It's not like the facial recognition is resulting in any privacy loss for those that legally live there. The government already knows their permanent address.
Except knowing exactly when they come and go. And depending on how the camera works, how they're dressed, what they're carrying, how they got there, who they said goodbye to on the sidewalk, etc., etc.
Where in the article did it state that people's activities were being tracked? Let alone inferring what they are carrying, how they are dressed. The latter things are the stuff of science fiction. I talked with a guy working on posture recognition for the military. It's hard for cameras to figure out when a guy is holding a rifle, let alone make highly subjective judgements like "how did this person travel to the building?" and "is this person well-dressed?".
How about this part, that verbatim says that's what the landlord used the currently-installed cameras for?
> In order to let neighbors who might not have seen the letter know what was potentially coming, five tenants convened in the lobby of one of the two buildings on a late October morning to spread the word. A few days later, those five tenants — like most of the residents at Atlantic, black women — received a notice from property management with pictures of the gathering taken from a security camera; they were told that the lobby was not “a place to solicit, electioneer, hang out or loiter.”
Here's a thought: maybe if facial recognition was used, all of the people in the halls would be recognized as tenants and wouldn't have been bothered by management? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Why are we bending over so hard to take management's side? This is the management that acted counter to the law and counter to what the security camera was showing:
> New York State law, in fact, grants tenants the right to meet peacefully in nearly any location in a building as long as they are not obstructing passageways. Management maintains that tenants were getting in the way even if the pictures did not clearly indicate that.
“Makes sense for publicly subsidized housing (which is what rent control is, in essence). In the US, rent control is when the government controls the amounts charged for rented housing - it’s not “publicly subsidized”.
“It’s not like the facial recognition is resulting in any privacy loss...” Ouy, where to even start. Of course it is. Every time you’re tracked is a loss of privacy.
This statement is true, every time you're tracked it's a loss of privacy.
That said, you're making an unsubstantiated leap to go from facial recognition to tracking people. Where in the article does it say that people's entry and exit is logged? Where does it say that people's clothing, whether or not they are carrying objects, etc. are being tracked? Unless you can substantiate the claim that facial recognition is being used as a means of tracking people, your comment is not relevant.
From what the article writes, it looks keyed entry systems is being replaced by facial recognition. Unless we have evidence to the contrary, it looks to me that facial recognition is being used exclusively as a key for authentication. This doesn't seem any more tyrannical to me than Apple pushing facial recognition as the default mode of unlocking its latest iPhones.