11 ms·

Isn't this an opt in feature? I understand free reign police surveillance is bad, but if a customer opts in, I don't see the issue?

fromthestart 8y ago
My neighbor has such a doorbell. My facial data is captured every time I come over or walk by with my dog. When was I given an opportunity to consent to this?
- gjmarsh 8y ago
  You effectively consent to the possibility of surveillance every time you go outside your home, office, or anywhere with a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
  - epicide 8y ago
    Surveillance is not always mass surveillance. CCTVs are one thing. Giant companies and government entities automating the tracking of people in other countries is another.
- 15155 8y ago
  In the United States, your consent is not needed to film you in places with no expectation of privacy.
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    False. It depends on how invasive the recording was, how recognizable you are and how the recording is used (e.g. using it for advertising).
    - arbie 8y ago
      Is there a source for this claim? In major cities, there are multiple cameras at every traffic light intersection, and some even focus on the pedestrian crossing.
      - alphabettsy 8y ago
        In most places those cameras don’t record anything. They’re used for traffic signaling to avoid having to embed sensors in the roadway. https://www.peektraffic.com/products_video_detection.php https://www.peektraffic.com/products_video_detection.php
    - shiftpgdn 8y ago
      That's misleading. It's only if you're famous and the image is being used for profit. And even then it's pretty nebulous.
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      Also in the United States, you have the right to video-record anything you can see from where you are if you have the right to be present. You have the right to record any happenings on or in your dwelling and its curtilage. There is no question whatsoever that everyone has the right to mount a doorbell camera and do whatever they like with the recordings. The only exception is that if you are not in a single-party consent state, you might not be able to record the audio. It is unlikely that a legally protected conversation would be happening in mic range of the camera, though.
      - ncallaway 8y ago
        But what if we changed those laws? We could, for example, make it such that you can continue to record, but that those recordings couldn't be used as input to facial recognition software without the consent of the person being recorded. Just because you _currently_ can do something legally does not mean that it _must_ be that way.
        logfromblammo 8y ago
        You cannot abridge freedom of expression without an amendment. Nor can you abridge freedom of computation. You should perhaps instead endeavor to strike down anti-mask laws as being contrary to existing freedoms. The logical counter to automated facial recognition technology is facial concealment practices. It is the least harmful to liberty. Alternatively, we could all wear--with our masks on--t-shirts with other people's faces printed onto them (especially Batman's face). And we can, of course, ban the government from using facial recognition technology without a specific, limited reason for doing so. Just because I can record you from my porch and identify your face as appearing often, doesn't mean I would be able to tie that image in to a compulsory national identity database with facial photograph data included. Individuals might instead be able to identify a face as "John Doe #154" on their own server, and maybe match it to "YourMetroArea Serial Package Thief #15" on neighborhood-watch.net . Maybe I can set up an alert if any of the shared criminal faces show up and get recognized, or I can voluntarily forward my video to the cops when an incident actually happens. Giving cops unrestricted access to everyone's raw feeds is a bad, bad, bad idea. You bring in the cops only when it is apparent that a crime has been committed, an identifiable individual is responsible, and there is now a tangible reason to deanonymize the culprit.
  - fromthestart 8y ago
    That my consent isn't legally necessary doesn't mean that this application of technology is ethical or good for society.
  - ncallaway 8y ago
    While technically true, this doctrine came from a time when cameras were far less common than they are today (by orders of magnitude), and when facial recognition software didn't even exist as a concept (outside of science fiction). Given those two very significant changes, it's probably worth re-evaluating the doctrine itself.
    - tossimba 8y ago
      snip
      - ncallaway 8y ago
        > You want to re-evaluate the first amendment? I don't. > You don't want freedom of press? I do. > Let me guess. You also want to abolish the second amendment. I don't. > Why don't you just move to somewhere they don't have those rights. Like in south america. They don't have guns, free speech, anything like that. Like brazil, venezuela, or ecuador. It's almost like you deliberately chose the least charitable interpretation of my point to avoid rebutting the actual argument I was making. Here's an example of a doctrine that likely wouldn't run afoul of the first amendment (impinging on neither freedom of speech, the press, or religion). These also likely wouldn't impinge on the second amendment, nor steer us towards economic disaster: * You can record in a public place * You cannot use facial recognition software on the recording without the consent of those that were recorded * Provide some limited exceptions to the above for small-scale private purposes or academic research
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        What an extreme comment. We need to reevaluate the concept of privacy. What does that have to do with freedom of press, guns or Venezuela?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I think this is an area where the constitution needs an update to reflect current technology. With the possibility of entities doing complete surveillance of the whole public space we need to refine the concept of privacy. I don't think it's acceptable that the only place where people are protected from surveillance and have privacy is their home.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      We may need a new philosophy of privacy to account for big data analysis. This feels related to the question of identification by DNA in large databases. It's pretty clear I own my own DNA, but if enough of my relatives upload their own that an association map of information about me can be discerned without my consent? What right do I have to prevent that? Currently, pretty much none. Should I have one?
- fixermark 8y ago
  When were you given an opportunity to consent to your relatives uploading their own DNA to ancestry.com? Ownership of one's own DNA information is not quite as blurry as surveillance camera footage, but if it's capturing activity happening in a public place or on the camera owner's property? Yeah, ownership of that information is still pretty blurry.
chrisfosterelli 8y ago
Yeah, it looks like: 1. Users opt to share video clips 2. Police can't view unshared videos without requesting 3. The whole thing is opt-in I don't see an issue here. It's a technical framework around something that already exists: police going door-to-door and asking for video clips. Why not make this more efficient? I can see the potential for abuse, as it is all centralized. But I think "portal for mass surveillance" is a bit of an exaggeration.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > I can see the potential for abuse But that is the problem. The potential exists, and without proper governance and oversight, you don't have the ability as a citizen to walk back abuse when it begins to occur. You only have the options of submitting to continued abuse, moving to a more sane locale, or the uphill political battle of defending your rights. Authoritarianism is a slow boil, and doesn't happen overnight (usually; occasionally it does!).
  - fixermark 8y ago
    However, are we throwing the baby of crowd-sourced neighborhood policing opted into by residents (essentially, a digitally-assisted neighborhood watch) with the bathwater of potential for abuse? What are the actual abuse scenarios that we would fear could occur? These technologies aren't either-or; they're a tradeoff of possible benefits and drawbacks. What concrete drawbacks should we be concerned with here?
    - epicide 8y ago
      The technologies aren't either/or, but the implementation, control, and regulations are. I'm all for neighborhoods policing themselves, but this isn't even close to that. I would be fine with there being additional tools that assist the individual consumer with reporting crimes or providing video evidence to police. Amazon/Ring/whoever doesn't need to be involved with what is a local/neighborhood issue.
      - 8y ago

fromthestart 8y ago

My neighbor has such a doorbell. My facial data is captured every time I come over or walk by with my dog. When was I given an opportunity to consent to this?

gjmarsh 8y ago
You effectively consent to the possibility of surveillance every time you go outside your home, office, or anywhere with a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
- epicide 8y ago
  Surveillance is not always mass surveillance. CCTVs are one thing. Giant companies and government entities automating the tracking of people in other countries is another.
15155 8y ago
In the United States, your consent is not needed to film you in places with no expectation of privacy.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  False. It depends on how invasive the recording was, how recognizable you are and how the recording is used (e.g. using it for advertising).
  - arbie 8y ago
    Is there a source for this claim? In major cities, there are multiple cameras at every traffic light intersection, and some even focus on the pedestrian crossing.
    - alphabettsy 8y ago
      In most places those cameras don’t record anything. They’re used for traffic signaling to avoid having to embed sensors in the roadway. https://www.peektraffic.com/products_video_detection.php https://www.peektraffic.com/products_video_detection.php
  - shiftpgdn 8y ago
    That's misleading. It's only if you're famous and the image is being used for profit. And even then it's pretty nebulous.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    Also in the United States, you have the right to video-record anything you can see from where you are if you have the right to be present. You have the right to record any happenings on or in your dwelling and its curtilage. There is no question whatsoever that everyone has the right to mount a doorbell camera and do whatever they like with the recordings. The only exception is that if you are not in a single-party consent state, you might not be able to record the audio. It is unlikely that a legally protected conversation would be happening in mic range of the camera, though.
    - ncallaway 8y ago
      But what if we changed those laws? We could, for example, make it such that you can continue to record, but that those recordings couldn't be used as input to facial recognition software without the consent of the person being recorded. Just because you _currently_ can do something legally does not mean that it _must_ be that way.
      - logfromblammo 8y ago
        You cannot abridge freedom of expression without an amendment. Nor can you abridge freedom of computation. You should perhaps instead endeavor to strike down anti-mask laws as being contrary to existing freedoms. The logical counter to automated facial recognition technology is facial concealment practices. It is the least harmful to liberty. Alternatively, we could all wear--with our masks on--t-shirts with other people's faces printed onto them (especially Batman's face). And we can, of course, ban the government from using facial recognition technology without a specific, limited reason for doing so. Just because I can record you from my porch and identify your face as appearing often, doesn't mean I would be able to tie that image in to a compulsory national identity database with facial photograph data included. Individuals might instead be able to identify a face as "John Doe #154" on their own server, and maybe match it to "YourMetroArea Serial Package Thief #15" on neighborhood-watch.net . Maybe I can set up an alert if any of the shared criminal faces show up and get recognized, or I can voluntarily forward my video to the cops when an incident actually happens. Giving cops unrestricted access to everyone's raw feeds is a bad, bad, bad idea. You bring in the cops only when it is apparent that a crime has been committed, an identifiable individual is responsible, and there is now a tangible reason to deanonymize the culprit.
- fromthestart 8y ago
  That my consent isn't legally necessary doesn't mean that this application of technology is ethical or good for society.
- ncallaway 8y ago
  While technically true, this doctrine came from a time when cameras were far less common than they are today (by orders of magnitude), and when facial recognition software didn't even exist as a concept (outside of science fiction). Given those two very significant changes, it's probably worth re-evaluating the doctrine itself.
  - tossimba 8y ago
    snip
    - ncallaway 8y ago
      > You want to re-evaluate the first amendment? I don't. > You don't want freedom of press? I do. > Let me guess. You also want to abolish the second amendment. I don't. > Why don't you just move to somewhere they don't have those rights. Like in south america. They don't have guns, free speech, anything like that. Like brazil, venezuela, or ecuador. It's almost like you deliberately chose the least charitable interpretation of my point to avoid rebutting the actual argument I was making. Here's an example of a doctrine that likely wouldn't run afoul of the first amendment (impinging on neither freedom of speech, the press, or religion). These also likely wouldn't impinge on the second amendment, nor steer us towards economic disaster: * You can record in a public place * You cannot use facial recognition software on the recording without the consent of those that were recorded * Provide some limited exceptions to the above for small-scale private purposes or academic research
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      What an extreme comment. We need to reevaluate the concept of privacy. What does that have to do with freedom of press, guns or Venezuela?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I think this is an area where the constitution needs an update to reflect current technology. With the possibility of entities doing complete surveillance of the whole public space we need to refine the concept of privacy. I don't think it's acceptable that the only place where people are protected from surveillance and have privacy is their home.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    We may need a new philosophy of privacy to account for big data analysis. This feels related to the question of identification by DNA in large databases. It's pretty clear I own my own DNA, but if enough of my relatives upload their own that an association map of information about me can be discerned without my consent? What right do I have to prevent that? Currently, pretty much none. Should I have one?
fixermark 8y ago
When were you given an opportunity to consent to your relatives uploading their own DNA to ancestry.com? Ownership of one's own DNA information is not quite as blurry as surveillance camera footage, but if it's capturing activity happening in a public place or on the camera owner's property? Yeah, ownership of that information is still pretty blurry.

chrisfosterelli 8y ago

Yeah, it looks like: 1. Users opt to share video clips 2. Police can't view unshared videos without requesting 3. The whole thing is opt-in I don't see an issue here. It's a technical framework around something that already exists: police going door-to-door and asking for video clips. Why not make this more efficient? I can see the potential for abuse, as it is all centralized. But I think "portal for mass surveillance" is a bit of an exaggeration.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
> I can see the potential for abuse But that is the problem. The potential exists, and without proper governance and oversight, you don't have the ability as a citizen to walk back abuse when it begins to occur. You only have the options of submitting to continued abuse, moving to a more sane locale, or the uphill political battle of defending your rights. Authoritarianism is a slow boil, and doesn't happen overnight (usually; occasionally it does!).
- fixermark 8y ago
  However, are we throwing the baby of crowd-sourced neighborhood policing opted into by residents (essentially, a digitally-assisted neighborhood watch) with the bathwater of potential for abuse? What are the actual abuse scenarios that we would fear could occur? These technologies aren't either-or; they're a tradeoff of possible benefits and drawbacks. What concrete drawbacks should we be concerned with here?
  - epicide 8y ago
    The technologies aren't either/or, but the implementation, control, and regulations are. I'm all for neighborhoods policing themselves, but this isn't even close to that. I would be fine with there being additional tools that assist the individual consumer with reporting crimes or providing video evidence to police. Amazon/Ring/whoever doesn't need to be involved with what is a local/neighborhood issue.
    - 8y ago