Comment by mlyle

Comment by mlyle 3 days ago

Detecting a face is not the same as recognizing a face in either engineering parlance or typical usage.

If I don't determine this is a face that I've seen before, I've not recognized the face (maybe I have recognized that there is a face there).

To recognize entails re-cognizing: knowing again what was previously known. Simply noticing that something is a face does not satisfy that; it is only detecting. Without linking it to prior knowledge, recognition hasn’t occurred.

conductr 3 days ago

Is this coming from legal definitions?

Because, one of the valid dictionary definitions of "recognition" is simply acknowledging something exists. No prior knowledge needed for that, other than the generic training the facial detection software has undergone.

Reply View 10 replies

margalabargala 3 days ago

The total options for dictionary terms for "recognition" does not mean that you can select any among them, decide that that's what "facial recognition" means, and expect anyone else to understand you.
"Facial recognition" refers to seeing a face and knowing whose face it is. It's the difference between "that's a face" and "that's my friend Jeff".
That some constituent word has some other definition is not relevant. What you're doing is equivalent to reading "my nose is running" and thinking "egads! This person's nose has sprouted legs and taken off down the track!"

Reply View | 4 replies
- conductr 3 days ago
  
  Sure it does. I can use words any way I want. But there are agreed upon legal definitions and there are agreed upon industry terms/definition; you are talking about one of them (which sounds like industry not legal). If there's no legal definition, that means it's not defined and the court could interpret it any way they choose.
  Edit: it seems the law defined the term "facial recognition" so that was the only answer I was seeking
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  margalabargala 3 days ago
  
  > Sure it does. I can use words any way I want.
  You can do that, but I hedged my statement with:
  > and expect anyone else to understand you
  under which constraint, you're incorrect.
  There's a relevant quote from Lewis Carroll's Through The Looking Glass:
  > "When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
mlyle 3 days ago

Words have a definition and a connotation, and meaning is inferred from context cues. What a word means is based on its prevailing word in this context.
No one reasonably uses "facial recognition" or "I recognized a face" to mean "I detected that there was, indeed, a face there."
In this case, the statute doesn't even say "facial recognition". It discusses storing a "scan of face geometry" such that it identifies an individual, and clarifies that an ordinary photograph doesn't count.

Reply View | 1 reply
- conductr 3 days ago
  
  Ok if the law defines the term, that answers my question. I wasn't sure what level of grey area connotation was being discussed.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
mannykannot 3 days ago

This is not how dictionaries work. When multiple definitions are given, it does not follow - and in many cases, it is not even possible - that they are all applicable in any context.
Ignoring context leads to things like "English as She is Spoke" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke
Decent dictionaries give some guidance as to the contexts in which each each definition is applicable, but for thoroughness you probably cannot beat the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary.
The relevant definition here is neither legal nor technical, but from common usage, where recognizing a face, if not qualified, is taken to mean recognizing an individual by their face, not recognizing that you are seeing a face.

Reply View | 2 replies
- conductr 3 days ago
  
  The courts may disagree. That's why I'm curious if the comment was from a legal context. If we had prior case law of them distinguishing one definition in favor of another, I'd feel more certain about all the assertations being made. If there are no cases, then the courts could interpret however they want in conflict of your entire comment.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  mannykannot 2 hours ago
  
  > ...the courts could interpret however they want in conflict of your entire comment.
  Courts sometimes adopt tendentious, cotroversial or disputed definitions in their rulings, and law-makers sometimes (and more frequently) do so when writing the law, but that in no way invalidates what I have written, which is about how to use a dictionary.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

m463 3 days ago

but just think about other things.

Like the google 'incognito' mode that wasn't private browsing, and google was found guilty.

engineers might say "of course it's not private" but the court opinion differed.

common sense to a normal person might not match engineer thinking.

Reply View 0 replies