Privacy - this is getting ridiculous (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

Let's not get this killed. It's relevant, but let's not delve into political chatter. Thanks!

How do you suggest talking about a big new database the federal government is compiling using medical information that may not be legally available to the federal government? I'm sure you'll agree that's a huge privacy violation for a large number of people. I don't want to see this thread shut either. But I don't want to have to stop posting factual and factually-based information if it makes someone look bad, or good.

That being said, this is a Privacy thread, and if someone wants to start an new-autism-research thread to discuss that in particular go right ahead. I don't want to. Nor do I want to avoid talking about the privacy violations connected with it.

I have a lot of medical records, an awful lot. They're mine, and I don't intend for someone to have them if I haven't given them permission to do so.

 

[The Z Machine]

If there are methods taken to remove personally identifiable information and anonymize the datasets, then linking together datasets for research purposes isn't such a bad thing. Sweden has a very comprehensive and integrated dataset that can be used for medical and health researchers.

However, if those techniques aren't used properly and personally identifiable information is not scrubbed, then this could be a terrible idea.

 

[RCon]

If there are methods taken to remove personally identifiable information and anonymize the datasets, then linking together datasets for research purposes isn't such a bad thing. Sweden has a very comprehensive and integrated dataset that can be used for medical and health researchers.

However, if those techniques aren't used properly and personally identifiable information is not scrubbed, then this could be a terrible idea.

"Anonymized" data often isn't really anonymous. See the first link below. 87% of Americans can be uniquely identified with just three pieces of info: zip code, birthdate, sex. See the second link, very recent, which still doesn't include any of those three pieces of data as items that need to be anonymized.

“Anonymized” data really isn’t—and here’s why not

Companies continue to store and sometimes release vast databases of "

arstechnica.com

Data Anonymization: Pros, Cons & Techniques in 2025 - Marketing Scoop

Data anonymization is the process of preserving sensitive and private information by removing or encrypting personally identifiable information from a database.

www.marketingscoop.com

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing an unprecedented constriction is my ability to have privacy or at least control over what people know about me, my whereabouts, my life. We have Alexa listening to everything you say, Google and Facebook sucking in everything they can and making opting out damn near impossible, your new car sending out your location, music, etc. to the manufacturer. Heck, even your new refrigerator and A/C head unit are sending back data on you.

Can we get to a point in this country where we can protect our own lives? I will never own a voice activated device, will never buy a new car that has wireless capability, will never buy into the IoT. Even then, it's incredibly hard to get away from Google, Facebook, credit card company recording, etc. But, damn, can we stop this madness? Even the US govt. was kind enough, though the OPM, to send my information and fingerprints over to the Chinese.

Maybe I'm just getting old. Not just get off my lawn, but stop bloody spying on every aspect of my life you can scry and leave me the F alone.

Is there an easy way to do this, but still enjoy the conveniences of modern life? I can't find one.

Yes, it’s called a data privacy law. Europe has one, the GDPR. If only there was some way to understand or discuss why one doesn’t exist in the US.

 

[Sand]

Yes, it’s called a data privacy law. Europe has one, the GDPR. If only there was some way to understand or discuss why one doesn’t exist in the US.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Are we done taking people at their word on this stuff just because of their job title?

 

[kutta]

If there are methods taken to remove personally identifiable information and anonymize the datasets, then linking together datasets for research purposes isn't such a bad thing. Sweden has a very comprehensive and integrated dataset that can be used for medical and health researchers.

However, if those techniques aren't used properly and personally identifiable information is not scrubbed, then this could be a terrible idea.

"Anonymized" data often isn't really anonymous. See the first link below. 87% of Americans can be uniquely identified with just three pieces of info: zip code, birthdate, sex. See the second link, very recent, which still doesn't include any of those three pieces of data as items that need to be anonymized.

“Anonymized” data really isn’t—and here’s why not

Companies continue to store and sometimes release vast databases of "

arstechnica.com

Data Anonymization: Pros, Cons & Techniques in 2025 - Marketing Scoop

Data anonymization is the process of preserving sensitive and private information by removing or encrypting personally identifiable information from a database.

www.marketingscoop.com

Sex seems pretty useless there - 50/50 basically. Seems like if you had zip code and birthdate that would be enough.

 

[fatness]

HHS Walks Back “Autism Registry” Plans

On Monday, April 21st, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced plans to collect federal and private health data for upcoming autism studies. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya also announced that NIH would create a “new disease registry” focused on autism. This announcement led to public outcry and alarm across the autism community. Yesterday, Thursday April 24th, HHS said in written statements to multiple journalists that they will not be creating an autism registry, contrary to Dr. Bhattacharya’s statements.

Seems like some voices, mainly from the autism community, have been heard. Of course, all that could change again next week.

 

[Caveman33]

So the state of Alabama is just claiming, "IMMUNITY!!!" and that's it?

Yes. No other supporting argument.
More and more, governments seems to be using courts to just tell judges what they believe the law to be, and hoping to get away with it.

It's crazy that they kept all the internal organs but did not send them back to the family with the (hollowed-out) body.

What did they do with the organs? Research or sell them?

I trust that the medical people will ensure I'm out before they remove my organs, so I'll always register as an organ donor. I'm not sure what the argument is for those who aren't donors. But I do think it would be fair if we could get some money, similar to a reverse mortgage. They're my organs, I want my money now!

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I do think it would be fair if we could get some money, similar to a reverse mortgage. They're my organs, I want my money now!

The J.G. Wentworth approach.

 

[fatness]

What did they do with the organs? Research or sell them?

Research.

"The consolidated lawsuits filed by eight families alleges that the Alabama Department of Corrections illegally allowed the University of Alabama at Birmingham to study the organs of their deceased incarcerated relatives without the consent of the next of kin"

 

[BassNBrew]

@Sand The only thing you need to fear is the government bringing up perjury charges for your bad fantasy cycling teams. You are littering there data systems with.

 

[Sand]

@Sand The only thing you need to fear is the government bringing up perjury charges for your bad fantasy cycling teams. You are littering there data systems with.

This is libel, good sir. And I'm sure slander, though, no worries, I'm not recording you. I'll get my NSA buddies to send that over.

 

[Sand]

1984 is officially here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/05/19/live-facial-recognition-police-new-orleans/

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

1984 is officially here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/05/19/live-facial-recognition-police-new-orleans/

I can't believe how little the general public cares about this kind of thing, atleast that's the impression I get. This surveillance state were in and slipping further into is actually pretty scary stuff.

 

[Scoresman]

Article is paywalled so cant read it, but is this happening out in public?

 

[Joe Schmo]

For those like me who cant access the WaPo piece, try this one:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/208236

"In 2021, the ACLU of Louisiana sued the Louisiana State Police for information about secretly deploying facial recognition technology, despite years of officials assuring the public it wasn’t in use. Time and again, officials claim these tools are only used responsibly, but history proves otherwise. "

Yeah, never trust the police to use clandestine methods responsibly, the use is always expanded in the name of Security and Safety. Eff that.

 

[Max Power]

What capabilities does New Orleans claim to have?

I worked on a facial recognition initiative for a couple years and found the technology to be promising, but it's nothing like what people think from movies.

 

[Joe Schmo]

What capabilities does New Orleans claim to have?

I worked on a facial recognition initiative for a couple years and found the technology to be promising, but it's nothing like what people think from movies.

Here ya go:

• Real-time tracking: More than 200 surveillance cameras across New Orleans, particularly around the French Quarter, are equipped with facial recognition software that automatically scans passersby and alerts police when someone on a “watch list” is detected.
• Privately run, publicly weaponized: The watch list is assembled by the head of Project NOLA and includes tens of thousands of faces scraped from police mugshot databases—without due process or any meaningful accuracy standards.
• Police use to justify stops and arrests: Alerts are sent directly to a phone app used by officers, enabling immediate stops and detentions based on unverified purported facial recognition matches.
• Searchable database: Project NOLA also has the capability to search stored video footage for a particular face or faces appearing in the past. So in other words, they could upload an image of someone’s face, and then search for all appearances of them across all the camera feeds over the last 30 days, thus retracing their movements, activities, and associations. Pervasive technological location tracking raises grave concerns under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
• No retention, no oversight: NOPD reportedly does not retain records about the alerts it receives and officers rarely record their reliance on the Project NOLA FRT results in investigative reports, raising serious questions about compliance with constitutional requirements to preserve and turn over evidence to people accused of crimes and to courts, thus undermining accountability in criminal prosecutions.
• Violates city law: When the New Orleans City Council lifted the city’s ban on face recognition and imposed guardrails in 2022, it maintained a ban on use of facial recognition technology as a surveillance tool. This system baldly circumvents that ban. The system also circumvents transparency and reporting requirements imposed by City Council. Officials never disclosed the program in mandated public reports.

 

[Max Power]

For those like me who cant access the WaPo piece, try this one:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/208236

"In 2021, the ACLU of Louisiana sued the Louisiana State Police for information about secretly deploying facial recognition technology, despite years of officials assuring the public it wasn’t in use. Time and again, officials claim these tools are only used responsibly, but history proves otherwise. "

Yeah, never trust the police to use clandestine methods responsibly, the use is always expanded in the name of Security and Safety. Eff that.

If the NO police are using this technology to arrest and charge people, they are stupid and taking advantage of court systems lack of understanding of the capability.

As a tool it has a purpose, but only to point someone (a human) in the right direction.

 

[Joe Schmo]

For those like me who cant access the WaPo piece, try this one:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/208236

"In 2021, the ACLU of Louisiana sued the Louisiana State Police for information about secretly deploying facial recognition technology, despite years of officials assuring the public it wasn’t in use. Time and again, officials claim these tools are only used responsibly, but history proves otherwise. "

Yeah, never trust the police to use clandestine methods responsibly, the use is always expanded in the name of Security and Safety. Eff that.

If the NO police are using this technology to arrest and charge people, they are stupid and taking advantage of court systems lack of understanding of the capability.

As a tool it has a purpose, but only to point someone (a human) in the right direction.

I'm just reading up on this issues and seems you're correct:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/31/new-orleans-police-facial-recognition-00121427

‘Wholly ineffective and pretty obviously racist’: Inside New Orleans’ struggle with facial-recognition policing​

Records obtained and analyzed by POLITICO reveal the practice failed to identify suspects a majority of the time and is disproportionately used against Black people.

 

[Max Power]

For those like me who cant access the WaPo piece, try this one:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/208236

"In 2021, the ACLU of Louisiana sued the Louisiana State Police for information about secretly deploying facial recognition technology, despite years of officials assuring the public it wasn’t in use. Time and again, officials claim these tools are only used responsibly, but history proves otherwise. "

Yeah, never trust the police to use clandestine methods responsibly, the use is always expanded in the name of Security and Safety. Eff that.

If the NO police are using this technology to arrest and charge people, they are stupid and taking advantage of court systems lack of understanding of the capability.

As a tool it has a purpose, but only to point someone (a human) in the right direction.

I'm just reading up on this issues and seems you're correct:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/31/new-orleans-police-facial-recognition-00121427

‘Wholly ineffective and pretty obviously racist’: Inside New Orleans’ struggle with facial-recognition policing​

Records obtained and analyzed by POLITICO reveal the practice failed to identify suspects a majority of the time and is disproportionately used against Black people.

Facial recognition essentially boils down to pixel matching. A profile is created for a person of interest and the more photos of the person, the better the AI is developing a unique identifier. Using a single photo is worthless. Especially if its just a mugshot. The side profile view helps a lot. The reality is the cameras they are using aren't at the same look angle the uploaded photos are.

Black people are harder for IA to build unique profiles for because their skin color tends to mask more refined detail in their faces. Poor lighting compounds the issue. Have a Beard or wear a hat and that's 60% of a face obscured.

In the end you get high confidence matches on people with a few small similar features. Facial recognition is still one area where the human eye is more advanced than AI.

 

[Sand]

What capabilities does New Orleans claim to have?

I worked on a facial recognition initiative for a couple years and found the technology to be promising, but it's nothing like what people think from movies.

There have been plenty of cases where false arrests have occurred due to AI ID being wrong. And accuracy seems to get worse as skin tone gets darker. Not sure if that's because of the learning that was imprinted or simply the ability of cameras to see features of darker skinned folks. That's over and above the privacy rights that we should all have.

I don't want to live in a world where, if I want privacy, I have to wear a mask.

Though it surprised me none that this is in NOLA. Still the most corrupt city in the US. I grew up there, so have been steeped in it since birth.

 

[Scoresman]

What capabilities does New Orleans claim to have?

I worked on a facial recognition initiative for a couple years and found the technology to be promising, but it's nothing like what people think from movies.

There have been plenty of cases where false arrests have occurred due to AI ID being wrong. And accuracy seems to get worse as skin tone gets darker. Not sure if that's because of the learning that was imprinted or simply the ability of cameras to see features of darker skinned folks. That's over and above the privacy rights that we should all have.

I don't want to live in a world where, if I want privacy, I have to wear a mask.

Though it surprised me none that this is in NOLA. Still the most corrupt city in the US. I grew up there, so have been steeped in it since birth.

What is the ratio of AI misidentifying someone to actual witnesses misidentifying someone in a crime? Should we be disallowing witness testimony as well?

You have no real privacy in public. It's public...

 

[Max Power]

What capabilities does New Orleans claim to have?

I worked on a facial recognition initiative for a couple years and found the technology to be promising, but it's nothing like what people think from movies.

There have been plenty of cases where false arrests have occurred due to AI ID being wrong. And accuracy seems to get worse as skin tone gets darker. Not sure if that's because of the learning that was imprinted or simply the ability of cameras to see features of darker skinned folks. That's over and above the privacy rights that we should all have.

I don't want to live in a world where, if I want privacy, I have to wear a mask.

Though it surprised me none that this is in NOLA. Still the most corrupt city in the US. I grew up there, so have been steeped in it since birth.

Watching the way this technology is progressing, it's going to sound crazy, but the next gen of identifying technology is likely to focus on ears. Ears are more distinct than faces and AI has an easier time with measurements and ratios. An Ear match would be higher confidence they have the right person.

Ears could soon join fingerprints, DNA, as essential to solving crimes and identifying victims

Australian researcher in international study reveals ears are unique to each individual, making them just as effective at identifying criminals as fingerprints and DNA.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Sand]

Watching the way this technology is progressing, it's going to sound crazy, but the next gen of identifying technology is likely to focus on ears. Ears are more distinct than faces and AI has an easier time with measurements and ratios. An Ear match would be higher confidence they have the right person.

Ears could soon join fingerprints, DNA, as essential to solving crimes and identifying victims

Australian researcher in international study reveals ears are unique to each individual, making them just as effective at identifying criminals as fingerprints and DNA.

www.abc.net.au

ID me now, bitches.

 

[Hawks64]

I'll just leave this here.

 

[fatness]

In Texas, insurers are watching your home from above. It could cost you coverage.

Tracy Gartenmann had no idea the company that insured her home against wildfires, hailstorms and high winds was also spying on her. Until she got an email. In January, a representative for Travelers Insurance emailed Gartenmann to say the company would not renew the policy she’d had on her home in Austin for more than a decade. Trees had edged too close to her roof, a company representative said, endangering the home. How did they know? Attached to the email were two photos from above Gartenmann’s house. The representative said they had gotten the sky-high images from a third-party company. “I thought it was a scam,” said Gartenmann. Once she realized the email was real, her reaction changed: “It felt like an infringement on my rights.”

KUT News spoke with homeowners, industry experts and insurance watchdogs, and reviewed hundreds of pages of complaints and state filings. Documents obtained through public records requests confirm that insurers in Texas are using aerial photos taken by satellites and aircraft to determine if they want to keep insuring homes. At least one company uses computer models to inspect these photos and flag moldy roofs, askew tree branches and missing shingles. Insurers then notify homeowners their policies may not be renewed. While it’s unclear how many homes are under surveillance, the number could be massive — and growing. One aerial imaging technology company common among insurers says it has eyes on 99.6% of the country’s population.

Satellite and aerial photos are frequently inaccurate, but the insurance companies are relying on them instead of live inspectors.

Organizations representing insurers say aerial photos are more efficient than sending workers in person to inspect houses. But groups representing homeowners say the practice can lead to inaccurate conclusions that are hard to contest. One company widely used by insurers to assess aerial photos says they’re less accurate than human inspections.

 

[rockaction]

For those like me who cant access the WaPo piece, try this one:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/208236

"In 2021, the ACLU of Louisiana sued the Louisiana State Police for information about secretly deploying facial recognition technology, despite years of officials assuring the public it wasn’t in use. Time and again, officials claim these tools are only used responsibly, but history proves otherwise. "

Yeah, never trust the police to use clandestine methods responsibly, the use is always expanded in the name of Security and Safety. Eff that.

If the NO police are using this technology to arrest and charge people, they are stupid and taking advantage of court systems lack of understanding of the capability.

As a tool it has a purpose, but only to point someone (a human) in the right direction.

I'm just reading up on this issues and seems you're correct:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/31/new-orleans-police-facial-recognition-00121427

‘Wholly ineffective and pretty obviously racist’: Inside New Orleans’ struggle with facial-recognition policing​

Records obtained and analyzed by POLITICO reveal the practice failed to identify suspects a majority of the time and is disproportionately used against Black people.

Facial recognition essentially boils down to pixel matching. A profile is created for a person of interest and the more photos of the person, the better the AI is developing a unique identifier. Using a single photo is worthless. Especially if its just a mugshot. The side profile view helps a lot. The reality is the cameras they are using aren't at the same look angle the uploaded photos are.

Black people are harder for IA to build unique profiles for because their skin color tends to mask more refined detail in their faces. Poor lighting compounds the issue. Have a Beard or wear a hat and that's 60% of a face obscured.

In the end you get high confidence matches on people with a few small similar features. Facial recognition is still one area where the human eye is more advanced than AI.

I was going to say that this will probably be one of the few issues that Ron Paul and the NAACP will be on the same side of.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

"***** Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American"

No link since it's political, but would seem to matter in this conversation. Plenty to be found on it with the Google.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

"***** Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American"

No link since it's political, but would seem to matter in this conversation. Plenty to be found on it with the Google.

Of course it matters. It also lends credence to the DOGE concerns raised above that were brushed to the side because some current admin official said there was nothing to worry about. Maybe now we can be concerned?

 

[Max Power]

"***** Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American"

No link since it's political, but would seem to matter in this conversation. Plenty to be found on it with the Google.

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

 

[RCon]

"***** Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American"

No link since it's political, but would seem to matter in this conversation. Plenty to be found on it with the Google.

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

I have no concerns over the existence of a centralized database. I have great concerns over the data that might be included. For example, my browsing history has no business being in government hands. Ditto my cell tower logs, IP addresses from my ISPs, etc.

 

[fatness]

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

Because of the vastly-expanded potential for abuse. Point-click access for all information about me for every government employee?
I do not want the cop pulling me over for a busted taillight to have point-click access to my medical and tax and employment records.

 

[Max Power]

"***** Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American"

No link since it's political, but would seem to matter in this conversation. Plenty to be found on it with the Google.

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

I have no concerns over the existence of a centralized database. I have great concerns over the data that might be included. For example, my browsing history has no business being in government hands. Ditto my cell tower logs, IP addresses from my ISPs, etc.

I didn't have access to the NYT article, but it sounded like the data compiled would be federal/state level data. Not personal data. The concern seems to be that AI would analyze the data and we're not sure the direction that would go.

 

[fatness]

Creating detailed portraits of Americans based on government data is not just a pipe dream. The Trump administration has already sought access to hundreds of data points on citizens and others through government databases, including their bank account numbers, the amount of their student debt, their medical claims and any disability status.

“Data that is collected for one reason should not be repurposed for other uses,” Ms. Xia said. “Combining all that data, even with the noblest of intentions, significantly increases the risk of misuse.” Mario Trujillo, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, said the government typically collected data for good reasons, such as to accurately levy taxes. But “if people can’t trust that the data they are giving the government will be protected, that it will be used for things other than what they gave it for, it will lead to a crisis of trust,” he said.

In an interview last year, Mr. Karp, Palantir’s chief executive, said the company’s role was “the finding of hidden things” by sifting through data.

the NY Times article, archived

 

[Max Power]

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

Because of the vastly-expanded potential for abuse. Point-click access for all information about me for every government employee?
I do not want the cop pulling me over for a busted taillight to have point-click access to my medical and tax and employment records.

Fair enough. Those are all bad and there should absolutely be safeguards. Info shouldn't be available to everyone,

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

"***** Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American"

No link since it's political, but would seem to matter in this conversation. Plenty to be found on it with the Google.

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

Like the other responses before mine i have concerns about abusing this data. I don't like how far this has come already, both private companies and government agencies and hate to see it keep going farther and farther which we all know it will. There's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, but it's another link in the surveillance state chain imo.

 

[fatness]

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

Because of the vastly-expanded potential for abuse. Point-click access for all information about me for every government employee?
I do not want the cop pulling me over for a busted taillight to have point-click access to my medical and tax and employment records.

Fair enough. Those are all bad and there should absolutely be safeguards. Info shouldn't be available to everyone,

And it's not just federal officers/prosecutors who'll have access to the information. Federal information about people is already shared, non-transparently, with local police forces. And I have to assume the current abilities of politicians to "dig up dirt on an opponent" will be greatly enhanced by a centralized database.

 

[nightmare]

Do you realize that any company using ADP to process your paycheck that info is saved and stored?

Companies that go to hire you can check on your entire income history-not through ADP or your old job but the credit agency(s) that ADP sold it too.

 

[Max Power]

"***** Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American"

No link since it's political, but would seem to matter in this conversation. Plenty to be found on it with the Google.

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

Like the other responses before mine i have concerns about abusing this data. I don't like how far this has come already, both private companies and government agencies and hate to see it keep going farther and farther which we all know it will. There's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, but it's another link in the surveillance state chain imo.

I get it and its the whole slow boil idea. I don't inherently trust the government either. A system like that is ripe for abuse. I'm also of the mindset that the government already has six ways from Sunday to monitor and abuse data on Americans already.

A centralized Federal database could be useful. I've had multiple medical networks come together to build patient profiles with associated histories and it's been extremely helpful for me and my Father after he got sick.

DoD has been in the process of modernizing it's data holdings and it's really cleaning up and streamlining a lot of processes. Less stand alone databases has been a net positive for us.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Communication between federal agencies is all of the place, but mostly painful and slow (this is by design). It might be true that all these different agencies have your data. It is NOT true that it's easy to get it all accumulated and assembled in one place. The analogy would be something like "having all the pieces to the puzzle sitting on the table in front of you" vs "having all the pieces in the house somewhere and no one really knows all the places to look to find them all".

ETA: Quite simply, if one is going to lose their **** over their fridge tattling on them, this should be so far beyond the line it looks like a dot.

 

[Sand]

In Texas, insurers are watching your home from above. It could cost you coverage.

Tracy Gartenmann had no idea the company that insured her home against wildfires, hailstorms and high winds was also spying on her. Until she got an email. In January, a representative for Travelers Insurance emailed Gartenmann to say the company would not renew the policy she’d had on her home in Austin for more than a decade. Trees had edged too close to her roof, a company representative said, endangering the home. How did they know? Attached to the email were two photos from above Gartenmann’s house. The representative said they had gotten the sky-high images from a third-party company. “I thought it was a scam,” said Gartenmann. Once she realized the email was real, her reaction changed: “It felt like an infringement on my rights.”

KUT News spoke with homeowners, industry experts and insurance watchdogs, and reviewed hundreds of pages of complaints and state filings. Documents obtained through public records requests confirm that insurers in Texas are using aerial photos taken by satellites and aircraft to determine if they want to keep insuring homes. At least one company uses computer models to inspect these photos and flag moldy roofs, askew tree branches and missing shingles. Insurers then notify homeowners their policies may not be renewed. While it’s unclear how many homes are under surveillance, the number could be massive — and growing. One aerial imaging technology company common among insurers says it has eyes on 99.6% of the country’s population.

Satellite and aerial photos are frequently inaccurate, but the insurance companies are relying on them instead of live inspectors.

Organizations representing insurers say aerial photos are more efficient than sending workers in person to inspect houses. But groups representing homeowners say the practice can lead to inaccurate conclusions that are hard to contest. One company widely used by insurers to assess aerial photos says they’re less accurate than human inspections.

Problem with this stuff is they rely solely on these images, which can be quite wrong. If they pull this crap I'd expect an actual human to come out to verify the sat images. I'm sure that's fantasyland, though.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

"***** Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American"

No link since it's political, but would seem to matter in this conversation. Plenty to be found on it with the Google.

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

Like the other responses before mine i have concerns about abusing this data. I don't like how far this has come already, both private companies and government agencies and hate to see it keep going farther and farther which we all know it will. There's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, but it's another link in the surveillance state chain imo.

I get it and its the whole slow boil idea. I don't inherently trust the government either. A system like that is ripe for abuse. I'm also of the mindset that the government already has six ways from Sunday to monitor and abuse data on Americans already.

A centralized Federal database could be useful. I've had multiple medical networks come together to build patient profiles with associated histories and it's been extremely helpful for me and my Father after he got sick.

DoD has been in the process of modernizing it's data holdings and it's really cleaning up and streamlining a lot of processes. Less stand alone databases has been a net positive for us.

Indeed the frog in boiling water as it slowly and harmlessly ramps up until its not harmless. Can good come of it? sure, but the potential for abuse could outweigh that. The examples you gave are reminders of the good though.

It's a slippery slope with cameras on every corner, apps that track every keystroke, targeted news feeds, ect and i can't help but fear that this all gets abused at some point in ways we might or might not imagine and not all of it good. Centralizing that data to be used by the government doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

Whether aware (everyone here likely is, not so much elsewhere) or not we've given so much of our lives to an algorithm. They used to write dystopian novels about this kind of stuff creeping in and now it's just an accepted part of life.

 

[fatness]

A centralized Federal database could be useful. I've had multiple medical networks come together to build patient profiles with associated histories and it's been extremely helpful for me and my Father after he got sick.

At the same time, I think you can see that such a federal database of patient profiles, coupled with patients' IRS histories, immigration status, criminal histories, political contributions, etc. is NOT a good thing for the entire federal government and for local governments to have.

 

[Sand]

A centralized Federal database could be useful. I've had multiple medical networks come together to build patient profiles with associated histories and it's been extremely helpful for me and my Father after he got sick.

At the same time, I think you can see that such a federal database of patient profiles, coupled with patients' IRS histories, immigration status, criminal histories, political contributions, etc. is NOT a good thing for the entire federal government and for local governments to have.

In and of itself the feds have a lot of this data. All together is a huge worry. Mostly because we've learned the feds are horrible at data security. This will be a magnet for hackers and it will get stolen. And, of course, the feds are immune from suit and from even notification of the hack. They can just shrug, bury it, and pretend it never happened. No bueno all around.

 

[The Z Machine]

"***** Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American"

No link since it's political, but would seem to matter in this conversation. Plenty to be found on it with the Google.

What's the concern with building a centralized government database for each American? The government already has all that data, now it's just in one place.

Like the other responses before mine i have concerns about abusing this data. I don't like how far this has come already, both private companies and government agencies and hate to see it keep going farther and farther which we all know it will. There's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, but it's another link in the surveillance state chain imo.

Or, you know, Congress could pass laws than ban these sorts of things...

There are countries that do have safeguards in place, but a lot of them went through a period of authoritarianism and heavy policing. Seems the US doesn't want to learn from that experience and wants to see if history won't repeat itself.

 

[rockaction]

I think that people seem to be implicitly (if not explicitly) arguing that there are those worried about business intrusions into our privacy more than those that are worried about government intrusions of a similar nature.

I don't think this is very accurate. I think most people inclined to hesitate to allow businesses to violate one's privacy are even less inclined to let government do so. If you can find me more than a 20% subset of the population who would allow government to gather and consolidate data, but not allow a private business or industry (excluding those public-private ones like those that have to do with healthcare) please let me know about that subset and I'll find a hat to eat or something.

People in America don't think that way and never have. They want to restrict and deny the government access to their private matters first and foremost and almost always. If they happen to grant that right to businesses, the people often want to make sure the government can't compel those businesses to turn the data over, use the data, or even see that data.

Maybe I'm tilting at windmills, but I think it was implied upthread.

I had typed much more strongly and assuredly about it until I thought about illegal immigration, but I can't imagine the thinking has reversed to such a degree that we're thinking people are carefree about turning over data to any elected official, government employee or bureaucrat, or even unpaid intern/volunteer. It would beggar belief.

And the other thing I have to say is I suspect that people who are now thinking along these lines are often the people who have, when it suited them in the past, made of fun of people who are afraid of the government accessing data with stupid internet rejoinders like "'Murica" or "GUBMINT" or "PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD ONES," or other cutesy insults, neologisms, and castigations that were especially prevalent during the timeframe of the PPACA debates and the gun clingers moment that spanned the years 2008-2016.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I think that people seem to be implicitly (if not explicitly) arguing that there are those worried about business intrusions into our privacy more than those that are worried about government intrusions of a similar nature.

I don't think this is very accurate. I think most people inclined to hesitate to allow businesses to violate one's privacy are even less inclined to let government do so. If you can find me more than a 20% subset of the population who would allow government to gather and consolidate data, but not allow a private business or industry (excluding those public-private ones like those that have to do with healthcare) please let me know about that subset and I'll find a hat to eat or something.

People in America don't think that way and never have. They want to restrict and deny the government access to their private matters first and foremost and almost always. If they happen to grant that right to businesses, the people often want to make sure the government can't compel those businesses to turn the data over, use the data, or even see that data.

Maybe I'm tilting at windmills, but I think it was implied upthread.

I had typed much more strongly and assuredly about it until I thought about illegal immigration, but I can't imagine the thinking has reversed to such a degree that we're thinking people are carefree about turning over data to any elected official, government employee or bureaucrat, or even unpaid intern/volunteer. It would beggar belief.

And the other thing I have to say is I suspect that people who are now thinking along these lines are often the people who have, when it suited them in the past, made of fun of people who are afraid of the government accessing data with stupid internet rejoinders like "'Murica" or "GUBMINT" or "PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD ONES," or other cutesy insults, neologisms, and castigations that were especially prevalent during the timeframe of the PPACA debates and the gun clingers moment that spanned the years 2008-2016.

I think I sorta made a comment that might have triggered this response, so I want to be clear. In this very thread (sorry, I forget the names) I've had an interaction with people very concerned about what was happening with data in their (insert consumer good here) ALSO say basically, "I will give X person in our federal government benefit of the doubt because they hold title Y before making judgment" where X person has provided zero reason for us to grant them such privilege. It might be incorrect on my part, but I rather believe that position is politically driven and a big mistake, but there could be some other explanation. We can't discuss that here without getting timeouts.

My overall point is, if you're going to get bent out of shape about what is happening in the consumer sector (and you probably should be in many cases) you damn sure better be bent out of shape over stuff like this. The data is FAR more personal and FAR more comprehensive/complete. I have no idea what % of people take this position. Hopefully, it's a low number. Its been shown in this very thread though and that's what my comment was about. Politics does weird things to people.

 

[rockaction]

It might be incorrect on my part, but I rather believe that position is politically driven and a big mistake, but there could be some other explanation. We can't discuss that here without getting timeouts.

I think it was Max Power who came close. If that is the case, then his position might be driven by the ends that motivate his political reasoning, but I'm not sure of that and I also consider Max a special case due in part to his unique political outlook, but due more to his service in the military and (what I think is) his employment as a government contractor for the DoD. He's got pretty unique ID tags, belief markers, and formative experiences. His indicia are no bellwether.

Like I said, I can't imagine anything other than the issue of illegal immigration that would move the needle to even 5-10% of people who want to turn more data over to government than they would to businesses. Maybe I'm massively misjudging the U.S.A. I have consistently done so the past decade, so why stop?