IIRC, the biometrics profile is stored locally on the device, just like the iPhone 5S, and is never synced to the cloud. If you sign in on two consoles, you have to go through the biometrics setup process twice.
The device runs arbitrary code. It's trivial to have a module that runs locally, downloads a "wanted list" and returns a probability of match for each entry.
This functionality will almost certainly be implemented given how effective it would be in locating young males.
I can't tell if you're serious or not. "Almost certainly"? If this were true, why wouldn't every smartphone already have this? Turn on the front-facing camera and send a picture of the user to the FBI. We've had this capability for years, and the Xbox doesn't add much new to the equation.
Spyware deployed by law enforcement like Finfisher does capture and transmit photos and audio.
In terms of mass surveillance, only very recently has facial recognition been built into phones and penetration is still low. It is also easier to detect because of limited connectivity and conspicuous bandwidth and battery usage. But yes it will become almost as easy to do it on phones in the near future.
Given what we now know about surveillance the claim that facial recognition and gait analysis on the Xbox One will be used in mass surveillance shouldn't be contentious.
It's an easy sell: "NSA/FBI: If we had such a system deployed during the Boston bombing we could have found the perpetrators in a matter of hours instead of days."
"POTUS: What about privacy concerns?"
"NSA/FBI: The biometric data is stored on the users machines, we only query the Xbox network for individual suspects and return high probability matches, it's not mass surveillance at all!"
Except that it's closed source so who can really tell?
Anyone with a computer and Wireshark.
And even if it is now, who says a 'security update' won't change that in the future?
Do we want to get into justifications about what could possibly be done with a technology and therefore refuse to use said technology? I've heard Kinect could identify the guns in your house and send the police automatically!
This assumes that the information is not encrypted, for one.
> Do we want to get into justifications about what could possibly be done with a technology and therefore refuse to use said technology?
When it comes to security, yes, you must consider all vectors. See the two news stories below about cell phones doing similar things as far back as 2006.
So people are also refusing to use the PS4 camera, their cell phones, any laptop with a webcam, any tablet, the Moto X with its always-on microphone, etc? Because they could be used to infringe on privacy?
It's about risk management. What's the potential harm, what's the likelihood of that harm, and what would be the impact if this were to be used maliciously? It sounds to me like people are rejecting this because a) Microsoft and b) rumors and speculation.
Same with almost all smartphones with cameras and microphones that people have with them 24/7 and even take to their bedrooms and bathrooms. Even on Android, the baseband and many drivers are closed source. I fail to see how this is any worse.
The difference is that because Xbox One feels like it's watching you, people's minds jump to how people could end up watching you, even though the actual risk is far less than with the devices you mentioned.
Why does it feel like it's watching you? The Moto X is constantly listening to you. The PS4 has a camera as well, along with every smartphone. What's different about the Xbox?
Edit: Why the downvotes?