Hacker News Reader

Comment by carbocation | Hacker News Reader

> And since smartphones are ubiquitous, it is not unreasonable that your landlord would choose a technology that requires you to have one. “Almost everybody has a smartphone nowadays,” Mr. Goldberg said. “I don’t think the courts would be sympathetic to that” if you challenged the policy.

A technology that ~85% of people possess[1] can be mandatory to live in a building? Feels discriminatory and it seems like a bad opinion from one lawyer.

1 = https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/computer...

View on HN

Is "discrimination" really the only evil we can think of these days?

The surveillance dystopia we are racing towards is only criticized if the facial recognition cameras spying on our every move work slightly worse on black people.

In this case, a phone is a device that is known to, at minimum, track your location, and now the landlord wants to run their code on it that you have only their word to trust is not nefarious, and can log every entry and exit to your apartment.

What % of the population own such a device is utterly irrelevant to whether its use should be mandatory to obtain shelter.

> The surveillance dystopia we are racing towards is only criticized if the facial recognition cameras spying on our every move work slightly worse on black people.

Constructing fairly absurd strawmen like this really hurts your ability to convince others.

I've seen more criticism of facial recognition surveillance on the grounds that it is less accurate for some races, than on the grounds that, if it worked perfectly, it would result in a massive loss of freedom, so this is no strawman:

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/sciencepolicy/blog/racial-di...

https://theswaddle.com/how-facial-recognition-ai-reinforces-...

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/how-is-face-rec...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facial-recognition-systems-raci...

https://www.csis.org/blogs/technology-policy-blog/problem-bi...

https://www.cnet.com/science/why-facial-recognitions-racial-...

https://theconversation.com/ai-technologies-like-police-faci...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/federal...

https://exposure.org.uk/2021/09/why-facial-recognition-tech-...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/04/racist-fa...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/technology/facial-recogni...

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2021/01/ban-...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882683463/the-computer-got-it...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/12/19/facial-recogn...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/07/defun...

But in the interest of accuracy, "only" was hyperbole - there is some criticism on non-discriminatory grounds. It's just overshadowed by concerns on whether the hell we are building will be racist.

Can you post like, only one link, but one that makes a good point that holds up to scrutiny? I'm not feeling in the mood to search through 20 ad-riddled pages to find something backing up your point. It should be your job picking it out.

Those are all examples of stories complaining specifically about facial-recognition working worse for some races. The quantity, and prominence of the institutions spouting them, is the point.

There were also tons of stories decrying internet memes as hate symbols, so "The quantity, and prominence of the institutions spouting them" is not a valid argument.

Which data backs up your point?

I think we're misunderstanding each-other. My point is that prominent institutions object to surveillance mostly on grounds of discrimination (and this is reflected in the masses, such as the comment I replied to). So examples of those institutions doing exactly that absolutely backs up my point.

My evidence isn't perfect - for that, I'd have to collect an unbiased sample of anti-surveillance stories, and categorize them according to which object to surveillance universally, and which mostly object to only discriminatory surveillance. But the impression I got through casual web browsing is that the latter significantly outnumber the former.

> "The quantity, and prominence of the institutions spouting them" is not a valid argument.

It's actually a very solid argument against the charge of having offered a Strawman.

And if the original had said more instead of the hyperbolic take alluding to "its wokeness thats the problem" about it and acting like there arent constantly discussions about it, then i wouldnt have commented.

Lets be heckin' real here too. Because we both know, the same people ignoring racism are the ones usually bootlicking and supporting or denying creeping fascism so...

And yes i can cherry pick articles going back decades warning of surveillance and how tech is driving us towards dystopia. It was my god damn policy debate case 20 yrs ago and its not receded for anyone actually at the table.

But hey, unexamined biases could be an alt name for this site.

Seriously, if you take discussions of surveillance and then derail the conversation to discuss folks discussing race and tech, how do you not realize youre literally self-actualizing what youre whining about? Da fuq was the point of this derailement other than yet another place for certain folks to yet again subtley whine about woke-ism? Eh?

> Is "discrimination" really the only evil we can think of these days?

Increasingly, yes. I have joked for a while now that in the future, the only prosecutable crime will be bigotry. I see less and less consideration of civil principles like speech and privacy.

> Is "discrimination" really the only evil we can think of these days?

Discrimination is one of the evils that the courts have interest, capacity, and power to deal with -- and a history of dealing with.

"Surveillance dystopia"? Not so much.

And they were only able to get Capone on tax evasion. Yet we all recognize tax evasion as totally incidental to what he did. And that power of the courts you mention would never have come to pass if discrimination was only criticized via some other, incidental harm, like false advertising in job openings if they forget to mention they don't hire blacks.

I dunno, as long as this app bullshit is hit over its head by the courts, do we really care what road was taken to get there? (As long as Capone is in prison, do we care why?)

It's funny because if they tried to replace key locks with fingerprint readers there'd be an immediate lawsuit over accessibility despite far more than 85% of people having usable fingers.

While I do have mostly usable fingers, fingerprint readers do not like me; my hands are consistently too sweaty

Also fingerprint readers and indoor rock climbing don't go well together. At a job I had I needed to have my fingerprint reprogrammed every week or so because enough had rubbed off during climbing that it was not similar enough.

I have palmar hyperhidrosis as well. What helps is either clinical strength antiperspirant (something like DriClor) or iontophoresis.

DriClor seems to have no effect on me at all. Regular anti-perspirant works better for me.

You'd exclude most elderly people whose fingerprints have faded away, or people with hands a bit too moist for the print to register, etc.

My fingers get cut, scraped, and burned enough during the course of a typical work week that fingerprint readers just don't work for me in general. My fingers are very usable but my fingerprints can sometimes be unusable.

Over a career of working with caustic cleaning chemicals and other stuff, my father's fingerprints are just about entirely gone. The last time he went in for fingerprinting they tried him on the scanner for nearly an hour before making an exception to the "electronic prints only" rule and broke out the ink pad and did it the old fashioned way.

Electronic "fingerprint" readers most commonly analyse the blood vessels under the skin, not traditional finger skin patterns.

my phone is regularly dead, and often the reason I come home early. not to mention, in states of inebriation I cannot function an app

my phone also sucks and the search can literally take upwards of a minute sometimes. This is a nightmare

They replaced the washing machines in the complex I live at recently. The doors don't open unless the app tells it to. One time I forgot to add a sock and had already closed the door. I hadn't paid or selected any options or even paired my phone yet. But the door was locked and I had no choice but to pay in order to get my clothes back. I had to just handwash my sock

Just more bs technology meant to keep houseless folks from accessing services.

If you observe how feed animals are raised, you'll see from the perspective of powerful people "raising" us. The goal is total disempowerment and uniformity while sustaining the powerful.

Yeah that's actually terrifying to think that if my phone runs out of battery (which happens all the time) then I won't be able to get back into my house (or at least doing so will be highly inconvenient.)

Or god forbid I want to step outside my house without my phone. I need a phone in my pocket just to take my dog for a walk? Hard pass; I'd never want to live in a place like this.

according recent Czech statistical bureau data[1] only 81% Czechs over 16 own smartphone, if you count kids the percentage drops even lower, but why should kids after school be able to get into building and apartment, right?

[1] https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/200499059/csu_tk_ict_pre...

I wonder if these keys are a thing in Czech? Or anywhere in Europe for that matter…

Locking the apartment building exit door is illegal under Czech fire code, in case of fire EVERYONE in the building (which can be also visitors not living there) must be able to open door from inside even without key or anything. That's the law, reality without enforced law is different, so you can easily get stuck in front of the door with fire behind you.

https://www.hzscr.cz/clanek/zamykani-vchodovych-dveri-bytovy...

As for apps, haven't seen it anywhere, we use chip keys, but almost always there is also standard key lock available.

European living further East here, I guess the idea is to copy all the worst traits that are present across the Atlantic. For example not allowing kids under a certain age go outside unaccompanied by adults because the "outside" is a hellish place fraught with dangers. Under that scenario it doesn't really matter that a kid ages 10 or 12 doesn't have a smart-phone or not.

Hence why I can see stuff like this insidiously making its way around these parts in a few years' time.

Also, I am guessing that if you don't run iOS or Android (how recent ?) on your smartphone, you are out of luck ?

or you have rooted Android without gapps, my case, you can say goodbye to plenty of apps

I agree requiring a smartphone in general is a bad idea, but realistically 99.9% of smartphones in the US have iOS or Android. Maybe outdated Android, but I think HN sometimes overestimates the prevalence and practically of alternative smartphone OSs (or gapps-free Android).

With some very rough maths, 0.1% of the US population is still over 330,000 people, and what, all these people should be excluded from renting (perhaps even buying) a home because they don't use the right phone?

My point is if you’re requiring smartphones, realistically you’re only going to target those two OSs. That’s independent of the fact that requiring it to rent an apartment is bad. Pick apart that last 0.1% and it’s mostly end of life devices like Windows/Blackberry.

And yet a key is truely ubiqitous.

It's more about : how are competitors are supposed to arise under these conditions ??

> The app often fails when I use it, but I don’t have a key as a backup

Also I'm sure a court would be quite sympathetic if the app fails and you can't access the apartment your paying rent for..

Not to mention a technology that :

1. costs me hundreds of dollars to replace if it breaks

2. goes through its whole battery in a day or two

3. is rendered inoperable while wearing heavy winter gloves

4. will inevitably force me to agree to giving away PII for free before granting me its services

I'll stick with the metal key, thanks.

> 4. will inevitably force me to agree to giving away PII for free before granting me its services

And what if you _don't_ agree? You have a contract signed for your apartment. Can you not access that apartment if you don't agree to the additional terms?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com