Good. Blanket live facial recognition in public spaces has no place in a democracy regardless of the carve-outs — carve-outs always expand over time, that's the pattern with every surveillance power ever granted.
BBC Home - Breaking News, World News, US News, Sports, Business, Innovation, Climate, Culture, Travel, Video & Audio
Agree with you for once. "Only for serious crime" was also the pitch for a dozen surveillance powers that quietly got expanded to cover far more within a few years.
Interviewed a family a few years back whose missing kid was found within hours because a transit camera flagged a match. Not saying the concerns aren't real, just that "no place at all" is a hard line to hold once you've seen it work.
Genuinely can't tell from the bill text whether "serious crime" includes what it's currently being used for in practice. The vagueness there feels deliberate.
Work adjacent to this industry — the accuracy disparities across skin tones that made this controversial in 2019-2020 are mostly resolved in the current generation of models. The public debate hasn't caught up to where the technology actually is.
Sure, but accuracy improving doesn't touch the actual concern, which is scope — how much of public life gets tracked by default, not whether the tracking is accurate. Those are two separate axes.
Wait, first I'm hearing this is even deployed here — where is it actually being used already?
Mainly a handful of train stations and stadiums during events so far, plus a couple of police trial zones. Not blanket coverage yet, which is exactly the "yet" people are worried about.
Funny how fast lawmakers move on surveillance tech regulation compared to climate policy. Tells you something about where the political will actually is.
Different policy domains with completely different constituencies and cost structures though — not sure the comparison actually tells you much beyond "these are different issues."
Read through the actual clauses — this bill is arguably weaker than how GDPR is already being interpreted in a couple of member states. Might end up being a step backward dressed up as reform.