“ethical” doesn’t belong in that sentence.
Hypothetically, a just system using this technology would be capable of a lot of good!
The system is unjust, so any good use is vastly outweighed by the horror and evil it will be used for - like how they use this to track uppity Palestinians and arrest/kill them.
Horrible and the start of real dystopia.
I’m glad im almost 50 now because this place is gonna suck so much soon.
That I don’t mind using some kind of mask in public. Just to mess with their systems.
It is illegal in some countries to fully cover your face in public. If it became a way to bypass surveillance, it could be made into law if it wasn’t already :(
Edit: for those wondering, Switzerland is one of them. Though they don’t have a large number of public cameras (yet?).
Yeah, awful. In my country, it is legal (or rather not illegal) in some places.
Generally bad
Is it opt-in or opt-out by default? I think I would be against it. But then again I am not a rule breaker so it is hard to imagine.
Given the choice, it would be a hard no for me. It isn’t 100% perfect yet, mistaken identities and discrimination are good reasons to not bother with it. Beyond that, if insurance companies had access to it, it would be a disaster.
It’s Friday night, you go out for a just a drink or perhaps the camera catches you smoking. Now your life insurance policy is messed up.
Obviously, that is an exaggeration the likes of which only happen in Black Mirror. Power and greed have never pushed anyone to any single unethical thing ever.
Facial recognition doesn’t work and is racist. Like, it actually is extremely ineffective against dark-skinned people.
That’s not what racist means…
I imaging if I had some AR glasses and could have them recognize faces from my personal photo collection it could be quite useful in a business context to have it remind me of names and other important information.
It could also be used as a tool for service workers to recognize people involved in decision making that is hostile to worker rights and refuse any service to them as a kind of low profile strike/protest.
Its kind of wild to imagine a future where you no longer need to remember faces or names. The headset will do everything for you.
In that future world it will be a little wild when someone’s headset dies as the will just stumble around aimlessly will no purpose
The boat sailed many years ago.
Irrelevant what I think because gait recognition is superior.
I am in the boat that it could be a great thing, but it’s the systems around that just currently don’t have the level of trust to really leverage it.
If local AI used with systems with absolutely minimal storage and good p2p levels of permission were used and laws to minimize abuse by the state and corporations were in place it would different.
By example the opposite of what Ring represents would be good to me.
You can’t legally control weather or not someone recognizes you on the street. There is no right to privacy in public spaces. It’s the principal that protects people filming the police. Any important public events really.
I don’t see why not. There is a difference between an off chance of someone noticing you vs. camera’s with high accuracy recognising your face and being able to track your locations, what places you visited and who with for every minute of every day.
what places you visited and who with for every minute of every day
Well now that’s a different proposition.
Now you aren’t simply in a public place being photographed and identified by AI. Now you’re actively being monitored and tracked. That’s more like a person stalking you. That may be unethical, depending on who’s tracking you and why? Basically unless it’s law enforcement of some kind, with a specific warrant to track your location, it wouldn’t be ethical.
The thing is, most western governments are pushing towards facial recognition and monitoring without the need for a warrant. Most countries are already stacked up to the eyeballs with CCTV (UK for example, and hooking that in with facial recognition is dangerous). First they start off with it being for terrorists, then paedophiles, then other criminals, but ultimately, it’s monitoring everyone to track down a few. When you have that infra in place, and you don’t have sufficient oversight, you can soon tweak that towards activist groups, then opposition groups etc.
You have to challenge it before the infrastructure goes in, because after it’s in, it’s already too late.
While that is all true, it’s effectively saying nothing more than, “The misuse of a technology is unethical.” Which I think we can all agree on. So many people are pointing out obvious examples of abuse as arguments against the tech itself.
The original question was only about the technology itself. Which is only an interesting etical question if we assume, using it appropriately.
