[mattt]

Nope…. Not a street photography question. Listening to a podcast today about the surveillance state in Shinzhun (sp?). Very interesting how fast technology has advanced there with the use of surveillance cameras and facial recognition being very prevalent.

Here comes the question for consideration:

Are the algorithms used by advanced cameras (pick any of the most recent mirrorless releases) benefiting from the work / research conducted in authoritarian states?

Is it ethical to support that work by making consumer purchases of items using the fruits of those researches?

Is this a ethical angle a valid marketing angle for a company that doesn’t sport bird eye detect etc?

I’m sure there are a few opinions here.

[ZombieArmy]

“To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell.

And so it is with science.”

― Richard Feynman

[UncleVanya]

“To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell.

And so it is with science.”

― Richard Feynman

Yup... and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[othar]

Is it ethical to support that work by making consumer purchases of items using the fruits of those researches?

In a perfect world, the answer would be no.
The problem is, where to draw the line and how to verify and enforce it.
For your specific example of surveillance cameras and facial recognition software: this technology is not only used in authoritarian states, so how do you proof a specific code in the software is the result of illegally obtained (or at least unethically obtained) data.
Data protection, where this is basically a subarea, is a treacherous area in general, even in countries with strong privacy regulations, those laws are often ignored or bypassed in reality.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Are the algorithms used by advanced cameras (pick any of the most recent mirrorless releases) benefiting from the work / research conducted in authoritarian states?Is it ethical to support that work by making consumer purchases of items using the fruits of those researches?

On the whole, people in rich first world countries tend not to let the ethics of how their consumer goodies are produced worry them too much. They'll happily buy designer label clothes sewn together by women and kids in third world sweat shops. They'll buy cheap electronics made in factories that have to have nets around the rooftops to stop their wage slaves jumping to their deaths. And they'll buy all those shiny new goodies online from companies operating warehouses that treat human beings like robots; companies which set their delivery drivers impossible targets that leave them earning below minimum wage, and which pay almost no tax.

So I doubt the fact that a particular camera technology is being used as an instrument of oppression in authoritarian countries will make much of a dent in the sales figures.

And no, I'm not saying all that to try to signal my own virtue. It's very likely that some of the consumer items in my own home involved ethical compromises in their manufacturing that I'd rather not think about. I'm sure that many of us here try to consume as ethically as we can, but I doubt any of us is entirely innocent.

[photoptimist]

Ah, but the same advanced camera technology that helps the surveillance state also helps journalists, activists, and dissidents to watch the watchers.

In fact, the more we support advanced camera technology, the cheaper it becomes. And the cheaper it becomes, the more it can be used by ordinary citizens to combat abusive governments by documenting and publicizing the perpetrators of atrocity and abuse.

[othar]

In fact, the more we support advanced camera technology, the cheaper it becomes. And the cheaper it becomes, the more it can be used by ordinary citizens to combat abusive governments by documenting and publicizing the perpetrators of atrocity and abuse.

In a full grown surveillance state, I doubt anyone gets the chance to publicise anything of relevance before going missing oneself.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Are the algorithms used by advanced cameras (pick any of the most recent mirrorless releases) benefiting from the work / research conducted in authoritarian states?

Are you sure this is right? Is it not the other way round? Are it not the authoritarian states that benefit from the work / research done to develop the algorithms used in most modern camera's (and mobile phones)? Because as soon as such product hits the market it can be copied and even if it is a breach of patent law, authoritarian states just use it and it is hard to stop that practice. They can collect the knowledge by spying or simply get access to the technique because we let the camera's (in this discussion) be build in such a country.

[pacerr]

. . . it can be used by ordinary citizens to combat [ ] abuse.

The technology exists. What you do with it becomes the only ethics you control. Turn the weapons against the foe.

Boycott = passive-aggressive

[mattt]

Great discussion.

Here is the podcast - it doesn’t specifically call out consumer camera products, but it might speak to @afterpentaxMarkII’s point.

?Ideas: On China: Detention, Surveillance ? and Profit on Apple Podcasts


The algorithm is refined, then commercialized. The security zone is equivalent to a “lab” for learning and developing tech.

[AggieDad]

Well, we could boycott these transgressors. But then this economic sanction (no matter its good intentions) would suppress the income of those poor souls earning $8 per day by lowering demand for the products they make.

On the other hand, we could continue buying from these countries. We have seen in the past that as the economies of countries strengthen and the people prosper, the countries tend to change and find a societal balance that seems to work for the citizenry. This is not to say they will look like your country or mine.

We all have to make our own value judgments.

[Mooncatt]

Is it ethical to support that work by making consumer purchases of items using the fruits of those researches?

You're working under the assumption that consumer manufacturers are the primary reason for the surveillance state advancements. I doubt that is the case.


The more likely scenario is the surveillance state is going to pursue their own advancements, absent of any consumer concerns (especially those of us in freer countries). The camera manufacturers have a profit motive to develop better systems from both angles, and I don't think it's unethical to buy from them unless there is a direct link to unethical practices on their part.

Or look at it this way. If the manufacturers developed better facial recognition to suit consumer demand, the surveillance state government could simply buy those cameras off the shelf anyway. It wouldn't be unethical to buy from that manufacturer in that scenario, would it?

[stevebrot]

Are the algorithms used by advanced cameras (pick any of the most recent mirrorless releases) benefiting from the work / research conducted in authoritarian states?

More likely the other way around...

The best solution is to not use facial recognition features.


Steve

[ZombieArmy]

I do think it's important to distinguish the feature of something recognizing a face as human and recognizing a face and putting a name to it. They are two totally different ballparks.

[othar]

I do think it's important to distinguish the feature of something recognizing a face as human and recognizing a face and putting a name to it. They are two totally different ballparks.

You are correct in that way, that surveillance cameras don't use AF to focus and track a specific face in general, they try to focus on as broad an area as possible to keep an eye on everyone.
But I think recognizing which part of an image is a face, or even which part of a face is the eye, so the AF system can track that uses similar algorithms as facial recognition software (the software has to prioritize somehow which parts of the image are important for the search)