Who is developing the algorithms that determines suspicious behavior? Who is reviewing those algorithms to determine if any bias is in the algorithms, Who is reviewing those algorithms to determine if any bias is in the algorithms, regardless of whether the bias is intentional or not? …

Only companies and developers would know the details. Of course they are auditing, and if you ask, you will probably get some kind of response. On the other hand, they may not tell you for security reasons.

Are people made aware that they’re being recorded or the level of recording (eg - facial recognition vs person detection)?

That is put up as a poster, but some people may not know. If you want to use that service, you have no choice but to accept it.

This goes back to the point I was making previously - it’s really hard to leave gihr home and not be recorded already. You’ll likely never know where you’re being recorded, who is recording you, or what will be done with your recordings. We’re losing the little privacy we do have left outside our homes and there’s not much we can do about it.

If we’re going to lose them sooner or later, wouldn’t it be better to make use of them in order to achieve a more prosperous society?

The state also justifies the arbitrary harvesting and storage of biometric information by claiming in court that "it is the natural authority of the state to store information about its citizens. If this is followed, there is already no privacy at all in the public sphere. And large corporations will follow the state’s argument and say that it is their natural right to supplement their customers’ information.

I guess my country is trying to figure out how to enrich our society in the future by acknowledging that privacy does not exist. And shouldn’t we?

Having facial recognition cameras may not seem too repressive, but when it starts to change their behavior because they don’t want to be identified at a certain park/store/corner/etc., then that mental/emotional barrier to entry is just as hard to overcome as a physical wall/gate.

This is a statement I heard from an acquaintance of mine, but I’d like to ask it here as well:

Disney uses three-point fingerprint information, wristband, and facial recognition technology to identify individuals in its facilities with sufficient probability. In other words, these personal identification technologies are legal and accepted in the world-famous land of dreams. Furthermore, the technologies used by companies and governments are similar. So why prohibit companies, stores, or countries from using those technologies? What makes them different from Disney?

We enjoy living in this country as much as we enjoy the attractions at Disney, don’t we? There is absolutely nothing wrong with those technologies. It provides convenience, efficiency, security, and makes people and businesses happy.

FWIW, Total Cookie Protection was previously called Dynamic First Party Isolation and it is indeed one of the FPIs.

The name is mentioned in the Firefox Security Newsletter as follows:

Usability and Tracking Protection: Firefox 96 also shipped improved Service Worker isolation as part of our work towards Total Cookie Protection (formerly known as Dynamic First Party Isolation).

I think there is a legal grey area there right now as the technological development moved much faster than the corresponding legal situation.

I agree. And unfortunately even if laws are enacted, governments and companies will secretly operate those systems (as they have done and will do in my country).

Why do you need to know who is doing what? Wouldn’t it be nearly or just as beneficial knowing someone is doing something?

For example, by estimating who visited the location, to do what, and how many times, they are able to determine if there is any suspicious behavior (although the criteria are unknown). This is, of course, also used for marketing purposes, as in how many times a customer with what attributes has used the service.

If there is an alert that there is suspicious activity, the police or employees will monitor, track or question the person in question, and the system will mark that suspicious person as one of the people on the suspicious person list in the future.

You could use person detection (but not identification) for this. If you were trying to see how many people used a park, person recognition could help solve that.

Also, there are many instances where companies and governments have built facial recognition systems, saying that they are doing person detection. It is difficult for the public to be sure that companies and governments have not built and abused such systems.

I’m not sure why privacy should be any different (I know privacy isn’t a right in all countries though).

Yes, privacy is a very low priority right in my country. For this reason, people often adopt the idea of sacrificing privacy to protect the rights of citizens or to make them healthier and happier.

Those same people wanting safety are often the ones wanting criminals to have lighter sentences.

It was introduced not to lighten the sentence, but to minimize the harm suffered by the victim. Support is strong, considering what would happen if I were to be victimized tomorrow and what would happen to the victim.

My dude I think/hope you mean like convicts on the run.

They may arbitrarily track persons with arrest records for the purpose of preventing crimes before they happen. And persons with inexplicable behavior can be tracked as well. Furthermore, since some facial recognition systems have been introduced clandestinely, it is a realistic scenario that such systems are being used more extensively in a clandestine manner.

I agree with your statement. Then, if I dare to respond with my country and citizen stance…

What good does facial recognition provide on tracking pedestrians? Why would you want facial recognition for marketing purposes?

In fact, besides facial recognition, a complex set of technologies is used. This allows us to infer information such as where, who, and what they did. Such systems are often implemented from a crime prevention perspective, but they are also useful for large scale collection of statistical data. The results of the analysis are fed back to us, and many people are happy with the increased convenience.

Also, why do people who aren’t part of a target audience need to be included in a company’s mass collection of faces?

It may be a hidden target, or it may be useful in another business of that company or government. In fact, some services have been launched as a result of such data analysis, with some success.

If you’re wrongly committed of something though, what do you do?

The behavior of fleeing because of a false accusation is likely to result in another charge or more accusations than being arrested. You should either turn yourself in or be arrested and fight it out in court. Others argue that these systems are also useful in reducing false convictions.

Also, what percentage of the population requires this? I assume its likely less than 10% and that may be generous.

Also, many citizens support such a system, saying that it is “for the safety of society” and “for the arrest of criminals.”

Because of the laws governing the handling of personal data, many citizens trust that the information obtained by companies and governments is properly managed and used for the right things, and the prevailing view is that sacrificing some privacy for security and convenience is unavoidable.

Did you as an innocent person explicitly agree to be tracked this way and your sensitive biometric data being stored?

Generally, clear consent for all users is not possible, so a sign is posted there. And if you do not agree, you can choose not to use those services (although that is virtually impossible).

Also, in my country, anything other than biometric data obtained by special equipment is not considered sufficient biometric data and is on the border between illegal and legal.

Thank you for your detailed response.

In my country, biometric and pseudo-biometric data acquisition is widely used by companies and even the government for crime prevention (and of course for marketing purposes). Where do you think there should be a trade-off in privacy vs. crime prevention (benefit to society as a whole)?

The use cases mentioned in the above text are common in my country. So I would like to understand if these use cases are a problem and why.