5 ms·

Las Vegas police could boycott working NFL games over new facial ID policy

36 points by oneseven 2y ago

jarsin 2y ago
Interesting concern given all of our pictures were already sold by META to every data broker on the planet..
- codedokode 2y ago
  Not everyone's but only of those who uploaded them.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Nope. If someone uploaded a picture with you in it and tagged your name, they have you too.
- 121789 2y ago
  They don’t sell data, they just collect it to target relevant ads. If you can find an instance of them (or Google) actually selling data to brokers, please share
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jarsin 2y ago
    Brave ai summary: Facebook’s Facial Recognition Data Collection and Potential Sales to Third Parties in Texas Based on the provided search results, here are the key findings: In 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Meta Platforms, Facebook’s parent company, alleging that it collected facial recognition data without users’ consent, violating Texas state law. The lawsuit claimed that Facebook repeatedly captured and commercialized biometric data in photos and videos for over a decade without informed consent, sharing the data with third parties and failing to destroy it in a reasonable timeframe. The state alleged that Facebook’s actions put Texans’ well-being, safety, and security at risk, and sought damages of “billions of dollars.” In 2024, Meta agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement in the biometric data lawsuit, related to the unauthorized use of personal biometric data from uploaded photos and videos on Facebook.
    - monetus 2y ago
      Ken Paxton can't be taken seriously, nor can allegations he makes sadly. It doesn't make financial sense to sell the data itself and undermine their ad business; I wonder what that suit and settlement were about.
- acchow 2y ago
  Meta and Google want to retain their data moat to maximize their ad premiums over competitors. They really do not want to sell any data.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Google is handing real time location data, browsing histories, etc to 3rd parties while not technically selling it. Ex: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-...
elmerfud 2y ago
This kind of biometric security is getting a bit ridiculous. It would be different if it was done in a secure way and by that I mean secure in the sense that the person who provides the biometric data you had the ability to secure it wherever it went. This could absolutely be done but the reason it's not is companies totally want to gather this data from people and then sell it to other companies for machine learning and other purposes. Same with our government that wants to gather this kind of data. It would be quite straightforward to make your biometric identity a public private key kind of setup. Companies have access to your public key and you yourself carry your private key as some sort of physical identification that is unlocked with a two-factor method. This way any physical biometric thing is done on a device you own that could be mandated to be open technology completely auditable to be secure and all you do is use your physical doodad to interface with their thing to authenticate that yes you are the private key holder for this given public key. It would be much more secure than identification cards that we have now such as driver's licenses or passports. It would also be far more secure than the biometric style authentication they want to do now with them essentially owning a copy of your biometric data. But there is no profitability in true security and privacy for the citizens.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  The Apple and Google pushes for digital IDs are basically that, but support is limited at best since it's depending on 50+ different local governments to get up to speed on all this tech stuff.
- perihelions 2y ago
  Worth remembering the US Army built a biometric database of Afghan officials (police officers included) and they lost control of it to the Taliban. They sold it as a "for your own safety", and now it's a kill list. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/taliban-afghanistan-biometric-databases-us-b1908312.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/taliban-afghanistan-biome... ("Taliban likely to have access to biometric databases of Afghan civilians who helped US" (2021)) - "The biometrics initiative was initially tested in 2002. Its goals then were to prevent criminals and Taliban insurgents from infiltrating the Afghan army and police force[...]" - "The Taliban may also be using the Afghan government’s biometric-based ID card known as the Tazkira to track and target people, Ramanjit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, told news agency Reuters." - "Particularly at risk are individuals in central positions in the Afghan military, police and investigative units."
codedokode 2y ago
Don't be naive. Today they require photos from cops, tomorrow from fans.
- HillRat 2y ago
  This is the same police union that’s argued that releasing the names of police formally accused of misconduct is a privacy violation, their concern for privacy does not extend further than the ranks of their union and certainly not to the broader citizenry.
- xnyan 2y ago
  AI is already being used to keep out fans they don't want, they don't need them to submit photos or give permission[1]. In addition to being a vastly smaller and harder to replace group than fans, police are also far more organized than fans. That's the only reason they are being asked. [1]:https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-square-garden-facial-recognition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-square-g...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  They already have facial recognition entry at events in some cities like Seattle. It’s dystopian seeing everyone accept it without question.
Spooky23 2y ago
They are probably more annoyed that it will be harder to pull off no-show or low-show details. These are usually pretty sweet overtime or moonlighting gigs, and where there’s a sweet gig for cops, there’s always an asshole or two ready to milk it.
Barrin92 2y ago
The title confused me because here in Germany the police are civil servants and they generally don't have a right to strike or just choose not to do their job as they're an executive organ of the state but apparently here the police is just.. side hustling? "conversations with officers “making them very well aware of what they’re agreeing to.” But the decision may come down to what individual officers are comfortable with, Grammas said. Overtime security work is not mandatory for officers, but voluntary." Maybe it's a cultural thing but blurring the line between an officer in their public capacity and what is basically private security at a sports event should be two separate things. Hiring the police out as a private security force where they then get to negotiate what rules they have to play by has a Judge Dredd vibe to it
- lokar 2y ago
  Often at large private events the city will require a certain number of police, that the host must hire. And they can only hire from local departments that have worked out these deals letting officers do this on their own time, but in uniform. It’s weird, and often sort of extortion
- xp84 2y ago
  yeah, this is super common here in the US. Off-duty cops are in demand as security guards and they can work in uniform, which to me is all kinds of weird. You can literally "rent a cop" (an expression used as a joke about mall security guards who are typically not cops at all) this way, complete with full police powers.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > Hiring the police out as a private security force where they then get to negotiate what rules they have to play by has a Judge Dredd vibe to it The work is voluntary overtime work. They're not forced to accept voluntary overtime work. It's an optional thing they can choose to do above and beyond their base job, if the pay and terms are interesting enough. I don't see why it's a problem. What are the alternatives? Forcing police to do security for private events inside of private venues as part of their job?
  - 2y ago
enricotr 2y ago
This site asks permission to send data to more than 160 servers. To read an article.
susiecambria 2y ago
https://archive.ph/QdyLy https://archive.ph/QdyLy
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
digi59404 2y ago
More importantly than being outraged over the biometrics invasion (which you should 100% be outraged over). You should be more outraged at the hypocrisy. Las Vegas runs a fusion center which has some of the most invasive monitoring, capturing, metrics/data collection of most agencies. They do the following: - license plate recognition on every intersection. - microphones through the city which listen to conversations - drones which fly into and above people’s back yards. - Weaponized drones, ie fly drones into windows to break them, or people to stop them - thermal imagine of people’s houses and backyards. - facial ID against social media from cameras, as well as NCIC and more. - they have fake social media profiles they use to follow pages, groups, individuals suspected of bad behavior - they purchase PI from brokers en masse and run against it. - they probably have more cameras than almost any city in the US. - they have taps into all casinos cameras and microphones. … these are the same officers who are upset over the new facial ID policy. Here’s a brief news clip. But I also know these details because I’ve seen them first hand. https://www.fox5vegas.com/video/2023/11/14/fox5-takes-an-inside-look-las-vegas-polices-technical-operations-center/ https://www.fox5vegas.com/video/2023/11/14/fox5-takes-an-ins...

36 points by oneseven 2y ago

jarsin 2y ago

Interesting concern given all of our pictures were already sold by META to every data broker on the planet..

codedokode 2y ago
Not everyone's but only of those who uploaded them.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Nope. If someone uploaded a picture with you in it and tagged your name, they have you too.
121789 2y ago
They don’t sell data, they just collect it to target relevant ads. If you can find an instance of them (or Google) actually selling data to brokers, please share
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jarsin 2y ago
  Brave ai summary: Facebook’s Facial Recognition Data Collection and Potential Sales to Third Parties in Texas Based on the provided search results, here are the key findings: In 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Meta Platforms, Facebook’s parent company, alleging that it collected facial recognition data without users’ consent, violating Texas state law. The lawsuit claimed that Facebook repeatedly captured and commercialized biometric data in photos and videos for over a decade without informed consent, sharing the data with third parties and failing to destroy it in a reasonable timeframe. The state alleged that Facebook’s actions put Texans’ well-being, safety, and security at risk, and sought damages of “billions of dollars.” In 2024, Meta agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement in the biometric data lawsuit, related to the unauthorized use of personal biometric data from uploaded photos and videos on Facebook.
  - monetus 2y ago
    Ken Paxton can't be taken seriously, nor can allegations he makes sadly. It doesn't make financial sense to sell the data itself and undermine their ad business; I wonder what that suit and settlement were about.
acchow 2y ago
Meta and Google want to retain their data moat to maximize their ad premiums over competitors. They really do not want to sell any data.
- Retric 2y ago
  Google is handing real time location data, browsing histories, etc to 3rd parties while not technically selling it. Ex: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-...

elmerfud 2y ago

This kind of biometric security is getting a bit ridiculous. It would be different if it was done in a secure way and by that I mean secure in the sense that the person who provides the biometric data you had the ability to secure it wherever it went. This could absolutely be done but the reason it's not is companies totally want to gather this data from people and then sell it to other companies for machine learning and other purposes. Same with our government that wants to gather this kind of data. It would be quite straightforward to make your biometric identity a public private key kind of setup. Companies have access to your public key and you yourself carry your private key as some sort of physical identification that is unlocked with a two-factor method. This way any physical biometric thing is done on a device you own that could be mandated to be open technology completely auditable to be secure and all you do is use your physical doodad to interface with their thing to authenticate that yes you are the private key holder for this given public key. It would be much more secure than identification cards that we have now such as driver's licenses or passports. It would also be far more secure than the biometric style authentication they want to do now with them essentially owning a copy of your biometric data. But there is no profitability in true security and privacy for the citizens.

crooked-v 2y ago
The Apple and Google pushes for digital IDs are basically that, but support is limited at best since it's depending on 50+ different local governments to get up to speed on all this tech stuff.
perihelions 2y ago
Worth remembering the US Army built a biometric database of Afghan officials (police officers included) and they lost control of it to the Taliban. They sold it as a "for your own safety", and now it's a kill list. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/taliban-afghanistan-biometric-databases-us-b1908312.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/taliban-afghanistan-biome... ("Taliban likely to have access to biometric databases of Afghan civilians who helped US" (2021)) - "The biometrics initiative was initially tested in 2002. Its goals then were to prevent criminals and Taliban insurgents from infiltrating the Afghan army and police force[...]" - "The Taliban may also be using the Afghan government’s biometric-based ID card known as the Tazkira to track and target people, Ramanjit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, told news agency Reuters." - "Particularly at risk are individuals in central positions in the Afghan military, police and investigative units."

codedokode 2y ago

Don't be naive. Today they require photos from cops, tomorrow from fans.

HillRat 2y ago
This is the same police union that’s argued that releasing the names of police formally accused of misconduct is a privacy violation, their concern for privacy does not extend further than the ranks of their union and certainly not to the broader citizenry.
xnyan 2y ago
AI is already being used to keep out fans they don't want, they don't need them to submit photos or give permission[1]. In addition to being a vastly smaller and harder to replace group than fans, police are also far more organized than fans. That's the only reason they are being asked. [1]:https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-square-garden-facial-recognition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-square-g...
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
They already have facial recognition entry at events in some cities like Seattle. It’s dystopian seeing everyone accept it without question.

Spooky23 2y ago

They are probably more annoyed that it will be harder to pull off no-show or low-show details. These are usually pretty sweet overtime or moonlighting gigs, and where there’s a sweet gig for cops, there’s always an asshole or two ready to milk it.

Barrin92 2y ago

The title confused me because here in Germany the police are civil servants and they generally don't have a right to strike or just choose not to do their job as they're an executive organ of the state but apparently here the police is just.. side hustling? "conversations with officers “making them very well aware of what they’re agreeing to.” But the decision may come down to what individual officers are comfortable with, Grammas said. Overtime security work is not mandatory for officers, but voluntary." Maybe it's a cultural thing but blurring the line between an officer in their public capacity and what is basically private security at a sports event should be two separate things. Hiring the police out as a private security force where they then get to negotiate what rules they have to play by has a Judge Dredd vibe to it

lokar 2y ago
Often at large private events the city will require a certain number of police, that the host must hire. And they can only hire from local departments that have worked out these deals letting officers do this on their own time, but in uniform. It’s weird, and often sort of extortion
xp84 2y ago
yeah, this is super common here in the US. Off-duty cops are in demand as security guards and they can work in uniform, which to me is all kinds of weird. You can literally "rent a cop" (an expression used as a joke about mall security guards who are typically not cops at all) this way, complete with full police powers.
Aurornis 2y ago
> Hiring the police out as a private security force where they then get to negotiate what rules they have to play by has a Judge Dredd vibe to it The work is voluntary overtime work. They're not forced to accept voluntary overtime work. It's an optional thing they can choose to do above and beyond their base job, if the pay and terms are interesting enough. I don't see why it's a problem. What are the alternatives? Forcing police to do security for private events inside of private venues as part of their job?
- 2y ago

enricotr 2y ago

This site asks permission to send data to more than 160 servers. To read an article.

susiecambria 2y ago

https://archive.ph/QdyLy https://archive.ph/QdyLy

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

digi59404 2y ago

More importantly than being outraged over the biometrics invasion (which you should 100% be outraged over). You should be more outraged at the hypocrisy. Las Vegas runs a fusion center which has some of the most invasive monitoring, capturing, metrics/data collection of most agencies. They do the following: - license plate recognition on every intersection. - microphones through the city which listen to conversations - drones which fly into and above people’s back yards. - Weaponized drones, ie fly drones into windows to break them, or people to stop them - thermal imagine of people’s houses and backyards. - facial ID against social media from cameras, as well as NCIC and more. - they have fake social media profiles they use to follow pages, groups, individuals suspected of bad behavior - they purchase PI from brokers en masse and run against it. - they probably have more cameras than almost any city in the US. - they have taps into all casinos cameras and microphones. … these are the same officers who are upset over the new facial ID policy. Here’s a brief news clip. But I also know these details because I’ve seen them first hand. https://www.fox5vegas.com/video/2023/11/14/fox5-takes-an-inside-look-las-vegas-polices-technical-operations-center/ https://www.fox5vegas.com/video/2023/11/14/fox5-takes-an-ins...