Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbob2000 | Hacker News Reader

jbob2000

> The force said its child exploitation unit has used the technology successfully, resulting in the rescue of two children.

The cat's out of the bag now. If you, as a parent with a missing child, were presented the opportunity to use Clearview AI to rescue your child, would you?

You absolutely would. You would set aside your high-level moralizing for the sake of your child. And that's the same decision making process the RCMP uses when they decide to use tools like these.

Edit: I get that this is an unpopular opinion, but I believe it contributes to the conversation and does not violate hacker news rules. Curious why the comment is flagged and downvoted?

View on HN

Okay, I'll say it: there are things that could save the life of a few children that we should still not do. We could save the lives of more children by 24/7 surveillance and GPS tracking of all adults and children. Even more if we gave law enforcement the ability to activate a disabling implant at will. Should we do that?

"But the children!" has its limits; it's not an argument, but a cynical attempt to make your opponent look like a jerk if they persist in disagreement.

Is using AI to search for missing children in social media posts the same as 24/7 tracking? Is limited application really as bad as the worst case outcome?

But we're not doing 24/7 surveillance, and it does not follow that using this system will lead to that. It is good to stay vigilant for these things, but we should not allow people to be harmed today because of a worry that it might lead to something else that might be worse down the road.

If politicians or the police actually wanted to ensure this wasn’t going to be a slippery slope, it could be done.

With great power comes great responsibility, which time and time again is shown not to be the case.

If the police want these powers to go after child abusers, let’s give it to them.

But I want to see enshrined into law some consequences to ensure they act responsibly.

For example:

* all use of the technology must be audited and reported upon each year. Any case of the technology being used, but not included the audit leads to a penalty.

* any use of the technology outside of the acceptable use cases put forth (child abuse) leads to a penalty.

The penalty?

* the police department in question loses 25% of their budget.

* loses access to the technology

* the officer in question is fired without pay

* the manager of the officer is fired without pay

* the head of the department is fired

* the minister responsible for the department also fired.

This doesn’t happen. It never happens. Because it’s intended.

Australia’s meta data collection laws were immediately abused to obtain data on journalists. Consequences? Not worth investigating...

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/29/publi...

The problem with extremely harsh penalties for bad behaviour is that then they'll just lie. Imagine if we executed police who abused their power. Would anyone become a police officer? Would any police officer turn in a colleague they knew had done wrong?

Sure, you can just lie. But over time, more and more people have to lie. And it only takes one person to tell the truth, or tell the lie to the wrong person, or confide in a family member, or a lover, or get too drunk at the pub, or be overheard, or...

Layer on top whistle blower laws.

Strong investigative media.

Strong anti-corruption / watch dog organizations.

Add personal liability for those who failed to report incidents.

Remove the 25% budget penalty for cases which are reported from within the police department.

There are plenty of ways to incentivize the behavior we seek, and the complete lack of consequences that exist today incentivize exactly the behavior we see.

I have a thought, and you may disagree with it (and I want to hear your criticisms), but hear me out:

Police forces exist to fill power vacuums.

When a police force is weak, other organizations step in to fill the gap. Private security companies are one side of this, organized crime is another. The reality is that somebody has to enforce order, and if it's not the police, then who is it?

So all of these actions you see governments taking around police activities are all about keeping the Police in power so that nobody else takes up the reigns. And continuing on that, it's better for the police to be in power than whatever organization may replace it.

So if we implement the policies you've suggested, we'll greatly weaken the police force's power. Losing 25% of their budget would create a power gap - that's 25% less officers on the street, and 25% more opportunities for criminals. Police make mistakes, sure, but do we want to replace them with private security? Do we want to replace them with the mob?

I think your theory is far-fetched and encourages unbridled police power.

Come visit London, we're not far off that

And yet; people still walk around London going about their lives, it's one of the most desired places to travel to, companies still setup offices there...

Well, companies were going there, but with brexit factories and firms are on the whole heading the other way, at least more than are coming there.

> And that's the same decision making process the RCMP uses when they decide to use tools like these.

So we're all fucked. By this reasoning no bridge is too far. Chip every citizen like a dog? Why not, it might help save a child. Government controlled cameras in every domicile? Of course! What if it helps save a kidnapped child!?

Justice is not about "doing everything possible", it's about balancing the rights of victims with the rights of the public. If I'm a distraught parent, I might want to ignore this balance. But the government should not, no matter how much I want them too.

Yet when you have an Epstein scenario, it's oh so difficult to investigate or even keep the guy alive.

But did they really? The problem is that the RCMP now has no credibility. "No we didn't use it" - then caught redhanded with a switch to "Yes, but we saved children".... Sounds a lot like throwing out a reason - any reason at all - to avoid having people discuss that the police are actually directly lying.

Hopefully they really did help some kids out but I simply don't believe them. They got caught in a lie and are frantically searching for a way out. And that really bothers me - I should be able to trust the RCMP but this is just another step in their ongoing pattern.

You're making the mistake of thinking that the RCMP is a single, well-organized entity. They are not. It is entirely possible that the people who made the statement that the RCMP wasn't using Clearview had no idea that another department was actually using it.

I am just glad I never uploaded a photo to social media and made sure nobody of my friends or family did.

A curfew would also save some children from being abducted or abused, that doesn't mean we implement that or install cameras everywhere.

There is a reason why they denied the use of large databases of normal citizens and there will probably be repercussions for that. The plead for the case of two missing children is dishonest. We could also install remote sensors in their jackets, but this is not a valid analysis about advantages and disadvantages of mass surveillance.

So I don't mind sitting on my high moral horse too much.

You would also kill for a cookie if you are hungry enough. That doesn't mean killing is "out of the bag".

"I am just glad I never uploaded a photo"

This is futile -- likely dozens of organizations and government offices have your photo. Have you ever gone to a bank teller, used a bank machine, got a license or passport, did virtually any activity where you identified yourself and were recorded, etc. You can't hide from this. Well you can, but only by going full Kaczynski.

"There is a reason why they denied the use"

In all probability it's Occam's razor -- some small unit did it without it become some overarching thing. Then they make a statement on it, the unit goes "Oh...by the way..." and they correct their statement. It's a pretty large organization and I'm sure units have a fair bit of autonomy.

"The plead for the case of two missing children is dishonest"

No it isn't, and this argument is itself dishonest. I mean, I'd like more details, but I have no reason to not believe it helps in child exploitation cases, completely orthogonal to any other action that can be taken.

I am not located in the US or Canada and I am pretty sure there are not dozens of organizations that have my photo, not even the state. The material collected from banking machines is tightly regulated and has to be completely deleted after a certain time. It is for immediate cases of theft and the data never sees long term storage. A completely different scenario compared to databases with biometric data.

> I have no reason to not believe it helps in child exploitation cases

The argument is that it isn't enough to justify deployment. Not having kids helps against exploitation cases. I already gave another example. You are free to look after your kids in the most intrusive form if you wish for more security. Give them the largest transmitter you can install on them without hurting their backs. Mass surveillance has significant repercussion for public spaces. We wouldn't even need it with a falling crime rate, but that is another discussion.

In my state surveillance in general is forbidden. There are many good reasons for that. Abuse, the thing you are painting on the wall, being the most prominent one. This is why the laws got put into place.

> some small unit did it

With the controversies around video surveillance and the deployment costs of such software, I believe this to be unlikely. It is also no excuse for that matter.

In my experience HN is reluctant to admit that stark moral choices like this actually exist in many people's jobs.

It's easy to rattle off some lazy criticism of LE, it's harder to know a child's being abused and not do anything about it.

> it's harder to know a child's being abused and not do anything about it.

So why is no one defunding the military? US bombings have maimed and killed more children than any trafficking ring. I guess it's easier to rattle off a bunch of justifications than admit a child's being blown to bits with your tax money.

Or, more locally, why is the 2nd amendment still a thing? I guess guns are more important than dead children. Indeed, it somehow end up that everything that helps those in power is more important than dead children, while anything that protects the marginalized can be discarded "for the children".

I haven't ever been in the position of defunding the US military, so I can't speak to the moral questions they might have faced.

I _have_ investigated child sexual abuse because that's my job which is why I felt it relevant to comment.

I wasn't looking to get into a long-winded argument about the second amendment.

> Or, more locally, why is the 2nd amendment still a thing? I guess guns are more important than dead children. Indeed, it somehow end up that everything that helps those in power is more important than dead children, while anything that protects the marginalized can be discarded "for the children".

Agreed. Without the 2nd amendment, guns can be discarded "for the children" despite protecting the marginalized.

Possessing a gun “while black” is a recipe for getting shot in the US. The NRA does not care about this. The idea that the 2nd does anything for the marginalized is fiction.

Also forgot, possessing a gun "while white" is also a recipe for getting shot in the US by police. You'll find that the NRA doesn't care about those cases either.

I guess black people are the only marginalized group in the US. Who knew?

On the other hand, the LGBT-focused Pink Pistols organization says the opposite. Sorry, but you're just wrong. :)

> The cat's out of the bag now. If you, as a parent with a missing child, were presented the opportunity to use Clearview AI to rescue your child, would you?

There's very little I wouldn't do, up to and including taking a blowtorch to somebody. That doesn't mean we should allow that.

>There's very little I wouldn't do, up to and including taking a blowtorch to somebody. That doesn't mean we should allow that.

Side-side note:

for some reasons your post immediately reminded me of an old detective story (and also a movie):

The Unstoppable Man (Amateur in Violence)

http://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=30241

http://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=61302

the story was exceptionally good/well written, I must find it and re-read it, thanks.

Ah, the good old "For the good of our children" or "protect the children" mantra.

Every time the police state wants to grow and take more freedoms from you, it uses children as a prop.

Of course, once the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse ride, nobody will shut the barn door and the rest of the herd will soon follow.

Of course you would. Facerec is probably more widely used for finding vulnerable people than for catching hardened criminals tbh.

For now..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com