822
'Facial recognition' error message on vending machine sparks concern at University of Waterloo
(kitchener.ctvnews.ca)
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
822 points (99.5% liked)
Privacy
32142 readers
856 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your face is not private, nor are your fingerprints. In public and in many private properties that are open to the public(e.g. stores) you have no expectation of privacy so you can be filmed within the law. You consent to facial recognition by passive agreement when you enter the public without your face covered.
Facial recognition technology is everywhere and there is nothing that will be done to curb it's use.
Edit: To be clear, I do not support anyone or any entity using biometric data for any purpose except verification of identity for security purposes with intentional consent. Businesses or government using biometric data, or any data obtained without clear and willful consent, is unacceptable.
Apathy is a bullshit response
It's not apathy, it's an observation of the legal status of the situation.
Legally, you have no reasonable expectations of privacy in a public space, and as such anyone is free to record you. I don't think fingerprint data being collected from devices available to the public has been tried in court yet, but audio and video recordings certainly have been.
It's actually a good thing. Imagine if it was illegal for you to video cops.
Legality can change, that's literally what we're talking about. It's legal now, it doesn't have to be.
Also just declare that cops don't have a right to privacy. Easy.
You are so right. I'm dumbfounded by how apathetic Americans are when it comes to politics. The idea of making the change you want to see, seems like a foreign concept. This will bring in a lot of downvotes, but I'd be happy to find some kind of online community that excludes Americans. And, I don't mean by nationality, or even geography. Just this... acceptance of political depravity. In the US, you get the choice between "bat shit insane". And, if don't like that, you can vote Republican instead, which is orders of magnitude worse, with layers of vile shit. I'm tired. Most problems are so simple to solve. But the arguments are always presented between two things that don't matter.
Good luck. I'm gonna see if there is a lemmy community that actively blocks "American mentality". Which is hilarious, because a lot of Americans express that lemmy is "extremely communist / anti capitalist" etc. Which is just what "common sense" looks like to Americans.
Most states do not have any laws which restrict how biometrics are used. So using your fingerprint, face, or iris to checkout at the store doesn't have any protections that would prevent that biometric data from being sent somewhere else, including the police. A store could gather facial or even iris data from a camera and you would have no idea because they don't have to tell you.
Worse is that most people don't see the problem with the digital panopticon because "they haven't done anything wrong" and they are willing to give up their data for the idea of a theoretical safety.
Because the United States are the only country in the world.
In Italy it is illegal to share recordings in public without the recorded people's consent.
"Cops" are public servants, as such it is always allowed to record and share.
This university is in Canada, genius. Those are the laws in Canada.
There is a massive fundamental difference between having a person see your face in public, or even having a basic security camera record your face, and having a system recognize your biometric data and stalk you through every public environment with extreme precision.
The general public should absolutely not accept the imposition of being expected to be followed through every public place by private corporate entities for undisclosed purposes. We can and should aggressively push government representatives to take strong regulatory action to outlaw this behavior and aggressively punish violations.
Will making these efforts actually change matters? Maybe, maybe not. Will throwing your hands up and just assuming it's impossible to change anything and that we should all just lay down and accept it as fact lead to the worst possible outcome? Absolutely.
Fuck off narc
Your face, retinas, and fingerprints are keys to unlock digital assets.
Using those biometrics to access anything without a warrant is legal and not protected by the 4th or 5th amendments.
That's where the laws come in. I don't agree that recording and biometric information on people should be legally protected, unless you ask for permission first.
So instead of changing the laws you would rather...just let it happen? Alternatively, you don't have to obey the law. Enamel paint is very cheap and easy to apply to lenses. I think breaking the machines would curb their use, no?
Decoy camera!