The process led by the NTIA, unlike the bulk of the EFF's post, has nothing to do with the government's collection and use of facial recognition data.
If you're calling out the EFF's hypothetical wost-case like this, you certainly wouldn't use the hypothetical best-case of shoplifter recognition to provide argumentative cover for other no-opt-in products like your company's IRL analytics offering, would you?
The guidelines coming out of this process were intended to be voluntary, so companies would not have to comply if they didn't want to.
If they're voluntary, what is the purpose of complying with them? Why would anyone in industry adopt the standards? Seriously. What good will they do? Why didn't businesses voluntarily walk away from the table first? Should I believe they're honestly negotiating to voluntarily give up on existing/potential products to make the EFF happy?
What reason at all do I have to believe the industry isn't just seeking a set of milquetoast "consumer protections" they can make a big deal out of living up to, while not providing any real consumer protection?
I don't know if this process is now dead or not. I suspect it will go on, just now the consumer groups won't have a voice in shaping this (by their own choice), which is a shame.
So the industry couldn't steamroll the consumer protection groups and get a set of flimsy set of standards. And now it's those group's fault when consumers aren't protected?
Shame on you for pretending like they're choosing not to have their voice heard. It was heard, then industry saw money and decided to ignore them.
either way it would be good for consumers to get some kind of guideline out there
No, if the guidelines are weak they're worth less than nothing. The industry will have a standard they can "live up to" without impacting their business model. Then when consumers complain, they'll wave around the standards as if the boundaries of acceptable use of facial recognition are already settled and protect consumers.
tl;dr lulz @ "The NTIA did an outstanding job in an attempt to bring this process together"
If you're calling out the EFF's hypothetical wost-case like this, you certainly wouldn't use the hypothetical best-case of shoplifter recognition to provide argumentative cover for other no-opt-in products like your company's IRL analytics offering, would you?
The guidelines coming out of this process were intended to be voluntary, so companies would not have to comply if they didn't want to.
If they're voluntary, what is the purpose of complying with them? Why would anyone in industry adopt the standards? Seriously. What good will they do? Why didn't businesses voluntarily walk away from the table first? Should I believe they're honestly negotiating to voluntarily give up on existing/potential products to make the EFF happy?
What reason at all do I have to believe the industry isn't just seeking a set of milquetoast "consumer protections" they can make a big deal out of living up to, while not providing any real consumer protection?
I don't know if this process is now dead or not. I suspect it will go on, just now the consumer groups won't have a voice in shaping this (by their own choice), which is a shame.
So the industry couldn't steamroll the consumer protection groups and get a set of flimsy set of standards. And now it's those group's fault when consumers aren't protected?
Shame on you for pretending like they're choosing not to have their voice heard. It was heard, then industry saw money and decided to ignore them.
either way it would be good for consumers to get some kind of guideline out there
No, if the guidelines are weak they're worth less than nothing. The industry will have a standard they can "live up to" without impacting their business model. Then when consumers complain, they'll wave around the standards as if the boundaries of acceptable use of facial recognition are already settled and protect consumers.
tl;dr lulz @ "The NTIA did an outstanding job in an attempt to bring this process together"