Hacker News Reader

Comment by sophacles | Hacker News Reader

I think this is a good argument for requiring all software purchased, and all technology developed, with public funds to be public domain and/or open source.

A lot of people will believe that we should just kill the project and move on, but honestly, the tech is there, and we have all seen what happens with tech: it just keeps going. The functionality will be snuck in as an add on to some other software package anyway.

This isn't to say we shouldn't kill the project -- just that this should be required as open. It won't undo any security/benefit gained from it, much like open crypto. It will however give us the voters the ability to actually provide input about what can/can't be done by the government.

View on HN

I don't understand your reasoning.

You want to open source a $1B piece of facial recognition software so that _more_ agencies / NGOs / companies / individuals can track our movements? That sounds a little counter productive. At least the FBI (presumably) has accountability and oversight. Can you imagine trying to police abuses if deployed to every municipal law force and marketing agency in the country?

Facial recognition is useful for more than tracking movement.

Advertising is one of them. I wonder if google/facebook/apple will go that path someday. Actually, is more matter of "when" than "if".

Here's a scene from Minority Report with an imagined advertising landscape after automatic recognition becomes common. The assumption was that retinal scans would be used instead of facial recognition, but the imagined scenario is apt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk

It's even more apropos when we consider how many people in the future may be wearing Google Glass-like augmented reality devices. In Minority Report, you might see someone else's advertisements, but if they are projected directly on your viewscreen (or retina, etc) then advertising and propaganda gets even more creepy, as it's more private.

A plausible version of such a dystopian vision is one where your new glasses get infected with malware that spams you with advertisements, which I believe I read about in a novel by Gibson. A more frightening one would be one in which what you see is based on propaganda.

Speaking of retinal scanners, I've heard of a high-res scanning camera that can acquire a retina (or maybe it was iris) every ~1.2s IIRC, from people just wandering around. I'd like one in my home, but not in public.

But if it was open source and we knew exactly what it was capable of it would be easier to pass legislature that restricts it and makes certain uses of it illegal.

This stuff is coming one way or another and wouldn't you rather it be properly legislated? And that we as the public could know their capabilities?

That legislation would only apply to entities following the law, though.

Let's apply your comment to a law against murder. Doesn't have much relevance does it? Your comment isn't germane.

Laws always apply to the people to whom they are written to apply to. It is true that some people don't follow some laws. Presumably violating the law carries some penalty if caught. This does not affect whether or not said law is efficacious or needed.

He may be pointing at organizations such as the TSA, which seem to have carte blanche nowadays.

re police abuse. Facial tracking goes both ways. The authority will, inevitably, acquire the tools of oppression. One of the few defenses is to have the same tools. In fact, being able to id and track the "watchers" is more important/freedom sustaining.

Also, science (as in allowing the code to be studied, learned from, spur further research and discovery) trumps paranoia over "big government".

You want everyone to pay to develop their own version? It's only a matter of time before it becomes widely available anyway.

The cat is already out of the bag. Facebook does mass facial recognition.

Other facial recognition code is already available in open source. The difference is the current open code is not designed to work with a massive database.

What is really stopping other agencies and LEOs from deploying facial recognition is they don't have the implementation budget or the skill to properly scope the project.

Edit: I'm not sure if I should be more worried about blowing $1bn on a failed project, or more worried if they actually succeed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File

yet another reason for limiting the budget of government.

I agree in some sense. This technology as a law enforcement tool is inevitable. I can't see a future in which every national government doesn't use it on some level.

So making it open and promoting discussion about its limits is probably the way to go.

I agree with having all/most software developed with taxpayer money be open-sourced. It might even lower the total costs if others contribute to it.

It also makes it remarkably easy to pick out the contractors who simply aren't up to par and are milking the government of money. Every software engineer can review their code and call out those of unacceptable quality and make sure they never get awarded another contract.

If you support freedom, you would prefer incompetent contractors here.

I think the 21st century trick for this is to "privatize" it. Public funds go to a trusted private partner who can operate in the dark. Then it seems like the billions are spent and gone by the time the questions are asked and the damage is done.

It's not as simple as github.com/usgov but some of what you're looking for is certainly there. If the government has rights to the source code then it can fall under FOIA. They have ways of denying those requests but only with the proper documentation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com