What you need to know about face surveillance | Kade Crockford

Summary

In this thought-provoking speech, the speaker challenges the myth that privacy is dead and advocates for the essential role privacy plays in safeguarding both freedom and safety. By highlighting the dangers of technologies like face surveillance, the speaker emphasizes how these systems threaten civil liberties and individual freedoms. Drawing on examples like the failure of facial recognition systems and the misuse of surveillance for personal gain, the speaker calls for action to protect privacy and limit government overreach. The speech concludes with a call to preserve democratic freedoms by taking bold action against invasive surveillance technologies.

Takeaways

• 😀 Privacy is not dead; it is an essential human right that everyone values, even if they don't always recognize it.
• 😀 People care about their privacy because they want to maintain control over how their personal information is shared and used.
• 😀 Privacy is not secrecy; it's about controlling who has access to your information, such as medical records or personal thoughts.
• 😀 Technologies like encryption, door locks, and passwords simultaneously protect both privacy and safety.
• 😀 Dragnet surveillance programs do not necessarily enhance safety, as evidenced by the lack of success in preventing terrorist attacks.
• 😀 Smart home devices can pose security risks because they are vulnerable to hacking, unlike traditional privacy measures like curtains or fences.
• 😀 Face surveillance is a dangerous technology that enables totalizing surveillance, threatening our privacy and freedom.
• 😀 The widespread use of face surveillance can create a 'digital panopticon' where the government monitors public movements and associations.
• 😀 The failure of face recognition technology can have serious consequences, as seen in the case of Steve Talley, who was wrongfully accused based on a false match.
• 😀 Face surveillance could be used to track individuals attending private or political gatherings, violating privacy and civil rights.
• 😀 To protect privacy, we must regulate and limit the government's ability to deploy face surveillance, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Q & A

What is the speaker's stance on the idea that 'privacy is dead'?

The speaker rejects the notion that privacy is dead. They argue that privacy is a fundamental human right and that people do care about their privacy, as evidenced by actions like using encryption software, passwords, and curtains for privacy protection.

Why does the speaker believe the idea that 'people don't care about privacy because they have nothing to hide' is a myth?

The speaker explains that privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing, but about control over personal information. They give examples such as not wanting to share personal medical records or search histories publicly, illustrating that everyone values privacy, even if they aren't hiding anything.

How does the speaker differentiate between privacy and secrecy?

The speaker clarifies that privacy is about control over personal information and how it is shared, while secrecy implies hiding something. For example, sharing health information with a doctor is private, not secret, as the person has control over who sees it.

What technologies are mentioned as examples of tools that protect both privacy and safety?

The speaker mentions technologies like fences, door locks, curtains, and encryption software. These technologies protect both privacy and safety by allowing people to control access to their personal spaces and information.

What example does the speaker use to illustrate the failure of dragnet surveillance programs?

The speaker refers to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's findings that post-9/11 dragnet surveillance programs did not identify or stop a single terrorist attack. Instead, these programs were used by NSA employees to spy on personal matters, like romantic interests.

Why does the speaker argue that face surveillance is particularly dangerous?

Face surveillance is dangerous because it allows governments to track and monitor people's movements, associations, and habits in public spaces, creating a digital panopticon. This technology can erode individual freedoms and privacy in a free society.

How does the speaker compare face surveillance to a panopticon?

The speaker compares face surveillance to a panopticon, a prison design where guards can monitor all prisoners without being seen. Similarly, face surveillance enables a centralized authority to watch everyone in public without their knowledge, affecting their behavior.

What is the potential harm of face surveillance when it works as intended?

When face surveillance works as intended, it can be used to track individuals attending private meetings or protests, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or political demonstrations, violating their privacy and freedom of association.

What does the speaker propose as a solution to the dangers of face surveillance?

The speaker suggests banning the government's use of face surveillance technologies and pushing for municipal and nationwide laws to restrict its use, ensuring that privacy is protected and surveillance does not become unchecked.

How does the speaker argue that face surveillance cannot be effectively regulated?

The speaker argues that face surveillance cannot be effectively regulated because it enables total surveillance by the government without any judicial oversight. Unlike phone data, which requires a warrant, face surveillance allows the government to track people without any limitations or accountability.