For recurring criminals, such as wallet robberies or car thieves, I think such technology could be useful because it could intimidate such individuals to not do the next crime. But for suicide terrorists it does not matter if your face is detected by that system, because it will fasten their belt and blow itself up in the end anyway.
We have to accept about this truth: privacy and security are two inverse things.
1
Too many folk are concerned about the government spying on them. Oh, really? It is the commercial sector -- Facebook being the pinnacle of such action – you should worry about. They builds dossiers for commercial gain, to provide temptations that will separate you from your money buying products you never would have considered otherwise. By the hundreds of millions. Indeed, every time you load a page with the Facebook “f” symbol, they got you, complete with your IP address. They have dossiers on millions who are not even its users!
The only reason government agencies are using technology is for law enforcement -- to locate criminal suspects, prevent terrorism and the like. In this instance: There is no prohibition on an agent personally recognizing one they are seeking on the street, then following that person -- without a warrant. That is well established as not violating Constitutional rights. All facial recognition does is make the process of finding that person more efficient.
If you don't want to be recognized on the street -- by friends, foes, and, yes, police officers -- stay home. Privacy ends when you go public.
3
This is important as there needs to be regulations for tech companies.
This is very important and face recognition doesn't work as advertised either but our gov't doesn't care as long as they can put more people in jail. ALL apps ALL tech companies NEED to be regulated NOW.
Joy Buolamwini, the researcher at the M.I.T. Media Lab, who is referenced in this New York Times article, misapply the dermatologists’ skin classification systems (the Fitzpatrick scale and the von Luschan scale) when she attempted to use them to define people by skin color, something the dermatologist classification systems simply cannot do!
The Fitzpatrick scale, like the von Luschan scale, was developed to estimate the burning effect of different types of skin when exposed to ultraviolet light. These scales do not classify skin by color.
Skin color, a constantly changing variable that changes with the source of light and the skin’s exposure to ultraviolet light over time, is not used in facial recognition systems.
And your point is?
That is the tradeoff that occurred when Facebook, Google, et al grew up "free" to users. It may have started out as a good faith unintended consequence. As technology evolved it has become an emerging catastrophe. I pay $15 per month to use the NYT website and I expect some privacy in return. I do not use Facebook (or Twitter). I pay nothing outright for Google, including gmail, and so understand that I am paying them with access to information about me. That said, I believe we have gotten to the point that for all of our sake we need European style limitations on the collection of personal information and robust limitations on government use of that information. Unfortunately we are most likely going to have to rely on congress to do this given the present state of the SCOTUS..
That is the tradeoff that occurred when Facebook, Google, et al grew up "free" to users. It may have started out as a good faith unintended consequence. As technology evolved it has become an emerging catastrophe. I pay $15 per month to use the NYT website and I expect some privacy in return. I do not use Facebook (or Twitter). I pay nothing outright for Google, including gmail, and so understand that I am paying them with access to information about me. That said, I believe we have gotten to the point that for all of our sake we need European style limitations on the collection of personal information and robust limitations on government use of that information. Unfortunately we are most likely going to have to rely on congress to do this given the present state of the SCOTUS..
1
Kinda reminds me of a film noir scene where the maniacal killer is begging police to stop him.
2
Racing into 1984. Privacy becoming obsolete.
4
Microsoft's Mouth. Talking out of both sides. Definition of!
1
Congress will do what congress ALWAYS does.
Once they've determined that their business masters won't forgo any profits and
Oonce they determine that their ability to get re-elected won't suffer,
There MAY be some regulation passed to insure our privacy.
I guess third is better than not being considered at all. Not being considered at all means you and your children get caged-up somewhere.
1
Yes. Please. This is creepy. Also, why?
I recently learned that forty three of fifty states require facial recognition technology for driver's license renewal and by 2020, the REAL identity card will be required for all Americans who wish to travel domestically or abroad. If you visit the DMV in NYC as I did yesterday, you will learn that they don't make mention of this fact as they direct you to the Photo Line. It makes me nauseous and unnerved to see that 'Big Brother' is Here; I was focused on China and only last week read that school children who have a wandering attention in class there will be notified to authorities - thanks to the latest of our privacy stripping technology - the facial algorithm. How soon before we are all entirely controlled, every expression watched for signs of revolt or resistance? Please NYT - put this story on your front page. Where are you and why aren't you writing about this? The issue of our right to privacy should be front and center! Please!
3
Inescapable facial recognition is an essential Artificial Intelligence tool for any government that desires to have complete and total control of the populace.
Without a ban, that's exactly what is will be used for.
Food for thought...
2
It's probably too late to do anything. In Britain there are so many cameras that the police can follow you down the street. In 2011, I was on the Norwegian Epic cruise ship. Instead of the big gallery of photos that are ubiquitous on cruise ships they placed our photos in our own folders by cabin number. Even if we were in a group photo, that pic was there. They used facial recognition software. This was based on a photo taken at boarding. I thought that was pretty scary then and the technology has to have improved a lot in all those years. There are too many places where our images may be stored to take them all back. That's even those of us who haven't given up our lives to Facebook.
3
I'm not keen to have my personal data monetized without my consent.
Shouldn't I own me?
Facebook, Google and everyone else seem to disagree.
1
Americans don’t care much about privacy: we surrender our anonymity to get 20 cents off a can of beans with our supermarket card; we give away our DNA information in exchange for vague information about where our ancestors lived 200 years ago; we link our online accounts to avoid the chore of retyping information; keeping a cell phone in your pocket gives away your location 24 hours a day; and your online activity and your credit card statements give an accurate picture of who you are. Face recognition really isn’t that much further a step.
6
What an irony - Americans want privacy! That's a laugh. If you want privacy then cancel your Facebook account... Stop posting on YouTube, SnapChat and Twitter .. Just use a telephone for what it is.. a telephone and Stop Texting! Look at the events from yesterday- Even a Senior FBI agent with Top Secret clearance isn't immune from the power of a text thread.
As for the cameras- The more the better. Surveillance keeps the honest people safe- and the bad people in check.
3
It's easy to get along without Facebook.
It's not a public utility Use; accept the consequences.
Stop complaining.
Ha, expecting Congress to "regulate" is farcical recognition.
1
Its pretty easy to get around facial recognition. Just dress like a devout Muslim woman or a member of Antifa.
The local police will often ask for help in identifying some thief who did nothing more than pull up his hoody, put on some dark glasses, and pull his bandana up over his mouth/nose and foil all of the cameras/software/eye-recognition, etc. Don't forget to wear a pair of "O.J. don't fit gloves" and you are good to go.
2
Time to get a Nixon mask.
3
The science of facial recognition will proceed apace. If we regulate it, China will dominate this space. Do the Times readers really think this will lead to a more utopian future?
2
Like everything else these days there is zero chance Congress will do anything that’s truly effective to limit facial recognition and other privacy busting technologies. Why? Because there is to much money to be made by the tech companies and potential users of that tech to be reigned in. So, well connected lobbyists (usually former government officials) with oodles of cash to spread around in all the right places will simply buy off congressmen and regulators and chalk it up as a cost of doing businesses. Also keep in mind that certain government agencies are often the largest abusers of privacy busting technology ( national security ya’ know) so, nothing will get done in spite of all the chest beating platitudes and phony outrage spewed around by upstanding representatives and officials. I’ll retire to Bedlam!
7
What's in this for Microsoft?
2
Ha, Microsoft has probably just found out that Apple's and Google's facial recognition algorithms are superior.
Something similar happened in Europe when Microsoft wasn't able to find a foothold against the Google search engine and Microsoft aided the paranoia committees of the European Union to try and hamstring Google.
3
There is a concern in Tech companies that what is being developed has the potential for "dual use". Much of what the NSA uses for civilian surveillance is "off the shelf" software. Developed for business and re-deployed by the NSA for less "commercial" needs.
Bill Gates set up Microsoft in the model of IBM and Bell Labs. They have a substantial investment in "pure R&D". The mission of this group is to "think outside the box", and the people hired for it had problems "coloring inside the lines" as children.
The goal of Microsoft Research is not to make money for Microsoft, and the employees are free to think (and encouraged) about new technology, and the uses and misuses of it.
Brad Smith has been with Microsoft since the early 90's and like Mr Gates is part of the "heart and soul" of the company. He has a long legal record of concerns about privacy and security in the digital world.
I would be very concerned that Microsoft has raised this warning. There is a lot behind it.
6
I see a future with everyone walking around wearing Halloween masks.
9
We are returning to the small village and it’s well, where whatever you do everyone knows.
2
This technology has dire implications for the "WITSEC" program.
There is a danger of revealing the face and thus the location of unwitting WITSEC family members to people who would threaten their lives. Think of photos of teens at parties, or in public places subsequently being on the internet. This tech is a dream come true for criminals.
In addition, in any situation there is always the possibility of a "false positive" identification and the subsequent harm that can follow.
11
The underlying issue here is personal privacy and ownership of one's personal information.
The current tech giants like the privacy invasion model, because its easy to monetize.
But overturning the status quo of these data robber barons is the next turn of the wheel in the development of a free and open internet.
14
While you are correct, I will add that it is very smart for Microsoft to sign on now. As a worldwide company with a large cloud presence, they have to be in compliance with the data and privacy laws of every country they do business in. That requires legislation and hopefully comparable to the EU's most recent privacy laws. Microsoft, if they were to sell the software or license its use, they would also have to research the client and learn of its usage and then track how the customer is using it as it must be for legal purposes.
1
If you post a photo -- or walk down a public street unmasked, for that matter -- you have made your face "public." Recognizing it in no way deprives you of your privacy, whatever that term means in such a context; you already surrendered it, voluntarily, by exposing it to the world.
1
My company develops software for business. When we develop the "user interface" we use a testing lab with high speed cameras that track eye movements as users work with the apps.
Our goal is to design web pages that allow users to perform a task with the "least amount of effort" (as measured by eyes moving around the page). We also measure pupil dilation as an indicator of mood and interest.
We've been doing this, as have other software companies, since 2000, using PhD's with specialized knowledge and training in eye movement analysis and saccades (rapid movement of the eye between fixation points).
The information you can gain about what an individual is thinking or experiencing does not stop with facial recognition.
6
The human race is steadily forging ahead with scientific advances. China is treating their citizens like ants in an ant farm, using computer technology to monitor them where ever they go, but in the mighty USA, because we have a major political party that is built on the principal of advancing only the interests of the richest 1% of the population, at the expense of the remaining 99%, our government has decided that ignoring and denying science increases corporate profits.
9
Microsoft being 'evil' aside this is scary.
This kind of stuff is happening in china right now with a surveillance state.
If there is little regulation hopefully more media will open our eyes to china in a few years when it becomes worse. and we might hope to stop this facial recognition.
1
One of the reasons I do not own an iPhone X is the use a facial recognition. I do not want to use my face or have it mapped and stored in a database that could be hacked.
You can always change your password and most of us have 10 fingers, but changing your face is not likely.
19
Nothing will be done, nothing will change, get used to living with totalitarianism. This facial recognition scanning business is beyond Orwellian.
12
Whatever Microsoft's motivation, Mr. Smith's request shines a clear light on one point that should be obvious but, among many in our democracy, has become murky--the necessity for government and regulation in a capitalistic society.
Businesses and markets cannot and do not regulate themselves. When a product or process is lucrative but potentially dangerous, the market provides no mechanism for keeping it in check. We need big, complex, coordinated government, and respect for law, in order to ensure that capitalism benefits, rather than harms, society and the planet.
Mr. Smith's request, on the part of one of the titans of the business world, tacitly acknowledges this simple fact.
4
Your comment is soaked in childish optimism. Microsoft wants regulation that it helps set the rules for so that only they have legal authority to function in a market. This can be accomplished by setting regulations so burdensome that only established tech giants can afford to implement the policies. This is predatory "Capitalism" under the guise of public safety. You will notice that its never "society" that calls for the regulation of an industry, its the giants of the industry itself.
4
Actually I believe that this is the first time a tech giant has asked for any kind of regulation on its products.
"Society" has called for plenty of regulations on industries. That is why we have agencies like the FDA, EPA, OSHA and so forth.
The point that should be made is that the present administration does not seem to be concerned about such regulation or its enforcement.
There is a concern in Tech companies that what is being developed has the potential for "dual use". Much of what the NSA uses for civilian surveillance is "off the shelf" software. Developed for business and re-deployed by the NSA for less "commercial" needs.
Bill Gates set up Microsoft in the model of IBM and Bell Labs. They have a substantial investment in "pure R&D". The mission of this group is to "think outside the box", and the people hired for it had problems "coloring inside the lines" as children.
The goal of Microsoft Research is not to make money for Microsoft, and the employees are free to think (and encouraged) about new technology, and the uses and misuses of it.
Brad Smith has been with Microsoft since the early 90's and like Mr Gates is part of the "heart and soul" of the company. He has a long legal record of concerns about privacy and security in the digital world.
I would be very concerned that Microsoft has raised this warning. There is a lot behind it.
1
Remember kids, Microsoft is still a convicted monopolist. That most of its monopolization today is foisted upon businesses and standards and specifications groups, doesn't make them any kinder or gentler than when Gates and Ballmer roamed the earth.
With the GOP in power, any call for regulation will fall on deaf ears—or worse, backfire and lead to legal *protections* for face-snooper use by megacorps and (far more importantly) their racist, creepy cop friends. Microsoft knows this and would happily "call" for regulation that won't happen, so they can face-snoop like mad and say "See? We're obeying all applicable laws. All zero of them!"
Support free software that respects your freedoms instead.
1
Thank You, Mr. Bradford L. Smith.
Now how about regulation to keep you from spying on me and stealing MY data from the computer and Windows software I bought?
This is a timely article because I plan to write a letter to
Mr. Smith and suggest that Microsoft's success in the future would be guaranteed if they offered COMPLETE INTERNET AND DATA PRIVACY - with NO data sharing with their corporate and/or individual brethren. They could do it with low-priced subscriptions to true VPNs or with a tool to really stop "push" technology.
Average Americans across America and around the world are getting angry and disgusted with the unregulated power of BIG tech and the collection and use of OUR personal information - simply to make BIG profit.
It must end. NOW. Microsoft can be a leader. Will they?
8
I doubt Congress will do anything, b/c Congress doesn't actually get anything done any more.
To expect Congess to *care* about the average US citizen is not even a concept in this administration.
35