• 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    No shit, 24 hour facial recognition and real time data lookup. They have systems capable of tracking many thousands of faces at the same time, like any city camera for example.

  • demonsword@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    We could limit this capability. We could prohibit mass spying. We could pass strong data-privacy rules. But we haven’t done anything to limit mass surveillance. Why would spying be any different?

    Bruce nailed it, unfortunately most people are too apathetic to fight for theirs rights and for a less shitty world

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Strong data privacy rules which will inevitably have loopholes for intelligence agencies that they will use to just spy on us anyways.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yes, that is right.


    It also, however, enables these, too:

    • it multiplies propaganda by itself at-least once, so now propaganda-squared aka propaganda^2 is the minimum saturation

    • it multiplies the thought-police enactment

    • it multiplies the false-evidence-production

    • it makes it exponentially tougher to filter-out malicious-actors/propaganda from one’s knowing.

    • etc…

    Haven’t bothered to look at how it affects each & every dimension of our world, but it gives the malicious many-times much more than it gives the good, and the good are sooo starry-eyed with the new distractions that controlling the hyperdimensional “explosion” happening in our world won’t happen, until automatic-genocides have become normal.

    _ /\ _

  • PupBiru@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    i feel like i need to preface this comment with the fact that this is undeniably a bad thing and no amount of “but on the flip side” will change that, but it’s interesting to express regardless…

    this could lead to a few interesting situations:

    • more ubiquitous ML could lead to enforcement of laws more evenly… ML doesn’t make “oh sorry sir i didn’t know who you were” decisions, and if that’s coupled with transparency then maybe we will be left in less of a “laws for thee and not for me” situation as it becomes more difficult to break laws for people in power
    • more ubiquitous ML, as long as it’s fairly openly available, will absolutely be used by media to piece together complex structures and do investigative journalism. it could help to hold people to account
    • more ML in tax could mean less tax evasion? or setting it to task on suggesting fixes for tax loop holes if it can see a lot more invasive data?