Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Microsoft Security United States

Microsoft President Calls Washington State's New Facial Recognition Law 'a Significant Breakthrough' (geekwire.com) 48

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Microsoft President Brad Smith took a break from responding to the COVID-19 outbreak this week to praise Washington state's landmark facial recognition regulations. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill Tuesday that establishes rules specifically governing facial recognition software. From a report: Smith called the law an "early and important model" and "a significant breakthrough" in a blog post published Tuesday. Some cities have enacted their own facial recognition rules, but Washington is the first to establish statewide regulations. "This balanced approach ensures that facial recognition can be used as a tool to protect the public, but only in ways that respect fundamental rights and serve the public interest," Smith said. The new law requires public agencies to regularly report on their use of facial recognition technology and test the software for fairness and accuracy. Law enforcement agencies must obtain a warrant before using facial recognition software in investigations unless there is an emergency. The bill also establishes a task force to study the use of facial recognition by government agencies. Under the bill, public entities using facial recognition software to make decisions that produce "legal effects" must ensure a human reviews the results. That category includes decisions that could affect a person's job, financial services, housing, insurance, and education.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft President Calls Washington State's New Facial Recognition Law 'a Significant Breakthrough' More

Microsoft President Calls Washington State's New Facial Recognition Law 'a Significant Breakthrough'

Comments Filter:

  • ...is in itself a qualitative difference.

    Like, a virus, for example.

  • The more surveillance, the less freedom of speech.

    • The more surveillance, the less freedom of speech.

      ~ Humbubba

      Distinguish surveillance from its mechanisms of scrutiny. I linked msmash's keen eye to Fark under its Geek tab: Through a lens false-positively

      London and NY led the world in cameras-trained-on-the-public-greater-good density, Beijing followed closely behind. Autonomous algorithms are trusted to regulate traffic despite untold fines gamed by contractors tweaking their parameters. Sometimes those tweaks were informed by pre-emptive notions of others by simple greed.

      But I believe the editorial choice here

      • ...I linked msmash's keen eye to Fark under its Geek tab: Through a lens false-positively

        OMG! Never heard of Fark before! Apparently, they never heard of your post either. Talk about seeing through something.

        Autonomous algorithms are trusted to regulate traffic despite untold fines gamed by contractors tweaking their parameters...

        We all live in a Predator State that hires from it's own kind. What the state can't do legally is still done. Surveillance state, surveillance capitalism - the difference is political power bows down to economic power.
        I'm a Yuval Noah Harari fan, a genius who points out surveillance and scientific analysis of big data can know us better than we know ourselves, and can be used either for

        • OMG! Never heard of Fark before! Apparently, they never heard of your post either. Talk about seeing through something.

          ~Humbubba

          I'm sorry, was your first-y post thirsty? I did, however, misSPRACHEN: I submitted the link, but thanks for visiting Fark! I don't submit many links, but when I do they menace Curtis' subscribers' bull sessions of curating Fark's brand of sanctioned sexism using contronyms to ironically deny its safe spaces for Sam Keen's Bellies on Fire, or something like that...believing Van Morrizon can get them laid and quoting Nietzsche.

          Whatever must not happen to link to Wonkette and any links to Jezebel's groused a

          • buravirgil, you're posts are the pinnacle of snarkiness, a genuine art form, one of the things I come to /. for.

            "(If you stare into the abyss, the abyss) stares back at you"

            gross

            The Nietzschean reference, purposely taken out of place, was a warning: If you keep reading the monstrous bullshit I post, you're in danger of your writing becoming just as bad.

        • As an ex farmer I have to point out the phrase is "separate the wheat from the chaff." You don't want wheat anywhere near your shaft unless you have a scratching fetish.

  • Assumes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @05:45PM (#59898792)

    >"This balanced approach ensures that facial recognition can be used as a tool to protect the public, but only in ways that respect fundamental rights and serve the public interest,"

    Which assumes you TRUST the government (Fed, State, Local) and businesses to actually FOLLOW all the laws. Many of us are not that naive. If data is collected, it will be stored, analyzed, and shared. You can tell me "but they can't do XXX with it" and I will just say "maybe, and what about tomorrow or next month or next year?"

    • You can't do any form of facial unlock without it.
    • If you assume they aren't going to follow the law anyway then what does it matter what laws they propose?

      • >"If you assume they aren't going to follow the law anyway then what does it matter what laws they propose?"

        If the law were to have no cameras- that is easily verified and then there is nothing to abuse. Not the most practical example, but the point is valid. Saying they can do A, B, C, D, E, F, G but not H, and I is more likely abused than saying they can do A and B, but not C, D, E, F, G, H, and I.

        Another approach is to assume that surveillance laws will not be followed, so build in checks and balanc

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      We aren't supposed to trust, there is supposed to be oversight and stiff penalties (jail time) for abuse.

  • It's time to start wearing masks (Score:3)

    by qwerty shrdlu ( 799408 ) on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @06:05PM (#59898858)
    At least this year people will think you're being cautious- maybe even courteous.

  • It is a breakthrough for a Microsoft spokesperson because it appears to be doing something, while, like every single regulation that gets passed about the use of facial recognition tech, it is limited to the public sector? I am at least as worried about companies like Microsoft, Google and Facebook using this technology than I am about governments using it...

    • I was immediately suspicious of this bill since it was praised by Microsoft. I think that's the appropriate reaction. I'll have to read more about it when I have the time. For now, like any responsible /. poster, I'm just going off the summary (which only added to my suspicions).

    • I am at least as worried about companies like Microsoft, Google and Facebook using this technology than I am about governments using it...

      This is Washington State. A deep-red State masquerading as a Blue State. The most regressively-taxed, working-class-hating state this side of Rosie O’Donnel’s armed-guard-having-cause-she’s-Important-and-you’re-not ass crack.

      Unless you are a card-carrying member of the ruling class, the State of Washington cares about few things less than what yo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      What did they did, the cheered legislation that controlled the ability to monitor corporate executives, whilst allowing those corporate executives free reign to use facial recognition on us. I would prefer the other way around, start locking up those corrupt fucking corporate executives. M$ can literally take over your camera when hooked to a windows anal probe 10 machine.

  • "Law enforcement agencies must obtain a warrant before using facial recognition software in investigations unless there is an emergency"

    • What? You act like they’re going to call everything an emergency to trample on people’s civil rights at will. Sir, that does NOT sound like the America that I know, and I’ll thank you to stop being a commun ... okay that totally sounds like the America that I know,

  • They probably wrote it (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @06:45PM (#59899032)
    or one of their think tanks did. [usatoday.com] Either way I doubt it bodes well for you and me.

  • Because when they follow them they are protected from legal backlash.

    When the government set guidelines for Facial Recognition use... it becomes a blanket authorization to use facial recognition tech everywhere.

    You cannot sue us... we are following regulations to the letter!!!

    • Uh oh, you mean you actually understand what’s going on?

      Uhhh errrrrrrrrrrrrtrrolllllll. Troll! He’s a troll! Hey everyone, I found the troll! He’s not one of us! He’s one of THEM! Hey Trolly McTrollster. I loved your rap song, Sir Trolls-s-lot!

      I bet you even denigrate people’s appearance and age like your hero the fat orange old fat orange guy!

      Troll!

      Downvote! Downvote! His words shatter my self-delusion! Rape! Rape! Downvote this rapist!

      Raaaaaape!

      I hate you.

      Rapist.

  • Article summarized:

    Microsoft Oberbefehlsleiter Brad Smith commends cowardly government of Washington State for accepting suitcases full of cash, adopting pro-Nazi badlaws.

    • I am from Washingon and your stating if the truth makes me feel badly instead of goodly as I am entitled to feel and therefore the only tolerant thing to do is downvote you as a troll.

      Tolerantly, of course.

      Because I’m still tolerant, just not of you or anyone that disagrees with me.

      For everyone else I am wholly and completely tolerant.

      Cause that’s what tolerance means.

      In Washingon at least.

      Please downvote this troll before cognitive dissonance sets on. Do you hear me fellow tolerants? Downvote

  • I don’t know about you, but I sure feel better. Heck, it’s easier to get a warrant than it is to get the clap in a Thai whorehouse. (don’t ask me how I know)

    Cop: “see your honor, we want to search this guy’s property cause our anonymous informant said that his brother told him that he looks looks like a guy that sold drugs to the brother’s girlfriend’s niece”

    Judge: “we’ll with evidence like that, I’m going to go ahead and give you carte bla

  • To ask explanations and how this law was written. here is the phone number 360-902-4111

  • Might be helpful to note the differences between anonymity and privacy. The two terms are similar, but not necessarily identical.

    In most democratic systems, the concept of personal privacy is extended to residences and privileged communications between individuals or small groups, but, does not necessarily apply when an individual is anonymous in public. We have a very large degree of personal anonymity in public, once we are outside our area of personal recognition. The larger the collective, the greater t

Slashdot Top Deals

Disks travel in packs.

Close