Difference between revisions of "Mapping CV in Security: Literature Review"

From Security Vision
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Literature on how computer vision works==
 
==Literature on how computer vision works==
  
* Computer science
+
*Computer science
* STS: explaining the relation between machines & humans in computer vision
+
*STS: explaining the relation between machines & humans in computer vision
  
 
==Literature on the ethical and normative impact of computer vision==
 
==Literature on the ethical and normative impact of computer vision==
  
* Computer vision is good
+
*Computer vision is good
* Computer vision is baaaaad
+
*Computer vision is baaaaad
 +
**Privacy
 +
**Ethnic & racial bias
  
 
==Literature on the politics of security professionals using AI and such technologies==
 
==Literature on the politics of security professionals using AI and such technologies==
  
* Bourdieu-inspired work
+
*Bourdieu-inspired work
** Focus on disposition of professionals, field, etc.
+
**Focus on disposition of professionals, field, etc.
** Not opening the black box of technology
+
**Not opening the black box of technology
* Latour / STS-inspired work
+
*Latour / STS-inspired work
** Looking at how technologies actually work
+
**Looking at how technologies actually work
** Tendency (see Amoore) to fetishise and reify technology
+
**Tendency (see Amoore) to fetishise and reify technology
  
 
==What is currently lacking==
 
==What is currently lacking==
 
<br />
 
<br />

Latest revision as of 11:18, 2 March 2021

Literature on how computer vision works[edit | ]

  • Computer science
  • STS: explaining the relation between machines & humans in computer vision

Literature on the ethical and normative impact of computer vision[edit | ]

  • Computer vision is good
  • Computer vision is baaaaad
    • Privacy
    • Ethnic & racial bias

Literature on the politics of security professionals using AI and such technologies[edit | ]

  • Bourdieu-inspired work
    • Focus on disposition of professionals, field, etc.
    • Not opening the black box of technology
  • Latour / STS-inspired work
    • Looking at how technologies actually work
    • Tendency (see Amoore) to fetishise and reify technology

What is currently lacking[edit | ]


What links here