Tesco to Pioneer Facial Recognition-Powered Advertising

[Zaune]

Yessss, even more marketing/advertising spend being funneled into machine learning and vision research, keep it coming sales guys.

I think you're developing Science-Related Memetic Disorder.

[Singular Intellect]

I personally actually think it'll be great and have no objections to it whatsoever.

That's nice and if you opt into it I wish you all the happiness and excitement in the world with it. I meanwhile would like a way to opt out, thank you very much. Maybe that means I'll be the angry old man on the end of the street nobody visits on Halloween and that's fine by me. I just want a way to keep the world outside my home, where it belongs, and my face out of memory banks where it doesn't.

You always have a way to opt out, up to and including simply leaving modern civilization if the technology proves too much for you.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

that sounds like a perfectly alright demand to place on people

"you can always opt out of this contract we're forcing on you by leaving society and probably dying but hey, your choice"

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually this clueless of if it's a facade and stuff like this is cracks showing?

[Starglider]

Yessss, even more marketing/advertising spend being funneled into machine learning and vision research, keep it coming sales guys.

I think you're developing Science-Related Memetic Disorder.

I'm not mad! I'm just... misunderstood. But once my Army of Robots takes over civilization, I'LL SHOW THEM, I'LL SHOW THEM ALL!! BWA HA, HA HA, HA HA HA!

Allegations that I practice saying that in the shower every morning are completely unfounded. My wife is an industial chemist, but she swears that she is not investigating the beneficial properties of sodium.

[Zaune]

Hoo boy... May I suggest skipping straight to the Denouement? It'd be a terrible shame if that De Lorean of yours got wrecked in the Chase Scene.

[Singular Intellect]

that sounds like a perfectly alright demand to place on people

"you can always opt out of this contract we're forcing on you by leaving society and probably dying but hey, your choice"

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually this clueless of if it's a facade and stuff like this is cracks showing?

Yeah, poor people, being forced to live in society with other people that entails cost to benefit considerations.

[Tiriol]

that sounds like a perfectly alright demand to place on people

"you can always opt out of this contract we're forcing on you by leaving society and probably dying but hey, your choice"

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually this clueless of if it's a facade and stuff like this is cracks showing?

Yeah, poor people, being forced to live in society with other people that entails cost to benefit considerations.

You know, Siege and Simon_Jester were not unhappy with living in a society and abiding by its rules. What they were unhappy with is that their private lives were becoming less and less private and their ability to decide what they show to others. So, are you incapable of understanding that or do you like making men out of straw that much? This technology and its use do have their ramifications and potential for misuse and in the very least listening to criticism will let people know why others are apprehensive, or even reveal potential shortfalls.

[Singular Intellect]

You know, Siege and Simon_Jester were not unhappy with living in a society and abiding by its rules. What they were unhappy with is that their private lives were becoming less and less private and their ability to decide what they show to others.

Two words: tough shit.

So, are you incapable of understanding that or do you like making men out of straw that much? This technology and its use do have their ramifications and potential for misuse and in the very least listening to criticism will let people know why others are apprehensive, or even reveal potential shortfalls.

Guess what other technologies have ramifications and potential for misuse? Hint: all of it.

I have zero sympathy for people who whine about 'privacy' concerns.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Yessss, even more marketing/advertising spend being funneled into machine learning and vision research, keep it coming sales guys.

I think you're developing Science-Related Memetic Disorder.

Brains? Brains related computational machine learning money-order?

[Aka, what the CS guy said]

[phred]

You know, Siege and Simon_Jester were not unhappy with living in a society and abiding by its rules. What they were unhappy with is that their private lives were becoming less and less private and their ability to decide what they show to others.

Two words: tough shit.

So, are you incapable of understanding that or do you like making men out of straw that much? This technology and its use do have their ramifications and potential for misuse and in the very least listening to criticism will let people know why others are apprehensive, or even reveal potential shortfalls.

Guess what other technologies have ramifications and potential for misuse? Hint: all of it.

I have zero sympathy for people who whine about 'privacy' concerns.

So you would have no trouble, say, posting your email and password here on this forum. Or putting up webcams around your house so we can watch your every move.
Privacy doesn't matter after all, and the idea that someone might not like private entities watching their every move is just kind of pathetic, right?

[Lagmonster]

What they were unhappy with is that their private lives were becoming less and less private and their ability to decide what they show to others.

I don't see the similarities here, though. The technology guesses at your age and gender. That's not private information. Any speculation about using this for more personal identification is straight bullshit.

So you would have no trouble, say, posting your email and password here on this forum. Or putting up webcams around your house so we can watch your every move.

You're leaping to the extreme, I think. Even identifying your face - something obviously quite personal to you alone - is not anywhere near the same as identifying your security password, and if you think they are, you are fabulously stupid.

[Siege]

What they were unhappy with is that their private lives were becoming less and less private and their ability to decide what they show to others.

I don't see the similarities here, though. The technology guesses at your age and gender. That's not private information. Any speculation about using this for more personal identification is straight bullshit.

I didn't say anything about this technology specifically. I responded to your own post about how "kids that have been exposed their whole lives on YouTube, Facebook, widespread security camera networks, etc. may not give much of a shit about privacy the way previous generations did", and Singular Intellect's subsequent remark that he thinks that's going to be "great" and that he has "no objections" to it, with my own statement regarding how I want the ability to opt out of 'tailored intrusiveness' as Simon_Jester put it.

With regards to Singular Intellect's subsequent reaction to my preferences, I think his posts speak for themselves.

[Singular Intellect]

So you would have no trouble, say, posting your email and password here on this forum. Or putting up webcams around your house so we can watch your every move.

Complete strawman argument. That is me making the very significant effort to put information out there rather than information being gathered about me in completely harmless ways.

Privacy doesn't matter after all, and the idea that someone might not like private entities watching their every move is just kind of pathetic, right?

Let me put it in such a way your little mind can comprehend: In absolutely any situation where human eyes, ears and brains are recording and recognizing me and my actions with the option of sharing that information with anyone else, I'm perfectly fine with technological equivalents doing the same.

[Simon_Jester]

So, there is no difference made in your mind between whether all this recognition and analysis is done sporadically, and whether it is done with mechanical thoroughness, precision, and 100% consistency?

I like the idea that attempts to manipulate and track me cannot be made with mechanical precision and consistency. Machines are very good at a lot of things; I would prefer it if they don't get that good at controlling, constraining, and manipulating my own actions.

[Singular Intellect]

So, there is no difference made in your mind between whether all this recognition and analysis is done sporadically, and whether it is done with mechanical thoroughness, precision, and 100% consistency?

Things done with mechanical thoroughness, precision and 100% consistency is a great thing. I fail to see what you're objecting to.

I like the idea that attempts to manipulate and track me cannot be made with mechanical precision and consistency. Machines are very good at a lot of things; I would prefer it if they don't get that good at controlling, constraining, and manipulating my own actions.

Explain how the fuck you just jumped from 'observe, recognize and analyse' to 'controlling, constraining and manipulating'.

[Tiriol]

You know, Siege and Simon_Jester were not unhappy with living in a society and abiding by its rules. What they were unhappy with is that their private lives were becoming less and less private and their ability to decide what they show to others.

Two words: tough shit.

So, are you incapable of understanding that or do you like making men out of straw that much? This technology and its use do have their ramifications and potential for misuse and in the very least listening to criticism will let people know why others are apprehensive, or even reveal potential shortfalls.

Guess what other technologies have ramifications and potential for misuse? Hint: all of it.

I have zero sympathy for people who whine about 'privacy' concerns.

So you have problem with people objecting to technology because it opens doors to huge abuse of power? You object to them wishing to have some privacy? Maybe you should try living in Iran, Syria or North Korea or some other dictatorship and see how that works out for you. Or do you think that some tyrannical regime wouldn't instantly use such technology to take away all privacy they could to keep their subjects in check better? Or what if such technology is used by someone who is not in the government, but happens to have access to said technology and stalks you personally? Distributed that information gathered by it for all the world to see? Or use it for some other less-than-wholesome purpose?

I seem to recall that you were, at least at some point, very keen on the idea of technological Singularity. How much would you like it if that information would suddenly become public everywhere and to everyone - because I can bet that not that many share your enthusiasm for such a concept. you'd be lucky if you got away with just being ridiculed as a "robot boy" or some silly name. Not to mention that nobody is perfect and everyone has something that others can use for ridicule and abuse. Are you ready to face that (there are people who have committed suicide because of such things)? And even if you are ready, what gives you the right to say "tough titties, mate" to someone who's not ready to do so?

Here's the thing about privacy: once it's lost, it's very hard to get back. At least usually people have themselves to blame for it (don't post videos of your drunken stupidity on youtube, for example), but it's pretty hellish that someone else might take it away from you and you having no say in it.

[Simon_Jester]

So, there is no difference made in your mind between whether all this recognition and analysis is done sporadically, and whether it is done with mechanical thoroughness, precision, and 100% consistency?

Things done with mechanical thoroughness, precision and 100% consistency is a great thing. I fail to see what you're objecting to.

How can you say that it is a good thing for things to be done in this way, without talking about what is being done and whether it is desirable in itself?

Making a machine that washes clothes fast and reliably is good because clean clothes are good. Making a machine that lets us travel quickly is good because faster travel is more desirable to us.

Making a machine for theft that steals fast and reliably is not a good thing because stealing is bad- making the thefts happen faster and more reliably only makes things worse.

If we build machines to manipulate and control people, and use knowledge of human behavior to make these machines reliable, then what we are doing is transferring power and control over these people's lives to whoever owns the machine. That is a bad thing practically by default.

It takes incredible inflexibility and willful blindness to be unable to see this, so I'm sure you understand me now that I've laid it out like this.

I like the idea that attempts to manipulate and track me cannot be made with mechanical precision and consistency. Machines are very good at a lot of things; I would prefer it if they don't get that good at controlling, constraining, and manipulating my own actions.

Explain how the fuck you just jumped from 'observe, recognize and analyse' to 'controlling, constraining and manipulating'.

Because this observation, recognition, and analysis is being created specifically for the purpose of exercising control over, creating constraints upon, and manipulating my behavior.

In a marketer's ideal world, they'd be able to come up with a uniquely tailored and automatically compulsive sales pitch that would just cause people to spend money, without having any real say in the matter. A system of machines, sensors, and software that would figure out how to do this automatically would be the best thing ever from a marketing executive's perspective.

Realistically it will be some time before anything like that becomes possible, but we see with technology like Tesco's that they're working on it. And that as computer algorithms will only get smarter, and the data available on the average citizen will only get more comprehensive, the power of such machines to analyze and manipulate us is only going to increase.

And it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to sit down and avoid or subvert attempts to give marketers that kind of power. Because that's what this comes down to: in government hands, massive surveillance and analysis of all people is tyranny. In private hands, it simply becomes a different kind of tyranny.

[Singular Intellect]

So you have problem with people objecting to technology because it opens doors to huge abuse of power? You object to them wishing to have some privacy? Maybe you should try living in Iran, Syria or North Korea or some other dictatorship and see how that works out for you. Or do you think that some tyrannical regime wouldn't instantly use such technology to take away all privacy they could to keep their subjects in check better? Or what if such technology is used by someone who is not in the government, but happens to have access to said technology and stalks you personally? Distributed that information gathered by it for all the world to see? Or use it for some other less-than-wholesome purpose?

You're just whining here about potential abuse of technology. Any technology can get abused, your point is irrelevant.

I seem to recall that you were, at least at some point, very keen on the idea of technological Singularity. How much would you like it if that information would suddenly become public everywhere and to everyone - because I can bet that not that many share your enthusiasm for such a concept. you'd be lucky if you got away with just being ridiculed as a "robot boy" or some silly name.

I'm still a very strong proponent of the technological singularity, and the fact you're aware of that is proof I don't have a problem with that fact being known publicly, isn't it? People can ridicule away, and you can watch me not give a shit.

Not to mention that nobody is perfect and everyone has something that others can use for ridicule and abuse. Are you ready to face that (there are people who have committed suicide because of such things)? And even if you are ready, what gives you the right to say "tough titties, mate" to someone who's not ready to do so?

You're in the wrong fucking place if you think mockery of opinions and positions is frowned on around here. If you cannot handle your opinions being criticized or attacked, don't offer them.

Here's the thing about privacy: once it's lost, it's very hard to get back. At least usually people have themselves to blame for it (don't post videos of your drunken stupidity on youtube, for example), but it's pretty hellish that someone else might take it away from you and you having no say in it.

Yours or anyone else's attachment to the concept of privacy doesn't concern me. As I said, I have zero sympathy for people concerned about privacy issues.

Things done with mechanical thoroughness, precision and 100% consistency is a great thing. I fail to see what you're objecting to.

How can you say that it is a good thing for things to be done in this way, without talking about what is being done and whether it is desirable in itself?

Making a machine that washes clothes fast and reliably is good because clean clothes are good. Making a machine that lets us travel quickly is good because faster travel is more desirable to us.

Making a machine for theft that steals fast and reliably is not a good thing because stealing is bad- making the thefts happen faster and more reliably only makes things worse.

We know exactly what is being done. Facial recognition in this case.

If we build machines to manipulate and control people, and use knowledge of human behavior to make these machines reliable, then what we are doing is transferring power and control over these people's lives to whoever owns the machine. That is a bad thing practically by default.

And facial recognition and analysis manipulates and controls people...how?

It takes incredible inflexibility and willful blindness to be unable to see this, so I'm sure you understand me now that I've laid it out like this.

You seem to be switching back and forth between 'observe and record' and 'control and manipulate'. For the moment, I'll assume this isn't deliberate dishonesty on your part.

Being observed and recorded doesn't control anyone.

Explain how the fuck you just jumped from 'observe, recognize and analyse' to 'controlling, constraining and manipulating'.

Because this observation, recognition, and analysis is being created specifically for the purpose of exercising control over, creating constraints upon, and manipulating my behavior.

In a marketer's ideal world, they'd be able to come up with a uniquely tailored and automatically compulsive sales pitch that would just cause people to spend money, without having any real say in the matter. A system of machines, sensors, and software that would figure out how to do this automatically would be the best thing ever from a marketing executive's perspective.

Realistically it will be some time before anything like that becomes possible, but we see with technology like Tesco's that they're working on it. And that as computer algorithms will only get smarter, and the data available on the average citizen will only get more comprehensive, the power of such machines to analyze and manipulate us is only going to increase.

And it is perfectly reasonable for us to want to sit down and avoid or subvert attempts to give marketers that kind of power. Because that's what this comes down to: in government hands, massive surveillance and analysis of all people is tyranny. In private hands, it simply becomes a different kind of tyranny.

Ah, so you're arguing the case for the poor simpletons in life who see ads and commercials, thus are helpless and are 'caused to spend money'.

If you're that stupidly and easily manipulated, you don't have my sympathy. For such mindless sheep, I say fuck em.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Singular Intellect believes himself to be a being of pure rationality unable to be mislead

Because, you know, humans don't have things like emotion or biases or anything unless they're sheeple and other people don't take advantage of learning in how to manipulate people on a grand scale to, well, manipulate people.

You do realise your inability to grasp how people work and interact and an incapacity to actually self-examine does not constitute an actual superiority on your part, right?

[Singular Intellect]

Singular Intellect believes himself to be a being of pure rationality unable to be mislead

Because, you know, humans don't have things like emotion or biases or anything unless they're sheeple and other people don't take advantage of learning in how to manipulate people on a grand scale to, well, manipulate people.

You do realise your inability to grasp how people work and interact and an incapacity to actually self-examine does not constitute an actual superiority on your part, right?

You're simply invoking an Ad Hominem argument. That tends to indicate a complete lack of any actual argument or substance to your position.

[Thanas]

Hmmm...I can see SI IP address, location, email address etc. just fine. Maybe I should just post them for all too see. Wouldn't require much effort at all. What's that, you say? You don't like to see information revealed you freely gave up in order to enjoy posting here?

In your own words, tough shit.

[Singular Intellect]

Hmmm...I can see SI IP address, location, email address etc. just fine. Maybe I should just post them for all too see. Wouldn't require much effort at all. What's that, you say? You don't like to see information revealed you freely gave up in order to enjoy posting here?

In your own words, tough shit.

Your point being? I'm well aware of what information is available from my signup and posting on these forums.

[Tiriol]

So you have problem with people objecting to technology because it opens doors to huge abuse of power? You object to them wishing to have some privacy? Maybe you should try living in Iran, Syria or North Korea or some other dictatorship and see how that works out for you. Or do you think that some tyrannical regime wouldn't instantly use such technology to take away all privacy they could to keep their subjects in check better? Or what if such technology is used by someone who is not in the government, but happens to have access to said technology and stalks you personally? Distributed that information gathered by it for all the world to see? Or use it for some other less-than-wholesome purpose?

You're just whining here about potential abuse of technology. Any technology can get abused, your point is irrelevant.

... Did I just read that right? My "whining" is irrelevant, because any technology can be abused? Show me HOW it is irrelevant. I outlined clear possibilities how this technology could be used to make people's lives considerably worse and give some brutal thug of a dictator immense control over everyone and you simply reply by "it is irrelevant. You are whining. Any technology can be abused. Irrelevant." I'm surprised you didn't put "Does not compute." in there.

I seem to recall that you were, at least at some point, very keen on the idea of technological Singularity. How much would you like it if that information would suddenly become public everywhere and to everyone - because I can bet that not that many share your enthusiasm for such a concept. you'd be lucky if you got away with just being ridiculed as a "robot boy" or some silly name.

I'm still a very strong proponent of the technological singularity, and the fact you're aware of that is proof I don't have a problem with that fact being known publicly, isn't it? People can ridicule away, and you can watch me not give a shit.

Bull-fucking-shit. I know that some username Singular Intellect gets his (or her; that's how much I know about you) jollies out of worshiping technology to the point of losing the sight that technology serves people, not the other way around, I don't know WHO Singular Intellect is. You hide behind anonymity and a username and do not put your own identity out. That's not public, really.

What do you have to hide, robot boy?!

Not to mention that nobody is perfect and everyone has something that others can use for ridicule and abuse. Are you ready to face that (there are people who have committed suicide because of such things)? And even if you are ready, what gives you the right to say "tough titties, mate" to someone who's not ready to do so?

You're in the wrong fucking place if you think mockery of opinions and positions is frowned on around here. If you cannot handle your opinions being criticized or attacked, don't offer them.

Yeah, you don't get it. Here people get mocked for their opinions and positions. But nobody is going around tormenting them personally, invading their private lives and attacking them in their actual life. Or, say, stripping away all their privacy even when they don't want to do it or don't consent to it (by posting here one implicitly consents that his posts and opinions are visible and thus public, at least to the board or specific sub-boards). Which would become all the easier with this technology and which is why it must be considered and why people have reservations about it.

Say, for argument's sake, that I and Edi have an argument and we flame each other here. Maybe my position on the matter is so godawful and stupid that Edi's eyes bleed blood and he calls me on it. That's it. It ends there. But what I talked about earlier, about people being driven to suicide with abuse and bullying, would be more like Edi going into full vendetta mode here on SDNet, harassing me in real life, getting his friends to do so as well, doing everything he can to make my life miserable - and also posting private information about me everywhere for all the world to see. You can hopefully differentiate between normal flaming and arguments and that.

Were you born this limited in your perception of reality, or did you have to work on it?

Here's the thing about privacy: once it's lost, it's very hard to get back. At least usually people have themselves to blame for it (don't post videos of your drunken stupidity on youtube, for example), but it's pretty hellish that someone else might take it away from you and you having no say in it.

Yours or anyone else's attachment to the concept of privacy doesn't concern me. As I said, I have zero sympathy for people concerned about privacy issues.

You fascinate me. You're like some stereotype of a haughty, arrogant scientist completely in awe and in love with his science and research, incapable of dealing with anything outside of it and refusing to consider opinions of others. I hope that the developers of any new technology are good at PR and actually understand other people, because people like you aren't making things easy for them.

[phred]

So you would have no trouble, say, posting your email and password here on this forum. Or putting up webcams around your house so we can watch your every move.

Complete strawman argument. That is me making the very significant effort to put information out there rather than information being gathered about me in completely harmless ways.

Privacy doesn't matter after all, and the idea that someone might not like private entities watching their every move is just kind of pathetic, right?

Let me put it in such a way your little mind can comprehend: In absolutely any situation where human eyes, ears and brains are recording and recognizing me and my actions with the option of sharing that information with anyone else, I'm perfectly fine with technological equivalents doing the same.

The question is, at what point does the information gathering stop being completely harmless? Some people here think this technology is heading towards the 'not completely harmless' category.
So fine. Don't put up webcams. Where do you draw the line? I'm betting it's there somewhere, or your email and password would be up here by now.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

You're simply invoking an Ad Hominem argument. That tends to indicate a complete lack of any actual argument or substance to your position.

You dismiss any concerns you don't personally share as stupidity because you don't understand how people or even yourself work and take your own preferences and biases as objective truth. If you're making an argument based on the assumption that something doesn't matter because only stupid people benefit it and thus don't deserve it, then this actually makes a difference!

What is your response to people who have concerns about privacy because our society is full of often-violent bigotries and so people use privacy and secrecy as a tool to avoid or deal with it?