@patrician

You seem to miss the point... when you are at work it should be perfectly legal for your company to use facial recognition on you. When your not at work it should be illegal without consent.

Understand now?

@eff

@freemo
And the Facial recognition AI is going to MAGICALLY lose the ability to recognize you when you're off the clock? No they won't. And the Data they get through Facial Recognition? That kinda tech can already tell your emotional responses to whatever stimulus. Let people use facial recognition on their employees, and it's only a matter of time until someone gets fired because a computer program outed them or the like.
@eff

@patrician

Obviously the AI wont forget your face when your off the clock. But as long as it is illegal to **use** that AI on you when your off the clock, and as long as the law is enforced, I am perfectly ok with that.

If the law isnt enforced then they are already using pictures of your face off the clock anyway that learned what you look like so its a moot point to argue they might break the law.

@eff

@freemo
There's a substantial difference between secretly using facial recognition on people you shouldn't and secretly using it in general. If facial recognition is illegal to use on both the general public and employees, and you find out they have the tech, there's no question about what they're doing. If it's legal to use on employees?
"Oh no that was due to a computer error we would never intentionally add the faceprints of non-employees/continue tracking our employees off the clock"
@eff

@freemo @eff
Furthermore who said they were gonna stop when the employees clocked out? This works anything like phone permissions and they essentially own you forever.

@patrician

I did.. I explicitly said I supported it when done on employees when at work, and did not support it when out of work. So I only support laws that preserve that dynamic and oppose laws that dont.

@eff

@patrician

Wrong, since people can opt-in to facial recognition then simply having the means to do it, and even actively doing it, would in no way suggest illegal activity.

@eff

@freemo
The ENTIRE POINT of the post the EFF made is that people ar bein COERCED into it
@eff

@patrician

Only employees, not the general public.. as I said I'm ok with that. I am not ok if it is used on the general public or outside of work hours, however, and would support any move to codify that in the law.

@eff

@freemo
I REALLY don't believe it should be used on employees either, I believe that the possibility for abuse is rife and that such informational asymmetry gives employers more power over their employees than anyone should have over anyone. They have way too much power over their employees already, in part due to espionage of their employees through technological means.
@eff

@patrician

You are of course welcome to that opinion. While I do not agree with the "too much power over employees part" I do agree that there is potential for abuse and that is why I would support any law that would make it illegal to use that data or technology outside of working hours.

With that said I dont feel employees should have too many rights other than some basics simply because they are being paid, and a company has a right to decide what they are willing to pay for, if what they want to pay employees to do is let them use facial recognition on them, thats the companies right. If an employee doesnt like it, protest with your feet and work somewhere else.

@eff

@freemo
We live in a world where the task of finding employment is becoming more difficult by the day.
Most people CAN'T vote with their feet.
@eff

@patrician

Skilled workers generally can. I get multiple job offers every day even when im not looking. I recognize thats not everyone but anyone who bothered to aquire highly marketable skills would be in that boat.

@eff

@freemo @patrician @eff that will just be used as a notch in incrementalism to argue that since you are already surrounded insurveilance tech for work that you then shouldn’t object to being surrounded in it more.

gotta nip that shit in the bud

@freemo @eff @patrician the annoying part is that companies like Amazon are effectively unboycottable. I already pay them none monies, but the state steals money in taxes and guarantees they can’t fail via government contracts.

So in a way, the public is paying for a company to normalize spying on the public and we can’t vote it out with our wallets.

Time to terrorize Congress I guess?

@icedquinn
Looks like it. Shame my german self won't be able to participate.
@eff @freemo

@patrician @eff @freemo I’m not sure what their presence is in europe. Over here they have a (pseudo?)monopoly on government provisioning and have taken over a lot of IT, so we are forced to support bezos even if we actively work against him

@icedquinn
Ugh. Amazon steamrolled the local competition because they managed to get out of paying taxes and all european delegates need to have an official email account provided by microsoft(along with a spam filter that can't be modified, replaced or turned off). I keep hearing examples about how america's worse off when it comes to corporate dominance but it's not great here either
@eff @freemo

@patrician @eff @freemo relying on a foreign company for domestic affairs is just braindead

@icedquinn
I genuinely believe in the EU as a concept... but sometimes I think the brexiteers have a point.
I genuinely believe they're making a mistake...
But they have a point
@eff @freemo

@patrician @eff @freemo it was good as a trade agreement. it isn’t good as a government.

@icedquinn

Never heard that logic used before. No one seems to think that if something is ok if your paid to do it that therefore it must be fine to force you to do it for free

@eff @patrician

@freemo @eff @patrician

because we live in a society where shit-op arguments are very effective.

if Ted Cruz says wearing bowler hats is now mandatory apropos of nothing then people go what the fuck

if a plurality of businesses say “bowler hats mandatory” and people go “oh well they get to do that” then inevitably someone will argue “well everyone is already wearing bowler hats everywhere, so we might as well just codify it”

normalcy biases don’t care how you get there only that’s people think it has become normal and you’re the odd one not wanting it

@icedquinn
This. So much this.
@eff @freemo

@icedquinn

yes we do... yet ive never heard that or an argument of that nature used. In fact usually the opposite of it is used

@eff @patrician

@icedquinn
This is what I was trying to say. Thank you for putting it into better words than I could
@eff @freemo