in public" are
incompatible...

~~~
shrimp_emoji
Does freedom == privacy? I'd argue privacy is merely a facet of freedom, but
_public_ privacy is something I don't think our society is designed to
support. The only places I expect privacy are in my home and on the Internet
(such as it can be). In public, people who anonymize themselves (e.g., with
masks or unmarked vehicles) most often seek privacy for criminal reasons
(e.g., thieves or violent protesters). Hence:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
mask_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws)

But then a lot of Middle Eastern women seem to usually get away with it in
places.

If we decide that giving up public privacy is palatable (which you may not),
only then can we move on to cameras. If we decide they're too powerful of a
surveillance tool, law enforcement bodies are going to have to do a lot more
hiring to deter crime! And China's bathrooms will need paper dispenser
attendants.

Oh, and adopt a no-cellphone Stallman policy or... legislate absolutely Zero
Tracking(TM) carrier tower service or something.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
Why do you expect anonymity on the Internet, but not in real world?

~~~
shrimp_emoji
Good question. I guess it's because it's more feasible and because I can't
really hurt others here. The worst I can do is manipulate combinations of 1s
and 0s to hack their accounts if their services' security isn't up to snuff or
something.

If someone hacked my bank, I'd blame the bank more than the hackers; if
someone broke into my home and robbed or hurt me, I'd be harsher on them than
on my door manufacturer! (Perhaps not even because it's easier to secure my
door than it is an electronic banking system but because I'd be more hurt...)

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
Still someone breaking into your home will use a mask, and you will not be
allowed to when buying things in a store.

~~~
shrimp_emoji
I'd rather they didn't in either case, although it is unfortunately difficult
to acquire goods legitimately yet anonymously, so I lament that too. At the
end of the day, Amazon knows a lot about me.

Another distinction I just thought of is that while I have the option of
having online accounts _to_ be hacked (or silly-named personas to talk with),
I have no option of having a physical place in meatspace to inhabit of my own
where I keep my stuff. I need one, and, if I can't get one, I have bigger
problems than privacy. :c

------
lovelearning
As a citizen of a country that is somewhat oppressed by our government, I
think there is a lot that can be done by our tech community to democratize
such technologies and put surveillance powers in the hands of people.

In the country I live in, federal and local governments are peopled by
employees most of whom tend to be some combination of such "fine" words as
venal, corrupt, rent-seeking, dishonest, scammy, sadistic, rude and the like.

There's probably more crimes and unethical activities being done by government
employees than any other group. I think adverse effects on our society from
them is much higher than people we normally term as criminals. In that sense,
I think of our governments as actively adversarial and hostile to our society.

I don't have any direct experience living in other countries, but from what I
read about other countries in media, blogs and discussion forums, governments
that behave in adversarial hostile manner towards their own societies seem to
be the norm in underdeveloped and developing countries around the world.

As an article I read recently pointed out, such governments have rules and
laws to make their societies obey them and their needs, but rarely legislate
laws that can balance the asymmetry of power, such as whistleblower laws,
citizen information acts or independence in criminal investigations.

That's why I think there is a lot that can be done by our tech community to
democratize such technologies and put surveillance powers in the hands of
people. If the residents of a locality decide to track their local government
employees to collect proof of unethical activities using a peer-to-peer mesh
of their private cameras (for example, uncovering unethical financial
activities such as misuse of taxes on unnecessary contract works), I think we
should provide such software systems that are easily available for - and
usable by - everybody.

The fear of adversarial surveillance can work in both directions. The same
fear that governments use to curb dissidents or critics can also help curb or
deter government's unethical activities when people are empowered to create
that fear.

Even the most rudimentary information about technologies and procedures that
can empower oppressed people is severely lacking.

For example, citizens writing and exposing government abuse is probably one of
the most basic forms of democratic empowerment. Governments curtail such basic
freedoms using laws that address defamation or sedition, using powers to
punish such criticism through extradition and interpol agreements, and using
powers to shut down such content with cooperation from providers such as ISPs,
Google, FB, Twitter, or AWS.

It would be empowering to a large volume of humanity if there's a queryable
up-to-date database that can answer the seemingly simple question _" where and
how can I safely express my opinions about my government without being shut
down or being punished?"_ A database of web hosts and other infra around the
world with all relevant information about extradition and other legal aspects
between the querying user's country and the hosting country, so that every
citizen in any country can express themselves without fear of being censored
or punished. I searched hard for such information in the past, but couldn't
find anything much.

I think such democratization can happen only if principled techs voluntarily
donate time to work on them, and focus on peer-to-peer architectural
principles. Tor is a good example of such democratization, but many more are
needed, and some of them - like the database above, basic identity
recognition, ANPR - seem to me to be low-hanging fruits that can be solved
through crowdsourcing and peer-to-peer storage and processing.

------
doctorstupid
Perhaps that toilet paper dispenser with facial (faecal?) recognition might be
hinting at the future of retail. I can imagine people walking into
supermarkets, picking their items, and then simply leaving through the doors.
Stealing will occur when a face isn't attached to enough credits. Ditto for
public transportation. Sounds terrible to me.

~~~
IanPBann
This is very similar to the Amazon Go store currently being trialed by Amazon
employees in Seattle. You check in to the store upon entering using the Amazon
Go app, pick your items, then simply walk out. The store tracks what items you
have on you then charges your account on exiting.

The only 'feature' missing from real life compared to your imagined scenario
is using facial recognition to automatically determine who is in the store.

------
m3kw9
Looks like a big money grab by the companies that touts they can accurately
track people

~~~
phantomathkg
See [https://www.sensetime.com/cases#0](https://www.sensetime.com/cases#0)

There are already companies that are doing that.

------
pmarreck
It's almost like they banned the book 1984 over there and never lived in East
Germany :P

------
SN76477
As the social pressure gets greater I hope to see more talk of freedom and
democracy.

------
vikiomega9
Reading the comments here, I wonder how many are aware of the use of social
harmony which justifies this type of tech and why that core thesis is not
identified and argued upon when compared to "more freedom is good". If this
thought is too naive please point me to better reading resources

------
MechEStudent
This has been on the menu for a long time. At least 3 years. Who is surprised
at this?

------
grondilu
I get all the worries about monitoring human lives, but you have to admit that
from an anthropological point of view, it is absolutely priceless. If that
data is ever given to scientists, we'll get to learn a lot. That really makes
me think it might just be worth it.

