Hacker News Reader

> don't shoplifters wear hats to keep their faces off CCTV?

I don't remember the name, but a defense company demonstrated a facial recognition software which identified the face while the person is running in the dark, in very low light (IIRC akin to a poorly lit harbor-like environment). The camera was shooting from the side, so the system saw the face for a couple of frames.

So, a small camera mounted to the entrance turnstile of a supermarket with a fairly lit environment can scan almost everyone going in. Are you wearing a balaclava in the store? It's also suspicious in most cases.

> While I'm not aware of any technology that claims to classify faces as liars the rest of the statement is broadly true. And if you wanted to cross-check a face against a database of known liars, the entire statement is true.

Well, I don't think the "bad character" thing is there either. The problem is with these statements is they are lies that contain some truth. Cameras exist. AI to try and detect basic facial expressions exists. Mapping from basic facial expressions to underlying emotions exists. But I doubt many people are trying this, except as a way to justify a marketing budget (we want to push our smile numbers from 8% to 8.2% - give me $5m for my marketing department). And I have never heard of anything connecting "liar" or "bad character" to AI detection.

> And if you wanted to cross-check a face against a database of known liars, the entire statement is true.

Filling in the gaps with technically true statements should not justify the emotional change in you this sort of article seems to be trying to engender. It's pretty much not true, and the bits that might be true and honest - e.g. emotion detection - doesn't work well, and is probably not deployed anywhere.

As for using facial recognition to replace time cards, and replace photos of banned customers - sure? Might work?

I see the reverse “lie that contains some truth” in your argument. Obviously this stuff will be used for all of these purposes as soon as it’s able, and probably a little bit before then.

As soon as AI is able to tell a liar from a video of them? What does that mean?

As soon as it’s able to detect lying, it’ll be used for that purpose. Probably a little bit before it’s actually capable of doing it reliably.

> As soon as it’s able to detect lying, it’ll be used for that purpose.

That's not the thing I was talking about.

> Probably a little bit before it’s actually capable of doing it reliably.

I think you said that already?

Okay sure let’s take your “bad character” version: of course this is being done. Someone already linked to a commercially available version of it for shoplifters. Of course this type of technology was used to identify protestors in Hong Kong. It was probably also used to identify Jan 6’ers.

And in fact you yourself already hedged that this probably is happening, “ But I doubt many people are trying this, except as a way to justify a marketing budget.” Aka you believe that at least some people are already attempting this.

> Aka you believe that at least some people are already attempting this.

This is getting painfully repetitious, but that was about facial recognition, not deciding if someone's a liar or is of bad character via AI.

> Identifying protesters isn't the same as an AI filming you and deciding if you are of bad character.

Same comment.

Got it so we agree facial recognition will be dramatically amped up; we agree AI-based polygraphing will exist; you don’t think AI-identify-bad-intentions-button exists currently and therefore we are supposed to doubt that AI is a major surveillance hazard.

Am I reading this right now?

> so we agree facial recognition will be dramatically amped up

It may be. Not that it will be.

> we agree AI-based polygraphing will exist

We didn't mention lie detecting, but no - I was saying liar detection, which was the thing from the article, also sounds like fear-mongering.

> you don’t think AI-identify-bad-intentions-button exists currently

Yes.

> therefore we are supposed to doubt that AI is a major surveillance hazard

No, that's a category error. "Major" and "hazard" are far too vague to decide upon. Will AI be used in surveillance in some capacity? Of course - it likely has been for decades, depending on how you define AI. But implying that you'll walk into a shop and be classified as a liar based on a video feed is not right. I understand websites need emotion for clicks, but I don't think it's right to do it this way.

> It also says "By cross-checking everyone who enters the store against a database of identified shoplifters and unruly customers, facial recognition can detect and deter repeat offenders" and "Using facial recognition, retailers can know precisely when an employee arrives, takes breaks, and leaves for the day"

Ofc you "can" - in principle.

Is any of this currently being done, however?

Yes

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/industries/information-techn...

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/up-to-70-cameras-watch-y...

> Is any of this currently being done, however?

Companies aren't obligated to disclose the training process. So, we can't tell. Until, in the matter of months, it is available, accessible and almost impossible to regulate. And every company will start using it to not fall behind.

Why do you think it's impossible to regulate?

There's a _long_ list of unlawful things that are technically possible, sometimes trivial even. Only _because_ they are possible in the first place, are there laws against them. This process seems slow compared to a human lifespan, but lots of terrible things people used to do got outlawed eventually.

> Why do you think it's impossible to regulate?

There are three reasons:

- once it's widespread - it's a standard (targeted ads, cookie tracking, SEO)

- we'd need a lot of infrastructure to track all the data recorded, where it goes, how it is processed, etc. etc.. And if a big company is caught.. they'll pay fines for being caught and let away to continue the same shady practices, as we have seen with privacy scandals at Facebook.

> ...but lots of terrible things people used to do got outlawed eventually.

That's the third reason - surveillance is evil and bad, but it will never be advertised as that. It will be something good and convenient with a surveillance as a side effect, similar to social media and smart appliances.

Maybe, I am just too pessimistic and you're right with: 'This process seems slow compared to a human lifespan'.

> we'd need a lot of infrastructure to track all the data recorded, where it goes, how it is processed, etc. etc..

You just need to punish the people using the data. If you can then track down where they got the data from, that's a bonus. And if you can track down where those second ones got their data from, that's an extra bonus. But everything after the people using it is optional.

Should it be regulated? If businesses want known shoplifters flagged by their AI camera so they can refuse service, shouldn't they have a right to do it?

I know in America this would be painted as an attack on the Holy Minority and therefore no one will be allowed to discuss it without being branded a blasphemer, so I'm curious what people on here think.

I feel like businesses should have this right, but I worry about slippery slopes. It might start with shoplifters, and 20 years later when 99% of stores are owned by the same 3 megacorps, people could get banned for wrongthink and for shaping the political views of the masses at large. Kinda like what they do now on social media.

What's your point here?

> While I'm not aware of any technology that claims to classify faces as liars

Hadn't there been similar systems for phone conversations, based on voice stress analysis? I totally expect this to move to AI based systems, including audio and visual data, if it hasn't been done already. (Also, if a person has been tagged as "liar" – truthfully or not – in any customer history file, this data will be available, as soon as a face is matched.)

I always assumed that tech didn't work, and was designed to act as a deterrent, and/or to let businesses like insurers give claimants a hard time and thus boost their profit margins.

While I'm not aware of any technology that claims to classify faces as liars

Not a technology, but the "science" has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology?useskin=timeless#Ap...

> While I'm not aware of any technology that claims to classify faces as liars

There are (and have been for many years of development, although I do not know about deployment) methods for identifying people as criminals.

(Just to clarify, it is a really bad idea)