Comment by thw_9a83c

Comment by thw_9a83c 7 hours ago

14 replies

View on Hacker News

> The band deployed live facial recognition technology that captured and analyzed attendees during their recent performance.

I think more drama has been created around this than is necessary. Based on the video, the real-time projected visitor's faces were not analyzed. They were simply shown with a random description flag attached, such as "energetic," "compassionate," "inspiring," "fitness influencer," or "cloud watcher." It seems to be an artistic provocation showing what a real people analysis could look like.

jkestner 6 hours ago

The fact that people were uncomfortable with simply having their pictures taken and shown without their knowledge gives lie to the idea that "You're in a public place—of course you have no right to privacy." It's great to be given the chance to face your principles.

Reply View 9 replies
  • insickness 5 hours ago

    Public photography is not a crime, nor should it be. However, that doesn't mean your likeness can be used for just any purpose.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • jolmg 4 hours ago

      > Public photography is not a crime, nor should it be.

      IDK about shouldn't. Public photography not being a crime comes from a time where one could still be generally expected to remain anonymous despite being photographed. Just like how you can be seen by strangers in the street while walking and still remain anonymous. Yet stalking is a crime, and facial recognition seems to be the digital equivalent. Facial recognition is something that can be done at any point by someone with your picture in their hand.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • acdha an hour ago

        Yes. There’s also something about the sheer volume of recorded media & ease of distribution which feels like we crossed a qualitatively different threshold. The laws around photography were set in an era when it cost money to take a photograph, the cameras were easier to notice and slower, and when someone took a photo it was highly unlikely that they’d share it widely. Now it’s basically impossible to avoid cameras, people take far more pictures than they used to, and anyone’s photos can reach large audiences and often easily linked back to you. There was nothing like the way random people could see someone having a bad day, post it, and half an hour later a million strangers have seen it - a newspaper or TV station could do that, but their staffers usually ignored things which didn’t have a legitimate news interest.

        This feels kind of like the way you could avoid having extensive traffic laws & control systems in 1905 when only a few people had cars.

        Reply View 0 replies
  • bongodongobob 3 hours ago

    Well, in the US, in a "right to work state", an employer could say "We don't support the views of this band. We saw that you were there and are going to let you go."

    Or

    "Data shows you hang out in low income areas, we don't think that aligns with our companies goals."

    So the "face your principals" is completely fucking arbitrary. That's the fear.

    Reply View 4 replies
    • albedoa 2 hours ago

      What on earth are you talking about. An employer can do that in any state, not just the "right to work" ones.

      Reply View 3 replies
      • bongodongobob 2 hours ago

        You're right, I'm confusing it with at-will.

        Great, everyone here thinks you should be able to fired for shit that has nothing to do with your job.

        Go fascism.

        Reply View 2 replies
stevage 6 hours ago

Oh so it isn't even recognition, in that it doesn't identify the people. Just face detection.

Reply View 0 replies
embedded_hiker 5 hours ago

Saturday Night Live used to do this with their studio audience in the 1970s.The captions were silly but could have been considered insulting sometimes.

Reply View 0 replies
bongodongobob 5 hours ago

Drama? They were making a point. And it seems like it was taken. "If this outrages you, this isn't even the tip of the iceberg compared to what governments are doing."

Reply View 0 replies
autoexec 6 hours ago

> It seems to be an artistic provocation showing what a real people analysis could look like.

I that case they should have used descriptions like "gay", "muslim", "poor", "bipolar", "twice divorced", "low quality hire", "easy to scam", "both parents dead", "rude to staff", "convicted felon", "not sexually active", "takes Metformin", "spends > $60 on alcohol a month", "dishonest", etc.

None of the people who actually take advantage of you or manipulate you using surveillance capitalism cares if you're a "cloud watcher" or "inspiring"

Reply View 0 replies