Message from Arch-Fiend in Subverse #newsroom
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
do they track the faces or do they identify the faces?
because face tracking and facial reognization are different things
face tracking can pick up faces that arnt even real
Right. Also, keep in mind we do not even need facial recognition anymore. Do you realize most people store their fingerprints in their phones now? People are handing over PII to tech firms willingly with known ties to government agencies and sign ToS's that justify the distribution of that data.
That's partially true
at what point is catching a murder no longer important enough?
your fingerprint isn't stored on your phone
The hash of your fingerprint is..
You carry around a tracking/surveillance device in your pocket/purse.
Yes, you do.
Well, we SAY it's non-reversible. I don't know if it is or isn't at this point.
It has to be interpreted somehow, so if it can be translated in one way, it can be in the other as well.
you can't use GPS without requesting and receiving a GPS signal to your device, so you can't complain when someone is able to find your device to send that signal too.
It's a fundamental part of cryptography
You can generate the hash from the fingerprint, but you cant generate the fingerprint fromt he hash
Oh, I agree with you, I just don't trust government or tech firms not to lie about said non-reversibility.
Oh neither do i. Fortunately the math behind it doesn't lie
That what makes cryptology such an important asset to protect
Could be true, sure. I know only a bit about cryptography in tech.