We’re only a step away from becoming like China, with surveillance cameras absolutely everywhere, mobile phone tracking everywhere and all movements tracked. It’s all backed up by AI.
It’s bad enough that Google and Facebook track everything we do. FYI - use Duckduckgo. There’s no tracking, but it won’t get you such “tailored” results. As for facebook…if you’d like to know how they operate, read “An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook’s Battle for Domination”.
There’s one level of more or less legitimate clinical greed of these companies wanting to study how legitimate customers peruse the store offerings before selecting any goods for purchase, so they can encourage additional impulse buying…as parasitic as that is, they don’t need personal identifers to do that, so the data is accumulated for pattern, rather than tailored. It is much more sinister to accumulate longitudinal customer habits, and add personal identifications - especially facial recognition. Then, there’s the next level risk - data breach on their accumulated histories.
Legislative protections are years behind the technologies. With the advent of the modern internet, and the blind gifting of deep psychological profile data to rapacious corporations that hoover this up to sell advertising for profit, these corporations know many people better than they know themselves. It’s dangerous.
Some people say “if I’ve got nothing to hide, I’ve got nothing to fear”. Does that apply to scammers?..How about if the criminal organisation behind the scammers buys your profile data from a professional hacker that breached a series of these corporations? Now the scammers know more about you than you know yourself…Oh dear.
Always be careful what data you give up. It never gets deleted, only accumulated. The total amount of information that was stored in all forms from the dawn of history up to and including about 10 years ago, is less than the amount of new data collected in one year today.
…if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear…
This phrase is often used to stop concerns about invasion of privacy.
Edward Snowden, the ex computer intelligence consultant who leaked classified information from the N.S.A. said: “Giving up your right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying that you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.”
We already give away our rights to privacy under some circumstances and I haven’t yet seen anybody suggest we ought to change that to always or never. How much privacy we give up and when is just one of the compromises we make in deciding on the balance of rights of the individual, there are plenty more, including freedom of speech. Comparing privacy and freedom of speech as if both are invariable absolutes just confuses things because neither are. Both involve some compromises that may alter with circumstances.
We are at risk of losing levels of privacy without really noticing because of changes in technology and we don’t have a government that is agile enough to consider tech changes in relation to privacy in any reasonable time-frame. FR is just one of the techs that place us at risk in this way.
The problem isn’t that bad decisions have been made or are being made in this area, it that it isn’t being examined properly at all.
I didn’t suggest we were giving up privacy willingly in respect of FR or other changes brought on by tech advances. The snippet you quoted was in the broader context of the compromises individuals have to make to live in a society which happens regardless of how or if the latest tech is being used.
If you want to make the point that we are not willing participants in this FR trial that’s fine and I agree. However, moving a quote from another context so you can negate it in the new one doesn’t help understanding.
Yes, I understood that. I still want to emphasise that privacy is taken away, not given up (unless a person genuinely does give informed, willing, voluntary consent).
As an example in the broader context … the NSW Workplace Surveillance Act says that employers can do almost unlimited surveillance of the employee in the workplace providing that the employer informs the employee. No consent required. So what are the choices? Not work or be surveilled. That’s not consent or choice - so privacy is taken away.
I understand that you are talking about an even broader context (living in society) but what are the choices? Find an uninhabited island to live on that is not part of any country or be surveilled. That’s not consent or choice - so privacy is taken away.
So, yes, having privacy taken away is one of the compromises an individual has to make in order to live in a society - at least in a society that has become addicted to surveillance.
Sorry, but Google Earth and a bunch of other satellite users will still map out your now inhabited island.
A cave would in theory be better, but take plenty of vitamin D supplements and I have no idea exactly what you’ll be eating.
Actually, go for a tropical island. You may manage to hide from the satellites amid the foliage, while still having plenty of grub and shelter. Infra-red satellite imagery will still pick you up, of course.
It is required in all societies. Tell me one where the individual does not give up some personal rights (including privacy) to the collective. The difference now is not that governments or companies suddenly have the desire to watch us more it is that new means become available quicker than we can deal with them.
We don’t have it written explicitly into the constitution but the high court seems to think it is there if only by inference.
The other consideration is that we have the choice to elect leaders who will respect our privacy and write it into law and so we create or claim the right without historical authority.
‘Privacy’ might be hard to define, but it’s mostly understood to be the right to live our private life undisturbed from intrusion.
We’ve already lost much of the control over how our personal information is gathered and used, but are there still many other rights, for example: Freedom of association, Freedom of thought and expression) that could be lost as a result of loss of privacy?
By me, yes. Also by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12).
You could of course start with the fully opposite assumption that you have absolutely zero privacy (24x7 audiovisual surveillance in every room of your house with feed direct to government, all correspondence intercepted and vetted by government before delivery to you, …) and work from there i.e. government then grants what limited privacy rights it thinks appropriate.
Clearly the Australian government is weak on privacy e.g. by comparison with typical EU states. In Oz privacy has to be fought for, centimetre by centimetre, and the government seems to have a default setting of either malice or negligence.
Yesterday we launched a new push for a way we can regulate facial recognition in Australia to ensure the safety and privacy of Australians. You can read more below, and if you agree, make sure to click through and show your support by signing the petition:
Important to note that this push is at a Federal level, vaguely relying on human rights considerations, and specifically relying on the Commonwealth’s “corporations power”.
This has the advantage of a large measure of consistency across state boundaries (will keep companies that operate in multiple states happy, to the extent that we can ignore their unhappiness at being told that they can’t use FR ) but could therefore fail to cover anything that is not a “corporation” and specifically requires band-aids to cover government entities (the government might “forget” to regulate itself in this area).
The alternative approach would be to look at it as a workplace issue and treat the new legislation as an extension of the existing (state by state) restrictions on workplace surveillance. That would definitely require cooperation between the states in order to ensure consistency.
Either way, anything that limits the use of FR by government or corporations or employers or … is better than having a complete free-for-all.
I would like to disagree with the petition to ban Facial Recognition technology being used in retail settings. I am sure the main reason it is being used or contemplated is because there are unscrupulous people who are stealing large amounts of goods from retail stores. If this helps prevent this from happening, I have no objection. I would not like to be a retail shop owner and watch my profits walking out the door. This practice will also make purchases of these goods more expensive for honest customers, because the retail owner has to raise prices to cover theft losses.
Yes that is the main reason, we all understand that. But the two main concerns raised are:
If that is the ‘main’ reason, what are the ‘other’ reasons. Currently there is nothing stopping these companies finding other uses for your biometrics
All stored data is a risk (thanks for the demonstration, Optus). If retail stores start collecting our biometric identifiers and recording when we come and go, it is simply a matter of time as to when that information is breached. When stores like Bunnings and Kmart can easily afford to have security stationed at the door 24/7, why should we accept our biometrics being put on a silver platter for criminals?
this was all that the system could be used for and
the organisations using were transparent about the use of the tech and about their data storage and
the organisations had explained all this and got the people on side about it, rather than quietly introduce it and put up a few signs,
then I might agree if it was shown to be benign. But none of those conditions are true.
One of the possibilities that I don’t recall getting much attention is that facial images could be worked into the burning desire of vendors to have as much data about our buying habits and demographics as possible. This involves combining identifiers such as name, street address, IP address, loyalty cards etc. and linking them together with what you have bought or searched for. A face is one more identifier.
People do post images of themselves, on social media, job networking sites etc with names. Thus it becomes possible to hook all this together and then identify you by your face and know your name as you enter their store or anywhere else. Then the company has access to your and all of your history that they have accumulated or bought. Alternately, if a camera captures your image at the checkout it can be linked to the card that you use … you get the drift.
As it stands, all this leads to untrustworthy people knowing too much of my personal business. When you consider the motives for collecting FR data and the weakness of the protection of the data, they would know far, far too much.
It isn’t paranoia when “they” are actually out to get you, or details of your personal life. In 1984 it was Big Brother, forty years later it could be Big Data watching us all if facial recognition becomes ubiquitous and not controlled.
I undrstand your point of view on privacy and I can see Choice Online has taken a very strong stand.
However, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree on facial recognition.
Privacy is one thing, but if you want privacy in public, well, other people have rights too, like to not to be robbed (stores for instance). Some people also can see benefits in technology like Facial Recognition tools.
Facial recognition is ubiquitous and havin a few minor responses to rampant activism has made a few people who have been attacked, back down.
Facial Recognition technology is a disruptive technology and I can understand why some people are confronted by it and possibly even scared of it, but it has benefits for identity theft prevention as well as other benefits.
In my opinion, i’s a losing battle to fight it, better to work out how to live with it if it concerns you, rather than just blockading everything you don’t like and threatening people who want to move forward and adopt new technologies.
If you become a negative force in consumerism, it will prevent good access and relations with business and producers. Work with them and understand the technology and forces at work.
It isn’t an all-or-nothing thing. It is fine for Choice to advocate for a regulatory regime that sets the boundaries of what companies can and can’t do. That doesn’t mean that Choice is necessarily advocating for a total permanent ban on all facial recognition.
Just wondering whether you have an interest to disclose …
