Message from Grenade123 in Subverse #newsroom
but that doesn't justify mass surveillance.
security vs convenience vs privacy is a battle that rages all the time and there is no right answer
The company my mate works for, the system they deploy has >98% accuracy.
with 1 photo as a source
Granted, people have been matching faces for thousands of years, and are hard wired to do it...
A significant portion of the brain is dedicated to it
That doesn't make the risks of biometric tracking any less concerning
how do you prevent identity theft while not allowing the government or even companies from being able to track you?
Why would the government keeping your data discourage identity theft?
what keeps them from demanding a company to hand it over?
The government demanding?
The more points of data to confirm your identity, the harder it is to fake. The more interconnected that data is from all entry and exits points, the harder it is to spoof.
if a company can have access to the needed information, why wouldn't the government?
When a govvernment entity verifys you... What do they ask for?
Your name, Your Address, Your birthday
Once they have that info... they have ALL of your metadata
Those elements are trivial to find
yes, all my metadata, including anything someone not me did using my name.
but this is my point, security vs convenience vs privacy
all of those points are at odds with one another
everyone wants all of them
There is a balance to be struck, for sure..
But i don't think giving the government access to ALL metadata is a balance.
that balance changes from person to person, from day to day
The balance isn't reasonable. Not any more
Mostly because the vast majority of people don't understand just how much data is being collected on them
If they actually understood the scope of the machine at work, they would be horrified.
if you have a welfare state, which you pay for with your taxes, wouldn't it be in your best interest for the government to make sure the people receiving welfare are actually in need of welfare?
I didn't say they shouldn't have "some" data.. I just think they currently have too much.. And we certainly shouldn't be volunteering more.
The government doesn't need more metadata to determine that.
Your income statement is enough to calculate that.
In this case, welfare would naturally become a "security over freedom" sort of deal, wouldn't it?
I'm not necessarily in favour of that sort of welfare
Neither am I in most circumstances.
i support a safety net
There is the debate over security vs freedom... I don;t necessarily agree that its a zero sum game
the thing is computers recognize faces well, but only 2 dimensionally. they dont recognizes faces in motion, different angles, behavure and disguises confuse them. super recognizers can actually use very little shown of a human face at multiple angles to recongize them. face scanning identification where your required to hold your face in a certain position will detect faces neer perfectly thats for sure, thats where you get your 98% effeciency from, you dont get it from tracking people with the millions of low tech ctv cameras throughout the uk
I think in the case of a natural disaster, social welfare is justifiable. Also in the case of a service shutdown of some sort.
@Arch-Fiend that's not true any more.. Ive watched facial recognition systems track 30 people across an open square, and identify each of the people in the scene in real time, and the face doesn't even need to be facing the camera.
the tech is both amazing, and terrifying