- The above examples all represent a different, equally troubling brand of dystopia — one full of false positives, confusion and waste. In these examples the technology is no less invasive. Your face is still scanned in public, your online information is still leveraged against you to manipulate your behavior and your financial data is collected to compile a score that may determine if you can own a home or a car. Your privacy is still invaded, only now you’re left to wonder if the insights were accurate.
As lawmakers ponder facial recognition bans and comprehensive privacy laws, they’d do well to consider this fundamental question: Setting aside even the ethical concerns, are the technologies that are slowly eroding our ability to live a private life actually delivering on their promises? Companies like NEC and others argue that outright bans on technology like facial recognition “stifle innovation.” Though I’m personally not convinced, there may be kernels of truth to that. But before giving these companies the benefit of the doubt, we should look deeper at the so-called innovation to see what we’re really gaining as a result of our larger privacy sacrifice.
Right now, the trade-off doesn’t look so great. Perhaps the only thing worse than living in a perfect surveillance state is living in a deeply flawed one.
Just scanned my face into the Apple database yesterday. It didn’t feel good. The four-digit pin unlock never did me wrong, but my hand was forced by my iPhone 5’s dwindling battery life. I wish we would stop needlessly “improving” technology.
If you dont want an account on nyt (e.g! for privacy reason):