Hacker News Reader

Comment by brk | Hacker News Reader

Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely.

What you propose would require massive changes to essentially any camera that has any part of its view covering an outdoor area, and probably many indoor areas (malls, etc.).

Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much. You'd need to implement something like an HDMI-style encryption to control what devices/processors/whatever can connect to a live video stream from a camera to try and control exactly how the streams are processed.

View on HN

> Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that?

Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense.

> Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely.

This is irrelevant, because scale changes nature of things. Single photo of your person is just that. 24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Law was clearly about recording usage that does not amount to surveillance.

> Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much.

Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.

>Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense.

The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works?

>24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance.

Sure but we're nowhere near that point, or likely to be at that point. Also, almost nothing records at 24fps, 15fps is more common.

>Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.

In most cases and camera and recording/viewing software come from different companies, so you'd still need some kind of key management system.

The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works?

There are legit arguments to be had about personal freedom here, but it’s plainly untrue regulation intrinsically can’t work. It works for many, many things - and works for gun ownership in basically every other developed nation in the world.

And how does one view the feed from the camera if it's encrypted? That's the whole point of the camera itself.

Anywho, sounds like we're jumping through hoops without really understanding the requirements. Like, what is really bad about recording people in public? What is really bad about performing facial recognition?

But I'd go a step further, what is it that we're trying to prevent from happening by making facial recognition illegal? This is the juicy part and the one where the "problem" becomes wishy-washy. We get reasons like: "Prevent stalking by government officials", or "stop widespread surveillance from...[something]". All present their own challenges and implied slippery-slopes, but all have different ways of being solved without necessarily making public recording and facial recognition blanketly illegal.

Where I am the law is very strict although somewhat arbitrary. I can shoot a video of a public place. I can publish the material (although commercial use requires sign off naturally).

But here is the interesting bit: I can’t set up a fixed camera to record a public space without permission. And I won’t get that permission. Meaning basically that recording in public spaces is only done by humans, limiting the scope of how widespread it can be. I like this.

It also means, that it’s not allowed to put up a camera on my porch that covers the street in front of my house. I suspect a lot of ring/nest users are in violation.

Do you have the text of the law for this? I suspect you're overstating the restrictions.

Which part of the law? That I can’t set up a camera on my house to film a street crossing?

That’s almost impossible to get permission for. A private citizen can not get permission to film a Street corner. The difficulty in getting permission obviously isn’t written in the legal text, but individuals don’t get permission and businesses only very rarely do.

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-f...

Don’t tell Nest…

Seriously, this means every home outdoor security camera is potentially illegal. This can’t be true.

Of course it is. You can’t put up a camera on your porch and shoot your driveway and part of the street. To follow the law you have to point it so it’s only covering your driveway or lawn and no public space. It’s pretty simple restrict the field of view with a screen in front or bit of tape over the camera if needed.

Does everyone do that? Probably not. But that doesn’t change how the law is written.

you keep saying this and you don't actually provide the text of the law

They did. Two comments ago. But it's in Swedish so you probably won't be able to read it.

oh it's swedish laws. that makes sense then

Sounds like Japan. But most countries that is not the case. People want to protect their property. Also with hidden cameras it would be trivial to do so and not be detected so in your country those who want to record are already doing it just quietly. So again it is a law that only effects non criminals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com