Canadian Politics Today
Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Queefer Sutherland on February 13, 2020, 03:39:31 pm
-
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-clearview-ai-1.5462785
That's nice. Secret AI programs from Toronto and Ontario police, i'm sure many others use it...secretly. RCMP, CSIS, CSEC, NSA, CIA, FBI....
See some "shady" looking dude on the street, cop can just snap a pic on his phone and run it through an AI app and have their name and identity. Like a cop running your plates, but with your face. Those aboriginal protesters in BC have no chance. Just rip up the Charter right now, a useless piece of paper increasingly.
-
I’m not convinced that this is a bad thing. Police look for known criminals on the internet.
The internet, which is all publicly available.
Meh... I don’t see the harm.
-
It’s an important law enforcement tool, depends on how it is used.
-
Perhaps better than the "stop and frisk" concept that Bloomberg used to support.
-
Perhaps better than the "stop and frisk" concept that Bloomberg used to support.
Bloomberg? Toronto did it too. Why are you bringing up an American mayor in a thread about the Toronto PD? Does every topic have to turn into something about the USA with you? ::)
-
It’s an important law enforcement tool, depends on how it is used.
Well i agree. The key here is that it was done secretly. Things need to be on the books and approved by the proper powers with oversight from elected officials, we live in a democracy and not a police state.
From the Charter:
Legal Rights
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Marginal note:Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.[/b]
As such, a police officer cannot arbitrarily force you to provide your name/identity unless you've committed a crime. That's why street checks/carding is unconstitutional. And why they can't put a mic in your house without your consent or a warrant from a judge. The potential for abuse of this AI is massive, it needs to be managed carefully & transparently. I don't want to live in a society with government cameras at every intersection and on every cop car tracking & ID'ing everyone 24/7. Mass surveillance is so dangerous. Next they'll be listening to all our calls and texts through some AI, picking out the criminals. The NSA has already been doing this, only with metadata, allegedly.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSq7uhGeGy0OP2aDc716Fee8ExTgmynEPVCVKiWxnIqdyJlvwaB)
-
As such, a police officer cannot arbitrarily force you to provide your name/identity unless you've committed a crime.
I believe they can ask for your name, date of birth, and place of residence, and you must answer honestly. They cannot however demand to see proof of identification, such as a drivers license, etc. There is one exception however, if you are behind the wheel of a vehicle on a public road (or road allowance) then they can demand your drivers license; that is part of the Highway Traffic Act. There is also a provision in the HTA for the passenger in a vehicle driven by a novice driver (e.g. someone with a learners permit) to provide identification; I am not sure of the details but I assume it only applies to the front seat passenger and not sure if they need to provide a drivers license or not.
The potential for abuse of this AI is massive, it needs to be managed carefully & transparently. I don't want to live in a society with government cameras at every intersection and on every cop car tracking & ID'ing everyone 24/7. Mass surveillance is so dangerous.
Agreed. I have no problem with the police having access to modern tools, but there needs to be very strict oversight in how they use it. There needs to be reasonable cause to collect this type of information, and generally that should only be granted by a judge, and how and for how long the data is retained need to be strictly controlled. A perfect example is a protest. The police should not be allowed to arbitrarily snap pictures of everyone involved in a protest, but if someone is causing problems like throwing things, lighting fires, destroying property, etc. then have at it.
-
Is using facial recognition search or seizure? Does it deprive anyone of the right to life, liberty or security? Debatable but certainly not just on its own.
What about using images taken from private cell phones that have been given to the media? Corporations are also starting to use it to target customers. This will be an ongoing issue for a long time.
-
Agreed. I have no problem with the police having access to modern tools, but there needs to be very strict oversight in how they use it. There needs to be reasonable cause to collect this type of information, and generally that should only be granted by a judge, and how and for how long the data is retained need to be strictly controlled. A perfect example is a protest. The police should not be allowed to arbitrarily snap pictures of everyone involved in a protest, but if someone is causing problems like throwing things, lighting fires, destroying property, etc. then have at it.
So police shouldn't be able to film protesters or any other incident they are involved in but protesters and the rest of the public should be? Does that mean police shouldn't wear body cameras or have them mounted in their cars?
-
Do we need to just shake the Etch-a-Sketch and start over ?
By this I mean do ancient concepts of 'privacy' that are so near and dear to us still apply ?
Is our society ready to look at what anonymity really means, and discuss what the costs are of protecting it ?
It's possible to provide almost a 100% guarantee of apprehension of criminals. Why shouldn't we take advantage of that ? If we're afraid of the cops "abusing" the power then give the power over to everyone.
"It's none of your business" isn't an answer.
-
So police shouldn't be able to film protesters or any other incident they are involved in but protesters and the rest of the public should be? Does that mean police shouldn't wear body cameras or have them mounted in their cars?
Not quite what I said. It is about the use of that film. If they are randomly trying to identify people, using modern techniques such as facial recognition, so they can build a database of "protesters" then that is wrong. People have the right to peaceful assembly and protest, and that should not be infringed. If they are recording an event, and a crime occurs at that event, then yes they can use the film to identify those involved in the crime. It is all about use and retention. I don't consider a film of a crowd to be arbitrarily snapping pictures of individuals, but if they then isolate an individual from that film that is a different story.
-
Not quite what I said. It is about the use of that film. If they are randomly trying to identify people, using modern techniques such as facial recognition, so they can build a database of "protesters" then that is wrong. People have the right to peaceful assembly and protest, and that should not be infringed. If they are recording an event, and a crime occurs at that event, then yes they can use the film to identify those involved in the crime. It is all about use and retention. I don't consider a film of a crowd to be arbitrarily snapping pictures of individuals, but if they then isolate an individual from that film that is a different story.
Well there is the grey area, the difference between what they can do and what they do do. We don't know they are compiling data bases using random facial recognition, just that it could be possible.
-
Not quite what I said. It is about the use of that film. If they are randomly trying to identify people, using modern techniques such as facial recognition, so they can build a database of "protesters" then that is wrong. People have the right to peaceful assembly and protest, and that should not be infringed. If they are recording an event, and a crime occurs at that event, then yes they can use the film to identify those involved in the crime. It is all about use and retention. I don't consider a film of a crowd to be arbitrarily snapping pictures of individuals, but if they then isolate an individual from that film that is a different story.
Why is isolating an individual bad? It’s in a public space. They seem to be using publicly available data to identify people involved in crimes. How is that a bad thing?
-
Why is isolating an individual bad? It’s in a public space. They seem to be using publicly available data to identify people involved in crimes. How is that a bad thing?
As I said, if they are involved in a crime then go ahead. If they just happen to be passing through, or doing something totally within their rights like protesting, then building a database is wrong. That is an invasion of privacy. While certainly there are many different levels, I don't believe we should be arguing how dark the gray is. The line should be drawn at criminal activity - period. It is like taking a picture through a telephoto lens. People have a valid expectation of privacy in their back yard, or house. If they see someone on the street taking photos they might behave differently, but if someone is hiding in a tree from a block away with a telephoto lens then that in my opinion is a clear violation of privacy.
-
The police aren't building a data base, they are using someone else's.
-
The police aren't building a data base, they are using someone else's.
Same difference.
-
Same difference.
Not really. What happens hen this technology becomes available to the public, which it likely will in some form. iPhone is now using facial recognition to log into their new phones and it will be used for more and more things.
-
Not really. What happens hen this technology becomes available to the public, which it likely will in some form. iPhone is now using facial recognition to log into their new phones and it will be used for more and more things.
Facial recognition for authentication is very different than facial recognition for building personal profiles. I don't want the government (or industry) following me around just because technology makes it cheaper. I use cash and have multiple on-line profiles (some loosely connected and others completely disjoint) to give myself some semblance of privacy and anonymity. I support efforts to make it more difficult to build these personal databases, organizations like Mozilla try to help so I support their efforts. I know it is a losing battle long term, but hopefully waking people up will help drive change and regulation.
-
"It's none of your business" isn't an answer.
The definition of privacy is "it's none of your business".
If we're afraid of the cops "abusing" the power then give the power over to everyone
That's probably one of your worst takes ever. Cops abuse guns? Give them to everyone.
We are born free, until government implements a law to force otherwise. If you're going to take my picture without my consent and run it through an AI without my consent when i've done nothing wrong i'm going outside with a mask on.
Also, read 1984.
-
The definition of privacy is "it's none of your business".
That's probably one of your worst takes ever. Cops abuse guns? Give them to everyone.
We are born free, until government implements a law to force otherwise. If you're going to take my picture without my consent and run it through an AI without my consent when i've done nothing wrong i'm going outside with a mask on.
Also, read 1984.
One of my favorite books. It's a reflection of a bygone time.
My possessions are also none of your business. Unless it's contraband, or I get it from trade, or its shipped to me overseas, or its money I earn.
Think bigger, I know you can do it.