What you need to know about face surveillance | Kade Crockford

Translator: Padma Lakshminarasimhan Reviewer: Emma Toft

How many of you have ever heard someone say

Hvor mange af jer har nogensinde hørt nogen sige

privacy is dead?

privatlivets fred er død?

Raise your hand.

Ræk hånden op.

How many of you have heard someone say

Hvor mange af jer har hørt nogen sige

they don't care about their privacy because they don't have anything to hide?

de er ligeglad med deres privatliv fordi de ikke har noget at skjule?

Go on.

Fortsæt.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Now, how many of you use any kind of encryption software?

Hvor mange af jer bruger en nogen form for krypteringssoftware?

Raise your hand.

Ræk hånden op.

Or a password to protect an online account?

Or curtains or blinds on your windows at home?

Eller gardiner eller persienner på dine vinduer derhjemme?

(Laughter)

(Latter)

OK, so that's everyone, I think.

OK, så det er alle, tror jeg.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

So why do you do these things?

My guess is,

Mit gæt er,

it's because you care about your privacy.

Det er fordi du er interesseret i dit privatliv.

The idea that privacy is dead is a myth.

Ideen om, at privatlivets fred er død, er en myte.

The idea that people don't care about their privacy

because "they have nothing to hide"

or they've done nothing wrong

eller de har ikke gjort noget galt

is also a myth.

er også en myte.

I'm guessing that you would not want to publicly share on the internet,

Jeg gætter på, at du ikke vil have det at dele offentligt på internettet,

for the world to see,

for verdens øjne,

all of your medical records.

din medicinske historie.

Or your search histories from your phone or your computer.

And I bet

Og jeg vil vædde

that if the government wanted to put a chip in your brain

at hvis regeringen ville lægge en chip i din hjerne

to transmit every one of your thoughts to a centralized government computer,

you would balk at that.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

That's because you care about your privacy,

Det er fordi du tænker over dit privatliv

like every human being.

So, our world has changed fast.

Så vores verden har ændret sig hurtigt.

And today, there is understandably a lot of confusion

Og i dag er der forståeligt meget forvirring

about what privacy is and why it matters.

om, hvad privatliv er, og hvorfor det betyder noget.

Privacy is not secrecy.

Privatliv er ikke tavshedspligt.

It's control.

I share information with my doctor about my body and my health,

expecting that she is not going to turn around

forventer, at hun ikke vil vende rundt

and share that information with my parents,

og dele disse oplysninger med mine forældre,

or my boss or my kids.

eller min chef eller mine børn.

That information is private, not secret.

Disse oplysninger er private, ikke hemmelige.

I'm in control over how that information is shared.

You've probably heard people say that there's a fundamental tension

between privacy on the one hand

mellem privatliv på den ene side

and safety on the other.

og sikkerhed på den anden.

But the technologies that advance our privacy

Men teknologierne der fremmer vores privatliv

also advance our safety.

fremme også vores sikkerhed.

Think about fences, door locks,

curtains on our windows, passwords,

gardiner på vores vinduer, adgangskoder,

encryption software.

All of these technologies

Alle disse teknologier

simultaneously protect our privacy and our safety.

Dragnet surveillance, on the other hand, protects neither.

In recent years,

I de seneste år,

the federal government tasked a group of experts

called The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

kaldet Privatlivets fred og borgerlige frihedsrettigheder Tilsynsudvalg

with examining post-9/11 government surveillance programs,

med undersøgelse af post-9/11 regeringsovervågningsprogrammer

dragnet surveillance programs.

dragnet-overvågningsprogrammer.

Those experts could not find a single example

Disse eksperter kunne ikke finde et enkelt eksempel

of that dragnet surveillance advancing any safety --

af den dragnetovervågning fremme noget sikkerhed -

didn't identify or stop a single terrorist attack.

det identificerede eller stoppede ikke et enkelt terrorangreb.

You know what that information was useful for, though?

Helping NSA employees spy on their romantic interests.

Hjælpe NSA-medarbejdere spionere på deres romantiske interesser.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

(Audience: Wow.)

Another example is closer to home.

Et andet eksempel er tættere på hjemmet.

So millions of people across the United States and the world

Så millioner af mennesker overalt i USA og verden

are adopting so-called "smart home" devices,

like internet-connected surveillance cameras.

som internetforbundet overvågningskameraer.

But we know that any technology connected to the internet

can be hacked.

And so if a hacker

Så hvis en hacker

gets into your internet-connected surveillance camera at home,

they can watch you and your family coming and going,

de kan se dig og din familie komme og gå,

finding just the right time to strike.

at finde det rette tidspunkt at slå til.

You know what can't be hacked remotely?

Ved du hvad der ikke kan hackes eksternt?

Curtains.

Gardiner.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Fences.

Hegn.

Door locks.

Dørlåse.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Privacy is not the enemy of safety.

It is its guarantor.

Det er dets garanti.

Nonetheless, we daily face a propaganda onslaught

telling us that we have to give up some privacy in exchange for safety

through surveillance programs.

gennem overvågningsprogrammer.

Face surveillance is the most dangerous of these technologies.

There are two primary ways today governments use technologies like this.

Der er to primære måder i dag regeringer bruger teknologier som denne.

One is face recognition.

Den ene er ansigtsgenkendelse.

That's to identify someone in an image.

Det er for at identificere nogen i et billede.

The second is face surveillance,

which can be used in concert

som kan bruges i samarbejde

with surveillance-camera networks and databases

med overvågningskamera netværk og databaser

to create records of all people's public movements,

for at oprette fortegnelser over alle folks offentlige bevægelser,

habits and associations,

vaner og forbindelser,

effectively creating a digital panopticon.

i princippet at skabe et digitalt panopticon.

This is a panopticon.

Dette er et panopticon.

It's a prison designed to allow a few guards in the center

Det er et fængsel designet til at tillade et par vagter i centrum

to monitor everything happening in the cells around the perimeter.

at overvåge alt, hvad der sker i cellerne omkring omkredsen.

The people in those prison cells can't see inside the guard tower,

but the guards can see into every inch of those cells.

men vagterne kan se ind i hvert hjørne af cellerne.

The idea here

is that if the people in those prison cells

er det, hvis folket i de fængselsceller

know they're being watched all the time,

or could be,

eller kunne være,

they'll behave accordingly.

de vil opføre sig i overensstemmelse hermed.

Similarly, face surveillance enables a centralized authority --

Tilsvarende ansigtsovervågning muliggør en centraliseret myndighed -

in this case, the state --

to monitor the totality of human movement and association

for at overvåge totaliteten af menneskelig bevægelse og forbindelser

in public space.

i det offentlige rum.

And here's what it looks like

Og sådan her ser det ud

in real life.

In this case, it's not a guard in a tower,

I dette tilfælde er det ikke en vagt i et tårn,

but rather a police analyst in a spy center.

The prison expands beyond its walls,

encompassing everyone,

det omfatter alle,

everywhere, all the time.

overalt, hele tiden.

In a free society,

this should terrify us all.

For decades now, we've watched cop shows

I årtier har vi set politiudsendelser

that push a narrative that says

der fremmer en fortælling, som siger

technologies like face surveillance ultimately serve the public good.

at teknologier som ansigtsovervågning i sidste ende tjener det offentlige gode.

But real life is not a cop drama.

Men det virkelige liv er ikke et politidrama.

The bad guy didn't always do it,

Den dårlige fyr gjorde det ikke altid,

the cops definitely aren't always the good guys

and the technology doesn't always work.

og teknologien virker ikke altid.

Take the case of Steve Talley,

a financial analyst from Colorado.

en finansanalytiker fra Colorado.

In 2015, Talley was arrested, and he was charged with bank robbery

on the basis of an error in a facial recognition system.

på grundlag af en fejl i et ansigtsgenkendelsessystem.

Talley fought that case

Talley kæmpede imod

and he eventually was cleared of those charges,

og til sidst blev han renset for disse anklager,

but while he was being persecuted by the state,

men mens han var retsforfulgt af staten,

he lost his house, his job and his kids.

mistede han sit hus, sit job og sine børn.

Steve Talley's case is an example

of what can happen when the technology fails.

på hvad der kan ske når teknologien fejler.

But face surveillance is just as dangerous when it works as advertized.

Men ansigtsovervågning er lige så farlig når det fungerer som den er ønsket.

Just consider how trivial it would be

for a government agency to put a surveillance camera

outside a building where people meet for Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

They could connect that camera

De kunne tilslutte det kamera

to a face-surveillance algorithm and a database,

press a button and sit back and collect

tryk på en knap og læne sig tilbage og samle

a record of every person receiving treatment for alcoholism.

en fortegnelse over hver person som modtager behandling for alkoholisme.

It would be just as easy for a government agency

Det ville være lige så let for et regeringsorgan

to use this technology to automatically identify

at bruge denne teknologi til automatisk at identificere

every person who attended the Women's March

hver person der deltog kvindernes march

or a Black Lives Matter protest.

eller en Black Lives Matter-protest.

Even the technology industry is aware of the gravity of this problem.

Selv teknologibranchen er opmærksom på alvoren i dette problem.

Microsoft's president Brad Smith has called on Congress to intervene.

Microsofts præsident Brad Smith har opfordret kongressen til at gribe ind.

Google, for its part,

Google, på sin side,

has publicly declined to ship a face surveillance product,

har afvist, offentligt, at sende et ansigtsovervågningsprodukt,

in part because of these grave human and civil rights concerns.

til dels på grund af disse bekymringer for menneske- og borgerlige rettigheder.

And that's a good thing.

Og det er en god ting.

Because ultimately,

protecting our open society is much more important

at beskytte vores åbne samfund er meget vigtigere

than corporate profit.

end virksomhedsgevinst.

The ACLU's nationwide campaign

to get the government to pump the brakes

at få regeringen til at slå bremserne i,

on the adoption of this dangerous technology

for vedtagelse af denne farlige teknologi

has prompted reasonable questions from thoughtful people.

har stillet rimelige spørgsmål fra tankevækkende mennesker.

What makes this technology in particular so dangerous?

Hvad der gør især denne teknologi så farlig?

Why can't we just regulate it?

Hvorfor kan vi ikke bare regulere den?

In short, why the alarm?

Face surveillance is uniquely dangerous for two related reasons.

Ansigtsovervågning er unikt farlig af to beslægtede grunde.

One is the nature of the technology itself.

And the second is that our system

fundamentally lacks the oversight and accountability mechanisms

mangler grundlæggende tilsynet og ansvarlighedsmekanismer

that would be necessary

to ensure it would not be abused in the government's hands.

First, face surveillance enables a totalizing form of surveillance

never before possible.

aldrig før muligt.

Every single person's every visit to a friend's house,

Hver enkelt person's besøg til en vens hus,

a government office,

a house of worship,

a Planned Parenthood,

en seksuel sundhedsklinik,

a cannabis shop,

en cannabisbutik,

a strip club;

en stripklub;

every single person's public movements, habits and associations

hver enkelt persons offentlige bevægelser, vaner og forbindelser

documented and catalogued,

dokumenteret og katalogiseret,

not on one day, but on every day,

ikke kun en dag, men hver dag,

merely with the push of a button.

blot med et tryk på en knap.

This kind of totalizing mass surveillance

Denne form for totaliserende masseovervågning

fundamentally threatens what it means to live in a free society.

truer grundlæggende hvad det betyder at leve i et frit samfund.

Our freedom of speech, freedom of association,

freedom of religion,

religionsfrihed,

freedom of the press,

pressefrihed,

our privacy,

our right to be left alone.

You may be thinking,

"OK, come on, but there are tons of ways the government can spy on us."

”OK, kom nu, der er tonsvis af måder, hvor regeringen kan spionere på os."

And yes, it's true,

the government can track us through our cell phones,

but if I want to go to get an abortion,

or attend a political meeting,

or even just call in sick and play hooky and go to the beach ...

eller endda bare melde mig syg fra arbejde og gå på stranden ...

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I can leave my phone at home.

Jeg kan forlade min telefon derhjemme.

I cannot leave my face at home.

Jeg kan ikke efterlade mit ansigt derhjemme.

And that brings me to my second primary concern:

How we might meaningfully regulate this technology.

Today, if the government wants to know where I was last week,

they can't just hop into a time machine and go back in time and follow me.

de kan ikke bare gå ind i en tidsmaskine, gå tilbage i tiden og følg mig.

And they also, the local police right now,

don't maintain any centralized system of tracking,

opretholder ikke nogen centraliseret system til sporing,

where they're cataloging every person's public movements all the time,

hvor de katalogiserer enhver persons offentlige bevægelser hele tiden,

just in case that information some day becomes useful.

bare i tilfælde af, at oplysningerne en dag bliver nyttige.

Today, if the government wants to know where I was last week,

or last month or last year,

eller sidste måned eller sidste år,

they have to go to a judge, get a warrant

de er nødt til at gå til en dommer, få en kendelse

and then serve that warrant on my phone company,

og derefter give den kendelse til mit telefonselskab,

which by the way, has a financial interest in protecting my privacy.

som for øvrig har en økonomisk interesse i at beskytte mit privatliv.

With face surveillance,

no such limitations exist.

findes sådanne begrænsninger ikke.

This is technology that is 100 percent controlled by the government itself.

So how would a warrant requirement work in this context?

Så hvordan ville et krav om en dommerkendelse fungere i denne sammenhæng?

Is the government going to go to a judge

and get a warrant,

og få en kendelse,

and then serve the warrant on themselves?

og derefter bruge kendelsen på sig selv?

Det ville være som om at jeg giver dig min dagbog,

That would be like me giving you my diary,

and saying, "Here, you can hold on to this forever,

og sagde: "Her, du kan holde fast ved dette for evigt,

but you can't read it until I say it's OK."

So what can we do?

Så hvad kan vi gøre?

The only answer to the threat

Det eneste svar på truslen

posed by the government's use of face surveillance

stillet af regeringens brug af ansigtsovervågning

is to deny the government the capacity to violate the public's trust,

er at nægte regeringen muligheden

for at krænke offentlighedens tillid,

by denying the government the ability

to build these in-house face-surveillance networks.

til at bygge disse in-house ansigt-overvågningsnetværk.

And that's exactly what we're doing.

The ACLU is part of a nationwide campaign

ACLU er en del af en landsdækkende kampagne

to pump the brakes on the government's use of this dangerous technology.

for at bremse regeringens brug af denne farlige teknologi.

We've already been successful,

from San Francisco to Somerville, Massachusetts,

we have passed municipal bans

on the government's use of this technology.

på regeringens brug af denne teknologi.

And plenty of other communities here in Massachusetts

Og masser af andre kommuner her i Massachusetts

and across the country

are debating similar measures.

drøfter lignende foranstaltninger.

Some people have told me that this movement is bound to fail.

Nogle mennesker har fortalt mig at denne bevægelse er bundet til at mislykkes.

That ultimately,

merely because the technology exists,

it will be deployed in every context

by every government everywhere.

Privacy is dead, right?

So the narrative goes.

Sådan lyder fortællingen.

Well, I refuse to accept that narrative.

And you should, too.

We can't allow Jeff Bezos or the FBI

to determine the boundaries of our freedoms in the 21st century.

at bestemme grænserne af vores friheder i det 21. århundrede.

If we live in a democracy,

we are in the driver's seat,

er vi i førersædet,

shaping our collective future.

til at forme vores kollektive fremtid.

We are at a fork in the road right now.

Vi er ved en skillevej lige nu.

We can either continue with business as usual,

Vi kan enten fortsætte med at gøre som vi plejer,

allowing governments to adopt and deploy these technologies unchecked,

tillade regeringerne at vedtage og installerer disse teknologier ukontrolleret,

in our communities, our streets and our schools,

or we can take bold action now

eller vi kan tage drastiske handlinger nu

to press pause on the government's use of face surveillance,

og trykke pause på regeringens brug af ansigtstilsyn,

protect our privacy

and to build a safer, freer future

og at opbygge en sikrere, friere fremtid

for all of us.

Thank you.

(Applause and cheers)