Facial Recognition Fears: Invasion of Privacy or Necessary Security on College Campuses?!

Facial Recognition Fears: Invasion of Privacy or Necessary Security on College Campuses?!


100 thoughts on “Facial Recognition Fears: Invasion of Privacy or Necessary Security on College Campuses?!

  1. OH HI. Maria is feeling better since taping for those asking, go hang with her on Instagram if you don't follow her already!
    That said, thoughts on the subject? Would you support this kind of technology being used on college campuses and beyond to track people in the name of security? Let us know in the comments!

  2. Any person willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither. We're just inches away from a social credit system like china

  3. Privacy is more important than my security in this case. We should be able to associate to a degree where others don't also instantly know who we associate with (I could see a world where hate groups lose this after probably cause). There's very little that could be done to make me feel safer because if a camera scanned faces passively and then deletes it unless you're an issue, I'd want that to be open source, but the moment you make it open source it becomes more likely to see a hack which could also have consequences since they'll expose their own weak points. Assuming top of the line IT Sec people code it, I guess there's the ability to make it really hard to pop open but we seem to be pretty bad at keeping things 100% secure, so I'm not sure what the right call is here.

  4. Unless we get a new amendment for cyber privacy the people in power will use it against the masses because they dont think it will be used against them.

  5. It's funny how San Francisco bans facial recognition used by public agencies, yet University of Sam Francisco is one of the schools using facial recognition cameras

  6. Privacy is often the best form of security. A database of faces readily available with technology like deepfake has disastrous potential

  7. Here’s something that’s actually in the courts today and still is. It’s relates to frt but it doesn’t take the information of a face/person. It’s more like a picture/ video. What’s the main difference of a picture/video then an FRT? In public especially around business you are being videoed depending on if that company does have video surveillance. At the end of the day you are still being watched. The only difference with FRT is it would and is taking your information about you. But if we only keep it for law enforcement I believe that would be fine. At the same time maybe we can limit the information about the person when it shows up on an FRT? Like not showing addresses or things like that. Just the name and maybe date of birth? Idk I think it needs to be explored more and maybe lock it down a bit but I don’t see really the negative part of it. Like sure a stalker could use it. But a stalker can still use a camera too. So what makes it different really. And if you are being stalked then wouldn’t the stalker technically already know u?

  8. Security – but that's only once our lives are on the line. At every other point, privacy is more important. Therefore privacy needs to be constantly protected – and sometimes privacy can be an integral part to personal security as well.

    So safety wins the war, but only after ceding the battles to privacy.

    I'm not sure I know what I'm saying either.

  9. Identify someone carrying a firearm into a school? Can someone explain how it can use facial recognition to ID someone carrying a firearm? I get it, using it to ID a conceal carry permit holder, but those arnt the ones you need to worry about.

  10. Maria is awesome, I couldn't get passed her voice change. I have no idea what she said. Her & Phil, I'd love to see more people doing the "anchor" portion of the news show. Quality of news is important, anyone in your office that can speak can read the script. You guys are awesome. Love the service you provide

  11. I feel like all of these digital privacy issues are amounting to one central debate that we haven't had yet: Is it a fundamental right for the government/corporations to not know where I am if I don't want them to? Aka, is being "off the grid" a fundamental right that should not be infringed unless I do something like commit a felony, or should corporations be forced to disclose my information? Do they need probable cause? We've been dancing around these issues for almost 20 years (around the world, not just the US), but I wonder if it's getting to a point where we need an amendment to the constitution. The government should need probable cause to get information on where I am, etc, but corporations like facebook and google have that information already. I remember when we were having this debate back when the Patriot Act was introduced, and I don't think anyone thought that technology would progress as quickly as it has.

  12. Privacy has been under attack for ages, freaking patriot act, now they want to catalogue everyone's faces in real time. Next we'll just have RFID chips in our arms. "Security" isn't worth the destruction of our rights.

  13. ugh i don’t want to have a camera scan my face before i can get into school. i’m transgender, and hormones n stuff have apparently been changing my face, to the point where google photos separates pre- and post-transition photos of myself into two different categories. whenever i try to get on a plane, i have to provide more ID than just driver’s license from a few years ago, because even TSA agents have noticed the subtle changes. i don’t wanna deal with this shit every morning 😩

    also all that shit about this being orwellian af lol

  14. Privacy and freedom over everything. There can never be middle ground, the gov't and criminals (essentially the same people) will always find ways to exploit it.

  15. Is the audio off for anyone else? Or maybe Maria is a little sick? Hopefully not but Maria's voice sounds a little off to me

  16. This is just the beginning of the end, TBH. At least in the US. Ever since 9/11 they've been rolling back laws on probable cause under the pretense of "security", and we've been giving away our freedoms little by little and we're sort of at the end of the line now. FBI is pressuring private companies into NOT encrypting their data so they have back door access, with real time facial recognition they'll track you walking down the street, it's clear that their agenda of "security" is paramount now, despite it having no history of protecting anybody from anything.

    So this is the end, but the end won't be immediate. Systems like this will grow organically and fall into more and more hands and then this combined with deep fakes it'll end up with people getting convicted of crimes they didn't commit, etc., and people won't care because it won't be them, but at that point we're only 1 crazy president away from mass suppression, and then the US will be in a very bad place IMO, where authorities have an authoritarian rule telling people "you're safe, don't worry", and many people will just turn a blind eye to all of it, meanwhile people who oppose it end up "going away."

    Maybe I'm getting carried away with all of this, but I really can't imagine how this doesn't end badly. Ever since 9/11 our rights have gotten fucking destroyed in the name of "safety" (and it's fake safety, too, it hasn't stopped one fucking incident), and I think that will increase drastically with this kind of technology in use.

  17. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

  18. I don't understand how it would protect college students. Most campuses are open to the public, so anyone can go onto a campus. Are they gonna flag every person that isn't a student? Seems like it wouldn't offer a lot of protection

  19. I think it's impractical to try and ban this technology, it's use in amber alerts alone is massive. Instead of getting bans in place I would like to see laws that focus on ethical use. I believe it is ethical for schools to be able to identify their students but not random people (using a school database rather than a national database). I also believe that legislation should be implemented to block the sale/distribution of a publicly available app or require such an app to meet guidelines such as only being able to search users who have signed up with that app and given consent.

  20. As a victim of abuse I would support it but I also can see where it could go wrong. So a middle ground needs to be found! As soon as possible.

  21. She always sounds sick. Is it that she is sick or she is just really nasal? – Not to take away from her presententation, she presents well.

  22. So much for “Land of the Free”. We are all being monitored constantly. It’s great that they can catch criminals, but I wouldn’t be happy with it until there is a 0% error rate. Scary how the USA never needs our consent to do anything. Aren’t we all being treated like criminals who need to be monitored 24/7? What a sad world we live in.

  23. A wise man once said You have No Rights if you're dead. Aint nothing wrong with this. It would be used outside in public where anyone can take photos of you. Lets say some creep hits your phone up and hacks the camera. Half the time its either in a pocket face up or face down on a desk. But these are cameras outside not inside they arent spying on you naked you are fully clothed. In the end you aren't doing anything wrong you aint got shit to worry about.

  24. Facial recognition: "Jefe, would you say I have a plethora of issues?"
    Jefe:" yes a plethora"
    Facial recognition: "do you even know what a plethora is?"

  25. I played enough watchdogs yo know where…
    Honestly no I don't cuz those games really say absolutely nothing about privacy and the information age.

  26. Privacy! A balance is preferable, with some degree of security, for sure. But if your torn between security and privacy, I choose liberty most time. We have lost this idea of balance, and too many think privacy others claim they need or want and liberty is personal. Privacy (within an acceptable range) IS liberty. Journalism without privacy is destined to fail, as an example, the privacy insures the liberty for the press.

  27. Interesting.. And also scary at the same time. Me personally, I value my privacy above anything. So, I guess my hope is if it is used. I hope not everyone can use it other than law enforcement. The idea of people using my Facebook photos and social media is very scary to me. Ultimate fear for me would be some random using it to track down where I live to follow me home or one of my crazy ex's 😧. I do see the silver lining though, it would be good to catch people who are up to no good. But with change I guess it will take some of us to feel like this is the new normal. And to address those fears to making sure the software won't be missed used.

  28. I left the Netherlands because without facial recognition its already very much like Big Brother. So as someone who's experienced the constant eye of the government, the idea that facial recognition and potentially continual tracking is horrifying. Not to mention what we see developing in China as we speak. No, I care far more about my right to privacy, inside and outside of my home, than "security".

  29. FRT surveillance should be illegal full stop. FRT searches via data bases should only be accessible after a crime is committed and upon obtaining a warrant from a judge on sworn probably cause testimony. The idea behind FRT surveillance is that they can stop crimes before they happen, and well that's just some Minority Report level problem. Every time someone tries to stop crimes before they happen innocent people get hurt. We're supposed to be a country of laws, of proof, or Innocent until proven Guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers. In the words of Benjamin Franklin Those who can give up essential Liberty, to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  30. People are so quick to call out racism. The reason, and I can guarantee you this, that AI more correctly identifies people that are not of color, is because there is more of them. The AI is not biased, it just has more training with white people for example, because it has more pictures of them to study since there are more of them. And it's also another cry out for racism to say that it would more often incriminate people of color. Incorrect identification and malidentificaiton are different. What I'm saying is that it could take a criminal of color and call them innocent just as easily as it could do the opposite. Racism is real. My argument was never against it, but we are way too sensitive and easy to jump the gun on buzz words before actually considering the situation.

  31. I live in the EU, but had to return to the US in November; I was really disturbed to see the airports in the states have mandatory facial recognition scanners. I had to get where I was going, so I had no choice but to submit. Another privacy violation line crossed by Americans more concerned with security than freedom.

  32. The potential for facial recognition is terrifying honestly. I think the only people who should be in a facial recognition database are people with criminal records (mugshots) and people with driver's licenses and state IDs once they turn 18 and are legally adults. Also police officers, government officials, military service members, etc.
    I also think there needs to be regulation around when and how the government can use FRT. Some people go on a crazy kind of power trip when given that kind of ability. I remember in my freshman year of high school, only two years ago, I went on a trip to my county's 911 dispatch office and traffic control center. Here was where they could access any and all of the traffic cameras, and they use such high res cameras that "we could zoom in on the driver's shirt and read the two-inch logo on their breast pocket." When we were allowed to ask questions, I asked the man in charge if he ever felt like he was invading people's privacy, even if he's legally allowed to watch the cameras. Instead of saying yes or no, the man said, "as soon as you step outside your house, you forfeit any right to privacy. That's the price you pay for life." He had no emotional or moral issues with this; he very obviously believed that because the law didn't say it was wrong, it was right. It unsettled me. People like that need to be kept in check by laws and regulations.

  33. Can we give facial recognition technology to people with prosopagnosia before we start using it to do god knows what socially? >o<
    <—-face blind

  34. The efficiency is one of my main questions. I am split here since I believe this could involve plain view doctrine, if something or someone is in public there is no expectation of privacy since we are plainly visible. But at the sametime technically police are not suppose to use any tech that would give them "superhuman" level powers. Also for the accuracy, this is something where we need to keep the human discretion imvolved.

  35. I could've sworn we were living in 2020 but apparently I'm confused and it's 1984.

    Does no one see that connection?! I can see where this tech can be helpful but if the government can track our every move we're not really a free society.

  36. I remember the outrage after 9/11 and the laws that came after.
    For me this just sounds like the next step in an ever growing Big bother society a la 1984.
    One small step at a time, and just in a few years you can have complete control.

  37. Why do you keep making the poor girl do this when she is ill and has a stuffed nose? It' s very hard to listen to. Just let her rest and have someone else do it, or do this in a week or something.

  38. See the problem with facial recognition software atm is that it is horrible at understanding that gender markers aren't binary and that genderfluid and enby trans persons who are seen by the technology have a hard time being recognized if their presentation changes so that they look like a different gender. This can also happen when people change haircuts significantly or other large appearance changes that lead to the system assuming it's a stranger that it sees;

  39. Let's play devil's advocate for a moment. This is not an invasion of "privacy". If you own an iphone, and/or are on any social media platform, you gave up your privacy a long time ago… Tech like this once coupled to AI, and perfected is an excellent form of public security.
    After all, once you step outside your front door, you have no expectation to privacy, nor should you.
    Don't want to get in trouble? Don't do anything wrong.
    The people who are the most vocal often have the most to hide.

    The warning has been around for almost a decade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx62wex8BYE
    If you'd avoided the trap of oversharing in your youth, you wouldn't be so concerned about what "they" may find out about you.

  40. Does Maria have a cold? She doesn't sound like herself. Please give her a break when she might not feel well. Great job Maria. You are a good presenter.

  41. This is such a huge invasion of privacy. Can it be a positive? Yes, but it has much more potential for evil than good

  42. Fuuuuuuck the whole thing. Giving ANYONE that kind of power has throughout all of history bitten every involved party on the ass.

    Scratch that, half the whole fuckin gluteus was taken off.

  43. Can you please cover the protests tha have been going on since september in IRAQ with a Q over 400 peacful protesters died and thounds injured and yesterday terirost militia that basicly contorl the entire goverment and itself is controled by iraN most notebly qasim solaimani came out shotting protesters and they even used buck shot shotguns and fired AT protesters as well as snipers
    bo6.3y thats my insta if you wanna see the shotgun shells

  44. I think it should be used wisely, such as in criminal cases as mentioned. For really, you wanna make sure you’re getting the right person, and not use it all the time, especially when a lot of those people are innocent. Also, there are several points on a face you can by, so surprised Rekognition got that many Congress members wrong oh well..

  45. "especially us iphone users" You know that android phones have facial recognition too, right? Even my 300$ phone does it, even has a pop up camera.

    Man, iphone users are annoying, they have overpriced dated hardware but still think they're the shit…

  46. Privacy First Always! In the US, we have the right to bear arms. Even if it is not you who is carrying, the reality that someone nearby most likely is, is your deterrent and security in public places.
    We have cameras on all our phones. If you are unable to stop a crime, just having video recording (even if it only gets sounds) can be a massive help to law enforcement.
    Warrants are there for a reason. If they want to search a face after the fact, they need a warrant.
    If we don't stand up for our freedoms and right to privacy, how long till they have all been eroded away? They don't take them in one fell swoop. That would outrage the public. Slowly taking them over decades and it feels like a lesser blow. Same end goal: Absolute control of the population. If you doubt this, look at China today.

  47. This is the same thing that they're doing in China, isn't it? Different premise, same conclusion. It always starts as a form of protection.

  48. there needs to be some tec that prevents FRTs from reading your face this is something right out of black merrier I don't like this

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *