The Hidden Worries Of The Facial Recognition System Make People Shudder
The subway will apply the facial recognition system to implement classified security checks for passengers, on the grounds that it will improve the efficiency of passengers.
When entering and leaving a university campus, you need to show your ID card, you need to check your ID card when you mail something, you need facial recognition when you stay in a hotel, and it’s not enough to check with people on the subway. I want to ask, is it finished yet?
Next, is it necessary to install facial recognition machines on all roads and all public places, so that pedestrians can be intercepted and questioned and searched at any time, and those who are considered to be endangering safety will be detained?
I originally thought that I should be the object of protection, but under such a series of measures, I clearly felt that I was the object of prevention and control. As a legal citizen, he usually abides by the law, has no criminal record, is dedicated to his work, and can live in harmony with others. I don’t know why you are protecting me like this?
Uncontrolled security, who is guarding? Who are you protecting?
Living in this society, I often feel distrusted.
Whether it’s the reimbursement of scientific research fees or the ever-escalating security, all that can be perceived is the limitless guard against. In the former case, I felt that I was being guarded as a thief; in the latter case, I was being guarded as a potential evil force in society. This should not be my personal experience and feelings.
Modern criminal procedure law generally implements the principle of presumption of innocence. According to this principle, anyone is legally presumed innocent until they are found guilty by a court.
However, the current security measures are all based on the presumption of guilt.
All are presumed to be dangerous to public safety and subject to ever-increasing security checks without exception. To say that such security measures are actually used to protect the general public, including you and me, unless there is a split personality, who would believe it?
Maybe some people will take it seriously, thinking that I am allergic to such an event. Roughly summed up, there may be four views:
First, some people will think that I am overthinking myself, and I am unable to appreciate and appreciate the goodwill of the government’s protection like a father.
All I can say is that I am unwilling to accept such kindness.
Just imagine, all personal data, including what kind of Internet you usually use, what news and videos you watch, what you buy, who you chat with on WeChat, what you talk about, what your likes and dislikes, etc., have been collected enough. too much. Now add the biometric aspect of personal information, all in the hands of a huge organization.
You must know that in our society, any personal data, as long as it is controlled by enterprises or other institutions, is also controlled by the government.
Since this huge organization is run by specific people, this means that all personal data, including highly identifiable biological data, is controlled by a small number of people in the group.
How much personal information these people control, why do they control our personal information, and what is the purpose of controlling this personal information are all very scary things.
The people who control the data are obviously not gods, they have their own desires and weaknesses. So, how they will use our personal data, how they will manipulate our lives, is unknown.
Not to mention, these data are leaked or hacked due to poor storage, resulting in possible harmful results for criminals to use.
Second, some would say that as long as you don’t do bad things, you don’t need to worry about the government taking control of your personal data.
All I can say is that I don’t want to be transparent; the thought of being transparent makes me very uncomfortable.
In a normal society, individuals should have a legitimate right to oppose any organization’s arbitrary access to their personal biological data. The reason why the law protects personal privacy and residential freedom is to allow individuals to have autonomous space, which is not allowed to be invaded by others.
Others here, not only refer to other individuals or general organizations, but also include governments, including countries. If personal biological data can also be freely obtained without consent in the name of security, what is the point of legal protection of privacy and residential freedom?
There is no freedom without privacy.
Third, some people will point out that they are not important people, and others must not be interested in knowing our personal information.
There are many people who hold this view.
For the practice of collecting personal data on a large scale, even if it is the object of the collection, many people do not take it seriously and do not think there is any problem. The main reason is nothing more than that we are not important people, and others should not be interested in paying attention. So, you are still safe enough.
All I can say is that you basically live like a desperate gambler when you pin your personal safety on the neglect of others. Moreover, you are not only betting on your own luck, but also betting on the fact that the person who controls the data is an angel-like existence. Those who insist on wishful thinking that they can win, while I admire your ostrich character, I secretly think that you probably need to pay some IQ taxes.
Such optimists had better take a serious look at the movie “Enemy of the State”, a movie that was more than 20 years old. The ending of the film itself is not bad, and the villain is finally met with evil. However, if you are the protagonist in the play, I am afraid that you will not have the wisdom and luck, and you can only wait for the tragedy to end. The worst thing is that in the end, I probably don’t know how I died.
Fourth, some people will argue that there are some problems with such technology promotion, but it is useless to oppose it, so they don’t bother to oppose it.
All I can say is that, if we do not stand up against and make due efforts in matters concerning our own important rights and interests, we will naturally be even less likely to expect others to come out and help in the appeal. How can you know that the objection is ineffective before you make a minimum effort? Even if the opposition is ultimately ineffective, it is still better than tamely shackled. At least we have worked hard and made some struggles.
As the victimized party, if we just blindly endure it silently, and even dare not express our opposition, it means that we are helping the other party to calculate and harm us by doing nothing. In such a matter, taking a step back is not an open world, but it is likely to fall into the abyss from then on.
Because this is not a problem that can be solved by simply being patient. Seeing step by step toward the abyss, such an encounter is at least partly caused by our own blind forbearance.
Four Reasons Against Facial Recognition Security Checks
I am firmly opposed to the imminent implementation of the facial recognition system in the Beijing Subway.
Here are the specific reasons:
First, facial recognition involves the collection of biological data that is important to an individual, and the relevant organization or institution must demonstrate the legality of this practice before collecting it.
According to existing laws and regulations, ordinary personal information, including address, phone number, email address, account, and whereabouts, must be collected with the prior consent of the person being collected because it is identifiable.
At the same time, if the collecting party improperly uses, sells or leaks the corresponding information, it may also lead to legal liabilities including criminal responsibility.
Biological data has a more specific personal orientation, and it is obviously more important to individuals than general personal information. Why does it not require the consent of the person to be collected when collecting it?
In addition, there is no restriction on the subject, purpose, method, scope and procedure of the collection, and no corresponding legal responsibility for illegal collection or use.
If the government is the subject of the collection, it obviously needs to be explicitly authorized by the law; it cannot be done without the authorization of the law, and the government has no right to collect the biometric data of ordinary citizens in the name of security.
If it is done by enterprises or other institutions, the collection of personal biological data requires at least the express consent of the person being collected; collection without consent is an act of illegally obtaining personal information of citizens.
Secondly, the implementation of facial recognition in the subway involves the important personal rights and interests of the public. It should be implemented without a hearing, and it lacks at least rationality.
A few years ago, the Beijing subway fare adjustment was subject to extensive public consultation and a rigorous hearing process.
If the fare adjustment requires extensive consultation and hearing procedures, the implementation of the facial recognition system obviously involves more important personal rights and interests. How can it be directly decided to implement it without soliciting opinions or hearing?
Could it be that personal biological data is not as important as the value of a few RMB?
Without any argument, people are ready to launch large-scale facial recognition rashly. People have reason to doubt whether this involves illegal interest transactions, or whether it is the result of lobbying by relevant interest groups.
Again, it is claimed that the application of the facial recognition system is to achieve classified security inspection, but the problems involved in the standard itself have not been solved.
What authority does a traffic management department have to classify passengers? What is the law based on?
Not only that, what standard is the relevant department going to adopt to classify passengers, what the standard contains, who and how to determine the standard, whether the standard should be made public, etc. These questions should not be implemented in the implementation of facial recognition Did you fix it beforehand?
The classification standards of garbage must be clearly stated, not to mention the classification of people.
If the relevant authorities intend to adopt internal standards, how do we know whether the standards are legal and reasonable?
How do I know if there is discrimination prohibited by law? How do I know if there is a problem with arbitrarily setting standard content?
If the interested parties are dissatisfied with the classification standards, or think that the inappropriate classification violates their legitimate rights and interests, how should they appeal and how to ensure that their rights are effectively relieved?
Before these problems are solved, how can it be so rashly decided to use facial recognition for classified security checks on a large scale in places like subways?
If we arbitrarily adopt internal standards to classify passengers into three, six, nine, and nine classes, and take different security inspection measures accordingly, we have reason to suspect that this approach violates the constitutional principle of equality, and is also suspected of infringing upon the inviolability of citizens’ personal freedom. fundamental rights.
Even with some support from experts, we have reason to doubt that the experts’ judgments are accurate. Because this involves predicting and assessing an unknown state of affairs, it is entirely possible for experts to fall into error.
Taking a step back, even if the use of facial recognition can really improve traffic efficiency, efficiency alone is not enough to be a sufficient basis for implementation. Don’t fool the public in the name of efficiency, okay? In terms of efficiency, not conducting so-called security checks on the subway can best improve the efficiency of traffic during periods of high passenger flow.
I don’t know if the relevant departments have done any basic research. The current personal inspections, especially the human inspections among them, are useless no matter in peak hours or general hours. In addition to wasting taxpayers’ tax money, I really can’t see the practical role and significance of such a person’s co-examination.
For the aforementioned reasons, especially considering the potential dangers and negative effects, I am against not only using the facial recognition system in subways, but also forcing people to undergo facial recognition checks in places such as airports and hotels.
Violation of personal information, public power is more dangerous than commercial institutions
Commercial organizations are lured by factors such as low profit or convenience and safety, and let people use facial recognition “voluntarily”. Due to the problem of insufficient information disclosure, it is difficult to establish effective user consent, so its use is hardly legal. .
Not long ago, I attended a lecture on the facial recognition system. In that lecture, I learned that some domestic enterprises have been vigorously developing facial recognition technology in recent years. In order to prevent the attention of public opinion, these companies even deliberately keep a low profile, so that the corresponding technology successfully avoids becoming a public topic while achieving large-scale promotion.
Such deliberateness makes me shudder.
While pursuing their own interests, these enterprises and corresponding technical personnel have not thought about what kind of disaster such technology promotion will bring to the society? Don’t you know that one day you may also become the target of backlash?
Don’t talk to me about tech neutrality. When the facial recognition system is widely used to obtain the personal information of ordinary citizens, and it is continuously pooled in the hands of huge organizations. Do these enterprises and technicians who are engaged in the research and promotion of corresponding technologies dare to say that they have no responsibility?
If the world of the telescreen does come one day, you are well-deserved heroes; I hope that at that time, there will be people who are free to drink the wine at the celebration feast.
A media practitioner who attended the lecture at that time deleted the facial recognition in WeChat and Alipay before listening to the lecture. In her speech, she said that she was not afraid of personal information being used by the police, but was worried about being misused by commercial organizations.
In response, I admitted that as a legal practitioner, especially a public law researcher, I have never been too worried about my personal information being abused by commercial organizations; because the abuse by commercial organizations will only cost me some money. .
What really worries and terrifies me is that my information is being misused by public authorities; because when they misuse it, I have absolutely no idea what it will cost me and my family, property, reputation, career, freedom, health, or In life, anything is possible.
In the name of safety, for public places such as subways, where there are large-scale inflows and outflows on a daily basis, physical inspections are carried out first, followed by personal inspections, and now facial recognition will be implemented. In a few years, will further implementation of genetic or Is it fingerprint recognition?
According to the current trend, there is such a possibility. In the near future, perhaps taking public transportation such as the subway will become a privilege that only some members of society can enjoy.
If this society has not fallen into a state of persecution paranoia, it should stop at the security issue. The hysterical pursuit of security brings society not security at all, but comprehensive suppression and panic.
The facial recognition system is used in daily security to monitor the actions of all people indiscriminately, in order to achieve precise control over the public sphere, so as to achieve an ideal security state.
This behavior turns everyone into a tool to maintain security, but ignores the purpose of security.
This is no different from the many acts of the 20th century that brought disaster to mankind for a whole century. For example, the Nazis in Germany used scientific methods to measure inferior nations; the Soviet Union created super ape warriors through human-animal hybridization; Europe’s “sterilization laws”, etc., are all attempts to Using abstract and dogmatic scientific methodology to manage and transform complex and changeable human society is an abuse of science and technology.
Hayek said in “Scientific Counter-Revolution” that the misuse of science “depicts living people as ‘inanimate free atoms’, they dissolve ethics and morality, they pursue value neutrality, expel value judgments, and finally put human beings. Society leads the way to slavery.”
It can be said that the application of the facial recognition system is not only a question of legality, but also a major event related to the fate of human freedom.