> The Department of Agriculture, for instance, said it wants to use it to monitor live surveillance feeds at its facilities and send an alert if it spots any faces also found on a watch list.<p>Ah yes, nothing dystopian about the fucking Department of Agriculture keeping watch lists.
I would buy a face mask or sunglasses today that produced known collisions with popular facial recognition CV software.<p>A novelty for sure, but it would be a fun product.<p>Perhaps it's more realistic to buy sunglasses with powerful IR emitters with a discrete design.
Every time biometrics is on HN i end up losing karma cause people disagree with me.<p>I did my PhD on biometrics and while i've transitioned to a different field since graduation, i'd like to think i have some insight into the field (which i still try to follow through journals like IEEE TIFS or conference proceedings from ICB/IJCB). Fundamentally, a biometric is both a _username_ and a _password_ at the same time. It identifies who is logging in (username) while authenticating them (password). There is some literature to address the elephant in the room about 'changing the password' where the key created and stored from the biometric can be changed. But again, fundamentally, the goal should be about how to treat the data like a username/password pair that's just as sensitive as something like a SSN. For law enforcement, i completely agree that it's useful, but for digital access i have yet to see proof that system architects are acknowledging that relationship when thinking about cybersecurity and any ramifications of a breach.<p>edit: LOL this just hit my RSS feed from HN -- <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28314993" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28314993</a>
I feel like the American populis basically deserves this for endlessly electing the "practical" centrist candidates who don't have the political courage to change anything (or game show hosts, but Trump didn't seem particularly interested in dismantling the surveillance state)