Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnord123 | Hacker News Reader

@mods, actual title is "Unchecked use of computer vision by police carries high risks of discrimination" which is the big issue here.

View on HN

>which is the big issue here

There are at least two issues, and both are worth discussing. Interestingly, if we prevent the surveillance problem we also prevent the racist surveillance problem, so in this way one could argue that (in this specific situation) the surveillance problem is more fundamental.

Yes, mass surveillance is A-OK as long as it's not racist.

You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).

Not universally true. Different places have different laws about this.

No expectation of privacy (arguable, but okay) doesn't imply it's OK to build mass surveillance infrastructure there.

Maybe you should be entitled to some respect for your privacy in public, though. Indeed in some places you are today. There is no good reason to extrapolate from the natural situation that "If you go out then someone might see you" to the entirely unnatural "If you go out then you should be subject to arbitrary surveillance, recording and analysis by unknown parties who also have access to unknown additional data about you for unknown purposes."

Sure. And the article is about exactly that.

Not really. The article is about the potential for unintended bias in machine learning systems. That is just one small part of a much larger problem.

No expectation is different from your information being automatically stored and analyzed (and easily traced back to you whenever the government feels like it).

Sure and the article is about exactly that.

So you're fine with your everyday movements logged and published online? After all, to go anywhere you'll need to step public roads, so you have no expectation of privacy.

>So you're fine with your everyday movements logged and published online?

This comment will be downvoted, but this is hyperbole. Your everyday movements are more than just your activity in public spaces.

Likewise any website publishing your activity in public spaces is not entitled to linking it to your PII, because if they do deanonymize it, you now have means to take it down.

Your activity in public places is personally identifiable.

Again, any website publishing your activity in public spaces is not entitled to linking it to your PII, because if they do deanonymize it, you now have means to take it down.

Your activity in public spaces is PII, it's as unique to you as your face.

If you leave bluetooth on your phone, they already are.

Actually, I do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com