Facial Recognition Fears: Invasion of Privacy or Necessary Security on College Campuses?!

Facial Recognition Fears: Invasion of Privacy or Necessary Security on College Campuses?!


100 Comments

  • Rogue Rocket says:

    OH HI. Maria is feeling better since taping for those asking, go hang with her on Instagram if you don't follow her already!
    That said, thoughts on the subject? Would you support this kind of technology being used on college campuses and beyond to track people in the name of security? Let us know in the comments!

  • xAnimeGuy says:

    Anybody getting "Psycho-Pass" vibes….?

  • adam chamoun says:

    She's so hot

  • NoCommentate says:

    People are so quick to call out racism. The reason, and I can guarantee you this, that AI more correctly identifies people that are not of color, is because there is more of them. The AI is not biased, it just has more training with white people for example, because it has more pictures of them to study since there are more of them. And it's also another cry out for racism to say that it would more often incriminate people of color. Incorrect identification and malidentificaiton are different. What I'm saying is that it could take a criminal of color and call them innocent just as easily as it could do the opposite. Racism is real. My argument was never against it, but we are way too sensitive and easy to jump the gun on buzz words before actually considering the situation.

  • Viking Jedi says:

    Great video! May the force be with you Mrs.Sosyan!

  • Kartoffel Pommes says:

    I live in the EU, but had to return to the US in November; I was really disturbed to see the airports in the states have mandatory facial recognition scanners. I had to get where I was going, so I had no choice but to submit. Another privacy violation line crossed by Americans more concerned with security than freedom.

  • Samantha White says:

    The potential for facial recognition is terrifying honestly. I think the only people who should be in a facial recognition database are people with criminal records (mugshots) and people with driver's licenses and state IDs once they turn 18 and are legally adults. Also police officers, government officials, military service members, etc.
    I also think there needs to be regulation around when and how the government can use FRT. Some people go on a crazy kind of power trip when given that kind of ability. I remember in my freshman year of high school, only two years ago, I went on a trip to my county's 911 dispatch office and traffic control center. Here was where they could access any and all of the traffic cameras, and they use such high res cameras that "we could zoom in on the driver's shirt and read the two-inch logo on their breast pocket." When we were allowed to ask questions, I asked the man in charge if he ever felt like he was invading people's privacy, even if he's legally allowed to watch the cameras. Instead of saying yes or no, the man said, "as soon as you step outside your house, you forfeit any right to privacy. That's the price you pay for life." He had no emotional or moral issues with this; he very obviously believed that because the law didn't say it was wrong, it was right. It unsettled me. People like that need to be kept in check by laws and regulations.

  • P S says:

    Can we give facial recognition technology to people with prosopagnosia before we start using it to do god knows what socially? >o<
    <—-face blind

  • Josh Keating says:

    The efficiency is one of my main questions. I am split here since I believe this could involve plain view doctrine, if something or someone is in public there is no expectation of privacy since we are plainly visible. But at the sametime technically police are not suppose to use any tech that would give them "superhuman" level powers. Also for the accuracy, this is something where we need to keep the human discretion imvolved.

  • Emily Christine says:

    I could've sworn we were living in 2020 but apparently I'm confused and it's 1984.

    Does no one see that connection?! I can see where this tech can be helpful but if the government can track our every move we're not really a free society.

  • Obsc3n3 says:

    I remember the outrage after 9/11 and the laws that came after.
    For me this just sounds like the next step in an ever growing Big bother society a la 1984.
    One small step at a time, and just in a few years you can have complete control.

  • Ella Morgan says:

    Omg Maria you sound so sick girl! Take a day off and feel better

  • Jaz Wilkes says:

    she has a stuffy dose

  • Adomay Ceballos says:

    I no like her voice

  • Heather Nicoll says:

    @roguerocket Feel better Maria!thanks for the video as always 😀

  • Alsy says:

    Why do you keep making the poor girl do this when she is ill and has a stuffed nose? It' s very hard to listen to. Just let her rest and have someone else do it, or do this in a week or something.

  • Cesar Smith says:

    Your sick!!! Stay home!

  • Darth Tater says:

    Schools: we can’t afford to properly pay our teachers
    Also schools : wow cool gadget, I’ll buy 10

  • Violet says:

    See the problem with facial recognition software atm is that it is horrible at understanding that gender markers aren't binary and that genderfluid and enby trans persons who are seen by the technology have a hard time being recognized if their presentation changes so that they look like a different gender. This can also happen when people change haircuts significantly or other large appearance changes that lead to the system assuming it's a stranger that it sees;

  • Unit ZER0 says:

    Let's play devil's advocate for a moment. This is not an invasion of "privacy". If you own an iphone, and/or are on any social media platform, you gave up your privacy a long time ago… Tech like this once coupled to AI, and perfected is an excellent form of public security.
    After all, once you step outside your front door, you have no expectation to privacy, nor should you.
    Don't want to get in trouble? Don't do anything wrong.
    The people who are the most vocal often have the most to hide.

    The warning has been around for almost a decade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx62wex8BYE
    If you'd avoided the trap of oversharing in your youth, you wouldn't be so concerned about what "they" may find out about you.

  • MikeGamingFTW says:

    yay my old scool made the news……

  • D C says:

    Does Maria have a cold? She doesn't sound like herself. Please give her a break when she might not feel well. Great job Maria. You are a good presenter.

  • Agent Washingtub says:

    This is such a huge invasion of privacy. Can it be a positive? Yes, but it has much more potential for evil than good

  • Montwizl says:

    Hard to recognize black people what a surprise lol

  • John Bishop says:

    Fuuuuuuck the whole thing. Giving ANYONE that kind of power has throughout all of history bitten every involved party on the ass.

    Scratch that, half the whole fuckin gluteus was taken off.

  • Hu Ha Ah says:

    Can you please cover the protests tha have been going on since september in IRAQ with a Q over 400 peacful protesters died and thounds injured and yesterday terirost militia that basicly contorl the entire goverment and itself is controled by iraN most notebly qasim solaimani came out shotting protesters and they even used buck shot shotguns and fired AT protesters as well as snipers
    bo6.3y thats my insta if you wanna see the shotgun shells

  • Doom And Gloom says:

    Sounded kinda sexist to me

  • Jacob Clendennen says:

    Hope she wasn’t forced to work while sick. She sounds like she’s congested :/

  • Mark Riley says:

    I think it should be used wisely, such as in criminal cases as mentioned. For really, you wanna make sure you’re getting the right person, and not use it all the time, especially when a lot of those people are innocent. Also, there are several points on a face you can by, so surprised Rekognition got that many Congress members wrong oh well..

  • Antoine Menskoï says:

    "especially us iphone users" You know that android phones have facial recognition too, right? Even my 300$ phone does it, even has a pop up camera.

    Man, iphone users are annoying, they have overpriced dated hardware but still think they're the shit…

  • Snake says:

    Nope. Ban that shit. Make it illegal

  • Kayla Barnes says:

    Big brother is scaring me…..

  • Rebecca Gibbs says:

    girl, you got a cold?

  • Kyle Carlson says:

    Privacy definitely first

  • Hakim Lewis says:

    Black people are already being targeted and killed by unjust cops, let's not give them a new watchdog

  • bassmastapr says:

    Please don’t use the term “people or color” … sounds so stupid. Huge fan of the show anyways!

  • Damon's Old Soul says:

    Privacy First Always! In the US, we have the right to bear arms. Even if it is not you who is carrying, the reality that someone nearby most likely is, is your deterrent and security in public places.
    We have cameras on all our phones. If you are unable to stop a crime, just having video recording (even if it only gets sounds) can be a massive help to law enforcement.
    Warrants are there for a reason. If they want to search a face after the fact, they need a warrant.
    If we don't stand up for our freedoms and right to privacy, how long till they have all been eroded away? They don't take them in one fell swoop. That would outrage the public. Slowly taking them over decades and it feels like a lesser blow. Same end goal: Absolute control of the population. If you doubt this, look at China today.

  • The Whiskey Gunner says:

    Privacy more important than security, always. Privacy IS security, from the state

  • Patrick Alvarado says:

    1984

  • CorvixEyes says:

    This is the same thing that they're doing in China, isn't it? Different premise, same conclusion. It always starts as a form of protection.

  • Cyndal Norton says:

    there needs to be some tec that prevents FRTs from reading your face this is something right out of black merrier I don't like this

  • IceBlue112 says:

    This is my issue with this topic along with all the other privacy topics. It is, for the most part, put in an ultimatum. You can't enjoy our software unless you give up every piece of private information about you. It will boil down to you can't use this public facility or you can't go to this school unless you agree to the terms and conditions that we know everything about you.

  • A K says:

    This thumbnail slid under my radar.

  • Tulley DA_Teach says:

    HOT.

  • CriiRye says:

    There's no amount of security that could ever make these systems fail proof to being stolen and leaked.
    How many times in history have we gone "this code is uncrackable, it changes too fast and we can never get it" aka, the enigma. The enigma was truly unbreakable by any human means, until Alan Turning changed history and cracked it.
    And this has now happened a dozen times over. We think up these amazing uncrackable security systems, and then it's only a matter of time until it too becomes obsolete.
    The march of technology and progress hasn't slowed down even a little bit, and the "advanced security" of today could easily be broken tomorrow. And what is at risk is simply too high to dare that with.

  • ForgottenOnes says:

    I really love maria

  • Katea Jurors says:

    There's also the issue of our current legal system and how 98% of all charges end in plea agreements only 2% ever even go to trial. This is some is set up for the rich for people who can't afford lawyers for people who can afford court fees for people who can afford to fight for their innocence if you think you're innocent until proven guilty you're wrong. The court as soon as you are charged with something puts it on your record as if you have been convicted you can get fired and be denied jobs based off of it. I can only imagine you trying to pick up your kid and having the cops called on you again or something you're still trying to fight in court

  • Katea Jurors says:

    You should point out that facial recognition is used in China to attack the uighur Muslims and anyone who might be practicing a religion that the Communist party doesn't like. The government is not there yet the way our current legal system is and 98% of all charges in plea agreements and do not go to trial where you are judged by your peers this should not be used we need to fix our system before we start adding things to it before we start adding powers to police to lawyer to judge has two things we as common citizens cannot afford to spend $15,000 on to defend ourselves.

  • Zuzu says:

    I don't fear it because I don't have anything worth exposing.

  • Chandler Deardorff says:

    Thank you for finally stopping those stupid offset camera angles where you're looking at a different camera.

  • Archeon Wanlorn says:

    This isn't even a question. Humanity has lasted thousands of years without this, the only reason for it is to help tighten the police states grip on your throat.

  • Mizati says:

    This is how people become agoraphobes

  • Mizati says:

    To paraphrase Ben Franklin, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

  • Jock McBile says:

    How many stories have we heard, with Police SWAT teams bursting into a house, and killing someone. Only for it to turn out, they were in the wrong house to begin with? Now, take that times 1000, when FRT becomes wide spread. Also, how many people have been erroneously placed on the No Fly watch list? Those people are never removed from the list. Once on a list, forever shall you remain.

  • Eric D says:

    I know this won't make sense to a lot of people but the middle ground is always what comes first for me. It's never one thing or the other thing, in this case it's not privacy or security. You can use facial recognition to track violent fugitives without allowing it to be abused you just have to design the systems so they are hard to abuse and having stiff penalties for anyone who does abuse it. Our current law enforcement often has a difficult time policing itself but that doesn't mean that law enforcement is all bad, if we set up a decent system then the abuse will be small.

  • nikkij55 says:

    Minority report and Gataca predicting our future

  • Jaime Moore says:

    I can fee myself getting sick through the screen

  • Garrat McCullough says:

    There is absolutely nothing the government can or will do that can make this okay. It’s just another crutch for the government to not take responsibility on the real issue of mental health that causes the mass shootings in the first place that they’re attempting to stop. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Is the quote I think of every time I hear something in the news about increased unconstitutional measures like the PATRIOT Act or things like this where everyday people have to give up a pound of privacy for a milligram of security.

  • Goth Pop TV says:

    It's inevitable. Once they get them in every public school, students going into collage will already be so used to them, they won't say a word.

  • Altair Jones says:

    I do not stan FRT

  • F4PTR says:

    Privacy. Absolutely, I am not willing to trade my human rights for a little bit of security, anyone who thinks differently is insane.

    Once they’re gone, you’ll never get them back.

  • Castor Troy says:

    I can’t believe things about me can be taken and put out there without my knowledge. Now excuse me while I go comment about this new revelation on my Snapchat, Instagram, FaceBook, and Twitter accounts.

  • Mishawaka Post says:

    You look especially lovely today, Maria ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

  • Freedom Panic says:

    Generally I am more for privacy over security, but that's not a hard line in the sand for me. There is a middle ground, where something could be very useful, as long as it isn't abused. The big question is more about trust and legislation. I think most people are rather cynical when they consider both, and I am no exception. There would have to be 100% transparency on something and even then, I'm doubtful.

    I think it leans too far into distopian, big brother territory; but that alone isn't enough for me to write it off completely. A parallel, I might make, is my thoughts on AI. Sure, it could be the doom of us all, but more likely it's a fascinating technology that can do some great things and is often approached cautiously by the scientists involved. This, however, is something that could be immediately and easily abused. Before any attempts at utilizing this kind of technology, reliability and TRUE insurance of moral use would have to be established.

  • Uncle Dolan says:

    Those that would be willing to give up their freedom for safety deserve neither – Ben Franklin.

  • John J says:

    If this concerns you, then you really have no idea how much of your personal information is out there. Because with just a swipe of your card at a business, that business can now have all your personal information. Since our data is traded and sold so much now, that everything about us is pretty much on sale. All thanks to those user agreements which we never read nor can work around. And those are binding regardless of how we agreed to them, unlike every single other contract or agreement. This tech will be pushed allong and companies that use the tech will just do what they already do, which is sell the data off. Personially I rather have use cut back on all the security shit, since it's really not needed. Hell if i remember the trends right, each year has been less crime filled and less violent than the last. To me tacking on more stuff just feels like we'll not looking for problems, but excepting those around us to becomes ones. Which is being paranoid and will only cause problems.

  • SmilesAreDaggers says:

    Its a fool that gives up his privacy for security

  • TedOfNod says:

    Hey Phil! You need to see this. A citizen of Wuhan has managed to post a video discussing the true situation.
    The government is trying to silence them. This has to go public.

    https://youtu.be/7OEqybiGdaA

  • TheDarkLordSano says:

    Question: Do police/federal agencies require a warrant/court permission to surveil individuals? How would this technology be different from that?

  • Danielle Spargo says:

    do you have a cold? 🙁

  • Stephanie L says:

    Welcome to the People's Republic of China.

    What's next, social credit? 🤔

  • Rasgonras says:

    One thing nobody ever talks about:
    How many criminals is this technology projected to catch? How many man hours of police work would it save? How many dollars will it cost, and where does the money for it come from? Who has to suffer budget cuts for this?
    Smart Cities, AI, FRT, all of those have one thing in common. They promise the world, while providing no ACTUAL data or even estimates as to what it's effect will be. To me, that smells like a big old money making scam.

  • Bryan Harris says:

    Privacy over everthing

  • RUNS WITH SCISSORS says:

    Something smells funny about FRT , never trust a sneaky FRT !

  • brainwash480 says:

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

  • Butterfly Kite says:

    #1 You should not have a right to privacy when you're in public.
    #2 If you aren't doing anything wrong why are you so overly concerned about privacy?
    I don't do anything I'm worried about the government knowing what I'm doing because I'm not a criminal or a terrorist. I do however value my safety more then anyone elses privacy. Keeping the publc safe is by far more important than any individual persons silly concerns about "privacy"

  • margie schlieter says:

    Are you sick again Maria? Get better soon.

  • margie schlieter says:

    They're tracking using FRT in real time in public places? I'm confused as to how that would be any different than using any other form of surveillance, honestly.

  • DigitalArtCurationClub says:

    omg my baby is sick I can hear it!

  • Ray Ganong says:

    There are positive uses for FRT including; protecting your bank account using face as an extra login step, or logging into computer at work using your face instead of remembering a super long password, or signing up for a new bank service with your phone by scanning your drivers license and comparing to a selfie WITHOUT having to go to a branch, or tagging your digital photos on your own computer to save hours of manual tagging (note this last item can be done locally without cloud servers – otherwise your photos and your face are also assimilated into the >insert large cloud provided name< Borg).

  • Emerson Best says:

    Give this poor woman the day off, she's clearly sick!

  • Zach M says:

    Big Brother = Bad Time.

    & I'm no gun rights activist. But the part where the school scans someone's face for if they're (i'm assuming registered) carrying a gun. Aha. No… no. It's not gonna show up on a criminal unless they're arrested for something specific.

  • Goth Pop TV says:

    There is NO STOPPING facial recognition technology.
    FRT companies are now offing it to public schools FOR FREE and the implications will be monumental. The next generations of children will grow up to know FRT as ordinary, some even considering it essential, confused as to why their college or job doesn’t have it.

    You have less than 3 years to do something on a legislative level like San Francisco did.

  • LulitaInPita says:

    Places I'd be totally okay for facial recognition technology to be installed: airports, big public transportation stations, anywhere there's a high possibility of massive life-threatening crime to be committed (like a terrorist attack) & anywhere you can buy a gun.

  • Jessica H says:

    Give up the ghost we are free, or have any privacy and we let it happen

  • Trevhimself says:

    It's typical of people want protecting but oh no my privacy. It's like the age old thing if you have nothing to hide then you don't have anything to worry about

  • Alex BaBomb says:

    Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

  • Madison Sara says:

    I'm not sure about using facial recognition, but I agree that college dorms and grade schools need more security measures. I will say, there was much less pushback when phones and laptops came out with facial recognition, retina scanning, and finger printing capabilities to replace passwords.

  • tobleronemonster says:

    Please talk about the situation in India!

  • liliana azucena montoya says:

    I dont wanna seem rude, but she sounds like shes trying not to cry

  • SynthWolfes says:

    Privacy should always be a Forefront in any security discussion relating to mass surveillance

  • Rex Longfellow says:

    First they did this with free to use services. Now they ask to give up more privacy so they can track us? Privacy all the way.

  • Craig Call says:

    I am a computer engineer that specializes in machine learning and artificial intelligence and I am very opposed to this kind of technology being used in public, mostly because I understand how most models are trained and used. Most of these models are based on large labeled datasets using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) where the computer "figures out" the rules for how to differentiate various images. (This is an oversimplification, but I am trying to simplify for those who haven't studied machine learning topics.) Basically, how that works is that the images are broken down in different ways to see if patterns emerge when looking at a simplified image. These simplified images may have certain features that the computer begins to associate with a particular outcome. Sometimes, these features may highlight something that is not even related or overgeneralize certain aspects as a unique identifier (http://dhoiem.web.engr.illinois.edu/publications/eccv2012_detanalysis_derek.pdf) when they are immaterial or insignificant to the overall classification of the image. Individuals that are able to highlight parts of their face, coloring, contrast, or other features may produce false positives with relatively easy means. Though the technology is improving, the rate of false positives is too high for me to be confident in it and, without knowing the precision and recall of the model, makes it difficult for me to feel at ease with this technology in use at large in the public.

  • Kevin Wheeler says:

    Privacy first, every time. Which is why a lot of people are switching to Apple devices recently. Less data harvesting and more device security.

  • Bill Carroll says:

    Why are we using facial recognition for security instead of common sense gun laws? Oh yeah, it's America…
    If only these "liberty or death" conservatives had the right priorities …

  • CaraRowen says:

    i feel so bad that maria is sick in this video but she's honestly the best.

  • Chandler McCoy says:

    5:19 Read the second sentence.
    Many major social media companies put things like this in their terms of service.

    This is directly from Instagram's data policy.
    "We collect the content, communications and other information you provide when you use our Products, including when you sign up for an account, create or share content, and message or communicate with others. This can include information in or about the content you provide (like metadata), such as the location of a photo or the date a file was created. It can also include what you see through features we provide, such as our camera"

  • ARNOLD RIGHTZENEGGER says:

    don't say sandy hook .. its a set up

  • Rey Kenobi says:

    The future of privacy is bleak. China already uses FRT on a massive scale online and in public places to monitor and keep its citizens "in line". The Russian search website Yandex has not withheld use of FRT-like tech to recognize faces in images. If you search for an image on google images and on yandex images, google will other show models in similar poses, whereas yandex will show images of the same model from different photoshoots. Indian police, during the recent CAA protests wee also seen employing FRT tech to record the faces of protesters. Combine that with the fact that they have biometric data on almost all its citizens via some ID system for a social benefit scheme, and its raises concerns about the future of free speech. They also plan to make it mandatory to verify social media accounts and link them to this same ID.
    I know the USA is in an isolationist mood these days, but all it will take is a powerful "free world" country like the USA to dilly-dally on strong regulations against FRT, and letting lobbyists influence its politicians in this regard, to start a daisy chain effect of everyone using FRT around the world, making the world much less free and private.

  • kipferno says:

    Woah, usually I just listen to these but Maria is lookin scrumptious

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *