I realize that this is one of those situations where I'm supposed to be supportive of the use of facial recognition, but I'm still uncomfortable. Facial recognition seems like an all or nothing deal to me, and even after the capitol has been raided... I still opt for 'nothing'.
Is it that different to wanted posters or publishing cctv of a crime? I get why people don't want facial recognition cameras on every street corner but using it to identify people from pics is a different activity...
Edit: I completely agree there is nothing special about this case. No exigent circumstances.
I'm more concerned with the data being in the hand of an unaccountable private company than with the facial recognition itself to be honest. I remember that Clearview AI itself was associated with far-right individuals last year, so having them police a far-right insurrection from their personal black box system is more than suspect.
If it happens, it should be done by an institution that is under the supervision of congress and staffed by public servants. This emerging, largely unaccountable surveillance industrial complex with ties to extremist political figures worries me more.
Personally, I'm not really comfortable with the existence of a database of people from which to compare faces against.
However, I think it's perhaps more worrying that one day this evidence will be presented in court and the jury will trust the accuracy of "AI" over their own judgment.
To clarify, the situation I'm thinking of is where a grainy CCTV image is shown to the jury. The AI expert comes in and talks about all of the technical details of their algorithm and how it determines that the grainy image is of defendant A with 96% probably.
Juries already have a tendency to believe the police even when presented with massive evidence to the contrary. Throw in some “expert” testimony from an AI company and we’re in for an even worse situation.
It’s not auditable and scale can make it a substantially different problem altogether. But, if you’re in a restricted area or a public building I think it makes sense.
Things have to get worse before they get better. What other word besides terrorist are you going to use to describe a group of people that break into the capitol, kill police officers and set pipe bombs? It’s quite literally the definition of a terrorist.
Also is that a threat of violence at the end there from a 15 minute old account?
This statement in the abstract is correct. The context in which it’s applied ... well I’m sure many actually believe Trump supporters are “literally” terrorists.
This technology was of course also used to identify those laying siege to various federal buildings over the summer, but I guess it’s okay now. This is to say that the context in which this technology is used obviously matters a lot and is directly related to who holds the reigns of cultural power. Yay.
I'm not really accustomed to thinking about what others want me to think, but if you're like many who are trying to guess what progressives want you to think; facial recognition bad, clearview extra bad.
I love the back and forth of terminology ("rioter" vs "terrorist" vs "attacker") because I think that's the key to this discussion. The military is given access to dramatically more advanced weapons and technology than police. When the US has suffered such an obviously violent and direct attack (vs planning or "alleged"), is that not a reason to loosen the restraints?
However, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle with technology. Like we've seen this summer with local police using military hardware, there will always be the urge to inappropriately deploy military-grade technologies in a civilian setting.
> I love the back and forth of terminology ("rioter" vs "terrorist" vs "attacker")
There was a mix of terrorists, insurrectionists, rioters, hooligans and protesters in the crowd. Those who entered the Capitol were no longer protesters. Those damaging or stealing property were more than hooligans. Those aiming to disrupt the election count were more than rioters. And those with aims on harming members of Congress were more than incompetent insurrectionists.
I think those are useful distinctions. Not everyone in that crowd was rioting. This was an important distinction I feel was lost during the BLM protests as well: Any given media narrative wanted to paint the people involved as all one thing or another.
The truth is it's all mixed. I look at this also as a failure for a movement to generate leaders with a clear strategic vision that in turn guides participants with consistent boundaries. When, instead, the feeling is simply "anger" without a specific plan for channeling it usefully, you get people doing their own thing, others following along, etc.
I agree that we shouldn't paint all the people in attendance with a broad brush.
What would you call the people who entered the Capital building and stayed inside the red velvet ropes, who took selfies and made videos like they were on a tour?
> What would you call the people who entered the Capital building and stayed inside the red velvet ropes, who took selfies and made videos like they were on a tour?
Hooligans. To be criminally charged but allowed to avoid jail time. If they, I don’t know, refrain from breaking into federal property for a few years and pass a community college civics course, the record is sealed.
What they did was serious. Little different from people who jump the White House fence. But many of us on this forum can look to their youth and remember when being in a crowd doing something feloniously mischevious was something they would have gone along with. I can. We have enough of a problem with mass incarceration to not add to it.
That would show wilful intent to “by force...prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of [a] law of the United States” [1]. Insurrection. Jail time, up to twenty years.
I guess it depends. Did they enter the building via the security line and get properly checked in as is normally required of visitors, or did they waltz in through one of the many broken windows and doors? If the later, they likely broke the law [1] and entered a restricted space, so maybe 'rioter' is an appropriate term for them.
Also worth mentioning, if that same person had a social media history filled with "stop the steal" rhetoric, I don't see why sedition charges couldn't be levied [2]. Even if they were relatively well behaved during the riot, their mere presence was disrupting a central function of government. So I think a well behaved rioter with a proclivity for 'revolutionary' social media discourse can probably be classified as an incompetent insurrectionist.
It will be interesting to see how hard the prosecutors go after these folks. On one hand, a large chunk of the protestors probably got a bit swept up in the moment and likely did not intend to break any laws. But on the other hand, nearly the entire presidential line of succession was in that building performing one of the more important functions of our government. A strong case can be made for showing no leniency.
These were not “terrorists”, you can call them insurrectionists, mob, angry horde or anything of the sorts, but “terror” was no-where to be found among their motives. Or maybe I’m wrong and they did want to terrorize people (like ISIS set out to do), in which case some sources will help.
Yes, you are wrong and any video of the event will show you that they were chanting "Hang Mike Pence", that they built hanging knots that they left for everyone to see, that they ran after senators and that they trampled police officers.
Somewhere on an older hard-disk I have a copy of all the terrorist incidents starting from the 1960s up to 2006 or so (web-scrapped at the time when that data was still partially open), no-where in there had I seen this type of events, there were mostly bombings, airplane kidnapping and the like. What you are describing falls though under the "insurrection" label, heck, we were saying the same thing about Ceausescu in December 1989 and thankfully no-one branded us as terrorists (I'm from Romania).
An insurrection is when "The People" rebel against their Government. Participants in that specific (failed) coup were not "The People". For a very close example, you can read about the failed 1981 Spanish coup d'Etat attempt here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
It's uncanny how similar these events were:
> Lieutenant-Colonel Antonio Tejero led 200 armed Civil Guard officers into the Congress of Deputies during the vote to elect a President of the Government. The officers held the parliamentarians and ministers hostage for 18 hours, during which time King Juan Carlos I denounced the coup in a televised address, calling for rule of law and the democratic government to continue. Though shots were fired, the hostage-takers surrendered the next morning without killing anyone.
Identifying cover agents infiltrated into the mob, for example would be a not so positive one. Once this cat is out of the box, is out. Can't be entered again. All that you need is money to buy the product, and narcos have a lot of it.
one of those situations where I'm supposed to be
supportive of the use of facial recognition
No, it's not. This is the Hoan Ton-That supposedly protecting us from the crazies...
"Founder Hoan Ton-That’s has links to the far-right movement that move right past suspicious into obvious, according to HuffPo. He reportedly attended a 2016 dinner with white supremacist Richard Spencer and organised by alt-right financier Jeff Giesea, an associate of Palantir founder and Trump-supporting billionaire Peter Thiel. (Thiel secretly bankrolled a lawsuit that bankrupted Gizmodo’s former parent company, Gawker Media.) Ton-That was also a member of a Slack channel run by professional troll Chuck Johnson for his now-defunct WeSearchr, a crowdfunding platform primarily used by white supremacists; that channel included people like the webmaster of neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer, Andrew Auernheimer, and conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich"
Still without honestly. Relative OSINT laypersons on different social media seem to have little problem identifying terrorists without facial recognition. The fact that they publicised their own multi-angle, high resolution video surveillance in real time seems to help.
- Attempted coup
- Radicalized and misinformed supporters (majority) with an extremist, armed element (minority)
- Extremely dangerous moment for free and fair elections in the west
What would the world have looked like if in 1923, the disaffected germans who took part in that were identified en masse; and serious efforts were made to re-integrate them to society while addressing the systemic issues they faced?
I think there is a very good argument for identification and holding people to account. There also needs to be very, very robust adherence to due process - AI identification is not proof, and a suitable alibi should be step 1 in invalidating it.
The sad thing is precisely that no-one cares about "re-integrating" proponents of right-leaning views "to society". Everyone is talking about forcibly deplatforming them all out of society which, even if successful, will only make them far more marginalized and far more open to dangerous, violent extremism. Is this really what we need? We've had enough divisiveness already, so why not try a more constructive approach?
That is decidedly opposite of how I see the immediate political inertia. It might help to revisit previous times the democrats took over all three legislative branches. They’re not unified ever and dissent is assured. Meaning there are conservative wings which will welcome and work with the far right even after this. If you’re referencing the deplatforming going on from corporate entities that’s a whole another phenomenon and legally forced.
Edit-if you’re referencing just how people treat one another 1-1 in culture, well, the forever trumpers just need to learn to treat people like people again. Apologizing helps, but simply being friendly and polite goes a long way.
The argument from the other side is that this proponents of right-leaning views wouldn't be violent except because they are being exalted by fascist propaganda from right wing leaders. I myself think it's a good move from Amazon but I don't think it's not polically motivated. The Capitol being stormed is not good for business because of many reasons, it was a line in the sand.
I don't see a way for expulsion to happen. Segregation in some sense, maybe. But that usually runs into the anti-insurrection problem where suppression becomes repression and breeds contempt, strengthening the factions being suppressed.
Obviously, the vast majority of people with right-leaning views weren't even at the Capitol.
But if you believe the rioters were part of an attempted coup, trying to overthrow democracy and install Trump as a dictator while setting bombs to kill their opponents, that seems pretty crazy to me.
Of course, some people might argue it wasn't an attempted coup, just a mob of high-spirited protesters. Much like sports fans or anti-globalisation protesters will sometimes set a cop car on fire or smash up a starbucks, just in this case it was the capitol building instead of a starbucks. (personally I think this is dangerously naive; my impression is 'stop the steal' people are sincere and unironic in their beliefs)
The actual behavior of the protesters seems to match your third paragraph much more than your second paragraph. They got into the capitol building and then... just kind of wandered around. Took some selfies. Stole some memorabilia. Nothing about their behavior suggests that there was an organized plan to actually take over the USG, or that they protesters themselves had any idea what to do after they broke in.
Some have suggested that they wanted to burn the ballot boxes in an attempt to prevent counting them. The problem is that, even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. The counting is just a formality and they can declare a winner without them. They already know who won.
Maybe the assumption is that they can't be integrated or valuable in any way, goal is to neutralise them. I'm a bit split on this but it doesn't sound all to wrong to me.
In any case, mass democracy is on the way out, everywhere. It is just not compatible with the post-industrial society and will be progressively less so in the future. Question is about a particular way in which it will happen (anything from outright dictatorship to some form of democracy with prequalification)...
I don't think anybody has proposed forcibly deplatforming everybody with "right-leaning views", so that sounds like a straw man. If, as you seem to suggest, divisiveness is your primary concern, it would seem to make a lot of sense to deplatform the small number of people very eager to create it through lies, organized violence, and overthrow of the government.
It seems misguided to suggest that deplatforming is not a constructive approach. Platforms which are tolerant of extremism enable extremists to more-easily connect with each other, develop more-unified messaging, and reach non-radicalized people at much lower social and financial costs. In effect, providing a platform for extremism is a divisive act.
I think a lot of people care about re-integrating those with right-leaning views to society. It is important for them to express their own concerns in their own words instead of just joining in various egomaniacs' power fantasies.
As much as they hate the far left, I believe that progressives such as Bernie and AOC are actually far better for them, and everyone they know, than the current GOP leadership.
>I think a lot of people care about re-integrating those with right-leaning views to society.
Ah, so right-leaning views disqualify you from society now? You have to be re-integrated?
Have you spoken what you wrote out loud? Do you not understand the message that sends?
>It is important for them to express their own concerns in their own words instead of just joining in various egomaniacs' power fantasies.
>As much as they hate the far left, I believe that progressives such as Bernie and AOC are actually far better for them, and everyone they know, than the current GOP leadership.
Wow. The self-referential inconsistency is strong with this one. If you truly don't grok that what you're asserting the right needs re-education to address, and the same devotion you're putting into Bernie and AOC are two sides of the same coin, you seriously need to reflect.
1) Causes. Not people.
2) Just because they don't like the stuff your team or tribe likes doesn't make them any less of a human being.
3) You win no friends and convince no one by demonizing that which they look up to, then copy pasting in what you like and telling them they're sick for liking what they like. Yes, society is full of people who spend a great deal of energy doing just that; but it doesn't mean everyone knows what they are doing when they are doing it. The beauty is that things just generally work out in spite of it because people don't build up enough momentum to destabilize the overarching social structure. It's like Brownian motion writ large. In the case when you're doing it correctly, you must have put in the effort to understand what it is you're replacing first, why it ended up there, then making your entire pitch readily communicable, and being willing to live and let live genuinely.
4) It has taken really immersing myself in both liberal and conservative communities to realize how insane most people are, and how little work the average person puts into thinking out the consequences of policy direction. I'm amazed anything manages to stay working at all.
> The sad thing is precisely that no-one cares about "re-integrating" proponents of right-leaning views "to society".
Are you arguing violent extremism and trying to overthrow the government is synonymous with "right-leaning views"?
No one is deplatforming Mitch McConnell, Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, John Thune and many others all of whom with "right leaning views", even further to the right the president.
Your argument is a strawman. It's like when twitter bans jihadist leaders, going out and saying "why are muslims being deplatformed?". Which is not true.
Also political scientists from eminent universities in the US and Britain were heavily involved in the renewal of democracy in Germany. With the Germans they designed a system that is more democratic than those that existed in their own countries. The system is designed to operate as a coalition government. No one party can dominate, but because of the coalition system mainstream centrist views get properly represented while extremists get some presence in the Bundestag but are unlikely to be needed to form a coalition and will never be in a position to dominate it, like they have done in the US.
It’s worked out pretty well for the Germans, wouldn’t you say?
The US is a two party state. So extremists just need to infiltrate one party to corrupt the system, especially if the other party is not providing competent opposition.
Currently the security of democracy in the US, and therefore the balance of power between Russia, China and the US which is the basis of world peace in so much as it exists today, rests in the constitutional procedures of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party as much as it does in the US constitution, who sets those rules? Do Americans memorise them in school?
It seems that face recognition could be as dangerous as country laws are. China's social credit system is a strong mirror to its government. The Black Mirror scenario with all those people scared to even talk publicly could (if once real) be strongly country specific, if we get to the point, where life drastically depend on ethics of technology laws.
I think we already have a system in the West where people are afraid to speak openly; it’s referred to as cancel culture but exists elsewhere. The difference is that it’s not a formal government system but more of a mob social justice system.
Comparing cancel culture to China's social credit system is ... not a great choice, in my opinion.
Regardless, I've had this theory about cancel culture. I don't necessarily agree with cancel culture, for the aforementioned problem of it being mob social justice. But it seems to me like it has arisen out of a failure by the real justice system. Issues like sexism in particular, which affect half of the population, have been ignored and marginalized. It took how long for Bill Cosby's heinous crimes to finally be prosecuted? More over, how likely would it have been for his crimes to yet again have been swept under the rug had cancel culture not fostered an environment where the victims felt comfortable coming forward?
The very topic we're discussing, the terrorist attack on our Capitol, is another example of racist failures of our police force.
So is it really any surprise that society has collectively taken matters into their owns hands?
Again, I don't _agree_ with the idea that society at large should pass their own judgements. I'd rather the courts do that. But they haven't been. And aren't. And we just suffered through one of the worst years on record of blatant police abuse and court inaction.
If we want to get rid of cancel culture I think we need to fix our policing and justice system to the extent that society feels they don't need to take up the mantel of justice themselves.
In other words, I don't see value in deriding cancel culture. If one feels that cancel culture is wrong, my belief is that one should be calling for action to repair the _cause_ of cancel culture, not the symptoms. And that cause is a prejudiced justice system.
Cancel culture exists because it is 100% cost-free to shitpost on Twitter when people feel like their petty political issues with some person or company are in conflict with their own personal value judgments. But this isn't an issue with the courts at all.
> Regardless, I've had this theory about cancel culture. I don't necessarily agree with cancel culture, for the aforementioned problem of it being mob social justice. But it seems to me like it has arisen out of a failure by the real justice system.
> In other words, I don't see value in deriding cancel culture.
This is apologism, and starting such an argument with "I don't agree with this but..." is just a way to trick a few more people into taking your ideas seriously enough to read to the end of the paragraph.
And terrorists, really? You could use your same EXACT logic, in fact even more justifiably, as a defense for what happened at the U.S. Capital.
I use the word terrorist because _many_ of the people involved in the group brought guns and bombs, were prepared to take hostages, and voiced their intent to murder members of the government. For example:
Additionally a large noose and cross were erected at the scene. The former is a symbol of violent white supremacy in the United States, and the latter is both a religious symbol and a frequently used symbol of an existing terrorist organization, the KKK. Some of those involved were self-professed followers of a known conspiracy cult (QAnon). Also at least one speech during the event quoted Hitler.
It's hard not to use the word "terrorism" to describe what happened that day, given the breadth of violence, both implied and actual, and the wide associations with cults, terrorist organizations, religious organizations, and despotic figures. All of those things are hallmarks of past terrorist acts both within and outside of the United States.
I see little difference between that, a group of individuals plotting to kidnap and murder a government official, and the events at the Capitol which involved groups plotting to kidnap and murder government officials.
> is just a way to trick a few more people into taking your ideas seriously enough to read to the end of the paragraph.
That was certainly not my intent, and I don't believe your comment addresses the best possible version of my argument.
"So is it really any surprise that society has collectively taken matters into their owns hands?"
It is not the society. The virtual mobs that hunt people online, even though looking massive (1:N is scary even for N==100), are absolutely tiny when compared to the society as a whole.
And as for the reasons, every mob in history, including the ones that did absolutely horrible things (such as pogroms), had some reasoning as to why their activity is virtuous and noble. And putative inefficiency or corruption of the legal system was one of them. Check up on history of lynching - that was done because the legal system was perceived to be "soft".
> Comparing cancel culture to China's social credit system is ... not a great choice, in my opinion.
Yep. I lived in China for a few years, speak Chinese, and never heard of anybody being kicked out of a job at a private company because of their social credit score.
True, but what's frightening now is that the mob/SJWs are aligned (mostly) with the new administration, whose party has swept up all power in the government.
No one swept up all of the power. It’s insane to say that just because democrats are in control. There’s an entire spectrum of opinions and differences within the party that is being set aside in order to fight for some common beliefs...like ending the war on drugs, the war on the female reproductive system, and the war on education.
There’s a baseline among progressives which, once reached, will create entirely new divisions, trust me.
I'm not sure why I chose to phrase it that way. Probably because it's ongoing, multifaceted and victim to some very very dirty tactics. Also, we like "waging war" on things here rather than solve them.
Briefly, our education system in the US is one of the least well performing systems amongst modern states. It is also the least well funded systems with conservatives trying to practically hand it over to private schools.
Then you have public funding issues too numerous to list that contribute to the low quality of education including student loan debt being debt you cannot bankrupt your way out of, or cutting off funds to channels like PBS...
The federal judiciary has been taking criticism from both parties for decades now where both sides think that the courts have abdicated their responsibilities and let Executive authority run amok.
Of course that criticism is never consistent temporally, and always depends on which party is in which office and doing the criticism.
Either way, I'm not particularly excited about leaving things up to the courts.
Joe Biden is 78. He’s not firing on all cylinders anymore. He leads a party that has attempted, haphazardly, to deal with a growing and increasingly powerful left wing cultural phenomenon that seeks to use the infrastructure of government to change how society operates. You may be right, but it’s just a bet that the mainstream democrats manage to put a lid on these more extreme elements.
Complaining about "cancel culture" with regard to a mob that literally tried to cancel the votes of 81 million people is hilariously missing the point.
In reality, cancel culture is just the free market at work and has always felt, to me, like a narrative peddled by the powerful to allow themselves to not be held accountable for their actions.
If I don't want to buy a Musk-mobile because I don't agree with Musk on issues like racism[0] or don't like how he treats his employees[1], I am allowed to act on it. I am also allowed to share these thoughts with people on appropriate platforms, like I'm doing here.
I can understand the frustration coming from people digging up problematic tweets from 4 years ago, but this whole idea that "the internet forgets nothing" isn't new. I learned it in grade school. If you want to post racist/sexist/homophobic things on your public Twitter, so be it, but don't be surprised when someone finds it. There's also a delete button.
"If you want to post racist/sexist/homophobic things on your public Twitter, so be it, but don't be surprised when someone finds it."
So, what is going to be the kiss of death in 2050? Do you know in advance? How many of your contemporary comments are going to run afoul of the standard of 2050 and will you remember to delete them all, including from Internet archive/wayback sites, in 2049?
Remember, a senior manager at Boeing was forced to step down 33 years after he wrote an offending article. The article was published before WWW even existed.
The point is that human life is comparatively long and current technology enables the witch-hunters to destroy people for very old and no longer relevant utterances.
This is something that, IMHO, the society should frown upon and discourage. Destroying people should be as hard as possible, that is why nation states built so many protections into law over centuries.
I definitely agree that his forced resignation wasn't exactly just, but that's not really cancel culture in action, that was a response to a single employee complaint from my research. It almost reads as if execs were looking for an excuse to get rid of him. If it was up to me, I'd just quietly release a statement or something along that... 33 years is a long time.
What I'm more referring to is situations like JK Rowling where she is openly posting hateful content publicly (people don't even have to dig for it!) and she's criticizing cancel culture as the reason people don't want to read her new book, which just looks like it'll be awful[1].
“Cancel culture” is also not new.
Indigenous societies were “canceled” by Spanish missionaries and Indian schools, gay and trans people have been “canceled” by bigots, political activists “canceled” by COINTELPRO, and communist sympathizers canceled by Joe McCarthy.
So, “cancel culture” been a matter of fact, at least in the US, for quite some time now. It’s just given a scary name when those who have been “canceled” in the past are doing the “canceling”.
Is there any reasonably valid speech that is unduly silenced by cancel culture? I don't disagree that people are restrictive of their speech, but I am trying to ascertain if we are better or worse off due to self-censorship.
I don't have any particularly noteworthy political opinions; most people would probably put me in the "surprisingly ordinary" box if they had to categorize me. Despite that, I wouldn't dream of getting into something like a political discussion on Twitter. It's simply impossible to know whom the mob will go after next, or in 10 or 20 years.
I don't know how many others feel the same way, but I do know there are others out there. There is a non-zero chance that one of us has something really important to say, but won't, because we don't want to face a potential angry online mob in the future.
Oh, please. People have been "afraid to speak openly" for all of America's history. The notion that there's something drastically different about "cancel culture" in terms of severity is historically ignorant. Look at the comedian Lenny Bruce's arrests for obscenity, for example. Or the anticommunist panic of the 1950s. To say nothing of how women were controlled up to and after suffrage: deprivation of rights, marginalization, beatings, and rape. Ditto the free speech of black people, who faced lynching for as little as whistling.
Social actions will always have social consequences; that's a necessary corollary to freedom of speech. What's different today is that social conservatives and especially the radical right are starting to experience those same social consequences. If people are going to use their freedom of speech and association to, say, support Nazis, then other people are free to use their freedoms of speech and association in response.
I think it is hilarious when, as happens all the time here on HN, people against "cancel culture" downvote critics in hopes of canceling speech they don't like.
I have a hard time taking the so-called “right” seriously about free and fair elections after 8 years of obstructing Obama.
Effectively marginalizing the other side with their media platforms, and political agents in the form of rich Republicans, only to suddenly screech about the same happening to them?
Indeed, as a political party, Republicans have undermined both sides voters. I have yet to see factories growing out of the ground in Ohio after Trumps promises.
I’m unaligned politically, only voted for Obama in ‘08 for the racial symbolism (representation matters).
They show up in Portland, uninvited, pointing guns. They showed up in Kenosha uninvited shooting people.
Why not align with the side that otherwise has largely spray painted buildings and marched for representation?
Human biology will react in kind; refuse to compromise, put boots on necks figuratively speaking, do not be surprised and angry when that’s how you are treated in return.
There’s a parallel here to the story recently about securities fraud. Investors suing a company means the company burns cash that undermines investors.
Politicians undermining and not compromising with the other side is undermining the whole of their own country.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
It's not my place to go around quoting the rules, but I was just hoping to calm the waters a little bit. We could all use a bit of "let's step back and talk this over rather than argue passionately for a position," I think. E.g. the article is about the implication of AI on society at large.
People are certainly allowed to express strong opinions. It can be cathartic to write out your frustrations. But HN isn't the place for that. Comments like that, even though they _feel_ like they contribute to something, tend to really just be selfish and don't contribute to discussion. Political threads on HN get filled with 1000s of such comments, and none of them lead to _interesting_ discussion. Interesting, thoughtful discussion is what we're after, and what we tend to see more of here than other places. That's what I, and I believe the majority of users here, come here for.
I've personally been frustrated by the recent political threads, not because I don't want to see those threads here, but because I desperately want the comments to say something _interesting_. Something thoughtful that I can't get elsewhere (from the news or Reddit). But about an hour after such articles show up they're so bloated only a single thread of comments is visible per page, making it too difficult to navigate and find any useful discussion that might be happening.
In other words, HN isn't our personal emotional outlet. It can be used for that _occasionally_, but since _everyone_ uses it for that under certain topics like politics, it's best to avoid doing so there.
According to those rules you just read, not always. Not sure why that's difficult to comprehend or accept.
Just like how Twitter isn't required to spew Trump's bullshit, HN isn't required to support forms of discourse it does not see as constructive or beneficial.
> I have a hard time taking the so-called “right” seriously about free and fair elections after 8 years of obstructing Obama.
Obstruction wasn't invented with Obama. Obama himself participated in obstruction and filibusters as a member of the Senate during George Bush's presidency.
Whataboutism doesn't add any value to a discussion. GP did not exclude what you have commented in their comment.
But I don't want to make this comment purely about criticizing someone.
There is a figure on Wikipedia [1] that shows that Filibusters have been rising starkly since the 70s – since politicians started realising how effective they could be under the new rules.
My conclusion of this is twofold:
1. The use of a filibuster is an extreme measure and shows how divisive US politics has gotten – hence the more numerous reach for drastic measures.
2. It is an inevitable devil's spiral with two parties that don't trust each other. Every use of a Filibuster by a Republican will give a Democrat a justification for one and vice versa (this is why Whataboutism should be avoided).
So please let's not make this about "But the Democrats started it" or "But the Republicans did more".
Instead, judge me on my hypothesis: "The increase in use of the filibuster is an indicator of polarization and shows that polarization has been on the rise since the 70s."
Trump rallied his followers after years of violent rhetoric. Him, his family, his lawyer Giuliani urged things like "trial by combat" for Trump's enemies.
He timed his rally to end at 1pm, when the tally started down the road. He then sent his followers to pressure "weak" Republicans within the Capitol building for the purposes of urging the overthrow of certified votes in favor of replacing them with unilateral votes for Trump.
They brought zip ties. They called for Pence's hanging.
Trump called Pence during the siege trying to pressure him, and the call had to be cut short because the insurgents were already inside the building.
This was a legislative and violent coup. Cry more about liberals in reaction to a literal coup attempt. Please, I want to hear more about how this is all antifa/BLM's fault some more. How the liberal agenda is a boot upon your neck while Trump's followers attempt violent and legislative coups against the citizens of this nation.
The cops murdered a woman. A couple more people died of natural causes from the excitement during the event. A cop died from a pulmonary condition afterwords.
If you engage in this sort of rhetoric, you are fanning the flames. Please stop. It's not helping. You don't want things to get worse because I'm not sure you can conceive of how bad things can actually get.
Let's all just let off the gas and tap the brakes.
Problem with this is that facial recognition is not perfect. It's no better than fnger printing which often leads to unjust arrests. There is no replacement for detective work and the government shouldn't be lazy to exclude it. The best it can do is narrow down suspects.
I was under the impression that good quality fingerprints are lot more reliable. Could you point me to some resources that show how unreliable fingerprints are, I would learn something new.
EDIT: Nevermind there is an active HN thread on just that
That's been my feeling. Last I looked I recall public SOTA in facial recognition being something like an error every 1 in 1000 cases. Assuming that a private corporation's efforts are somehow 100x better that still gives you 3,000 suspects in America for any given photo. (And all those people are likely to look very, very similar.)
Hell, Apple's FaceID makes a mistake every million faces, and that system is both professional and has an order of magnitude more data to work with from the FaceID scanner. Clearview is just using blurry photographs.
Why is that a problem? This is just the first step to generate a set of possible matches, there will always be further steps to narrow it down further.
> Problem with this is that facial recognition is not perfect.
Why is that a problem? Are there any investigative tools that are perfect or is there a reason why facial recognition should be held to a higher standard?
> It's no better than fnger printing which often leads to unjust arrests.
You need to be more specific. Why is it no better? Has facial recognition been demonstrated to lead to more unjust arrests than other investigative methods?
> There is no replacement for detective work and the government shouldn't be lazy to exclude it.
Who's saying that facial recognition is a replacement for detective work? It's just another investigative method, like looking up a license plate or asking people at the crime scene what they saw.
> The best it can do is narrow down suspects.
It can also help find suspects when you don't have any other leads. Why isn't that good enough?
Have you seen the sort of things that get people thrown away in prison for murder for decades? Absolutely flimsy evidence like an insane prosecutor that thinks some guy can go to a ball game and flee as fast as possible to go kill a person and then come back?!
I seriously doubt anyone is being convicted based on that alone. Look, once you suspect someone was at the riot, you can then start to look for other things like, license plates coming in and out of DC, or beacon data or phone tower records. Some of these people were shouting their names out to cameras along with the city they were from.
Facial recognition is like watching footage from a bank robbery, and then recognizing the person in it, except a computer does the initial work and a human being verified it before making any moves. I’d be worried if high def cameras were on every corner but this footage was taken at the scene of a crime, by reporters and criminals alike. So what if a private group runs it through a filter?
> The problems come from when it is hailed as perfect and arrests are made solely on a facial recognition result[0].
But is facial recognition itself the problem here? It seems to me the problem is the human who makes a decision based on flawed evidence. This is likely to happen based on other investigative methods as well and not just facial recognition (e.g. "the old lady across the street was sure she saw you breaking into that house the other day").
> Facial recognition has also time and time again proven to be racially biased[1][2].
If we know about the bias, we can correct for it. First in training and decision making and then through improving the facial recognition models.
And again, I'm sure there's racial bias in other investigative methods as well.
> Not to mention how easy it is to create a surveillance state with facial recognition[3].
So long as you have the ability to install millions/billions of cameras throughout the state and put them under centralized control. If that's legal in the US, the problem is that the law allows it, not facial recognition. In most European countries, such a thing would be incredibly illegal.
> Problem with this is that facial recognition is not perfect
I don't think it is the case. Facial recognition can drastically speed up the process of nailing down suspects, accompanying with other information sources.
I don't really see facial recognition as the sole reason to be worried here. Information collection and sharing is already ubiquitous, that is what leads to all these.
It doesn’t need to be perfect though. People facial recognition isn’t perfect either. When they post some mugshot and ask the public for tips I’m sure some tips come in for people who look like the suspect but aren’t. Proper police work should be able to rule out the false positives quickly.
The problem only happens if law enforcement believes that the matches are somehow infallible and refuse to look for or believe in other evidence that would rule out a suspect.
Cases of mistaken identity lead to unjustified arrests. There are lot of such cases when human police officers are using their own senses to identify someone or to correctly read a situation.
Technology in this regard adds a couple of eyes to the force.
Isn’t it possible to use cell phone location to identify exactly who went inside the Capitol buildings? It’s something that the police system uses anyways and I guess it must be being used.
What happened was a shame, but I truly hope this doesn’t evolve and make it worse than what it is already.
First, law enforcement never talks publicly about this capability because it only works if the bad guys don't think about it. Secondly, all the major carriers deployed temporary cell sites to the area in advance of the inauguration which likely has complicated and delayed the requests.
> it only works if the bad guys don't think about it
I think the horse has left that particular barn.
Although, of course, the barrel of badguy-stupidity is bottomless, so I suppose they'll keep catching the dumber and dumber ones pretty much forever...
Seems like there's a big difference between passive dragnet usage of facial recognition on crowds in non-criminal situations, vs using this tool combined with soliciting tips from the public to identify people from video of them performing crimes.
The most common complaint is that AI identifies unrelated people who look similar as being the perpetrator that would never have been found without AI. Pretty likely this can happen here as well.
If anything, far FEWER mistakes will be made. Not more.
It's this weird thing where people hear about this one scary story of a guy misidentified and think "OMG facial recognition is terrible!" but they don't realize that happens to XYZ number people a day via human error.
But we're all MORE comfortable with it if it's good old fashioned...human error?
Facial Recognition Tech is obviously good if used by competent people:
Narrows the number of haystacks to search for needle => Reduced resources required for successful search => More crimes prosecuted.
Problem occurs when:
* Users of FRT assume all in haystack are needles
* Crimes on book must not be universally prosecuted
The first part can't be helped. US Police, like most US government jobs, is a rest-and-take-it-easy job. In aggregate, unexceptional people doing an unexceptional job. The second part is because people want other people prosecuted but not themselves.
I'm in second category myself. For instance, I am quite capable of using all sorts of drugs and maintaining a productive life. Other people are not. So it's important to prosecute other people and not to prosecute me.
Therefore, for these two reasons, I don't want FRT to be used universally. I want to preserve inequitable outcomes in policing because society is stronger with inequitable outcomes - permits good life for high percentile individuals and constrains operations for low percentile individuals. Demarcating crime from uncrime is Sorites paradox.
> I want to preserve inequitable outcomes in policing because society is stronger with inequitable outcomes - permits good life for high percentile individuals and constrains operations for low percentile individuals.
Thanks for being clear about your perspective. Do you think there's potential for abuse with different rulesets for different people?
> Demarcating crime from uncrime is Sorites paradox.
I disagree. The measure of a crime is subjective and objective. Subjectively, the victim notices they have been wronged. Objectively, there is a claim by a plaintiff against a defendant. A claim either exists or it does not, there is no sorites.
> Thanks for being clear about your perspective. Do you think there's potential for abuse with different rulesets for different people?
Oh, most certainly. The same structure allows for racial discrimination, which I do not believe is a sensible angle of discrimination: i.e. I think Ben Carson should not be discriminated against for being black. Too high value as a top surgeon.
On the whole I accept it, though, because I don't want Elon Musk prosecuted by the SEC and the instrument that permits both is blunt.
> The measure of a crime is subjective and objective. Subjectively, the victim notices they have been wronged. Objectively, there is a claim by a plaintiff against a defendant. A claim either exists or it does not, there is no sorites.
Indeed. When there is a threshold. However, the costs imposed on society by drug users are dispersed. You can't Categorical Imperative them because some people are not capable enough to handle the responsibility.
Other times the crime is exposure to increased risk: no actual harm may occur. For instance, if you do burnouts on city roads there is little concrete harm, only increased exposure to risk.
It's the same with many things: public drunkenness, drink driving, jaywalking. And society reacts to these by permitting these activities in practice for high-value individuals while proselytizing against them at the same time.
I don't drink-drive but I happily do the other two.
> some people are not capable enough to handle the responsibility.
Unfortunately I'm not convinced that anyone is capable of handling the responsibility of determining who is / is not capable of having responsibility. There's just too much potential for abuse.
Do you think you would still have the same opinion if you were black? Even if selective enforcement makes sense, I would want very smart, highly educated, trusted, and fair people, who know everything about the defendant, making the decision. Not a cop, with nothing more than a photo, choosing who to pursue
Probably not, but like I said, I'm not, in fact, black. Like I said, I'm familiar with the Veil of Ignorance, so you can assume I also know affiliated concepts.
I don't understand the beard trend. (Pictured in the article) It seems like a huge portion of anti-government and/or ardent President Trump supporters have those big untrimmed beards.
Is it regional based on where many such supporters live? I certainly don't see any ideological link to untrimmed beards, so it must be some other co-occuring factor.
Haha good point. Violence, guns, big trucks and beards are their expressions of masculinity. Conservatism is big on clear division of gender roles, patriarchy and the role of a strong man as the head of the family. IANAP, but there's probably a link there.
Yes. They tried to destroy the Capitol and capture elected officials. If you don't arrest them now then there will just be even more violent MAGA riots in the immediate future.
You’re not going to deter the die hards. You absolutely will deter the “normies” with mortgages and retirement accounts to lose (I’d say their families acceptance, but they don’t seem to care much about that).
No one is suggesting you arrest those who stayed outside. You arrest however many you can find who blew past doors/security or took stuff. Probably 500.
At the next Trump rally of 100k everyone will know not to break the law. It is pretty simple.
I think it's reasonable that people who were involved in actual violence or theft should face consequences.
When you say it's pretty simple, others are calling for everyone on the Capitol grounds to be arrested. Technically they were breaking the law by trespassing.
I've got an idea, you take people with unapproved ideologies or from communities that tend to have these people and put them in reeducation facilities. Because this is all expensive to do, they will need to work as well.
Sarcasm aside, we are moving quickly to a straight up authoritarian apparatus of state sanctioned discourse enforced by a handful of corporations. This will be used against _anything_ that challenges those in power or goes against the approved narrative. For those cheering this on, realize this will applied to you in one form or another with no recourse. Here are a few scenarios off the top of my head: being a pacifist or home schooling advocate, posting on social media something tacky like "Prominent figure X is a fat idiot", or personal medical decisions having a direct impact on your ability to: travel, access jobs, housing and financial systems.
I've marched in support of BLM. Protest is necessary, and for it to be effective it generally has to make folks uncomfortable on some level and that may include a level of civil disobedience. It's not supposed to be all fun and sunshine, particularly if you are the adversary of those protesting.
I'm diametrically opposed to Trump and his supporters on a lot of issues, but I recognize that a functional society needs to accept their right to protest as well. They should be able to have their marches just like we have ours.
However, the stated goals and actions of many of those in last week's march and rioting are explicitly violent and seditious. Many of the protestors were heavily armed. They killed a policeman.
Do you really want a bunch of very angry people to
effectively be pushed into a corner, demonized by
society and so on?
I understand what you're saying: by pushing individuals into a corner, we may make them more desperate and feed into the overall "persecution" complex that motivates their movement as a whole. I think that's true.
On the other side of things, if we do nothing we legitimize their extremist views? Those extremist views become the new normal, or at least most the goalposts for the range of views considered normal.
Admittedly, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation."
But this isn't about denying their views or their right to protest. It's about targeting specific criminal actions that we don't want my side, their side, or any side to do.
Not sure why your comment was at the bottom of the page; it seems like one of the more thoughtful responses.
I have to admit my gut feeling on governments using facial recognition at scale to round up its citizens feels like something you'd find under an authoritarian regime, reminds me of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643433
I think it's important to try to frame an opinion on tech like this from a well-informed viewpoint, striving to lend appropriate weight to the latest incidents while avoiding the temptation for tunnel vision to fixate on immediate goals to the exclusion of broader, long-term consequences.
I agree acts that crossed too far past the line of civil disobedience ought to be held to account.
I just hope our collective response doesn't erode the willingness of people of good conscience to take a stand when they see their institutions behave in a legitimately unsanctionable manner.
I think some of the same (100% valid and necessary) questions might have been raised in the past about identification cards, fingerprints, handwriting analysis, etc.
I think the bottom line is how the tech is employed.
Are we tracking ordinary citizens en masse, for some potential future use? Are we tracking folks just because they're dissenting/protesting? We would probably all agree those uses are bad. Very bad.
I'm not terribly worried about using them to identify specific criminal targets. Put another way, how absurd would it be for us to have perfectly clear video of people committing specific criminal acts, and not use the available technology to identify them?
On a related note, the (lack of) opsec displayed by the Capitol rioters is... really something. These people were happily mugging for the cameras, sans masks. I'm not sure if it was stupidity or entitlement. The easy and snarky answer would be "stupidity" but there were clearly intelligent folk among them or at least people that should know to cover their tracks better: lawyers, military and police officers.
I think there was a rather stunning sense of entitlement there: a lot of these folks honestly cannot believe they're being charged with crimes. As if they expected to be greeted as liberators!
God help us if and when they sharpen up their tactics. The sickening feeling in my stomach tells me that this was a hell of a practice run.
This is the exact situation in which facial recognition is very bad. Imagine the stasi had it? You can consider your government good and the technology good until it isn't and used against you.
> This is the exact situation in which facial recognition is very bad.
No, it's not.
> Imagine the stasi had it?
Yes, the problem there is the Stasi, not the technology. There is literally no technology that the Stasi having would be a good thing, including pen and paper. Or things so basic we don't tend to think of them as “technology”, like, say, language.
> There is literally no technology that the Stasi having would be a good thing, including pen and paper.
Not sure I agree with that analogy... pen and paper doesn't scale!
Having the ability to do something at global scale, like facial recognition or real-time tracking and saying "Honest! We won't use it for dodgy things" is not sufficient...
It'd be naieve to say I'd rather it didn't exist, however that cat is out of the bag now so there _must_ be incredibly robust and tamper-proof checks and balances round its use and the penalties for subverting that should be incredibly severe.
The point being that the fundamental problem of a police state being the authority granted to the police, rather than the specific tools they use? I do wonder whether tools like this will cause some people to think twice before demonstrating against government policies in the future. AI has the potential to vastly exacerbate the chilling effect of various policies of authoritarians. It will be interesting to see how the next iteration of BLM reacts to these tools being used.
facial recognition tools and Clearview AI existed on Wednesday, when people invaded the capitol and then stood around taking selfies for an hour. It's possible that most of them had never heard of facial recognition or didn't realize that it could be used. But I'd be surprised if that were the case.
This technology is here, being used openly today. If has a chilling effect, where is it?
- Dominion voting machines appears to be owned by the CCP. It was bought for $400 million just before the Nov. 3 election.
- fake ballots were printed in China and made their way into US elections. Shredded ballots with invoices in Chinese were found in one of the contested states. The CCP could track where they were printed if they wanted to.
- The wife of McConnell, Elaine Chao, is CCP, and was a US official until recently. She financed his campaigns.
Face recognition is here to stay, like it or not. If it is legal for a human being to watch CCTV feed, the pressure to replace them with a machine won’t subside.
I think prohibiting recognition and tracking for commercial reason without explicit consent, plus allowing recognition and tracking only when acting on a court order would be a good start.
178 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 212 ms ] threadNot necessarily. Belarusian protesters are working on methods to unmask anonymous police officers [1].
[1] https://meduza.io/en/feature/2020/10/01/you-have-no-masks
Edited the original.
Edit: I completely agree there is nothing special about this case. No exigent circumstances.
If it happens, it should be done by an institution that is under the supervision of congress and staffed by public servants. This emerging, largely unaccountable surveillance industrial complex with ties to extremist political figures worries me more.
However, I think it's perhaps more worrying that one day this evidence will be presented in court and the jury will trust the accuracy of "AI" over their own judgment.
To clarify, the situation I'm thinking of is where a grainy CCTV image is shown to the jury. The AI expert comes in and talks about all of the technical details of their algorithm and how it determines that the grainy image is of defendant A with 96% probably.
I think so. That mechanism is judicially auditable. The AI is not. We should not be arresting people based on the output of an unauditable mechanism.
Are we, though? If “ClearView AI gave us a hit” is being treated as probable cause sufficient for an arrest warrant, that's a problem.
If it's being used as a tool to generate leads to investigate and traditional evidence is gathered and presented, I don't see a big problem.
You can be disgusted at what happened. But breaking out that word is an escalation.
Language like this will let a genie out of a bottle that cannot be put back in. And you probably aren't the sort of person who would like the outcome.
Also is that a threat of violence at the end there from a 15 minute old account?
Just a prediction of what's going to happen if you believe the official narrative and keep doing what you're doing.
I don't want to see things get worse. But if you keep up with this nonsense, they will get worse. No one wants that.
Just relax.
???
This technology was of course also used to identify those laying siege to various federal buildings over the summer, but I guess it’s okay now. This is to say that the context in which this technology is used obviously matters a lot and is directly related to who holds the reigns of cultural power. Yay.
However, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle with technology. Like we've seen this summer with local police using military hardware, there will always be the urge to inappropriately deploy military-grade technologies in a civilian setting.
There was a mix of terrorists, insurrectionists, rioters, hooligans and protesters in the crowd. Those who entered the Capitol were no longer protesters. Those damaging or stealing property were more than hooligans. Those aiming to disrupt the election count were more than rioters. And those with aims on harming members of Congress were more than incompetent insurrectionists.
The truth is it's all mixed. I look at this also as a failure for a movement to generate leaders with a clear strategic vision that in turn guides participants with consistent boundaries. When, instead, the feeling is simply "anger" without a specific plan for channeling it usefully, you get people doing their own thing, others following along, etc.
What would you call the people who entered the Capital building and stayed inside the red velvet ropes, who took selfies and made videos like they were on a tour?
Hooligans. To be criminally charged but allowed to avoid jail time. If they, I don’t know, refrain from breaking into federal property for a few years and pass a community college civics course, the record is sealed.
What they did was serious. Little different from people who jump the White House fence. But many of us on this forum can look to their youth and remember when being in a crowd doing something feloniously mischevious was something they would have gone along with. I can. We have enough of a problem with mass incarceration to not add to it.
That would show wilful intent to “by force...prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of [a] law of the United States” [1]. Insurrection. Jail time, up to twenty years.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
Also worth mentioning, if that same person had a social media history filled with "stop the steal" rhetoric, I don't see why sedition charges couldn't be levied [2]. Even if they were relatively well behaved during the riot, their mere presence was disrupting a central function of government. So I think a well behaved rioter with a proclivity for 'revolutionary' social media discourse can probably be classified as an incompetent insurrectionist.
It will be interesting to see how hard the prosecutors go after these folks. On one hand, a large chunk of the protestors probably got a bit swept up in the moment and likely did not intend to break any laws. But on the other hand, nearly the entire presidential line of succession was in that building performing one of the more important functions of our government. A strong case can be made for showing no leniency.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752 [2] https://time.com/5928270/capitol-domestic-terrorism/
God Bless the Holy AI.
Somewhere on an older hard-disk I have a copy of all the terrorist incidents starting from the 1960s up to 2006 or so (web-scrapped at the time when that data was still partially open), no-where in there had I seen this type of events, there were mostly bombings, airplane kidnapping and the like. What you are describing falls though under the "insurrection" label, heck, we were saying the same thing about Ceausescu in December 1989 and thankfully no-one branded us as terrorists (I'm from Romania).
It's uncanny how similar these events were:
> Lieutenant-Colonel Antonio Tejero led 200 armed Civil Guard officers into the Congress of Deputies during the vote to elect a President of the Government. The officers held the parliamentarians and ministers hostage for 18 hours, during which time King Juan Carlos I denounced the coup in a televised address, calling for rule of law and the democratic government to continue. Though shots were fired, the hostage-takers surrendered the next morning without killing anyone.
What are the bounds for such technology and/or companies like Clearview?
Are there quality of life differences in places where facial recognition crime technology is used vs not used?
- Attempted coup - Radicalized and misinformed supporters (majority) with an extremist, armed element (minority) - Extremely dangerous moment for free and fair elections in the west
What would the world have looked like if in 1923, the disaffected germans who took part in that were identified en masse; and serious efforts were made to re-integrate them to society while addressing the systemic issues they faced?
Instead, we ended up doing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification several years later after a lot of death.
I think there is a very good argument for identification and holding people to account. There also needs to be very, very robust adherence to due process - AI identification is not proof, and a suitable alibi should be step 1 in invalidating it.
Edit-if you’re referencing just how people treat one another 1-1 in culture, well, the forever trumpers just need to learn to treat people like people again. Apologizing helps, but simply being friendly and polite goes a long way.
Expulsion can be appropriate for dealing with people who harm society.
It should be used with caution but does have its place.
De-integrating (so to speak) may sometimes be a required first step before effective "re-integrating" can occur.
Here's a crazy thought. How about we do nothing and just arrest anyone that breaks laws, right or left.
But if you believe the rioters were part of an attempted coup, trying to overthrow democracy and install Trump as a dictator while setting bombs to kill their opponents, that seems pretty crazy to me.
Of course, some people might argue it wasn't an attempted coup, just a mob of high-spirited protesters. Much like sports fans or anti-globalisation protesters will sometimes set a cop car on fire or smash up a starbucks, just in this case it was the capitol building instead of a starbucks. (personally I think this is dangerously naive; my impression is 'stop the steal' people are sincere and unironic in their beliefs)
https://youtu.be/lhjRXO72v1s
In any case, mass democracy is on the way out, everywhere. It is just not compatible with the post-industrial society and will be progressively less so in the future. Question is about a particular way in which it will happen (anything from outright dictatorship to some form of democracy with prequalification)...
As much as they hate the far left, I believe that progressives such as Bernie and AOC are actually far better for them, and everyone they know, than the current GOP leadership.
Ah, so right-leaning views disqualify you from society now? You have to be re-integrated?
Have you spoken what you wrote out loud? Do you not understand the message that sends?
>It is important for them to express their own concerns in their own words instead of just joining in various egomaniacs' power fantasies.
>As much as they hate the far left, I believe that progressives such as Bernie and AOC are actually far better for them, and everyone they know, than the current GOP leadership.
Wow. The self-referential inconsistency is strong with this one. If you truly don't grok that what you're asserting the right needs re-education to address, and the same devotion you're putting into Bernie and AOC are two sides of the same coin, you seriously need to reflect.
1) Causes. Not people. 2) Just because they don't like the stuff your team or tribe likes doesn't make them any less of a human being. 3) You win no friends and convince no one by demonizing that which they look up to, then copy pasting in what you like and telling them they're sick for liking what they like. Yes, society is full of people who spend a great deal of energy doing just that; but it doesn't mean everyone knows what they are doing when they are doing it. The beauty is that things just generally work out in spite of it because people don't build up enough momentum to destabilize the overarching social structure. It's like Brownian motion writ large. In the case when you're doing it correctly, you must have put in the effort to understand what it is you're replacing first, why it ended up there, then making your entire pitch readily communicable, and being willing to live and let live genuinely. 4) It has taken really immersing myself in both liberal and conservative communities to realize how insane most people are, and how little work the average person puts into thinking out the consequences of policy direction. I'm amazed anything manages to stay working at all.
Are you arguing violent extremism and trying to overthrow the government is synonymous with "right-leaning views"?
No one is deplatforming Mitch McConnell, Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, John Thune and many others all of whom with "right leaning views", even further to the right the president.
Your argument is a strawman. It's like when twitter bans jihadist leaders, going out and saying "why are muslims being deplatformed?". Which is not true.
> "From 1945 to 1950, the Allied powers detained over 400,000 Germans in internment camps in extrajudicial fashion in the name of denazification."
It’s worked out pretty well for the Germans, wouldn’t you say?
The US is a two party state. So extremists just need to infiltrate one party to corrupt the system, especially if the other party is not providing competent opposition.
Currently the security of democracy in the US, and therefore the balance of power between Russia, China and the US which is the basis of world peace in so much as it exists today, rests in the constitutional procedures of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party as much as it does in the US constitution, who sets those rules? Do Americans memorise them in school?
Regardless, I've had this theory about cancel culture. I don't necessarily agree with cancel culture, for the aforementioned problem of it being mob social justice. But it seems to me like it has arisen out of a failure by the real justice system. Issues like sexism in particular, which affect half of the population, have been ignored and marginalized. It took how long for Bill Cosby's heinous crimes to finally be prosecuted? More over, how likely would it have been for his crimes to yet again have been swept under the rug had cancel culture not fostered an environment where the victims felt comfortable coming forward?
The very topic we're discussing, the terrorist attack on our Capitol, is another example of racist failures of our police force.
So is it really any surprise that society has collectively taken matters into their owns hands?
Again, I don't _agree_ with the idea that society at large should pass their own judgements. I'd rather the courts do that. But they haven't been. And aren't. And we just suffered through one of the worst years on record of blatant police abuse and court inaction.
If we want to get rid of cancel culture I think we need to fix our policing and justice system to the extent that society feels they don't need to take up the mantel of justice themselves.
In other words, I don't see value in deriding cancel culture. If one feels that cancel culture is wrong, my belief is that one should be calling for action to repair the _cause_ of cancel culture, not the symptoms. And that cause is a prejudiced justice system.
> In other words, I don't see value in deriding cancel culture.
This is apologism, and starting such an argument with "I don't agree with this but..." is just a way to trick a few more people into taking your ideas seriously enough to read to the end of the paragraph.
And terrorists, really? You could use your same EXACT logic, in fact even more justifiably, as a defense for what happened at the U.S. Capital.
I use the word terrorist because _many_ of the people involved in the group brought guns and bombs, were prepared to take hostages, and voiced their intent to murder members of the government. For example:
https://nbc-2.com/news/national-world/2021/01/08/police-foun...
Additionally a large noose and cross were erected at the scene. The former is a symbol of violent white supremacy in the United States, and the latter is both a religious symbol and a frequently used symbol of an existing terrorist organization, the KKK. Some of those involved were self-professed followers of a known conspiracy cult (QAnon). Also at least one speech during the event quoted Hitler.
It's hard not to use the word "terrorism" to describe what happened that day, given the breadth of violence, both implied and actual, and the wide associations with cults, terrorist organizations, religious organizations, and despotic figures. All of those things are hallmarks of past terrorist acts both within and outside of the United States.
Not three months ago another event occurred, which Wikipedia describes as a "domestic terror plot": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...
I see little difference between that, a group of individuals plotting to kidnap and murder a government official, and the events at the Capitol which involved groups plotting to kidnap and murder government officials.
> is just a way to trick a few more people into taking your ideas seriously enough to read to the end of the paragraph.
That was certainly not my intent, and I don't believe your comment addresses the best possible version of my argument.
It is not the society. The virtual mobs that hunt people online, even though looking massive (1:N is scary even for N==100), are absolutely tiny when compared to the society as a whole.
And as for the reasons, every mob in history, including the ones that did absolutely horrible things (such as pogroms), had some reasoning as to why their activity is virtuous and noble. And putative inefficiency or corruption of the legal system was one of them. Check up on history of lynching - that was done because the legal system was perceived to be "soft".
Also, how were those events a racist failure of the police force?
Yep. I lived in China for a few years, speak Chinese, and never heard of anybody being kicked out of a job at a private company because of their social credit score.
You are making things worse. I'm pleading with people like you to stop doing this before you make things worse.
Flagging this doesn't change the truth of what I've posted. Please stop what you're doing
There’s a baseline among progressives which, once reached, will create entirely new divisions, trust me.
What is the war on education?
Briefly, our education system in the US is one of the least well performing systems amongst modern states. It is also the least well funded systems with conservatives trying to practically hand it over to private schools.
Then you have public funding issues too numerous to list that contribute to the low quality of education including student loan debt being debt you cannot bankrupt your way out of, or cutting off funds to channels like PBS...
Did most of the federal judiciary die or resign? Was the Constitution amended to remove supermajority to requirements for certain actions?
Of course that criticism is never consistent temporally, and always depends on which party is in which office and doing the criticism.
Either way, I'm not particularly excited about leaving things up to the courts.
If I don't want to buy a Musk-mobile because I don't agree with Musk on issues like racism[0] or don't like how he treats his employees[1], I am allowed to act on it. I am also allowed to share these thoughts with people on appropriate platforms, like I'm doing here.
I can understand the frustration coming from people digging up problematic tweets from 4 years ago, but this whole idea that "the internet forgets nothing" isn't new. I learned it in grade school. If you want to post racist/sexist/homophobic things on your public Twitter, so be it, but don't be surprised when someone finds it. There's also a delete button.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18119832/tesla-elon-musk...
[1] https://www.ibtimes.com/elon-musk-hot-water-after-tesla-empl...
So, what is going to be the kiss of death in 2050? Do you know in advance? How many of your contemporary comments are going to run afoul of the standard of 2050 and will you remember to delete them all, including from Internet archive/wayback sites, in 2049?
Remember, a senior manager at Boeing was forced to step down 33 years after he wrote an offending article. The article was published before WWW even existed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/business/boeing-resignati...
I just can't find any sort of argument being made here.
No one can predict the future but do you believe culture is static and that the cultural landscape of 2050 will the same as 2020?
Close to 30 years ago everyone was up in arms that Murphy Brown was a having a child out of wedlock and without a man! Shock! Horror!
This is something that, IMHO, the society should frown upon and discourage. Destroying people should be as hard as possible, that is why nation states built so many protections into law over centuries.
What I'm more referring to is situations like JK Rowling where she is openly posting hateful content publicly (people don't even have to dig for it!) and she's criticizing cancel culture as the reason people don't want to read her new book, which just looks like it'll be awful[1].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/15/entertainment/jk-rowling-trou...
So, “cancel culture” been a matter of fact, at least in the US, for quite some time now. It’s just given a scary name when those who have been “canceled” in the past are doing the “canceling”.
I don't have any particularly noteworthy political opinions; most people would probably put me in the "surprisingly ordinary" box if they had to categorize me. Despite that, I wouldn't dream of getting into something like a political discussion on Twitter. It's simply impossible to know whom the mob will go after next, or in 10 or 20 years.
I don't know how many others feel the same way, but I do know there are others out there. There is a non-zero chance that one of us has something really important to say, but won't, because we don't want to face a potential angry online mob in the future.
Social actions will always have social consequences; that's a necessary corollary to freedom of speech. What's different today is that social conservatives and especially the radical right are starting to experience those same social consequences. If people are going to use their freedom of speech and association to, say, support Nazis, then other people are free to use their freedoms of speech and association in response.
Effectively marginalizing the other side with their media platforms, and political agents in the form of rich Republicans, only to suddenly screech about the same happening to them?
Indeed, as a political party, Republicans have undermined both sides voters. I have yet to see factories growing out of the ground in Ohio after Trumps promises.
I’m unaligned politically, only voted for Obama in ‘08 for the racial symbolism (representation matters).
They show up in Portland, uninvited, pointing guns. They showed up in Kenosha uninvited shooting people.
Why not align with the side that otherwise has largely spray painted buildings and marched for representation?
Human biology will react in kind; refuse to compromise, put boots on necks figuratively speaking, do not be surprised and angry when that’s how you are treated in return.
There’s a parallel here to the story recently about securities fraud. Investors suing a company means the company burns cash that undermines investors.
Politicians undermining and not compromising with the other side is undermining the whole of their own country.
It's not my place to go around quoting the rules, but I was just hoping to calm the waters a little bit. We could all use a bit of "let's step back and talk this over rather than argue passionately for a position," I think. E.g. the article is about the implication of AI on society at large.
I've personally been frustrated by the recent political threads, not because I don't want to see those threads here, but because I desperately want the comments to say something _interesting_. Something thoughtful that I can't get elsewhere (from the news or Reddit). But about an hour after such articles show up they're so bloated only a single thread of comments is visible per page, making it too difficult to navigate and find any useful discussion that might be happening.
In other words, HN isn't our personal emotional outlet. It can be used for that _occasionally_, but since _everyone_ uses it for that under certain topics like politics, it's best to avoid doing so there.
Just like how Twitter isn't required to spew Trump's bullshit, HN isn't required to support forms of discourse it does not see as constructive or beneficial.
Does this sound controversial to you?
Obstruction wasn't invented with Obama. Obama himself participated in obstruction and filibusters as a member of the Senate during George Bush's presidency.
But I don't want to make this comment purely about criticizing someone.
There is a figure on Wikipedia [1] that shows that Filibusters have been rising starkly since the 70s – since politicians started realising how effective they could be under the new rules.
My conclusion of this is twofold: 1. The use of a filibuster is an extreme measure and shows how divisive US politics has gotten – hence the more numerous reach for drastic measures. 2. It is an inevitable devil's spiral with two parties that don't trust each other. Every use of a Filibuster by a Republican will give a Democrat a justification for one and vice versa (this is why Whataboutism should be avoided).
So please let's not make this about "But the Democrats started it" or "But the Republicans did more".
Instead, judge me on my hypothesis: "The increase in use of the filibuster is an indicator of polarization and shows that polarization has been on the rise since the 70s."
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_Sta...
He timed his rally to end at 1pm, when the tally started down the road. He then sent his followers to pressure "weak" Republicans within the Capitol building for the purposes of urging the overthrow of certified votes in favor of replacing them with unilateral votes for Trump.
They brought zip ties. They called for Pence's hanging.
Trump called Pence during the siege trying to pressure him, and the call had to be cut short because the insurgents were already inside the building.
This was a legislative and violent coup. Cry more about liberals in reaction to a literal coup attempt. Please, I want to hear more about how this is all antifa/BLM's fault some more. How the liberal agenda is a boot upon your neck while Trump's followers attempt violent and legislative coups against the citizens of this nation.
This was IRL shitposting.
The cops murdered a woman. A couple more people died of natural causes from the excitement during the event. A cop died from a pulmonary condition afterwords.
If you engage in this sort of rhetoric, you are fanning the flames. Please stop. It's not helping. You don't want things to get worse because I'm not sure you can conceive of how bad things can actually get.
Let's all just let off the gas and tap the brakes.
Also, it's much easier to get people's photos than fingerprints.
EDIT: Nevermind there is an active HN thread on just that
Hell, Apple's FaceID makes a mistake every million faces, and that system is both professional and has an order of magnitude more data to work with from the FaceID scanner. Clearview is just using blurry photographs.
Why is that a problem? Are there any investigative tools that are perfect or is there a reason why facial recognition should be held to a higher standard?
> It's no better than fnger printing which often leads to unjust arrests.
You need to be more specific. Why is it no better? Has facial recognition been demonstrated to lead to more unjust arrests than other investigative methods?
> There is no replacement for detective work and the government shouldn't be lazy to exclude it.
Who's saying that facial recognition is a replacement for detective work? It's just another investigative method, like looking up a license plate or asking people at the crime scene what they saw.
> The best it can do is narrow down suspects.
It can also help find suspects when you don't have any other leads. Why isn't that good enough?
Facial recognition has also time and time again proven to be racially biased[1][2].
Not to mention how easy it is to create a surveillance state with facial recognition[3].
[0] https://threatpost.com/lawsuit-claims-flawed-facial-recognit...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/19/tech/facial-recognition-study...
[2] http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discrimination...
[3] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/9/social-credi...
Yeah... I don't trust that.
Facial recognition is like watching footage from a bank robbery, and then recognizing the person in it, except a computer does the initial work and a human being verified it before making any moves. I’d be worried if high def cameras were on every corner but this footage was taken at the scene of a crime, by reporters and criminals alike. So what if a private group runs it through a filter?
But is facial recognition itself the problem here? It seems to me the problem is the human who makes a decision based on flawed evidence. This is likely to happen based on other investigative methods as well and not just facial recognition (e.g. "the old lady across the street was sure she saw you breaking into that house the other day").
> Facial recognition has also time and time again proven to be racially biased[1][2].
If we know about the bias, we can correct for it. First in training and decision making and then through improving the facial recognition models.
And again, I'm sure there's racial bias in other investigative methods as well.
> Not to mention how easy it is to create a surveillance state with facial recognition[3].
So long as you have the ability to install millions/billions of cameras throughout the state and put them under centralized control. If that's legal in the US, the problem is that the law allows it, not facial recognition. In most European countries, such a thing would be incredibly illegal.
I don't think it is the case. Facial recognition can drastically speed up the process of nailing down suspects, accompanying with other information sources.
I don't really see facial recognition as the sole reason to be worried here. Information collection and sharing is already ubiquitous, that is what leads to all these.
The problem only happens if law enforcement believes that the matches are somehow infallible and refuse to look for or believe in other evidence that would rule out a suspect.
>258 points 12 days ago 174 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25562321
...
> I got my file from Clearview AI (onezero.medium.com)
> 811 points 9 months ago 224 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681207
or https://archive.is/hRfLr
What happened was a shame, but I truly hope this doesn’t evolve and make it worse than what it is already.
I think the horse has left that particular barn.
Although, of course, the barrel of badguy-stupidity is bottomless, so I suppose they'll keep catching the dumber and dumber ones pretty much forever...
If anything, far FEWER mistakes will be made. Not more.
It's this weird thing where people hear about this one scary story of a guy misidentified and think "OMG facial recognition is terrible!" but they don't realize that happens to XYZ number people a day via human error.
But we're all MORE comfortable with it if it's good old fashioned...human error?
Narrows the number of haystacks to search for needle => Reduced resources required for successful search => More crimes prosecuted.
Problem occurs when:
* Users of FRT assume all in haystack are needles
* Crimes on book must not be universally prosecuted
The first part can't be helped. US Police, like most US government jobs, is a rest-and-take-it-easy job. In aggregate, unexceptional people doing an unexceptional job. The second part is because people want other people prosecuted but not themselves.
I'm in second category myself. For instance, I am quite capable of using all sorts of drugs and maintaining a productive life. Other people are not. So it's important to prosecute other people and not to prosecute me.
Therefore, for these two reasons, I don't want FRT to be used universally. I want to preserve inequitable outcomes in policing because society is stronger with inequitable outcomes - permits good life for high percentile individuals and constrains operations for low percentile individuals. Demarcating crime from uncrime is Sorites paradox.
Thanks for being clear about your perspective. Do you think there's potential for abuse with different rulesets for different people?
> Demarcating crime from uncrime is Sorites paradox.
I disagree. The measure of a crime is subjective and objective. Subjectively, the victim notices they have been wronged. Objectively, there is a claim by a plaintiff against a defendant. A claim either exists or it does not, there is no sorites.
Oh, most certainly. The same structure allows for racial discrimination, which I do not believe is a sensible angle of discrimination: i.e. I think Ben Carson should not be discriminated against for being black. Too high value as a top surgeon.
On the whole I accept it, though, because I don't want Elon Musk prosecuted by the SEC and the instrument that permits both is blunt.
> The measure of a crime is subjective and objective. Subjectively, the victim notices they have been wronged. Objectively, there is a claim by a plaintiff against a defendant. A claim either exists or it does not, there is no sorites.
Indeed. When there is a threshold. However, the costs imposed on society by drug users are dispersed. You can't Categorical Imperative them because some people are not capable enough to handle the responsibility.
Other times the crime is exposure to increased risk: no actual harm may occur. For instance, if you do burnouts on city roads there is little concrete harm, only increased exposure to risk.
It's the same with many things: public drunkenness, drink driving, jaywalking. And society reacts to these by permitting these activities in practice for high-value individuals while proselytizing against them at the same time.
I don't drink-drive but I happily do the other two.
Unfortunately I'm not convinced that anyone is capable of handling the responsibility of determining who is / is not capable of having responsibility. There's just too much potential for abuse.
Thanks for the reply.
I'd like to rob a bank.
I want enough bank robberies to succeed that the fictional movies and books which are an import part of my life to still be plausible.
In general I don't want just anyone to be able to rob a bank.
If it helps, I am familiar with the Veil of Ignorance, the Categorical Imperative, and every other basic tool of ethics you can think of.
Is it regional based on where many such supporters live? I certainly don't see any ideological link to untrimmed beards, so it must be some other co-occuring factor.
Okay they get arrested, maybe charged with a crime. Others will get doxxed and most will lose their jobs. They'll become social outcasts.
Do you really want a bunch of very angry people to effectively be pushed into a corner, demonized by society and so on?
This will end up having very big unintended consequences.
My understanding was that there was 100k+ people in attendance at this rally and thousands of people were in the capitol building itself.
At the next Trump rally of 100k everyone will know not to break the law. It is pretty simple.
When you say it's pretty simple, others are calling for everyone on the Capitol grounds to be arrested. Technically they were breaking the law by trespassing.
Sarcasm aside, we are moving quickly to a straight up authoritarian apparatus of state sanctioned discourse enforced by a handful of corporations. This will be used against _anything_ that challenges those in power or goes against the approved narrative. For those cheering this on, realize this will applied to you in one form or another with no recourse. Here are a few scenarios off the top of my head: being a pacifist or home schooling advocate, posting on social media something tacky like "Prominent figure X is a fat idiot", or personal medical decisions having a direct impact on your ability to: travel, access jobs, housing and financial systems.
Yeah there are crazies that will be fine with that, but what they can do without the support of “normalish” people is limited.
The alternative is to allow the escalation to continue.
I'm diametrically opposed to Trump and his supporters on a lot of issues, but I recognize that a functional society needs to accept their right to protest as well. They should be able to have their marches just like we have ours.
However, the stated goals and actions of many of those in last week's march and rioting are explicitly violent and seditious. Many of the protestors were heavily armed. They killed a policeman.
I understand what you're saying: by pushing individuals into a corner, we may make them more desperate and feed into the overall "persecution" complex that motivates their movement as a whole. I think that's true.On the other side of things, if we do nothing we legitimize their extremist views? Those extremist views become the new normal, or at least most the goalposts for the range of views considered normal.
Admittedly, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation."
But this isn't about denying their views or their right to protest. It's about targeting specific criminal actions that we don't want my side, their side, or any side to do.
I have to admit my gut feeling on governments using facial recognition at scale to round up its citizens feels like something you'd find under an authoritarian regime, reminds me of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643433
I think it's important to try to frame an opinion on tech like this from a well-informed viewpoint, striving to lend appropriate weight to the latest incidents while avoiding the temptation for tunnel vision to fixate on immediate goals to the exclusion of broader, long-term consequences.
I agree acts that crossed too far past the line of civil disobedience ought to be held to account.
I just hope our collective response doesn't erode the willingness of people of good conscience to take a stand when they see their institutions behave in a legitimately unsanctionable manner.
I think the bottom line is how the tech is employed.
Are we tracking ordinary citizens en masse, for some potential future use? Are we tracking folks just because they're dissenting/protesting? We would probably all agree those uses are bad. Very bad.
I'm not terribly worried about using them to identify specific criminal targets. Put another way, how absurd would it be for us to have perfectly clear video of people committing specific criminal acts, and not use the available technology to identify them?
On a related note, the (lack of) opsec displayed by the Capitol rioters is... really something. These people were happily mugging for the cameras, sans masks. I'm not sure if it was stupidity or entitlement. The easy and snarky answer would be "stupidity" but there were clearly intelligent folk among them or at least people that should know to cover their tracks better: lawyers, military and police officers.
I think there was a rather stunning sense of entitlement there: a lot of these folks honestly cannot believe they're being charged with crimes. As if they expected to be greeted as liberators!
God help us if and when they sharpen up their tactics. The sickening feeling in my stomach tells me that this was a hell of a practice run.
No, it's not.
> Imagine the stasi had it?
Yes, the problem there is the Stasi, not the technology. There is literally no technology that the Stasi having would be a good thing, including pen and paper. Or things so basic we don't tend to think of them as “technology”, like, say, language.
Not sure I agree with that analogy... pen and paper doesn't scale!
Having the ability to do something at global scale, like facial recognition or real-time tracking and saying "Honest! We won't use it for dodgy things" is not sufficient...
It'd be naieve to say I'd rather it didn't exist, however that cat is out of the bag now so there _must_ be incredibly robust and tamper-proof checks and balances round its use and the penalties for subverting that should be incredibly severe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blokhin#Role_in_the_Kat...
Most of what the Stasi used didn't scale. They used it anyway.
This technology is here, being used openly today. If has a chilling effect, where is it?
- fake ballots were printed in China and made their way into US elections. Shredded ballots with invoices in Chinese were found in one of the contested states. The CCP could track where they were printed if they wanted to.
- The wife of McConnell, Elaine Chao, is CCP, and was a US official until recently. She financed his campaigns.
China Observer Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgX9pJ_72EE
I think prohibiting recognition and tracking for commercial reason without explicit consent, plus allowing recognition and tracking only when acting on a court order would be a good start.