Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Education United States Technology

New York Halts Use of Facial Recognition in Schools (ny.gov) 51

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed a bill Tuesday suspending the use of facial recognition and other kinds of biometric technology in schools in New York, also directing a study of whether its use is appropriate in schools. The legislation places a moratorium on schools purchasing and using biometric identifying technology until at least July 1, 2022 or until the report is completed and the state Education Department commissioner authorizes its use. The rule applies to both public and private schools in New York.

In a statement, ACLU said. "This is a victory for student privacy and students of color, who are disproportionately harmed by this flawed and biased technology. New York has led the way, and now other states should follow."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York Halts Use of Facial Recognition in Schools More

New York Halts Use of Facial Recognition in Schools

Comments Filter:

  • Student privacy? (Score:3)

    by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @02:59PM (#60857524) Journal
    When I was in school, there was no expectation of privacy in school classes or hallways. Even the locker room and bathrooms had limited privacy.

    • Re:Student privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @03:01PM (#60857534)

      There is a subtle difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "full expectation of zero privacy".

      • Except they don't have zero privacy. They have privacy in restrooms and locker rooms. They should have no expectation of privacy in the halls of the school. It is literally government property and they are minors whom the government is legally obligated to protect and keep track of.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Calydor ( 739835 )

          There is also a difference between knowing the teachers roam the same halls you do, and knowing there are a thousand unblinking eyes watching your every move, whether it be picking your nose or shivving a classmate.

          Knowing that someone watches always, unceasingly, is a major stress factor - especially at an age where your outward appearance is seen as your absolutely most important trait.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            You are also monitoring the teachers interaction with children, repeated interactions. As well as any adult entering school grounds, including young adults. The law is empty virtue signalling. What is of concern is whether or not that data leaves the education system, which is should only do with regard to legal requirements, evidence of a crime. They are legally bound to protect the children under their care including protecting the children from each other.

            Facial recognition will of course track down and

      • There is a subtle difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "full expectation of zero privacy".

        those indeed are distinct. I think that what it comes down to is if people accept that or not. Facial recognition or cavity search? the latter is a great idea. We always have had that in schools enforced by humans who can recognize strangers. We are experienced with this and feel it's a great benefit. Now mandatory cavity searches are a whole different level of privacy infringement. And anyone can tell the difference.

        The problem is thus not a "slippery slope" nor even a new privacy issue, it's that th

        • The problem is thus not a "slippery slope" nor even a new privacy issue, it's that the technology replacing human observers is flawed.

          Fuck you and your false framing and equivalencies.

          A human observer may have made a determination at 1:05pm on tuesday december 14th that yes, yes indeed, they recognized me, as we walked passed each other in the main hallway, me heading east them heading west.

          What they didnt do was write it down in a log book, and later on that day enter it into a database where this fact can then be searched.

          There is no fucking equivalency. FULL FUCKING STOP.

          Your framing, which "assumes" this fucking equivalency,

    • When I was in school, there was no expectation of privacy in school classes or hallways.

      And at some point kids were beaten in schools. What's your point? You had a shitty school experience so other people should too?

      And "no privacy", back then, probably didn't mean "have all your biometric data gathered and entered into a commercial database for the rest of your life."

      • "have all your biometric data gathered and entered into a commercial database for the rest of your life."

        Your argument is weak if your only stated objection is something that isn't actually happening.

        • You really believe, in a time when companies keep getting caught out collecting commercially useful data on children, that it isn't happening? Funny how Slashdot mistrusts the government but has blind trust in corporations (who are working with/for the government).

    • There is a difference between a hall monitor or a teacher keeping an eye on the students and they know who they are. Vs Cameras and Facial recognition.

      Here is a few differences.
      1. The student cannot get away with anything. I was a rather Goody Goody student. However I still broke the rules, where I would practice in the Music room, or go to the Library where I was scheduled for lunch. I know to avoid the monitors and things work out just fine. With this technology, I would be on the list of not being w

      • 1. The student cannot get away with anything.

        FR doesn't make any difference here. If you are a student at the school, caught misbehaving by a recording, they can identify you with or without FR.

        FR is irrelevant to #2 and #3 as well. Old-fashioned human-baed recognition would be just as effective.

        You seem to be arguing against security cameras rather than the subject of TFA, which is cameras+FR.

        • FR makes a difference in forcing schools to justifying the extra cost. So even for breaking minor rules that has no effect on the student's welfare or learning, the fact that it is captured in a computerized record automatically means the school is forced to carry out and record a punishment when they didn't need to.

          Furthermore, the use of "AI" in these systems makes schools trust them beyond their capabilities. So if the FR system misidentifies a student, the school would likely believe the AI more than

          • So if the FR system misidentifies a student, the school would likely believe the AI more than the protests of the student.

            No, they would look at the video and see for themselves.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      They watched people pee and poo too? Wow. :(

      • No, but they would come into the restrooms to check for people smoking and had no compunction about pounding on the stall door if they thought you were up to something.

  • This is crazy. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @03:07PM (#60857560) Journal
    The reason for having facial recognition is so that only students get in that are supposed to.
    How is this being misused that it requires study?

  • Student Photo Id cards are now illegal then?

  • Seems like everyone just repeats the "students of color are harmed by facial recognition" story uncritically these days.

    How? Facial recognition is a tool, just like fingerprint readers and prox card readers. It can be used or misused. So can a hammer or a folding knife.

    Is there any programming language or brand of automatic transmission that disproportionately harms blacks and must be outlawed? Or is this just another woke power play?

    • Misidentification in facial recognition is much higher for darker skin tones. In much the same way that if cameras all worked much better with a face at 5' 6" or higher, it would discriminate against women, because of height differences.

      • No, it would mean half the cameras would need to be mounted a few inches down to work. Similarly to how facial recognition systems need to be paired with lighting to work. "I did it wrong" does not mean "you can't do it either"
        • Then what is wrong with halting the program until they sort out the problems? "I did it wrong, so we should continue doing it wrong, making life destroying mistakes along the way, while we try to fix the issue".

        • You have a cost effective solution to a recognized problem? Great! Go market that shit so when the review is done yours is the solution that is approved cause it avoids it.

          Or, it's possible, not everyone else is a moron and your solution is naive.

          But probably not, go make fat stacks of cash!

          • Yes, comrade. Let me apply to the Central Algorithm Bureau and hope to Lenin that my solution is approved.

            Or

            Instead of suing to ban, legislating a ban, screaming bloody murder to ban ban ban...why not require performance metrics in the RFPs for these technologies that specify accuracy across age, sex, race, lighting conditions, weather-appropriate clothing year-round.

            Or we could go the CRT route and assert without evidence that it is not possible for a computer to properly identify a black face. And in

  • This reminds me of a cop friend and her experience not so long ago.

    Her new supervisor reprimanded her for having a 90% Latino arrest record.

    Her response was, but the demographic of my duty area is 97% Latino.

    Welcome to SJW-world where the facts are made up and the rules donâ(TM)t matter

    • A disproportionate number of people giving birth at every single hospital in the country identify as women. Clearly some socially constructed barriers are preventing pregnant men from delivering at these hospitals. We must rectify this injustice at once!
      • For a rightwing nutjob, you're really supportive of surveillance. Just goes to show right* wingers are just as much for the kinds of authoritarianism they accuse the left. * Using the American "definition" of right wing.
        • I am really really supportive of not crippling physical security measures in private and public buildings because of bullshit politics. You know what else I'm in favor of? Having to show photo ID to get on an airplane, buy alcohol, rent an automobile, and cast a ballot. You might be shocked to learn that I lock my door when I leave the house and have a password on my email that isn't maga2020! You'll shit yourself when you learn that I had to get fingerprinted and photographed to get my firearms license and
          • Facial recognition is literally mass surveillance, and you're howling for it right now.
            • So is having a guard check ids at the door and writing down names. Come off it.
              • That's not mass surveillance. That's just surveillance. This isn't just guards at the door. Come off it yourself.

                And it's not just mass surveillance, it's normalizing the expectation of mass surveillance of the next generation of adults. Once they get out of schools, they won't see anything wrong when the next government says "we should have facial recognition on every street, every building corner, every lamp post".

                Funny how rightwing nutjobs are more afraid of being "cancelled" on social media by th
                • What is "mass" surveillance about cameras in a limited access space? Also: idiots post their photo on every social network and chat client there is and have been for nearly 20 years and now you're worried about mass surveillance being normalized?

                  • What is "mass" surveillance about cameras in a limited access space?

                    What isn't mass surveillance about an automated system recording everything and everyone at all times? Is something really a "limited access space" when hundred or thousands of people go through it every day, and new arrivals of hundreds every year (at least)? Would you criticize China if they only had full facial recognition on just one street corner, judging their social credit score?

                    now you're worried about mass surveillance being normalized

                    Who said I'm just starting to be worried about it? I was criticizing you for being a rightwing nutjob who's not only not wo

                    • Do you work in an office? I do. I have a badge that lets me in and lets me out. Every time I badge in or out, The Man knows where I was at what time. If you are a visitor without your own fancy pants badge, you sign in at the front desk after showing your id and verifying that you were invited. That isn't mass surveillance. It's surveillance of a limited access space. So is a camera looking at a school, courthouse, airport, or any other place where access is limited to people who belong there as opposed to
                    • Signing in and out of things is not even surveillance. It's just access control. Cameras are not about access control. Cameras don't block access like a security id check does. Surveillance is more than access control (it's targeted observation), and mass surveillance even more far reaching (where the targets of observation are so broad that they're treated as a mass, not as individuals, so much so that it's not really targeted anymore). By your definition, nothing is mass surveillance.

                      Problem solved! Def
                    • Would it help my analogy if there was a security camera in the front lobby? What if it caught a view of the sidewalk outside?

                      If a cop with a wanted poster is sitting in his cruiser and sees you walking by, is that bad? If I report my car stolen and the cop sees it driving by and the license plate matches, is that a problem?

                      I just can't get worked up about it. We have rules of admissible evidence in our court system and we place the burden of proof on the state to demonstrate guilt. Government using "mass

  • They are part of a weapon recognition AI system.

    The liberals are OK with us keeping guns out of schools, right?

  • I thought it was already banned in july [venturebeat.com]
  • What the fuck is wrong with you Americans?
  • Hello freinds. I know that many people who study at schools and colleges suffer from distant learning. They have to write a lot of tasks and this is exhausting. I know that the sites like CustomWritings.com [baronmag.ca] are really popular among students and it shouldn't be like that

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Close