Slashdot Mirror
The Unblinking Eye
McAdder writes: "The LA Times is running an article about how Tampa police scanned the faces of BowlGoers as they passed through the turnstyles, and compared the images to images of people with criminal history. I wonder if they'd frisk me if I wore one of those Nixon masks ;>" It seems the story first appeared in the St. Petersburg Times.
I realize this is probably already redundant, but isn't this at least parallel to being searched without probable cause?
Can you say, "Guilty till proven innocent?"
however, he played to the paranoid /. party line, whereas you are being truthful and sensible. he gets the mod points, and you get called a troll.
A criminal can harm, at absolute most, a thousand people. Usually there are only handful harmed (and that is if you include psychological trauma to the family of the typically lone victim).
On the other hand, a government harms an entire nation with the stroke of a pen and a well-armed police force, thereby creating millions of victims. Make no mistake, creating an environment where people live in fear of their neighbors is harm.
How long is this going to last? Imagine some poor person gets yanked over because the computer system made a mistake. S/he gets roughed up by police. The chances of them suing would be pretty decent--missed the superbowl, the system made an error, and they were harmed in the process.
The scary thing that, once sued, the NFL and the like are going to advocate putting some license on the tickets to give up their rights if the machine does, in fact, make an error. Disgusting.
...Depending on what kind of cameras they use, you could blind them. In the future look for camera blinding personal laser defense systems.
Is this OK with you just because "People have no reasonable expectation that when out in public, they cannot be photographed."?
I just got my Illinois license a couple years ago and I never got fingerprinted at all.
*YOU* live in the United States.
Thank gawd I don't.
Have fun with your Thought Police.
Now that's an interesting attempt to twist the facts to support an argument. The trouble with the attempt is that we're not ``on the ... bandwagon'', but simply reacting to events.
Take a f'rinstance my beautiful Northern state of Connecticut. A couple of blacks were seen driving an expensive sports car out of a beach parking lot in one of the more well-off areas of the state (Sherwood Island, for those of you who know the area). The cops stopped them, for no justifiable reason, on ``suspicion'' of auto theft. Luckily for the driver, and unluckily for the cops, the driver was an Army general, and his buddy was an Assistant Attorney General for the state. As you can imagine the problem was settled quickly and quietly; I only know about it because one of my friends is a specialist in, shall we say, police-misbehavior cases hereabouts. Sorry I can't give you any independent verification for this one.
However, you can check out the incident of a black Tulsa police officer stopped by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol on a made-up cause, or better yet, the case in which the Border Patrol twice, as two separate events, stopped a Federal judge on his way to his courtroom.
These are just the cases of people with enough clout to raise a proper stink over their unjustified treatment. If you've ever tried to fight City Hall, you know how hard it is for a regular Joe to get a hearing, much less someone from the poor section of town. Nevertheless, when police records are examined (in the cases where they keep good enough records to tell) the evidence is clear---police stop blacks for no reason much more than others.
Well, certainly not, if that ``common sense'' means stopping innocent citizens with no suspicion of their having done anything wrong. And, yes we do posit an alternative---follow the Constitution, stop those who against whom you have some evidence, and let the rest of the citizenry enjoy the rights for which we fought to establish this country.
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
I hardly know where to start with this one.
Let's grant the DOJ statistics your link points to. (If this were a real discussion, I'd ask whether the stats had been corrected for the innocents convicted because they were only black -----s, and hey, we've closed a case, right? I won't even ask how one defines so amorphous a concept as `race'. In my experience, it's always been ``someone who doesn't match my wonderful genetic makeup''---witness the fact that in the U.S., someone with seven ``white'' great-grandparents and one ``black'' one counts as ``black''. How does that scan in any sane classification system?) Let's even be generous and say the stats are up to 100 ``black'' murderers per 100,000, vs. 5 ``white''s.
So, how do you justify the completely unwarranted harrassment of 99,900 citizens to find 100 murderers? This country was founded on the belief that you're golden until you actually do something wrong, not until someone thinks you're more likely to do something wrong. This is the concept of ``probable cause'' referred to by the Fourth Amendment (in exactly those words). Probable cause is not a statistical concept. Either you've got reason to think this exact person committed that specified crime, or you have no probable cause. By no stretch of the imagination can being ``black'' be probable cause, therefore it is totally unjustifiable to claim you're just checking ``people who commit serious crimes nearly 8 times more than the rest of the population''. Either this particular person (not one of some random people you spot) actually committed a crime, and you have a good reason to think that's the case, or you keep your mitts off.
The trouble today (and in all previous days, for that matter) is that people forget the probable cause, and think police should simply nail all criminals, blithely assuming there's a 100%-valid mechanism for identifying them, and the police have it. That's why most folks today assume anyone arrested is guilty, why it's so insanely painful to be falsely accused, and why it's so dangerous to slack off in watching our public servants.
And when the police are given vastly more efficient methods to harrass everyone, we're in vastly greater danger.
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
In case ya wondered, California, Texas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii require one thumb.
West Virginia has it optional.
No other state collects fingerprints for licenses.
IIRC, OJ is still in the top 3 or 4 for single-season and all-time rushing records.
I would personally lean more towards Barry Sanders for favourite RB, but he's definitely a candidate.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
Why not strip search everyone comming out of a store to protect us from theft? Or making everyone use chopsticks to eat on plane because a fork and knife can be used to kill.
Heck, it's not as if chopsticks are any safer. Ever watched "Buffy"?.
But how do we know that you aren't, unless we keep a very close eye on you?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
As opposed to trying to arrest them in the middle of a rowdy crowd of football fans where plenty of innocent bystanders could get hurt?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I don't know about the rest of the country, but California only took an imprint of my right thumb. All I have to do is remember not to handle anything with my right thumb and I'll be OK :)
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
This is really no different from an alarm system. If a home or business alarm system is triggered, police may be sent to check on the situation. If they get there and it was a false alarm, they file a report and that is the end of it. This is just a silent and more sophisticated alarm.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
I-355 in Chicago had cameras on the onramp toll booths shortly after it opened; in the first couple years or so I never saw one of them that hadn't been spray painted...
Everyone was pissed back when analog cell phones were spewing information in the clear, and they all bitched about the government trying to strap privacy on with legislation.
Now, the same people are crying to the government to protect us from people snooping on our faces?
Privacy laws weren't the answer then, and they aren't now. If the information spewing from your face in the clear bothers you, take measures to hide it.
See that "Preview" button?
What if the majority likes having my rights violated because of my (skin color, religion, political affiliation, operating system preferences, speech, etc.) I guess that would be okay, because the majority thinks it is. Democracy does not guarantee rights. Quite the opposite usually. Individuals guarantee their rights by not putting up with infringements.
Stuart Eichert
Stuart Eichert
A little web-surfing finds the claim that 40% of the UAW typically votes Republican. And according to this link a Gallop poll at one point in the campaign found 30% of union members intending to vote for Bush, 61% intending to vote for Gore.
So just because you can't imagine black or union members voting republican, doesn't mean they don't do so.
(as for me, I vote libertarian)
I play Nerd-Folk!
Lots of union members vote republican. The fact that somebody belongs to a union doesn't mean they LIKE belonging to a union. The interests of the union management and the interests of the rank-and-file are only sometimes in accord. Other times people are stuck paying dues to a union that supports candidates they dislike. And there are a lot of black republicans too. They may not be in the majority but their numbers are significant. (Didn't Bush get about 30% of the black vote this time around?)
I play Nerd-Folk!
If you can't trust your political parties, then the problem isn't with democracy, it's with your political parties.
In a democracy, you do NOT give the ruling power the means to destroy any political opposition. While you've removed "crime" by 70%, you've virtually guaranteed that any political opponent can have his every move tracked.
so what are you saying, that having that 70% extra crime is an acceptable cost of having some extra degree of privacy? Note that, as another poster said, police already do this. In fact, if I knew a cop wasn't always on the lookout while on patrol for known criminals, I'd be very, very pissed off.
The problems with this sort of system that you point out aren't inherent in the system; they're inherent in the people that use that system. If you believe *so strongly* that your system is that flawed, why the hell are you still living there?!
Recommended reading: Aristotle, Plato.
To your reply, I say nay. The Kennedy curse is all about dead Kennedys. I didn't invent the thing, but if some step-cousin of the Kennedys is brought up on murder charges, that's part of the Kennedy curse.
The curse is bogus. Kennedys die from violent causes at the same rate as the rest of us. The reason why we hear about dead Kennedys all the time is that there are a lot of Kennedys and the media is focused on it.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Let's see how quickly this surveilance technology would get put away if we insisted that all public officials had these face scanners installed at their homes, places of work, etc, and monitored by the press.
It would certainly cut down on visits to officals by, say, prostitutes, wouldn't it? Hey that's a Good Thing, so we've got to do it! Who cares about the 'privacy' of public officials? They haven't got a Right to privacy any more than normal citizens...
Keep telling yourself that, and ignore the stories that came out about similar behavior in many other places around the US.
Ignore the fact that this particular cop has only had the most minimal of wrist slaps for his behavior.
Keep your head down, and when they come for you, none of us will be left to help you. Oh well.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I guess I should be grateful that abusers are only slapped on the wrist then, eh? If they're so anxious to take a bullet for me, why the hell can't they keep their own ranks clean then?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Maybe you got fingerprinted for your license, but I never had anything like that done here (SK, Canada).
I am sure that stats could be manipluated to make any group of people look bad.
So what you're saying is that the Justice department is enganged in a long-running, massive campaign to falsify crime statistics. Of course you have no proof of this, and wave the magic wand of "stats manipulation" to try to make it all go away.
Wake up. This isn't some trivial statsitical difference, this is factual, historical evidence that a single group of people is more likely to commit homicide by nearly an order of magnitude.
Blaming law enforcement for seizing on this obvious fact in the course of catching criminals is foolish. If the NT servers in your care crashed 8 times more often than the Linux ones, would you not show greater attention to the NT servers? Or would you claim that to do so was showing bias?
When the liberal elite decry "racial profiling", they're really decrying basic logic and common sense. What this leads to is a UNIFORM police state where everyone is suspect, not just those with a proven track record of criminality. Old Ben's quote about trading freedom for security is right, unfortunately I'm not willing to trade my freedom in the name of so-called "racial justice".
The stat I would really like to see is the anual income of the people commiting murders. I think that would be a more telling stat.
Poverty is often a telling statistic, but it is no more of an explanation for criminality than race is. However, unlike poverty, race *is* an outwardly visible characteristic that increases the probability of catching someone involved in criminal behavior by a factor of eight.
So tell me, if your genetic makeup placed you into a group that was more likely you commit crimes, would you thank the cop that harrasses you since he is making your life safer?
I think I'd spend less time blaming white people for thinking I was a criminal and spend more time trying to keep people of my own race from being criminal. Unfortunately personal responsibility stopped being a legitimate character trait; decrying someone else for the problems created in your own community has supplanted it.
Well, I haven't thought this through completely, so it may sound a little reactionary, but here goes:
a) Judging from the little I've heard, apparently none of the ticket-holders knew they were being monitored. Probably this is completely legal: I don't believe it is required that you be notified when you are under observation (like there's no notification in stores, for example). Therefore no one knew that their picture was being taken and (more importantly) compared against others: there was no opportunity to avoid the game (yeah right!) if you objected.
b) At what point do we just give the hell up on any Constitutional right to privacy? I realize that the Constitution only applies to government, but think about it: there is almost no place now where you are not monitored. Your employer can monitor you, any store you visit can monitor you, and many public places are beginning to monitor you as well. We just say -- hey, stay out of public/private/all places -- but is that the solution we are looking for?
"Hey, bub, you can be private in those few square feet that you personally inhabit, and no where else"? Maybe that's what we're coming too, as the technology to monitor public/private places becomes more available and more enticing (it's safer!), but is that what we want? Isn't that 90% of the way to Big Brother?
Definitely it is not good to stomp all over property laws, but seeing as how we're now using taxpayer money to finance private stadiums (like Tampa?), at what point does a person's right not to be under constant scrutiny come into play? Are we waiting for TV broadcasts made up entirely out of surveillance footage: "Drunken Losers at Super Bowl XXXV! Tonight on Fox!"
Ah, whatever: I know the answer, and so do all of you.
"Drunken Losers @ LinuxWorld! Tonight on CBS after Survivor!"
They don't *have* to tell you that the phone call may be recorded. They do it do be nice.
IIRC the law is that only *one* party needs to be aware that the conversation is recorded. So if the employee answering the phone is aware of it, so be it.
This specifically makes 3rd-party taps illegal and gives an out if you want to record a conversation for legal purposes.
Blech. Signatures.
Okay.
vs
Paranoid government conspiracies aside, I'd much rather take my chances with a cop than a camera and database. And why couldn't they sell this database like any other customer data...or if thats illegal, it could be used within the same parent company.
Say NBC offers to hire the security....General Electric, NBC's parent company, could then use this database just like credit information. Say GE buys Discover in 2010....how would you like them to start calling you up with cheasy offers for Superbowl XXXXV tickets for repeat customers?
Just one more example of why the US needs consumer privacy laws.
JL suggested last night that you get one of those fancy split-screen televisions, tune the left side to "Most Wanted" and the right side to the Superbowl, and whenever you see a match you call up and collect your reward.
The latest thing in TV game shows, I reckon.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Crime in Glasgow city centre has fallen by some 70% since this system was introduced, and the city has become a much safer place to socialise in.
Yeah, but they still haven't spotted Elvis.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you don't care now, then by the time they poke the camera into your house, it will be illegal to complain.
-"I talked to God and here's the deal/ He said to floss between each meal" -- Uninvited
I can understand the pressure of the job. It can't be easy to deal with criminals all day and know you might get shot, etc.
However, that does not give cops the right to
a) exercise complete power. They have to work in the frame of the law.
Ask anyone who's ever been pulled over for speeding and had the cop ask, "Can I search your car." If they don't have probable cause, and you say no, expect to be there for a while. They will run your plates and license (of course) but also your VIN. Additional police will arrive. One cruiser turns into three. You will debate the issue for the better part of an hour. You will probably be asked to perform sobriety tests. And most definitely, the cops will become immediately rude, if they weren't already. Which brings me to
b) be assholes.
I've been in relatively calm situations, such as a traffic accident, where the police showed me no respect whatsoever. And I was being polite. Answering questions, speaking when spoken to, calm, "Yes, sir. No, sir." The police were bullying and unpleasant. There was no reason for the cops to be as arrogant and rude as they were.
-"I talked to God and here's the deal/ He said to floss between each meal" -- Uninvited
Correct. The previous poster alluded to journalistic uses. Newspapers, magazines, tv reporters, etc will get names and addresses of as many people as they can (and I think in some cases get waivers signed) before publishing the images. Have you ever seen those filler pictures in the paper of a little kid playing hopscotch or sledding down a hill? Ever notice that the picture always identifies the child's parents? That's because the newspaper asked where the kid lives and got the parents' permission to run the photo.
-"I talked to God and here's the deal/ He said to floss between each meal" -- Uninvited
All the system will do is pick out Jimmy the Dip who as 3 convictions for pickpockting. As Jimmy has served his time, can you stop him going in without any evidence he has criminal intent?
I am really proud of the guy that had the guts to moderate this up as funny. End the era of PC NOW.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
because my going to a football game is not the same as my going to a fucking police line-up.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
> Yes, a metal detector at the door would have
> stopped McVeigh from driving the truck into the
> garage
Hold on, you're trying to tell me that a metal detector around the entrance to a parking garage (assuming he drove it into it) would be of any use whatsoever? Every car passing through is composed largely of metal. (And the bomb he used was largely NOT!)
Our civil rights.
Even though the government will probably not progress much further than this, this is still a scary reminder of how easy it is to get tracked.
who will police the police?
Uh, I dunno, Coast Guard?
Uh, No.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
What about cameras watching emissions from your house?
Currently it is legal for the police to videotape you in your home using an infra-red camera. No warrant neccessary. The courts have stated that you do not have an expectation of privacy to the infra-red waves that leave your house.
So if you dont like that, get better insulation.
rosie_bhjp
A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic there.
A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
"I personally do not see being hassled by police at times as big a deal as oh let's say getitng shot in the back by a known criminal? "
Most likely this is because you are white. At most you will be hassled once or twice in your lifetime. If you were a black man then you'd probably have a different opinion.
War is necrophilia.
Did you watch the hearings? Everybody from the governor on down has stated that it happened and that it shouldn't have happened. They don't claim that that they did nothing wrong only that nobody should be punished. Eventually they will blame it on some low level police chief but you know the orders came from up high. Given that most police officers and police chiefs are republican and that most blacks vote democratic (almost 95% voted democratic in the last election) it makes perfect sense that a wink and a nod and a handshake is all it would take to get the cops to intimidate blacks.
If you are really a conspiracy buff I can also make the following point.
Most police officers are republican,
Most District attorneys are republican,
most police chiefs are republican
most blacks and hispanics are democrat.
Therefore blacks and hispanics are arrested at higher rates, convicted of higher charges so that they will lose their right to vote.
As a republican DA you would have motive to up the charge to a felony or refuse a plea bargain so your governor can deliver your state to his brother.
War is necrophilia.
Bush got about 5% of the black vote in the last election. I don't have a link but I remember reading this in many publications.
The number of republican legislatures who are black is probably even smaller. I can only think of one or two prominent black republicans (the guy from OK comes to mind but I can't think of any other right now). Considering how much hostility prominent republicans like Rush, that horowitz guy, G gordon liddy, ollie north etc show towards blacks I don't find that number all that surprising.
I am sure there are a few union members who are republicans too but considering the hostility of the republican party to unions and the members of those unions it seems like a suicidal thing to do.
Maybe the only union members who are republicans are those that don't want to be in a union and are seeking to destroy their unions. That makes sense to me. But a union member who likes being in a union voting for republicans who are trying to destroy their unions seems silly.
War is necrophilia.
Until it becomes standard practice throughout your whole industry. Then you can say, "no thanks" and move on to a lucrative position in the food service or janitorial industries.
These are the kind of abuses of "free association" (which can't exist in the imbalance of power between prospective employer and job applicant that the government should be putting a stop to, rather than perpatrating.
So is this going to lead to a trend of people dressing up as their favorite character from the FBI's 10 Most Wanted page, the way people send out those emails with sigs intended to "trigger" Echelon or Carnivore? Hmmmm. "Chief we have 4 Richard Specks, and 14 Ted Bundy's in the colusseum at the moment. Uh, do we arrest them or call Ghostbusters?"
How much money do we get if we're the last ones left?
If you're familiar with the cases of Extra Y-Chromosone criminals, just think if they were to take a DNA fingerprint of you today, and if you show up positive flag you as a possible violent offender due to the high number of men who carry this extra chromosone and have histories of violent crime.
A concept such as this where the possibility that you MAY commit a crime gets you arrested scares me a lot more than a camera that flags people who resemble criminals for police to double check.
Wrong show :P
>The problem with this is not the initial application, but how it progresses.
We lose our rights by a thousand little slices. Fingerprinting was only for criminals, now we get fingerprinted for drivers licenses. Metal detectors were only for airports and high schools that had riots. Now, it's for any government building.
Absolutely; some people say, "we are still free." But what about the rate of change towards enslavement to the state? (I'm at a loss to describe the opposite of liberty any other way, at this late hour).
In fact, in China, our new demon/enemy du jour, their progress is _towards_ liberty. They're not there at all in many ways, but the progress over time will add up.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
They really don't care if you are liscensed as long as you insured.
And yet his point is that innocent people were subjected to the scan. If someone had a warrant on them, then a strip search is no big deal. But to strip search 100,000 people looking for a possible terrorist is a big deal. Being scanned is less intrusive. This makes it better or more vile?
I took a few Admin of Justice classes just for fun. Was taught that Rehabilitaion was "old-school", and not really a part of the Crininal Jusice System Way.
Don't they all have 5'0 clock shadows and wear gray and white stripes? Accept the really good ones who shave and wear gray pinstripes?
Those that can give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither.
That's right. Unless your name is Archibald Buttle, you've got nothing to worry about.
Errm.. you mean Tuttle...
--
How effective is this system against someone walking into the sports event with their face done up like a player from their favorite team? Once again, as is usually the case with Big Brother type schemes, this won't affect anyone who really wants to commit a crime, especially now that the cat is out of the bag. No, at this point, it will only serve the same purpose as every other invasion of privacy that has been set in place to protect us from ourselves. And the end result is always a loss of rights for the individual. And more power to the Men in Black. People will never learn. Not until they have taken all of our rights away. As someone else already said, the death of a thousand slices.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Guilty until proven innocent is the first mark of totalitarianism. That is what our society is really going to. Just ask anyone who has ever served in the military if they are innocent until proven guilty. Yeah true, they would still be American citizens, but with a distinct lack of certain rights that all citizens are guaranteed. The difference between today's Democratic USA and totalitarianism is really is just a matter of degree. We are well on our way down that track now. And it seems to me that people will continue to gladly give these rights away in the name of "protecting the children". I am beginning to feel nauseas.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Sure, and as soon as you have a clone, it becomes mandatory that a chip be implanted in your hand so that you can be positively identified. You can't win this one. The entire modern legal system relies on the ability to positively be identified. No silly clone is gonna stop the man.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Nope, sorry. You can pick up the home version of the game on your way off the stage.
BTW: IANAL
You see, school lockers are still school property. Every school that I've seen has the student sign a little piece of paper that basically reinforces that the school ownes the lockers, and has the right to search them at will.
Once that is established, the school has the authority to allow the police to search through their property at will.
Just because you have a school provided lock on the door, does not mean that you have a complete expectation of pricacy.
"Expectation of privacy" is the entire crux of the matter.
how much privacy do you really think you should expect in an open venue such as the Super Bowl? How much privacy should you expect when you walk down the street? Certainly, in BOTH cases the expectation is *much* less than if you were inside your home with the curtains drawn. You see, if the curtains are drawn in your home, you can have the expectation of privacy that you cannot expect if you did not pull the curtains. A police officer looking through a window seeing evidence of a crime can act on that "plain view" viewing. The Expectation isn't there that the officer cannot see through the window if you haven't taken steps otherwise.
Now, if the police can look through unobstructed windows, what make you think they cannot look at you when you are in a public venue?
The police are not interfering with you in any way at all. They are merely taking pictures.
Now, it gets interesting if the police start to claim that suspicions are raised because someone is wearing a fright wig, or a clown nose or is showing up with their face painted in the team's colors. IMHO, they should not be able to detain and question based on the fact that your appearance has been altered. If they start doing that, then I have a problem. Until then, smile!
In the UK, the Data Protection Act now allows you to demand copies of all CCTV identifiable as you any given company or organisation has on record. Mark Thomas (a comedian with his own show on Channel 4) has used this to great effect.
The Police already have this... There is a collection of papers by Sirovich at Brown University, where a technique called the snapshot Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) was used to construct an optimal basis set for the characterization of human facial features. I believe the work began with an idea to improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to find missing children, or some such noble cause.. However, there's absolutely no reason the same tools couldn't be used to classify the face, fingerprint, etc. for every one without an excessive amount of data..
The general idea is this.. You develop a general set of basis functions that spans the possible range of features found in your population. Then you capture images of each person, as they walk through a surprisingly well lit, blue screen interiored, "metal detector" at the airport, high school, DMV, etc... You then project the basis set onto each image (read: project a fourier mode onto a time signal) to obtain a discrete set of random scalar coefficients for each person.. Throw the scalars at a large database, with very fast search capabilities, cross-reference that database with the airline records, INS (passports), High School databases (think yearbook photos), and there's no reason to believe that everyone couldn't be recorded / indexed /tracked...
Just another happy little thought..
What about people's right to privacy? You have it even if youi go out you know...
I'd have to agree. This (and drug checkpoints on random roads) seems like an unreasonable search; that is, they don't have any proof that someone even MIGHT be up to something.
Can I trust you not to be a bomb wielding maniac at a football game?
Actually ya you can. How many times have you or your friend been blown up by a bomb wielding maniac at a football game? Even come close to it? Have most people???? No? Well then ya, i'd say your chances are pretty low...maybe you should move underground, since you have a better chance of being hit by a meteor.
You think you're constantly in danger from the people around you, and you call privacy rights groups paranoid???? Geez, wake up...
If you are not constantly in danger, then why do these protections need to be installed in the first place?
Yes, airplanes are a higher risk of being blown up. So might be gov't buildings. Which is why we all for tighter security at these places. But most other places, you are in no danger, EVEN WITHOUT THE 'PROTECTIONS.' I mean, people have been going to football games for years without these protections without getting blown up, so why install these things if you're not in real danger???
And you know what; maybe rights are worth peoples lives. You seem to forget that people died to get these rights worked into a system of gov't, that they had to fight pretty hard to do it. Brush up on your history dude, the colonies didn't just say "We are independant now, and England said 'Oh ok, no problem.'"
You make some other very bad analogies. Locking your door and installing cameras everywhere are two different things. The most important difference is that a lock doesn't invade my privacy at all. So your comparision is meaningless.
I find it amusing that you call us privacy nazis; Nazi Germany and probably modern day China were/are pretty safe, yet i don't think you'd like living under thier rule.
Security requires monitoring; privacy requires you not be monitored. So tell me, how do you NOT lose your privacy when you increase your security?
This reminds me of a (joke) project I thought of a few months ago. I was at a lecture for a technology that would classify the gender of a person in a facial photograph, using a bunch of pre-classified pictures for training data and then some sort of learning algorithm to classify never-before-seen pictures. The lecturer presented some fairly successful results, and I sarcastically mused, "We should try this on criminals!"
Imagine: we present the system thousands of pictures of criminals from their mug shots and the program learns to classify criminals. Then, the government gathers pictures of the accused, or just suspects, or maybe even the plain innocent and classifies them as criminals. Those unfortunate souls classified as a criminal must then be subject to the most rigorous of investigations.
I know, it sounds horrifying, but it could happen. It sort of sounds like Spielberg's Minority Report, which he'll make after AI, I think. In that, an innocent man who has been classified as a criminal (before he commits the crime) is on the run from a cop. I'm not sure how he's classified, though. Psychics, maybe. In any case, I'd be curious to see what Spielberg could present on the issue.
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool. -Crowe
How do you "lose your rights" by getting your damn picture taken when you enter a private building of your own volition? If you wanted to set up a camera to take pictures of people on your property, shouldn't you have the right to do that? If so, then why doesn't that right extend to other property owners?
You failed to mention that it was the police who were doing this. That makes just a bit of difference, don't you think?
If you would deny property owners the right to protect their property by imposing draconian limitations about what they can and cannot do on their own property, I submit that it is you that is infringing on essential liberties, and you that are advocating a dangerous, authoritarian police state.They were not protecting their property. They were cooperating with the cops to do the electronic equalivent of stopping everyone and saying "may I haff you papers, please." They were not looking for a specific criminal. They were casting a giant net on everyone who entered that stadium. Does this seem like a good idea to you?
It's interesting to note that the only "criminal" they discovered was a ticket scalper - someone who participates in what should be a perfectly valid trade of a legal item. As we continue to criminalize harmless activities like this, to the point where it's virtually impossible for anyone to avoid being a criminal, this technology will become more and more valuable to the authorities. Post a link to a drug related web site, and you better stay home.
For all the news that might amuse read The Hittman Chroincle.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
It seems to me that this technology should be openly available to anyone who wants it. Then I can get fat contract with local crime lords by providing a service wherein I monitor all law enforcement facilities to identify all people passing through. Cross reference all of the persons visiting law enforcement agency buildings with a picture database of your fellow law breakers and much improved mole detection.
It would make the discovery of undercover officers so much easier. No need to go down because one of your own was in fact the man. While you're at it, you could also eliminate any informants.
And for the more law abiding among us, it would be that much easier to find out if you really want to deny service to someone on a much more legal grounds like, working for the IRS, or being a member of a political group designed solely to take away my rights as a citizen.
It does make me wonder if the photo database is available under the freedom of information act. If so, oh the marketing potential...
Instead of being an asshole, why don't you just consider yourself lucky that you don't have the same problems as he does?
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Uh, wait a minute. This is a private event where tickets were purchased. Perhaps it is because I've been padded down at rock concerts occasionally since I was 1981 (when I was 9), but I think that at events the private companies that run it have an obligation to take adequate measures to prevent crime. If someone was killed at the superbowl, they could be held liable....
I've wondered about that since my last return via Detroit. I walked up to the gentleman at passport control and laid my declaration and passport on the counter. He picked up my declaration and asked how I was doing. I told him I was glad to be home. He told me to move on. Never touched my passport.
I also had a similar experience on the Mexican border. I had walked into Mexico to do some shopping and on my return was merely asked if I was an American. No one there had their passport examined so it really doesn't count.
But the troubling part is that I reentered the United States without having my passport examined. Is that perhaps because they already knew who I was when I approached the counter? Or was it that I was unmistakably American? Or, beyond that, did NW provide Customs with a list of passangers upon our departure from Osaka for Customs to preclear? They found no one on the flight they were interested in talking to so went easy on us?
No, still in the United States you can walk down the street and refuse to show proof of ID. The only way it can cause you problems is if the police officer has a description of someone who (very) recently committed a crime nearby and you match it. That is probable cause. Without it the search is unlawful and subjects the police and municipality to all kinds of nasty things. (Like lawsuits, but someone at the DoJ should pursue federal criminal proceedings against gross violations... Now it's just written off as an overzealous cop when it is in reality a pattern of unconstitutional behavior effectively like fishing.)
I was thinking about this the other day.
It won't be too long (real soon now) before they will be able to photograph your finger from 10 metres away, and discern your fingerprint from that. And that's only one logical step from the face scanning, but is also zero logical steps from fingerprinting every single person.
Seems like a good time to quote P.J. O'Rourke (used to be my .sig about five years ago),
And the notion that we can "vote them out" is quite ludicrous. Who are you going to vote for? Or, do you really think they'd let Nader be President?
fish don't blink
The system found 19 criminals in 100,000 people. That has no relation to the % accuracy unless we know how many false positives and false negatives were recorded.
Obviously the criteria are those for whom a picture exists in the database of "people with a significant criminal history". IOW, people with mug shots.Your picture isn't taken when you get a parking ticket.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
And what country would that be, you Anonymous Cowardly Idiot?
And BTW, Words at the start of sentences use capitals. Loser.
/Dervak
Considering the fact that most policemen use violence and gunfire, whether against criminals or innocent citizens, and considering that historically police have been responisble for the most loathsome atrocities (Gestapo anyone?), Im not willing to give them any trust.
Considering that the military works tirelessly to protect the richest 1% from anything that could threaten the status quo, not flinching from killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and is made up of men and women who would kill you if you tried to exercise your liberty (Civil War anyone?), Im not willing to trust them.
Considering that hundreds of thousands of ordinary non-violent people, sentenced for victimless crimes (like smoking pot or having consentual sex with someone 17 years old) are behind bars, at the same time as anyone who can afford a top lawyer gets off the hook no matter if it is murder, and the fact that Congress is bought by Big Business, Im inclined to distrust the legislature and the judges.
Considering the fact that anyone who seeks to be President has no more chance than a snowflake in Hell unless he is "approved" by AOL-TimeWarner-Sony-M$-GM-Exxon-CocaCola-Disney, for a salary that is less than some CEOs in the private sector, but still many, many times higher than the median, but is compensated by the incredible rush of Power, all the while not really taking any responsibility, Im inclined to distrust whoever holds that office.
Actions speak. Throughout history, organized government/military/corporations have beaten up/raped/tortured/maimed/murdered orders of magnitude more people than all serial killers/terrorists/lunatics in the world. I know whom I fear most. (Hint: It is not the lone crazies or terrorist commandos.)
I rest my case.
/Dervak
I think that unless they inform the general public (ticketholders) in advance, then it is wrong. They are violating your rights because to compare your image to those of known offenders is assuming that you are guilty. The assumption of guilt is what starts investigations. Allegedly I am innocent unless there is a reason to assume that I am guilty. Come up with a reason. I didn't realize that attendence of the Superbowl meant that I am likely to be criminal. Good thing that I wouldn't ever attend an event like this.
Hey, you think your house is cool?
Also the difference between cameras and live police is that live police don't have instant access in their heads to a database of images to compare you with to see if you are a "close match" for a criminal. They are just there to make sure that whoever you are, that you don't get out of hand. Which is fair.
Hey, you think your house is cool?
You Kennedy curse analogy is flawed since your reductio of how they were killed is idiotic, and the simple matter is that the heirarchy of the family matters. The effects on an immediate family don't translate through the entire family. Two brothers dying counts for more than two distant cousins dying. Also the reason that no one can remember the Kennedy's who died in their sleep is because they weren't public figures. Almost all the Kennedy's who have been public figures have died and Ted just barely escaped himself. That is different in kind that what you are describing. However, your analysis that NFL players are no more dangerous than anyone else is true. There are a lot of players and considering what we ask from these people I am surprised that the crime figures are so low.
Hey, you think your house is cool?
If used responsibly, this could have great benefits. But it only takes one unscrupulous person abusing it to offset the benefits. Can we really trust people with things like this nationwide? There are already cameras on many streetcorners. If they can't pick out criminals with those things, maybe they should fight crime the old-fashioned way: logic.
Instead of measuring the distance between my eyes etc., I would rather assume They[tm] use a properly constructed and trained neural net to recognize the faces. And those have been well tested with face and other pattern recognition. Also, I would guess that all possible criminal 'candidates' still require human review. So after all I don't think it should be all that unlikely to get a proper result.
Well- most people want increased security and less crime, but apparently no one is willing to give the police more power. Same thing here in Germany. People have been applauding when a former Minister of Interior Affairs suggested NYC-like police reinforcements, but at the same time complaining when the media got into a hype about fearing a 'Police State'...
Your example about that tank detector just sounds like they messed up the training, so that failure is not a problem of neural nets in general. I think proper training and design could lead to good results -- but that goes for neural nets as well as metric criteria. It's all just a question of implementation. So I would be interested now in learning about the design of this technology, and also some statistics about the quality of the results. But I guess the FBI or police or whoever won't tell us about the details...
If it were a private building, then you might have a point. However, large-scale sports venues are almost never private buildings. They are funded almost totally by taxpayer money. In any sane view of the world, a building funded by taking money away from the people who earned it belongs to the people.
Therefore, we are the property owners here, yet we are the ones being scanned, processed, and recorded. Plus, once they have those pictures on file, in an easy-to-analyze digital format, do you honestly think that the police are simply going to chuck 'em once they've determined that there are no terrorists in the crowd? Oh no - you can bet that those pictures are going into a file that will be around for a while to come.
--Ford Prefect
Can we trust the governement to always do what is right?
What I've noticed in a lot of these posts is an arguement like this: The computer says, "Hey this face might belong to a known criminal we've been trying to arrest!" This doesn't mean that you're going to be gangtackled by cops and hauled off to jail. It simply flags it for review by someone.
The same thing with video cameras in, I believe, the UK that alert an operator when suspicious activity is detected. The operator looks at the screen and says, "Ok this person is just having car problems," or whatnot.
Basically, just because you're red-flagged by this system doesn't mean that you're going to be arrested. Its just the computers way of saying, "According to my programming, this person looks like a known criminal. You might want to check it out."
Whether this is a good thing or not, I'm still undecided on.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Just because their intentions are good doesn't mean that it's OK.
leave california, surely you jest. where would i go. certainly not the anywhere else in the US, and i have heard it is very difficult to get work visas for european countries. do you think i could apply for political asylum?
A blog about stuff.
i think the word i was looking for was angry, but its dificult to be very angry at 4 in the morning. i apoloze, i'll try to be more angry next time.
A blog about stuff.
article here
A blog about stuff.
(Bradley), a Veitnam Vet (McCain), a former Republican (Pat), a short religious quack (Gary Baur), a magazine publisher (Forbes), a former head of the Red Cross (Elizabeth Dole) and an environmentalist on an ego trip (Nader). Am I forgetting anybody....oh yeah, Alan Keys
I don't get it. Harry Browne got more votes than everyone you mentioned besides Nader and Buchanan. But for some reason, nobody ever mentions him! CNN didn't say a word...*sign*
I guess I will just go continue being a Libertarian now.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
*sigh* I am getting tired of all this 2-party shit... Traffic was an incredible movie; I recommend that everyone go see it now!
and the LP rules... Harry Browne seems a little kooky, but I 100% agree with him. Check out his article The president's first day in office. It is awesome and makes me wish we could get him or any Libertarian into office...
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
TELL ME UP FRONT that you're filming me, and for what reason.
I don't know if this is what you are getting at, but they did post signs indicating that the area was 'under surveillance'.
I guess the authorites assumed that only criminals can afford tickets to the Super Bowl!
The difference is that those people are breaking the law by not paying the toll. Nobody is actually breaking the law by going to the Super Bowl!
...and the crater which the bomb left did NOT extend INTO the perimiter of the building (as the illustration in the "memorial book" shows. You are thinking of the World Trade Center).
Apparently 5000psi reinforced structural concrete fractures at the slightest puff of wind these days. Anyone ever heard of Boyle's law? The best facts on explosive are at the library in books published by Los Alamos.
I don't want my sister, girlfriend, or my own ass getting cavity searched at the airport just because it's "important for national security to interdict narcotics".
And I agree... events like Oklahoma were designed to have exactly this effect on public opinion: "Gee, I guess we really do need to let the police have unlimited power to kick in our doors to keep evil red-necks from blowing shit up. Guess we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. Pass the KY jelly, please. Oh GOD!... COLD HANDS..."
(...and I STILL don't believe that suicidal "yutes" wear masks.)
-The Government _owns_ your body...
Uhm, I've bought about twenty airline tickets with cash in the past three years and no one has even given me a strange look.
Talk out of your ass much?
--
this is not a sig?
this is a sig.
If you would deny property owners the right to protect their property by imposing draconian limitations...
I don't know about this stadium specifically, but the vast majority of sports stadiums are publicly owned and payed for with taxes. Besides that, I don't consider it to be draconian to tell someone that they can't do non-consensual criminal background checks on everyone who enters their property. And it is really not draconian to tell the police and FBI that they cannot do secretive background checks on 100,000 people at a time. Even if this is private property we're talking about, it's the police (public employees whom we pay) who are spending their time and our money conducting these kinds of checks. Private property owners can request whatever the hell they want out of the government, but it is not infringing on their "essential liberties" for the government to refuse to grant the request.
<SARCASM>Sure, I have no problem with them spying on me just in case I do anything wrong. After all, where would I be if Big Brother wasn't there to look after me?</SARCASM>
How DARE they spy on people, perform automatic face recognition on the entire crowd, just in case they think that someone may cause trouble
I'm sure it won't be long before every shop, restaurant, bar, and sports venue implements face recognition. After all, we wouldn't want to have people who might be criminals around, would we? If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide, have you?
THIS MAKES ME SO DAMN ANGRY I WANT TO PUNCH SOMETHING. This whole philosophy of "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" irritates the living s*it out ov me. Why? Becuase it assumes that what is illegal and what is morally wrong are one and the same thing and history shows that we are extremely priveleged to live in a time and a place where these are similar to within a bad approximation
It is my personal opinion that the only people who don't have a teenage criminal record are those lucky enough not to get caught. Everyone makes mistakes. That is why we have crime and punishment. You commit a crime, you are punished for it, and you move on. If you commit another one, you'll be punished again. If you don't, then welcome back to society. Or, at least, that's the way it should be. Sadly, we seem to be straying from this.
Once your every move is recorded, your every association known, your opinions on every matter meticulously recorded in case you exhibit traits that suggest you may cause criminal behaviour, you are no longer living in a free society. You are living in a jail. George Orwell wrote an excellent piece about this in his book "1984" in which he describes what happens when this philosophy is taken to extremes. A very chilling read, and one that I totally recommend.
Notice that the surveillance actually achieved nothing. No-one knew that they were being watched, and nothing bad happened. No arrests were made. In fact, the only thing that this achieved is to give the police a complete list of who attended the event.
When the US was founded, privacy was the norm. You could walk down the street and be anonymous, you could have a private conversation simply by walking around a corner. There was no way of scanning for criminals in the crowd. And you will notice that society survived.
Implementing this system on a wider scale will only put more power into the hands of the police. It will not create a safer, more free, happier, or more enjoyable society. It will merely enable more wide scale police harrassment, and make it more difficult for citizens to revolt if a time comes when this is necessary. And the way technology is being used by the powers hat be, a revolt may be necessary far sooner than you think.
In CA the police have digitized pictures of everyone with an drivers license or id as well as a mug shot. Once this system is accurate and a few more traffic light cameras are installed they will be able to track where everyone is all the time. Of course they will only keep track of this information to catch criminals. After every crime they will be able to print out a list of everyone who was in the area-- Suspects. db
I agree; unless somebody starts trying to photograph or video tape me on my property (assuming I owned some) I have no right to complain really. If I enter a public building (government owned) fine, video tape me, photogrpah me, whatever. Photograph me at intersections... I don't care. Unless somebody begins poking cameras into my own house; I can't really complain.
Justin Buist
If this technology becomes more widespread (and since the US has a world-class quantity of felons :) it makes me wonder whether the medieval right of should be brought back. Peasants could run away, and if they stayed free for a year and a day they could keep they're freedom. Anyone want to post more detail on this?
... ah, classic ... though the system has probably been trained on white males so anyone wearing a turban will be arrested for that anyway :)
All the people bitching about how Al Gore won the popular vote need to get over it. Thats not how our system works. We have this thing called the electoral college which we use to elect presidents. This is not a new thing, nobody changed the rules to hurt Gore, it's not some vast conspiracy, it's just the way the election turned out. Yes it was close, but Al Gore lost according to the rules in the Constitution.
crowds facial recognition works in cars
Oracle and unix guy.
Ever count the number of cameras in a 7-11? It's always at least a dozen that you CAN see.
What you should expect is not to have your presumption of innocence in question merely because you happen to look like someone else.
/.ers watch waaaaay too many cop shows...
Where, exactly, is the presumtion of innocence questioned??? Innocent people get stopped often enough without this type of technology. And when it does happen, it gets sorted out and people get on with their life. No big deal. But now that there's a camera, it's a Big Deal???
The burden of proof should be on the authorties to be reasonably sure of who they've id'd before hassling an innocent citizen.
How should they be reasonably sure? They probably want to see some ID, right? What's so wrong with that? It hardly qualifies as hassling.
The figures are quickly approaching the "Your papers please" stage.
Puhleeeessse! Get a grip! The cops didn't have time to stop everyone before, and they don't now! That's the point of the system!
OK. So this type of system isn't as accurate as a person (yet). But it's not like it flags every person. If it does flag somebody, that should be reasonable grounds to ask for ID, and that's all they can do... and a few false positives won't hurt. I'd rather have the cops ask me for ID because the system says I look like a wanted murderer, than have the (accused... presumption of innocence, remember?) murderer pass by the (underpaid, underappreciated, overworked) cop because he was looking at his watch.
If anyone cares, you can get some actual facts about this type of technology if you (omigawd!) search for it at google. Try "face recognition", "face detection", "human face recognition", or any other seemingly intelligent phrase...
This just how it begins. Soon it will be like england with cameras on every street corner and highway. After that whats to stop them from being placed in apartments? houses? bathrooms? showers? After all if you are innocent then whats the big problem?
The sad part is most people feel 'safe' with someone watching them. Its just one step closer to big brother watching you. I would advise people to fight back now and hold up big posters with sayings like "FU" or "GOATSE.CX" to these cameras.
It all comes down to what price you put on freedom. Ben Franklin said it best:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
How about we put a camera in your living room. You don't have anything to hide so whats the big deal?
The level of abuse is too great. Whats to stop the person on the other end of the camera from saying "hey I hate that guy, lets say he looks like Rapist X and send over some police."
If your country has such a bad problem with crime that constant surveillance is needed on the population then you should look at the bigger social problem.
I value my freedom too much to give in to constant surveillance.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
What's wrong with it is that current (local and National US) law enforcement WILL abuse this power. Given their past deeds (COINTELPRO, Rampart in LA, etc) you can bet they will use this information against legit citizens who are NOT committing crimes.
Example: Suppose there is someone the gov't considers "suspicious", call him Torvalds. Using this technology they can see who his friends are, and then using liscense plate scanner tech. the can see, eg if he's going over to the house of another "suspicious" person, call him Stallman. Now supose these two are planning to do something really revolutionary (though legal) The gov't will just put them both on ice for a few days/weeks, on false charges, so the event will not go off as planned.
Don't Believe could happen? It already has. Hoover had every hotel room MKL visited bugged before hand. And this past year, at both republican & dem. conventions, hundreds of protesters, especially leaders, were jailed on false charges ("put on ice") that were later dropped after the TV cameras had left.
Umm...they are giving the pictures to police. Guess what....a citizen, doing this thing is consider acting under police control...IE: they are doing it *FOR* the police. So, there are the standard rules regarding what police can and cannot do when it comes to how they gather this information and etc. Those rules dont apply to standard people, but when they work in conjuction with authorities they cease to be standard. This is the problem. THIS is like highschools searching lockers with police dogs. High school staff are allowed to search any locker without probable cause. Police are not. Bringing in drug dogs==police, as shooting one is copkilling. Therefore Schoolwide drugdog search==conducted by police == need probable cause== everythings thrown out.
There were similar stories in the Canadian media a few weeks ago. Ontario casinos are equipped with face-reginition technology, designed to catch known cheats and other criminals. (Note that they don't scan everyone who walks into a casino -- just those who look suspicious.) This technology is in use in casinos in the United States as well.
:)
Normally I'd be more than willing to jump on the paranoia bandwagon, but in this case, technology is being used to fight real crime. Not surprisingly, there has been talk of this technology being installed in other areas, such as banks. Personally, I can't wait until we're able to nab criminals from orbit using high-resolution satellites. Or even better, high-resolution satellites equipped with lasers.
"Personally, I can't wait until we're able to nab criminals from orbit using high-resolution satellites. Or even better, high-resolution satellites equipped with lasers."
/. readers into criminals..." and disobeying your EULA in Virginia makes you a miscreant of the highest order....
Except when you stop and think that, "Oh, the DMCA makes 50% of
THINK man....
"I think at a point we have to say that personal freedom is better than personal safety. Ok, so maybe the FBI would catch a few criminals by doing this. I don't care. I don't like the idea of being secretly watched while I watch a football game. We could monitor everyone from birth with tracers and chips and cut down crime considerably. But is it worth it? Don't think so."
Mod this guy up. He aint bein' a bad boy and so he should get a brownie point for effort.
Besides, he's right. Sir William Blackstone:
"The law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
In what we want to believe is a just society, doesn't this sound like a cornerstone of justice? Don't even get me started on the death penalty!
Well, amusingly (as I saw in a documentary a few weeks back), this was exactly the argument advanced by supporters of the US Constitutional Congress back in the 1700's, for why there was no need for a Bill of Rights. "Why do you need proctection for your rights? Don't you trust your own representatives?"
Rights aren't secured without explicit legislation limiting how power can be used against you.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
This post was ridiculously moderated. Informative? I think not. Show us sources. You could have as easily said MLK had an affair with the alien known as JFK who personally faked the moon landing. At least throw us the bone of Art Bell links. You blame "the accusation alone" of pushing the public onto Clinton's side, yet you use the exact same tactics in your earlier argument about MLK and the LAPD. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but you should enjoy those informative karma points very, very much.
Are you saying everyone with a gun shoots up a McDonalds?
Fight Spammers!
Clearly, the vast majority of citizens would applaud our efforts to make Super Bowl XXXV as safe as we did," he said. "And I'll tell you, had this system identified some known terrorist because of the size of the event and the eyes of the world on Tampa, and the police stopped the terrorist act, the system would have proved priceless."
What makes them think that a known terrorist would even show up in person. For arguments sakes let assume that 90% of terrorists are at least somewhat intelligent, after all they do get guns and bombs onto planes. Anyway, if they are somehwat smart then wouldn't they probably send SOMEONE ELSE to do the dirty work. Probably someone who ISN'T a known terrorist.
Their argument is just lame. Kind of reminds me of the argument the FBI uses to justify wire tapping. "If this is used to save you child who has been kidnapped you'll thank us" For starters a wiretap requires that you KNOW who this persone who kidnapped them is and then where they are. If you know where they are then get off your arse and go get them.
Ok, I'm done with my rant...
> why don't you just consider yourself lucky that you don't have the same problems as he does?
You mean, like beeing an Asshole ?
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
You know how when you call a PRIVATE phone system of a company, how they still have to warn you that they may record your conversation "for training purposes?" And how they can't leave that out? How is this any different?
This is like saying "I can murder you, if you're standing in my house."
Rubbish. In the US, at least, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and while this system tests innocence, I don't want a fucking computer telling the cops that maybe I'm a bank robber and they should haul me in for interrogation for a few days.
Because the technology is absolutely certain to generate false positives, and this gives the cops yet another reason to harass citizens.
Look, remember that software that purportedly filtered pr0n on the 'net based on heutristics about shades of pink? Remember what a fuckup it was? Do you want software of this ilk suggesting to the cops that they haul you in for some questioning?
Because the players have many expensive lawyers, and aren't worth the trouble. Being able to harass common citizens in the guise of just doing what the computer said, however, gives many a cop a woody.
Either way, it's a bad thing. If they really are doing what the computer says, then welcome to the age where goddamn pieces of silicon decide our fates. If they're just using the computers as an excuse, then welcome to the world's newest fascist state!
My, my, and you're an Anonymous Coward. What are you hiding? Come out, come out, where ever you are!
Okay, so the murder example was a bit extreme, but the point exists.
It comes down to the fact that notice must be given for things like photographing and recording, whether one is on public or private property. That's the way it is in most states.
The fact that the _government_ was doing this on private property opens up yet another can of worms, namely about what happens when a public entity surreptitiously records citizens on private property using equipment built from public funds.
There was none in this situation. Case closed.
Guess what, the crucial "anchor points" that the software looks for are the corners of the eyes (4) and the tip of the nose (1), if you wear large sun glasses it can't tell who you are because the algorithim needs a minimum of three eye corners plus the nose to generate a result. The chin and cheekbones are unimportant as they can be covered by facial hair, also know that the cameras are located high up and a broad brimmed hat would unobtrusively hide the forehead and eyes from the software. I also think it's time that we emulate the Tuareg peoples of the Sahara and cover our faces with cloth!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
As with all things, the potential for good uses must be weighed against the risk of bad uses (commonly known as part of risk analysis). Where could you put this to good uses? 1) Airports 2) Train stations 3) Sports Events (all kinds) 4) Schools (oh no, not the Jon Katz discussion...) In the above case, adult criminals, not kids 5) Hospitals 6) Child Care facilities On the other hand - if "They" took these pictures and started correlating them with your information, that could be bad. You will only show up (under the current system) if YOU ALREADY HAVE A RECORD! So, it would be safe to assume that the chaff is discarded (i.e. all those people who didn't match a profile were coppied to /dev/null - in which case, WHY are you Worried?
Just my $0.02
If the parent article was modded up to a freaking 5, why isn't this even at a 2, when it presents a more relevant, and obviously more researched statement? Because slashdotters are biased I guess....
I would really love to see the software that is capable of determining that I am breaking into a car rather than, say, wiping birdshit off the windshield before entering it. This makes the facial recognition thing look like ELIZA for the TRS-80 by comparison. -----> Note that he said "alert a human operator". Therefore, a buzzer goes off at the monitoring station, the operator pushes a button to activate "Camera 3", and sees someone wiping the birdshit off of the windshield. Said operator then pushes a button to deactivate Camera 3 and goes back to reading Playboy.
I don't see anyone getting slammed up against the wall in this scenario....
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
The owner of a venue has every right to point camras at the crowd, turnstyles, anywhere but the bathrooms. Get used to it. You step on my property, I can take your picture. Period.
and it's exactly like the wreck of the hesperus.
Ha! I kill me!
I demand a recount!
What a bunch of horse puckey
Clearly you are a TROLL, but some trolls need to be exposed to the light of day. I am sure that stats could be manipluated to make any group of people look bad. It is clear that no matter how many times that the Trading freedom for safty quote is used, people just don't get it. Do you SWB agree or disagree with the sentiments put forth by Benjiman Franklin?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
It's interesting that they're doing this. I had the Bright Idea of making a product that OCRs every auto licence plate that goes down my street. If there's a problem (like a burglary or other crime), we can see what cars drove by that day. Should be possible to do by now, and if they've got face recognition technology, they're probably well beyond this!
Dude. It was a joke.
I recently attended a traning session in Ohio with an acquantance. His drivers license had expired and so the day before he went to the DMV and got it renewed and basically ended up with a piece of paper which showed he had renewed.
His ID was checked at least 4 times. When picking up the tickets both ways - and when renting a car. PLUS, we visited NASA Glenn and the security guard there looked at it also.
Not one of the people who looked at the ID saw that it was expired. I can understand the airport people and perhaps NASA, as they probably didn't really care if he had driving privledges but THE RENTAL CAR AGENCY?
In any case, to try to salvage some on-topicness from this post, I fully agree that the security systems in place are trivial to "bypass". For instance, I carried onto the plane a laptop case containing the laptop, 3 pcmcia cards, an entire ethernet hub, a whole truckload of cables, and a whole bunch of other stuff I figured the people looking at the X-Ray machine would have freaked over, but they didn't even make me turn it on.
Then there's the other extreme. The same acquantance as above walked into a Federal Building to deliver a replacement monitor. For "security" reasons there are no parking spaces near the building and so he basically illegally parked, took the monitor in, talked to the security guard, made sure it was ok to leave the monitor box by the front door and then went and legally parked his vehicle.
By the time he got back, the guards had changed and the new guard on duty was trying to stuff the box through the xray machine - tearing the box to try to make it fit. As they needed the box to ship the old monitor back, he asked them what they were doing. When they figured out it was his box, they pushed him up against the wall and basically interrogated him. Of course, he wasn't a very happy camper. The excuse they gave was that "ever since the Oklahoma? bombing they are a little touchy".
Then, when I was in San Francisco for a contract, I see a ryder truck parked next to the federal building for about 2-3 hours.
Go figure.
Man. I am so glad I started Body For Life (www.bodyforlife.com). Within 12 weeks I will be happy for folks to take my picture! ;-J
"A sample size of one is really just statistical masturbation."
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
An even more appropriate quote, though, would be the one from Benjamin Franklin used by the OpenBSD team --
"They that can give up liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's abusive if you're wrongly accused.
Take this scenario: The software confuses you with some violent criminal. The police think you're dangerous and knock you senseless and lock you up. Realizing they're mistake, they harass you with the goals of finding dirt on you or, failing that, intimidating you so that you don't kick up a fuss.
Ask anyone whose name happens to coincide with a known criminal. Once the feds are on you, they don't like to let up.
hmmm... when did that go in effect in CA? I never had to do that...
I live in Pinellas County, which is just across the bridge from Tampa, and apparently they have had cameras installed for a long while in Ybor City. Ybor is the area of town where all the clubs and bars are. It is known as the party area of Tampa Bay. This leads me to wonder if this "scanning" technology has been in place for some time...
In New York state, I've heard that their fastline times you from toll to toll, if you arrive at one toll a little to fast, it automatically tickets you. Curse these New England states and their puritan obtrusiveness.
If they really wanted to look for criminals, they should have trained those camera's on the field. Something like 20% of the Raven bench has been accused of a felony.
Notice need be only a small but technically visible sign saying "you are being vidoetaped"
Continuing on this line of thought...
The camera in your house/bathroom isn't all that far fetched. The government doesn't know if you may have friends that are criminals. And these friends might visit your residence. And what better way for the government/police to see if there's a criminal in your house than by using cameras in your house/bathroom, etc..... And all of this is in the name of your protection.
Yeah right.
It starts with cameras at stadiums, ATM's, street corners, etc. How long before they DO want to install a camera in your house... all in the name of the public good.
I sure as hell don't want someone watching me 24/7, even if I'm not doing anything illegal.
--Josh
In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."
In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."
Hmm... Interesting.
What do they do if the car you happen to be "breaking into" is your own? Maybe you locked your keys inside and are simply trying to get them? I know I've done this many times.... It's nice to know that I'd be thought of as 'criminal'....
--Josh
In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."
In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."
Don't forget for a minute that most of us are already in a GIANT database of names and matching faces: The DMV. At least those that take digital pictures. Heck, I have my face on a credit card, a frequent skier card, and on my website. I'm an upstanding citizen so no big worries...
ANYWAY, I had an interesting thought. Consider it a glimpse into the future:
Billy: "I'm heading to school mom, cya!"
Mom: "Don't forget to put on your identity preservation devices, dear."
Billy: "Aw mom, but I'm gonna be late for the bus...do I have to wear the cheek bone extensions and contacts?"
Mom: You know the rules, son. If we don't disguise ourselves in public, the (*insert conspiracy theory protagonist here*) will take over our identities and (*insert wild and frightening possibility here*)
I can't wait!
------
Let me give you the lowdown
I'm taking bets now...
;)
Who will be the first company to offer InstaFace technology? You know, the one where a simple press of a button behind your ear activates several air-bladder and plastic devices implanted under the skin to change your facial characteristics....
Come to think of it, why stop with the face? InstaTightStomach, Insta...well, let's keep it PG13
------
Let me give you the lowdown
Seriously, though, the idea is to prevent criminals from committing crimes. It seems strange to then say that, wait, there will be bad consequences if these criminals aren't allowed to commit their crimes.
If that seems messed up, check out where the US Constitution actually says people are innocent until proven guilty. That means the Constitution itself says the cops ought to wait until *after* someone commits a crime before treating them like a criminal. Fortunately the police are well aware that paying too much attention to the Constitution makes their job inconvenient, so they don't.
ACLU
-- Sigs are for losers
One a semi-related note:
Now imagine, you are a peacefull demonstrator at the Republican National Convention and the police system identifies you as a "ring leader" and haul you off to jail for inciting... Err.. Wait, that already happens dosen't it?
apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
They don't need software to mistake innocent people for felons and claim the right to harass them until they actually DO something illegal (like punching an abusive cop in the face and forcing them to swallow their badge). Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. High-tech toys give cops more power in the sense that they can monitor more people at any given time. The more they can watch, the happier they are in their voyeuristic little minds. This just keeps on looping and growing exponentially worse until they metaphorically stick the damn cameras right inside our brains with funky little probes that detect drug traces in the bloodstream in realtime and a nanomodem that immediately calls up the station to send a bunch of uniform-wearing thugs to drag you away and beat you until you reveal your sources. Paranoid ? Certainly. Absurd ? Not as much as you might think.
Welcome to the year 2097, have a good, short, establishment-approved life.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
It always pisses me off when I hear peolple claiming that the big bad governemnt started the fire at Waco. If they did, why the fuck did they wait so long and try so damn hard to try to get them to leave voluntarily? Why is there videotape of the fire starting independently in three different parts of the building? Why didn't the Waco Wackos LEAVE THE BURNING BUILDING? Because they started the damn fire and wanted to go with it. It all fit into their kooky religious beliefs that the ATF raid was the beginning of the End of the World. They really beleived that! Christ, these people were NOT acting rationally, at least no what we would consider rational, so why is it so hard to think that they started the fire? Its no different than the Other mass suicides that happend before and after, like the one in South Africa, or the most recent one where they had a website.
Numbers 31:17,18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,but save for yourselves every virg
Someone needs to hassle me for looking just like Gillian Anderson!
Not that I do, but it would be fun.
--
--
The geeks shall inherit the earth.
all they REALLY needed is bruce willis's character from Unbreakable.
Sure, you say that, but if you did have an outstanding warrant? This is simply not very sporting to criminals. And if you're not going to be sporting, please try to not be sporting somewhere less sports-oriented than the super bowl.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, post on Slashdot about it.
Bah. We are becoming a nation of cowards. Franklin was right. Actually, I believe he said "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety will soon lose both, and deserve neither". America has become the land the settlers sought to escape from.
Yes, isn't it wonderful? Some of the lowest crime rates in the world are achieved by the most brutal regimes. What little liberty remains in the UK is quickly disappearing. It's bad enough here in America, but the UK's situation is positively shocking. First socialism, then totalitarianism. I don't know about you, but I am much more afraid of an organized police force than a few lone criminals. Every day fools vote more of their freedom away to catch petty criminals. And what makes you think you'll get to vote the power abusers out of office? Here in California we passed a law that anyone could read to mean that marijuana was essentially decriminalized, and judges and police went right about their business as though it hadn't happened. Left all of us wondering what a 65% majority means to these people. I'm not so sure the authorities pay attention to voting anymore.
Grrr. The FBI got bored waiting for them to get out, so they attacked. The people inside were hysterical and exhausted, and things always seem to go wrong when violence starts up. Government action lead to the deaths of the people inside, some of whom were innocent children, for God's sake, regardless of how the fire started. When Janet Reno said she took responsibility for what happened, she should have followed that logic to its conclusion and resigned.
Ask anyone who has attended a protest what the police are like. I am a responsible, educated, citizen (if i do say so myself)- who happens to also have some *very* 'liberal' ideals.(some people consider them Communist - which I would accept). I generally abhor the the ruling classes (for many reasons) - so I am pretty biased.But I am also capable of some objectivity.
The problem with liberal educated communists such as yourself is they tend to be disconnected from reality.
First of all, you can't really be biased (as you admit to being) and objective at the same time.
Secondly, accepting the label of a Communist, you essentially put yourself in a diametrically opposite position with the current powers that be. And then you whine when the system doesn't coddle to your whims.
Maybe the Seattle protestors were treated a little heavy handed and roughed up. Look what happens to protestors in that communist utopia China. Or the communist utopia of North Korea. No protestors there because life is great right? Maybe you should be glad that the ruling powers here where you live are so patronizing to your 'liberal' ideals.
Complaining about police abuses while screaming in their faces is akin to crying when you stick your finger in a wall electric socket and get shocked. For one thing its credibly naive, and whatever the merits or lack thereof of your cause, no large social change can occur free of cost. There are lots of people (probably a majority, and definitely a plurality) who have a considerable vested interest in the status quo, and they will fight when you try to take it away from there.
.. letting yourself get completely hooked up like that really means you guys deserve to be slaves.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Recently, Massachusetts has implemented a wireless toll-paying, account-based transceiver called "Fast Lane". Unfortunately, some people without this device have been whizzing through the lane to evade the tolls. Recently, cameras were placed there to scan the license plates of the evaders. Then, a citation is sent to the offender: first offense, warning; subsequent offense: fine of over $100 (I don't remember the exact fine value).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Face recognition software is one of those double edge swords. On one hand it can be used to find criminals, kidnapped children, terrorist, etc. using public places and schools. On the other it can be used to track your shopping patterns, how often you go to the bathroom, who visits the local red light district, etc. Check out Visionics".
I personally do not see being hassled by police at times as big a deal as oh let's say getitng shot in the back by a known criminal?
Those calibrated shots can be taken outside of the Police station too you know.
This last is more from a technical perspective, not from a political or moral: even if modern IT gives authorities easy access to huge amounts of data storage and automated data management, query and retrieval, my guess is that most of the time, and in most cases, all the captured face prints, finger prints, voice prints, license plates, ... probably end up on some dusty hard disk, never to be seen again. This is for the simple reason that even with the aforementioned advances in automated evaluation methods, authorities simply cannot make use of the evaluation results, never mind the raw data.
In the end this may break down to the old question: are authorities and govt. agencies evil, sinister, effective instruments of doom (the "conspiracy theory interpretation"), or just huge, bloated organizations of overworked, underpaid humans who are as fallible, slow-moving and inefficient as any (the "organizational entropy interpretation")?
-- H. Wilker
Basing your knowledge on the probability of a terrorist attack on Tom Clancy novels is probably a little bit questionable eh? That said, I'm suprised the U.S. hasn't had a major international terrorist attack (world trade center is probably one of the biggest recently). The biggest domestic attack of the decade came from an American (or 3 or however many people are suspected for the OK City bombing). Seeing how America decides to shoot down other countries' commuter airlines (Iranian I believe) without much apology, I wonder why we haven't been successfully targeted yet. Especially when you turn on the tube to see a touching story about how someone's mom wants to kill every Libyan she sees because an American plane went down at the hands of Libyans.
Gotta love Florida- they scan everyone's image who attends the Superbowl, but can they afford machines that actually count votes?
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
It's surprising to me that as a U.S. Territory that P.R. can even have laws that allow that to happen. Is this certificate something conjured up by business that they take to a police station to have certified or an invention of the government?
Of course, that this happens in a place where the shopkeeper looks you over while you stand outside the barred door and then decide whether or not your worthy to come in shouldn't surprise me.
We Americans don't know how well-off we are sometimes!
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Damn it Slashdot!!!
I would have thought that you would know how to take CRLFs from the original post.
Sorry about that people.
---
I worked at an airport checkpoint when I was in college. At that place and time, the policy on carrying a weapon through the checkpoint was simple: only the airport police could do so. If an FBI agent showed up with a weapon, we would have politely asked them to get an escort from the airport police. Of course, this is just policy. As a practical matter, most airport employees could get to airplaces without ever passing through a checkpoint.
Stupid Microsoft! What BETTER way to provoke your enemies than to tell the spectators that your enemy is doomed? How foolish! :-)
Uhm.. I didn't mean to post this on this story. :P Uhm, go here instead:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/01/175921 1&mode=thread
...and if the human that the computer notifies turns out to be a racist cop on a power trip, the poor guy will probably have the crap beaten out of him, especially if he's black, hispanic etc, even if he _was_ wiping birdshit off the car!
I'd feel a little better if the PTB had been a little more open about it, i.e. a disclaimer on the tickets and at the door, indicating what was going on and that anybody who didn't want to submit to it didn't have to enter. I still fail to see how it doesn't fall under illegal search and seizure laws, though. Makes you wonder whose increasingly narrow definition of what constitutes a public place. Where will it end?
Dude, lay off the cough syrup, already. We're starting to worry about you.
Today's sig brought to you by http://www.swankypimp.com
Guess what?
COPS ARE FUCKING CIVILIANS!
They are NOT military personnel.
They are people who have VOLUNTEERED to do a job that says they are sworn to protect and SERVE.
Seems a few more of them would do well to remember those little facts.
Most folks are too young here to remember what life was like 40 years ago, but the shit cops pull now would NEVER have happened then. But it's all in the name of the children or drugs or social ill du jour. I counted NINE squad cars in the four miles from my house to work at lunch yesterday. America is rapidly turning into Amerika and the sheeple are largely too ignorant to see it or act on it if they do. I will not be at all surprised to have to present 'papers' at checkpoints for routine local travel in 20 years. It already happens around where I live (north Florida). Only thing that has to change is the frequency and a couple of bleating news shows saying how it will make the streets safer for the children...
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Oh no! Don't photograph me! Not in public!
Do we expect to have complete anonymity in public now? I think our experiences with that on the Internet have spoiled us some...
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Yes, but you don't need them to walk down the street or across state lines. There is NO law that says you HAVE TO carry id while you move about on foot. A Motor Vehicle license is not required to take your Boing Nikes for a spin.
Automated recognition at points of demarcation is NOTHING less than wholesale surveilance of the population which a fundamental violation to our collective and individual right to privacy.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Erwin, we're no longer talking about merely being photographed. We talking about being identified in coffee shops and in cross-walks and in our own driveways next. We're talking the incredibly short leap technologically from having one of these systems at the Super Bowl(TM) and having thousands of them tracking our every movement as we live out our lives with the paltry few freedoms we have left.
And Irwin, baby, just when and where does passisve autorecognition at public waypoints be come in fact...a defacto form of "having to show your papers"?
Common, Irwin, you're a smart guy. Think this out a little better next time. I know you can 'cause I collect those "Constitutional Law Professor" trading cards and I'm just sure I have one with your picture on it!
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Right.
It's always fun and smart to brush off MAJOR violations of ones personal rights and privacy with a "if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about" cliché.
What if you were forced to be electronically frisked at every single entrance and doorway in town? Sure, it'd be kinky as hell, but aside from that, just because "it keeps us safe and crime has gone down", you'd have no issue with it "because you have nothing to worry about because you're innocent". Frankly, that's the biggest load of horse shit I've heard in quite some time. It's not about guilt or innocence, it's about the principle of the thing. It goes without saying the potential for abuse is staggering. But aside from that, where will this end? First the bank, then the ATM, then inside stores, on the highways, on the streets, at your favorite gathering (sports, etc.).
What next? Inside your home? In the bathroom?
Crazy, you say? Lots of people thought cameras on the street were crazy too. But looks like you've bought into them completely. The madnitory home and bathroom cams are probably on the way, and I'm sure you'll accept them with no objection since "you have nothing to hide".
Please.
Just because I sound "paranoid" doesn't mean I don't have a point. This is how things start. A law here...a preventitive security measure there...
If we're not careful, we'll lose what freedom we have on this planet in exchange for some faux-freedom controlled by the state.
Then we'd be back at square one...
BytesTemplar.com
For instance, we're told that Democracy aids Liberty and vice versa. That's not quite true. If one believes in Democracy above all else, then one must accept Adolf Hitler and his actions during the 1930's and 1940's. He was elected with far less fraud than what is alleged in Florida.
There's a very interesting article on this topic at Liberzine.
I think your pro-life stance is compromised just a tad by its presence in an enabling fake reply to what is generically known here as a goatse.cx post.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
I got a funny lookin' hed.
Peepul say it dont look like a hed at all, tho'
Thay say it look like a bucket o' sar-deens.
But thay be rong -- it mah hed!
Kiss me, I'm blueberry-flavored!
The problem is the rest of the voting public. For each geek that lets his (often nonconformist and therefore "bad" or "dangerous") opinion known, there are ten or twenty or more peasants who have the opposite opiinion, which unfortunately, due to our lack of a weigted vote (okay, my vote gets counted as 250M... yours counts for 1. :-P ) means that all I do is expose myself as a dissenter.
There's also a problem in the state of Americans. Most Americans are stubborn, stupid, and insolent. We can't (or won't) accept the idea that we are doing something wrong ona fundamental level. Rather, we will scapegoat something else. Ask any soccer mom (just look for an SUV) what she thinks the most dangerous thing about their child's scool is and she will tell you that guns, or knives or inadequate security is the probem, without even thinking that without the other students to perpetrate these actions, nothing would happen. An were it suggested to them that they might not be doing wht is required to raise their son/daughter the best way possible, they would most likeley get upset at you, insult you or even assault you. The effect on this to the child when he sees his/her mother/father do this is to assume it is normal behavior and therefore appropriate. Why do you think schoolyard massacres have only reently begun? It's not the development of guns... they've been around longer than schools. It could be computers, but it's only been very recently (halflife plus) that fps's have been ultra realistic, and kids have been playing cowboyz and injunz for years anyway. The difference, I think, is in society and how they're being raised. They see their parents acting in an ever increasingly hostile and violent manner and seek to emulate it. How is this related to security cameras? Our society is based on concentual leadership. On our decisions regarding society, the majority of the population is always right...theoretically. Because of the nature of americans, our officials are more than happy to blame technology or guns or whatever for the problems they are having, because their constituants expect and condone their actions. They're not going to turn around once elected and blame the way the people who elected them raise their children because it would ensure they have a short term in office. The result of this is that we have politicans with their heads so far up their asses they can perform a tonsilectomy with their teeth. *sigh* okay. Rant over. sorry it got so off topic.
The point I was trying to make, somewhere...I think, is that in order to change society, we need to change the opinions of the large voting groups. We need them to understand that the most effective way to adjust society is with the children. To mold them into good people by being good people themselves. And to make them understandthat these changes are going to take time, but they will be a much more effective solution than all the stopgap measures we have in place now. Unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid to understand the mechanics of mud, much less the concepts of responsibility and patience.
"I hate the living"
It's on the Associated Press, I saw it in my local newspaper today. Apparently they just had it taking video and had it send the photos to computers which would compare them to thousands of criminals/suspected terrorists. They managed to identify a scalper, but he disappeared into the crowd. It makes me wonder, even if they DID find some big terrorist guy, how are they going to find him? Stick his picture on the Jumbotron and ask everyone to look for him? That would cause quite some chaos. Definitely interesting, some are calling it great, others are calling it an "invasion of privacy," seems like that term gets used more and more these days.
I'll admit that this both disturbs me and comforts me at the same time.
I am disturbed by the thought of me being photographed and watched all the time, and it's not because I'm a career criminal. I enjoy having the ability to disappear for a few hours where no one can reach me or find me, but at the rate technology is proliferating soon I won't be able to go anywhere without some record of my movements being kept somewhere.
This same technology comforts me because it makes it easier for criminals and terrorists to be identified and apprehended. It is nice to know that the Super Bowl has a certain degree of security surrounding it.
Of course such thinking starts to breed terrible hypocrisy, if they watch other people that's fine, if they watch me, that's unconstitutional
The simplest act of surrealism is to walk out into the street, gun in hand, and shoot at random
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
Sci-Fi authors like Philip Jose Farmer (see Dayworld Breakup) have been predicitng the arrival of massive public surveillance for decades. Trouble is, people like it. MOBE2001
But is it right? I think so. Yes, there will be problems, and it won't be perfect at first. It is similar to any new technology - there are bugs that have to be worked out. And while this is a bit different in that we are dealing with people, not just productivity, I think they were smart enough to realize the limitations of this system.
I work for the county here, on the top floor of a tall building, and for fire/rescue and I know we had several threats against the stadium. Them main use of this technology was to prevent terrorists from entering the stadium, or threatning other parts of Tampa. Perhaps none of you remember (or knew) that in 1991, when the Super Bowl was in Tampa, everyone was physically searched. Every bag, every pocket, every vehicle, truck, car, trunk, seat, purse, etc. because of security. Metal detectors were used, bomb sniffing dogs, and tons of police. All that for the safety of others.
While my thought goes along the lines that to live in the society we want, we may not be able to catch every criminal. Unfortunately, that is the tradeoff we pursue. I would rather see a criminal get off then have chips implanted in every human so that 'we would know.' The best part about society is that it is that - society. People get their due. Trust me, if some criminal raped my daughter, or killed my wife, and I knew that he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but he got off...Well, I think we can all understand where that one is going.
And for those of you not aware, there are disclaimers on the back of the ticket that allow for you to have your picture taken. I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I bet it allows for exactly the type of systems that was put in place. Let's be realistic, and not have to put disclaimers like the one here on everything that we do.
Random Musings
Just because their intentions are good doesn't mean that it's OK.
Good intentions don't mean what they did was wrong, either. I don't see anything wrong with what the police did, either. What's the difference between having an security patrol or officer (they have those at big games) watching out for these people and having an automated system watching out for these people? As the article said, this was a highly public place; unlike the complaint in the article, the police weren't waiting for a chance to see someone commit a crime--they were looking for known criminals.
I suppose you have a problem with police looking for known criminals in highly public areas? Or, is it just that having a camera doing it instead of a human is somehow cheating? Do you see crime as a sport, a reasonable competition between authority and anti-authority? I don't see crime as a game or a sport; I believe that criminals must be stopped. I don't respect those who glorify someone who is simply a crook.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
First I would like to say that, I like this idea. Next thing i have to say is, I'm frighten by it.
It imply's to me that some where or some how, some can take oa photo of me, run it via a master DB and start to track my moves. Not that I have anything to hide. but I do enjoy running away from my office, killing my cell phone and not responding to any pages, it's just a raw pleasure that I get to enjoy.
Now I know that sooner or later, when I get on the train, drop myself off at the airport, fly to miami, and pick up a rental car ( with gps) they can track my every move.
Next thing they will do is cross reference the images with Credit Card transactions. Now they'll dispatch someone form the Miami office, find me on the beach, and telll me that the servers are down and I'm the only person that can fix it.
I would advise that you should be very careful, big brother seems to be getting closer.
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop music news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
damn- ac should be disallowed for fps
The police never abuse their power??? Apparently you have never been held overnight in jail because of a traffic violation that was later dropped. Of course all police are kind and caring, especially to the people that are in jail, how could I forget?
So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
Yeah, that's a potential problem, all right. I'm sure that a very small number of people get harassed by the police because they look like somebody else and happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Fundamentally, this equipment doesn't change anything. It does make it a lot easier for the police to scan a large crowd for "familiar faces", but that's not really any different than having a bunch of officers with binoculars do the same thing "by hand".
If you want to boil a frog, you don't do it by setting the flame to high, you do it by setting the flame to the lowest possible setting and slowly increasing it.
I don't suppose you have a scientific study to back that up, do you? :-)
I just don't see this system as a significant encroachment of my rights, as long as it's used in the way described. I think the votes are in, and as a society we've decided that security cameras are worth the loss of privacy for the increase in security.
I figure this tech will last until the first bona fide innocent tourist is roughed up by cops who are convinced he is a big-time felon...
It happened before the cameras, no reason the cameras will increase its frequency.
Cops traditionally rely on people recognizing other people. And the way people recognize people sucks. Ask any famous person who's been mistaken for another, much more famous person, of whom they're already thoroughly jealous. (I get "Hey! Look! It's Jesus Christ!" all the time. Burns my shorts, it does. Then I get Enquirer hacks camped out on my lawn, Hispanic people hocking me for my autograph, and then the Pope reams me out for being a fraud...you do not want that.)
The cameras are a way for cops to detect near matches in a much larger and more thorough manner than they already can, and with putatively less manpower (although I'm reminded that every labor-saving device ever invented has created more crummy jobs than it eliminated). They still have to make a positive ID before they can show probable cause.
But tell that to the undercover Oakland cop who got whacked by a couple of uniforms while he was holding a gun on a car thief.
--Blair
But we're not talking about any specific people being treated like criminals - CCTV acts as a deterrent.
But thinking about it, I'm not sure how I feel about it, especially [as I noted elswhere] since in the UK at least, CCTV operators are selling their footage to national TV, for the amusement/warning value.
Personally, I don't like the idea of being watched by a dozen CCTV cameras everywhere I go, but if there was at least some control over what happens to the footage then I would probably not be in vocal opposition.
I didn't pay for my operating system either
It does in theory, so why do these TV shows exist in the UK? There's one show which is literally nothing more than "candid camera" done through security cameras.
I didn't pay for my operating system either
I wasn't against CCTV until shows like that started showing up. What gives the police the right to sell the "humorous" excerpts to TV?
Its just a question of trusting the authoriteies. If they abuse this power, unlikely, you can just vote them out. That is what a democracy is for.
Yeah, right ...
But that's another thread.
I didn't pay for my operating system either
What about owls?
I didn't pay for my operating system either
A bit like the Open Source movement, then? ;)
Seriously, though, the idea is to prevent criminals from committing crimes. It seems strange to then say that, wait, there will be bad consequences if these criminals aren't allowed to commit their crimes.
But you do have a point.
I didn't pay for my operating system either
The interest people seem to have in rights and law are magnified by their own insecurity. (Not that I am saying dissolve them but..) Why do we think we have rights anyway? They are tools of society and only suited to their frame of reference.
For example we might say "I have the right to visit the beach." whilst meanwhile a quite happy Tiger Shark is thinking "Is that going to be crunchy or chewy???? Oh stuffit you don't know until you try!"
So by now your sitting in a bloody pool, trying to paddle your stumpy body back to land. Of course you would think, "Dam that blasted shark, the nerve of the critter! It doesn't have the right!!"
Rights are the tokens exchanged by individuals and societies to establish the most basic acceptable forms of behaviour. This implies that there is unacceptable forms of behaviour for which you have the right not to be allowed to perform. So while we are running societies by our right to to have the right to apply our rights to any areas where our rights no longer apply when will that which is wrong considered to be right?
As far as any social system is concerned, its 'success' is only possible by people choosing to observe it. This means I'm on CCTV in Weeks St, Mainstone, Kent; I'm seen at the Superbowl; and The Australian Government has my photo - all because I choose to be part of a /the / somebodys system. If you took away peoples apathetic right to be a passive supporter then would be anarchy.
Get a life,if somebody planted a bomb there,we would be real happy the police used this technolgy.Freedom is a double edge sword.
No. I can see the slippery slope arguements you guys are pointing at...but come on now! "underclass of people who dart around in old buildings?" if those people are hiding because they are criminals, then good! I just hope they stay the hell away from me.
I can ony assume that many /.ers who are ready to accept this camera thing are simply too young to remember how it was before so many of our freedoms were taken away. (Braced, ready for tomatoes to be thrown.) When it was not the norm to have cameras, numbers, and bar codes tracking our every move.
Don't like the mega conglomerate corporations tracking us with cookies? Why should we like the government tracking us with cameras? For a free thinking bunch I am surprised at how willing /.ers are to be photographed, tracked, and logged.
I am sorry to see that Big Brother in the original sense is so familiar that we no longer see the problem. Go back and re-read George Orwell please.
It would be much better to simply not have these invasions of freedom, rather than have to devise ingenious methods of disabling them after they are already in place.
And as for what this has to do with /. - it has a lot to do with freedom of thought and avoidance of "group-think" - that sheep mindset which I believe most /.ers frown on. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Respectfully submitted.
Where's the forest? And what are all these trees doing here?
there's plenty wrong with it! it may seem like a small thing, but its the beginning of a police state. especially when one takes into consideration other moves being taken to clamp down on our personal freedom (carnivore anyone?), one can easily see another j edgar hoover -esque era in the making -- this time aided by the technology to make it permanent!
Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
"If they abuse this power, unlikely, you can just vote them out" Ok, where have you been in the last couple of years? Abuse their power, unlikely? Since when has a powerful country not abused their power? And sure, we can vote them out. The majority of American's voted for Al Gore...oh wait, sometimes it's not that easy.
There is a law, little known and often ignored, which states you cannot photograph someone as the main focus of your photo without their permission, even in public. This basically means that you cannot stalk someone and photograph them constantly without their permission. This also means that police, without a warrant to do so, cannot photograph them to try and use it against the person at a later time.
Exceptions are made if the person is reasonably suspected of commiting a crime. Though, in this case, the people were not suspected of a crime. In fact, the only reason to take their picture was to try and find past crimes to then make this person into a suspect. It can still be argued that the person was never reasonably suspected of commiting a crime before the picture.
Security cameras typically get around this law by making the merchandise their primary focus. This security camera at the Super Bowl, however, specifically makes a single, presumably innocent, person the focus of the picture. They are then techincally illegal. But of course, who will police the police?
Similar to peeing in a dixie cup for a drug test.
While, I agree with you to a point, I do disagree with one important aspect. Peeing in a dixie cup is usually a prescreening for employment. You are told in advance that if you want the job you must submit to a drug test. In which case you are given the choice of going through with the test, or moving on to a different company.
In the case of the cameras, no choice was offered. No one was told they were going to be photographed, and no refunds were being offered to those who wished to not be captured on film.
There inlies the difference. For the drug test you can always simply say, "no thanks" and move on. For the cameras, you were forced, without your knowledge or consent, to submit yourself to what is basically a technological lineup.
So people with criminal records lose their right to be a part of society?
Consider the reason for imprisoning a person:
1. Punishment
2. Protection/Prevention
3. Rehabilitation
You are encouraging this attitude in order to Prevent criminals from causing further harm, but in doing so you are ignoring the severity of their crime (did they murder someone? or did they steal something petty in their teens?), as well as the other two implications:
1. You are perpuating the Punishment, long after the prison sentence is over
2. You are preventing their Rehabilitation
You are simply disallowing any chance that they can live a normal, crime-free life again because of one mistake, (or something completely morally-irreprehensible) and imparting a cruel and injust punishment on them for the rest of their lives.
You label them criminals, but it is criminal to make a person an outcast. It's not constructive to simply condemn a person for a crime, and to not give them the chance to learn from their ills, and to live a life without crime.
Drinking dairy milk because cows won't.
This opinion is fairly naive, and hopefully most people can see it as such.
It is not paranoid to believe authorities will and do abuse their power, when abuses are observed all the time.
Drinking dairy milk because cows won't.
I assume by 'publish', you mean commercially? It is very legal to publish such images for journalistic purposes, what's prohibited is their sale, correct?
strategerie.
ok i tried to read all of the comments but to many of them, but anyway, i figured every /.er would be pissed as hell for this or anything like this, George Orwell must have been psycic, and for everybody who has no prob with pictures in public only in private, ever think of how `private` that really is when the watch you everywhere else you go?
That's right. Unless your name is Archibald Buttle, you've got nothing to worry about.
No, I want software of this type suggesting to the cops that they haul in criminal suspects.
Odds are good that you bear at least a passing resemblance to a criminal suspect somewhere. You haven't lived until you've been stopped by a cop who's "sure" you are wanted for something.
hat is all very nice. but you have conveniently ignored my question. therefore i will ask it again, and i will continue to ask it until you answer .. what rights do you surrender by walking through
a metal detector?? other than the right to carry a gun into an airport or government office and murder several people, people with children and families, people who are only "guilty" of the
crime of having a job with the government. gee, instead of walking straight in, i take a half-second detour through a rectangle and say hi to the guard. it's 1984, i tell you!
Last time I went through a metal detector at a government building (for a meeting w/ their IT staff), I ended up turning out both pockets into a little basket and having my zipper scanned by a hand geld detector. I was not able to take my small pen knife in with me (a really handy item that used to be carried by nearly every male over age 8 in the US).
Other than the inconvieniance and hassle, I had two thoughts: "If they'd quit screwing everyone over and wasting tax money, they wouldn't have to be so afraid of retribution" and "Do I need a pass if I want to go to the bathroom?".
So, it's a little more involved than walking through a rectangle and saying hi to the guard.
In the mean while If I had wanted to take a weapon in, I would have chosen an ABS plastic dagger. Just as lethal, but not all that useful for stripping insulation or slicing an apple.
However, security has been increased as a result of PROVEN terrorist activities, as it should be.
Which act of domestic terrorism inspired the draconian security checks at the airport? Which one has caused them to add new restrictions and precautions every single year?
Yep, the first trial in the UK was in Stratford in East London (where I used to live). Sure, it was a crime-ridden area, but I still wasn't happy about it.
Its just a question of trusting the authoriteies. If they abuse this power, unlikely, you can just vote them out.
There's the problem. I don't trust the authorities, and neither should you. While I'm not as extreme as the conspiracy theorists, I certainly don't feel any authority I have yet encountered has done anything to earn my trust. Mostly that's due to incompetence rather than malice, but the fact remains that they're untrustworthy. The other point, that you don't seem to have considered, is how you expect to find out that they're abusing their power -- if you don't know, you'll never know they need voting out. I'm certain that systems like these are installed with the best of intentions, but I'd be extremely surprised if those running it didn't abuse it in one way or another.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
>The news media made quite a stir a while back
>about the alarmingly high percentage of NFL
>players with criminal records.
Now just how high is the percentage? How do we know that it's higher than the general population?
My bullshit detector is going off here. This reminds me of the supposed Kennedy Family Curse (TM) that makes that family predisposed to death by tragic means. The problem with the "curse" is that when you actually count up who dies of what, there's nothing abnormal about the numbers. Our perception of the situation is affected by how things are reported. Two brothers murdered by firearms, one guy killed on a ski slope, one in an airplane crash. I can bet you that a bunch of Kennedys have died in their sleep, but nobody can remember those. 4 tragic deaths in a family of probably hundreds of people is not unusual. Similarly, you mentioned three crimes, commited by three people. How many NFL players are there? I don't follow football, but it seems like there are a lot. Hundreds? Thousands? I would feel safer around a bunch of NFL football players than I would at a seminar for day traders. At least I know that the NFL guys aren't going to shoot me for my money.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Take this scenario: The software confuses you with some violent criminal. The police think you're dangerous and knock you senseless and lock you up.
That is no more likely to happen with this system than without it. I'm intimately acquainted with this scenario, my father spent some time at gunpoint over just such a misunderstanding.
In the 1950s, with no digital technology involved.
If there had been, he wouldn't have ended up having the problem, because he didn't look that much like the guy in question.
I reject the notion that this technology will increase false positives. I think it will do the opposite.
-
Not everything that makes a policeman's job easier is automatically a violation of our civil rights.
When they got semi-automatics instead of revolvers, that wasn't a violation of our rights.
When they got cars instead of horses, that wasn't a violation of our rights.
Hell, when they got polyester/cotton blend uniforms instead of straight cotton, that wasn't a violation of our rights.
I'm all for paranoia against the man, but we only damage the cause when we get knee-jerk stupid about it.
It would be perfectly legal for them to sit there and look at you as you pass. It would be perfectly legal for them to do so over a camera.
It would be perfectly legal for them to hire people for minimum wage, have them memorize pictures of wanted criminals, and then have them sit there and call a cop if they think they see one.
That's all this software does, and it does it cheaper than people.
This power can't be abused any more than the power to stand there and look at faces, and it's *LESS* intimidating (and thus causes less of an economic hit from people who are creeped out by cops deciding to stay home.)
If it causes a few violent assholes to stop going to football games, well, I can't seem to shed a tear over that.
-
> He was protesting segregation, "Jim Crow" laws
Segregation that was enforced by the gov't. Jim Crow *laws*.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Protesting the gov't is not the same as overthrowing the gov't. He most certainly was protesting the gov't. It was the gov't that wrote and enforced the laws. His cause was greater than discrimination of the gov't, but he was absolutely protesting the gov't.
Here's a hint: March on *Washington*.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Sorry for not posting the link earlier. I thought this was pretty widely known, and it certainly should be. Here's a book that covers the topic pretty well. The web page even quotes the letter that an FBI agent sent to King: The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr. by David J. Garrow.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
According todays LA Times.
Lots of misses and false matches.
The head-in-the-sand crowd has decided that going after people who commit serious crimes nearly 8 times more than the rest of the population is somehow politically incorrect. Under the totally idiotic name of "racial profiling", police have been chastised for actually keeping tabs on people who commit crimes and focusing greater attention on them (traffic stops, etc) than the population at large.
Is it any suprise that the police, denied the opportunity to perform law enforcement through simple logic, are stepping up to the bat with whatever they think might work? The next time your sense of liberal outrage is activated when you hear "racial profiling" on the news, remember what it really means that the cops are losing their ability to do what cops do the low tech way, through common sense and are instead having to barcode all of us.
This is absolutly what it is. This type of system is not equivalent to police officers looking around and seeing if they notice anyone whose poster is up at the post office. Rather, it is akin to stopping 100% of the people entering the stadium, asking for identification, and then checking to see if they have any outstanding warrents.
Such a blanket, warrentless, and unprovoked intrusion would not stand up to judicial scrutiny if it was conducted the old fasioned way. I don't see how it suddenly becomes okay just because it can be done without the subjects knowledge. By this logic, it's OK search everybodies house as long as you don't waste any of the victim's time in doing so.
It's not the fact that they're doing something like this, it's the fact that they decided that telling the attendees that it was happening that bothers me. TELL ME UP FRONT that you're filming me, and for what reason. Even then, it might make me rethink attending. Why do they need to take MY picture, and run a criminal history check on it? The very thought of it would make me feel suspected of committing a crime. Personally, I'd like to see a full, public audit done by a respectable firm to make sure ALL pictures taken by the police are destroyed; hardcopy burned, drives zapped, etc. Even better a signed Affidavit of Probable Cause by the officer taking the picture, and the entire incident video-taped, with my full knowledge of when, where and how it's being done. The best solution from a freedom and Constitutional perspective would be a warrant for survelliance for each individual that is photographed and run through the mill. This system sounds as if it was put into place because the NFL and the government belived that the patrons were criminals, and could be there to commit crimes. This was not set up to be a security measure, but a law-enforcement measure.
The above is MY opinion. I make no claim that it is fact, other than I believe it is fact. The following quote is not mine, but Benjamin Franklins, and I fully agree with it.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
As stated in the article, you can't expect to walk around in public, much less a major event such as the Super Bowl, and not have your picture taken. However, you should not have to worry about the cops taking pictures of you and "seeing if you look like a criminal."
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
That being said, your overall point about "choice" in American politics is legitimate: we got to choose between the son of a former president and the son of a former senator
...and a former basketball player(Bradley), a Veitnam Vet (McCain), a former Republican (Pat), a short religious quack (Gary Baur), a magazine publisher (Forbes), a former head of the Red Cross (Elizabeth Dole) and an environmentalist on an ego trip (Nader). Am I forgetting anybody....oh yeah, Alan Keys, another Rebublican hopefull.
Thats TEN choices, not two. Maybe more if I missed a few more GOP canidates.
And thats not even counting the 250+ independant party canidates nationwide.
perhaps justifying Nader's observation that there were no real differences between the two.
How. Bush hasn't even been in office for two weeks, but you say with a straight face that a Gore administration would be no different?
Let's see how long it takes before someone proposes legislation making it illegal to wear a mask in public.
First let me qualify this with this statement: I am not your stereotypical slashdotter. I will read my copy of SI before Linux Mag. I watch a lot more ESPN than Sci-fi/Comedy Central/Cartoon Network. And I absolutely love football, nothing better in the world.
That said, I agree with your point that the NFL shouldn't be villified. And I will be the first to point out NFL players who have done great things for society for every player you can mention with legal trouble. What I won't do is defend those players who have had run-ins with the law.
Ray Lewis did something wrong, when they find two dead peoples' blood in your vehicle, generally you did something very wrong. Your average 20-something black man who was in that situation would currently be serving time. Rick Reilly (last page of SI) had a very good story regarding this in the last issue.
If you've seen any of the Chmura trial, it's really sickening. I'm guessing that the jury is going to find him guilty, because his defense lawyer is probably one of the most offensive people I've seen. What Chmura did was wrong. You don't have sex with your 17 year old babysitter in your buddies bathroom, whether your enticed, drunk, high, or just stupid.
Sure, NFL players aren't the only ones to commit these kind of crimes, but that's not an excuse. Sure you don't want to hear about it, because these guys are heros to you. But... I think it serves a purpose. Sure you'll get the morons who say "those guys are all criminals" because the spot on the news they saw, but I don't give a rats ass about them. What I hope, is these players will start holding themselves to a higher standard. A standard that they should hold themselves to, because they are special people to quite a few folks.
Ever since OJ we've been able to doubt our heros, and the only way to get that trust back is to change. What Green Bay did with Chmura was great. Zero-Tolerance is what we need. Ray Lewis shouldn't play ball, definately not while he's on probation. I garuntee he wouldn't be playing for Green Bay. If more clubs took that policy football would be better off.
I used to live in Tampa, and one night me and some friends went ut to a techno club, only to have the club be raided as a 'fire inspection'. They kicked everyone out, and started randomly searching people. On the way out the door we had to pause and look at a video camera that some cop was using to tape us, then walk a gauntlet of rather rude and beligerant cops yelling at us 'young druggies'. Oh, how I loved the tampa PD after that one.
I watch a lot more ESPN than Sci-fi/Comedy Central/Cartoon Network. And I absolutely love football, nothing better in the world
/. did (but well after plastic).
Hey, you're on the wrong slash-based site. And we even posted this story before
--
+&x
I would really love to see the software that is capable of determining that I am breaking into a car rather than, say, wiping birdshit off the windshield before entering it. This makes the facial recognition thing look like ELIZA for the TRS-80 by comparison.
The program probably can't distinguish between those two things, which is why it simply alerts a _human operator_. I'll be worried when the computer determines someone is breaking into a car, fires a stun gun at him, collects his body, puts it in prison, and releases it 6 months later without human interaction.
This is like saying "I can murder you, if you're standing in my house."
Oh, geez. Yeah, that's right; taking somebody's picture on your property is roughly equivalent to murdering them. That makes perfect sense. I guess if you believe that the government should forcibly prevent private property owners from owning surveillance equipment to protect their own property, that's your own business. We must agree to disagree.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
- GET CLONED.
Then make it well known that there are more than one of you running around. (Most helpful if this is done right at the time of your birth, so have someone plan ahead.) This way, all of you are approximately the same age -- that'll make it harder for The Man to get you Down.The problem is that this assumes at least one of the yous is destined for a life of crime -- that, or you all are... each providing an alibi for the other.
Ah, but isn't this science stuff fun?
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
Maybe they were looking for black people who actually got to vote. You know just so it doesn't happen again.
War is necrophilia.
It's the same difference between one website watching their access logs, and doubleclick using technology to tie access logs together around the 'net. It gives the particular organization unprecedented power to track you in ways that are hard to stay away from, no matter if the trackers are doing thing ethically/legally/unethically/illegally.
--
Now if they started using it to track where people went, then I'd have a problem!"
You mean like cookies on the internet? Give them time.
AdFuel
Okay, could we be any more biased. Do you realize how many players there are in the NFL? Do you know how many of them have criminal records? Then how about we stop generalizing.
The percentage of NFL players currently in legal trouble is not that far removed from that stats from society as a whole. It SEEMS like more NFL players are in trouble cause every time one of them gets in trouble it is front page news.
If every time a random person got in legal trouble they ran an article in the paper it would take several fleets of trucks to carry around the newspaper. Just cause the NFL players problems are more visible doesn't make them more wrong or more abundant.
Ray Lewis specifically, well, he messed up. Unfortunately so did the police. He DID NOT murder anyone. He wasn't even an accomplice to murder. The police TRIED to make an example of him and see how well it worked.
As for Mark Chmura, the 17-year-old most likely teased him into bed so she could change her mind afterwords and get rich. He shouldn't have done it, but it's not all his fault. He's not the only one to ever fall into that trap. Non-NFL players do it too.
In any group like this its the odd balls who generate the stereotypes cause they are more memorable. All NFL players are not criminals. Not even most of them. Not even 5% of them. But yeah, a few are. So are a few other people in America so stop vilifying the NFL.
Justin Dubs
How many of the /.ers reading this are planning on writing their (Congressbeing|MP|*) and taking a stand against this sort of crap?
Put up or shut up.
<Humor>
Of course, if we could find a very dedicated set of twins, we could have a great deal of fun: one twin does something horrible, and the other twin tries to get busted by this system...
</Humor>
www.eFax.com are spammers
If it's probable that we can't stop the technology from being used, perhaps we should insist on transparency - if they're going to be using the system to keep track of us, then WE (the citizens) should be able to use the system too - to tag & track "rogue" law enforcers (the people "in charge" who don't seem to be treating us too well...)
This clearly has to be for anti-terrorist purposes, especially given a high-profile event like the Superbowl--so they catch a check-bouncer or a carjacker--big deal. Ever since Black Sunday and on through Clancy's Sum of all Fears, I've been amazed that we've made it this long without some kind of terrorist act at a major sporting event.
At the risk of being a little paranoid or reading too much into the story, it wouldn't surprise me if this isn't something being encouraged by the feds (and perhaps a not-so-subtle reminder to terrorist groups) as America flexing it's anti-terrorist muscles.
Does anyone know if they use this on a large scale in U.S. Customs, or in airports? I'm sure the much bigger risk is in foreign terrorists slipping across the border undetected, but this could close off one avenue (except for the guy who's not in the system to begin with).
Note: This article ran in 2000, not 2001--it ran several days before Ray Lewis and his two friends "were involved" in killing two men.
The article then goes on to raise a provocative point: according to how they interpret the numbers, the fact that 21% of the players in last year's Super Bowl had criminal records meant that they had fewer cons than society as a whole. The article goes on to refer to compare "arrest rates" from several studies with the percentage of convicts on NFL teams--and draws the completely fallacious conclusion that NFL teams have fewer hoods than most 'hoods.
The article is wrong. The writer is comparing arrest rates with the percentage of players with criminal records. That's a false comparison--the arrest rate compares the total number of arrests with the population. If you have a small group of people getting arrested all the time, you'll see a high arrest rate.
The writer cites studies that compare the rate of criminal activity among NFL players with the rate of criminal activity in the community as a whole. Again, it is a poor comparison, for two reasons. First, any NFL player is well-to-do, by any standard--the league minimum salary is better than $80,000 per year. Second, it is no secret that the rules for the rich and famous are different than they are for the rest of us. There's no better example than Ray Lewis: two men publicly "diss" three men. All five meet up outside. The two men are murdered, and all kinds of evidence (including their blood) ends up in the limousine of the three attackers. Yet nobody is convicted of the crime--the most notable of the killers pleads to negligence, and the other two walk.
11 percent of the players in the 2000 Super Bowl had criminal records. According to Pros and Cons: The Criminals Who Play In the NFL 21% of NFL players in the 1996-97 season had been indicted or convicted of a felony. That's not the arrest rate, mind you--that's the percentage of players with felony rap sheets.
and with a pres like this i am getting more scared everyday.
A blog about stuff.
You do *not* own your image. You have no legal expectation of privacy in public, meaning anything you do can be photographed and used by, for example, a photographer who wants to put a picture of you sittin on a park bench at just the perfect angle and weather to make it look artistic, in his new book. There is nothing illegal about that.
You can, however, sue him for various reasons if he does this, which is why he'll probably ask you to sign a no-fee miodeling contract that prevents him from being sued for any reason. Possible reasons for suing him include emotional distress for having your picture appear in a book containing other images which are offensive, etc., but not just publishing the photo. Also, the photo cannot be used in an ad, suggesting that you endorse the product. It also cannot be published along with your phone number or address without your permission, because since you are not a public person this is an unwarranted invasion of your privacy and it also causes emotional distress.
However, you have no legal righht over your image. You're just wrong on that issue. If you disagree, I suggest you consult any introductory text about photography that has a section about legal issues. It will confirm what I have said.
So, why was the video of the clothed young girls illegal? Because it focused on the genital areas, it was child pornography. Case law in the U.S. has clearly established that clothed images of children can still be considered child pornography, if the intent of the photographer was lascivious, as demonstrated by focusing on the genitals or posing the models in suggestive ways.People have been arrested and successfully convicted of producing child pornography for all of the following: taking video or stills of minors at the beach, focusing on genital areas and suggestive poses; taking clothed images of minors modeling who have been instructed by the photographer to pose in suggestive ways; taking pictures of minors wearing suggestive adult lingerie; taking candid images and video of high school cheerleaders focusing on genital areas; taking candid video of minors in changing rooms, even if they only strip to underwear; concealing cameras in locations to view up the skirts of minors.
So, the photos in question were illegal because they were child pornography in the U.S., not because of any property rights the girls had over their images. If the videos had not focused on the genitals, but had just been videos of little girls playing at the beach, they would have been perfectly legal to distribute and sell because they would not have been child pornography. That's all, folks...
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
St. Petersburg Times - Tampabay: Cameras scanned fans for criminals. Super Bowl fans had their privacy invaded by the technology, critics say. Law officials cite security.
Is the new surveillance system the latest twist on Big Brother? Face-matching surveillance already is well established at more than 70 casinos. But the system's biggest opportunities lie in more benign functions: Identifying customers at ATMs or participants in welfare programs, and screening people who want to enter secure workplace areas.
At Raymond James Stadium, surveillance system cameras were focused only on people entering at turnstiles. No cameras were used inside to pan the fans inside. But cameras did sweep the crowds at the NFL Experience, indicating the growing reach of database systems to try and match faces even in large groups.
At UCLA, professor Borgman questioned the technical ability of a system to identify individual faces so quickly.
"If these surveillance systems spread, there may be a considerable margin of error in determining the identity of people who get snagged," she said. "And that is a big price to pay for your civil rights."
VIISAGE Press Release - GRAPHCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Provides Surveillance for Raymond James Stadium to Identify Known Suspects, Deter Crime. On January 28th, Criminals No Longer Another Face in the Tampa Stadium CrowdThe FaceTrac(TM) core facial recognition technology provides the ability to locate faces, to build 'face print' templates and to recognize matches to images stored in a database. When integrated with G-TEC's law enforcement database, FaceTrac(TM) allows rapid search, comparison and identification of suspect facial photos within the database. FaceTrac(TM) may be used for surveillance with multiple locations networked to a high capacity site, for analysis and system-search results. G-TEC installed FaceTrac(TM) at the Raymond James Stadium as a single site system, integrated with a custom designed database and search result notifications for tracking faces in a crowd and monitoring access to secure areas.
"Washington Post" - Police Video Cameras Taped Football Fans. Super Bowl Surveillance Stirs DebateThe system used for the Super Bowl project, first reported yesterday by the St. Petersburg Times, was lent by companies seeking to market the technology to law enforcement agencies. Tampa police accepted the free use of the system as an experiment and worked with local and national police agencies to manage it during the week of the game, said Durkin.
Dave Watkins, managing director of Graphco Technologies Inc., said the event gave the company a chance to learn how the software would perform, which camera angles were most effective and how the lenses of the 20 video cameras should be focused in a public place.
"Newsbytes" - At Tampa's Turnstiles, Crowd Wasn't Faceless.The American Civil Liberties Union("ACLU") opposes the involuntary capture of biometric details, such as face-recognition data, DNA and retina scans. The organization, in its list of "Privacy Principles," considers the fingerprinting of convicted criminals a worthy exception.
"We are quickly moving to the point where law enforcement and the private sector will be able to identify us no matter where we go, no matter how anonymous we think we are," said Barry Steinhardt, the ACLU's associate director. "Not only is it going to rob us of our anonymity, but it's going to be used as a tool of law enforcement to round up 'the usual suspects' and to hassle people on the streets."
The practice is almost certainly legal, but it is in an emerging area of the law that has not been fully tested in court, said Harvard Law School professor Bill Stuntz.
"The Register (UK)" - Feds use biometrics against Super Bowl fans.Super Bowl 2001 fans were secretly treated to a mass, biometric scan in which video cameras tied to a temporary law-enforcement command centre digitised their faces and compared them against photographic lists of known malefactors.
Everyone entering Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida last Sunday was subjected to the surveillance system cameras, set up at the entrance turnstiles. No notice or disclosure was ever given, and no one, therefore, had an opportunity to decline to enter the stadium if they should have objected to this unprecedented treatment.
[ ... ]
"The Company's face-recognition technology is unique because of its capabilities of both rapid and accurate real-time acquisition as well as its scalability to databases containing millions of faces. Therefore, the software can instantly calculate an individual's eigenface from either live video or a still digital image, and then search a database of millions in only a few seconds in order to find similar or matching images."
'Similar or matching.' This clearly acknowledges the possibility that innocent civilians going about their peaceable business may be stopped, hassled, even arrested, merely for resembling someone naughty. This raises sticky issues regarding the presumption of innocence many of us were encouraged to believe in during our grammar-school civics lessons. Is there a violation of this principle when a person is required to produce evidence that they are not, in fact, the evil bastard whom they unfortunately resemble?
"LA Times" - Secret Cameras Scanned Crowd at Super Bowl for Criminals . Surveillance: Faces were cross-checked by new technology in bid to catch terrorists, other suspects. Privacy concerns are raised.Unknown to the 100,000 people who passed through the turnstiles at Sunday's Super Bowl, hidden cameras scanned each of their faces and compared the portraits with photos of terrorists and known criminals of every stripe.
In a command post at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Fla., the digitized images of fans and workers were cross-checked against files of local police, the "FBI" and state agencies at the rate of a million images a minute.
The cameras identified 19 people with criminal histories, none of them of a "significant" nature, Tampa authorities said. But the undisclosed first test of the technology at a major U.S. sporting event raised arguments about privacy versus security and questions about the future of such spying and its uses.
"Oh my God, it's yet another nail in the coffin of personal liberty," said Bruce Schneier, founder and chief technical officer of "Counterpane" Internet Security Inc., a security monitoring company.
"It's another manifestation of a surveillance society, which says we're going to watch you all the time just in case you might do something wrong," said Schneier, whose book "Secrets & Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World" warned of the increasing encroachment on civil liberties in high-tech society.
[ ... ]
Other applications are expected to include ATM machines and public events such as the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
You must be kidding. Being scanned is not just "less intrusive than a strip search". It is completely non-intrusive. There is no comparison between being stripped or even frisked and having you image recorded in a public place. In fact, stadiums routinely film spectators at sporting events, so anyone with a phobia of cameras has no business being there in the first place.
No one has given a convincing argument that having your image observed, analysed or watched remotely in a public place where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy is a violation of any of your rights. Most of the paranoids on /. depend on either the assumption that this tech will automatically be used in other, worse ways (funny, when the government tries to oppose tech on its worst case usage, we mock them here, now don't we?) or that a computer positive will result in brainless autonomons hurling you to the ground and beating you right there, without any human cross check, or they simply make baseless comparisons to truely violating expereinces and hope the rest of us are dumb enough to buy it.
Stay at home and order all your food from the internet if you want to be that paranoid, but this ain't Big Brother by a long shot.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Not sure why this was moderated as `troll`? I guess a few florida voters clicked on the wrong value, eh?
Its interesting but true that its hard to get the police to take a crime any more seriously when its been recorded. A friend had a bike stolen, from right under a camera (this is in the uk), went to the police, and had to argue for ages to get them to look at the tape.
So....what are they there for, then?
>Use your heads. A little less paranoia would go a long way.
Wrong. Once the possibilities exist, they will be used. Connect automatic face recognition with the array of surveillance cameras installed in many cities, and you get complete control. Who was where exactly when.
In your funny little example, substitute the quote "BOSS: Is this a picture of you entering Super Bowl XXXV?" with "BOSS: Is this a picture of you entering a gay bar?". Suddenly the "Get the fuck out of my office" seems quite possible.
Sure, even now someone my be hired to photograph you, but with face recognition there is _always_ someone watching you. And one photo is much less impressive than "You have been there 40 times in the last two months".
Currently you have freedom. Freedom to do things your boss may not like, freedom to do things your friends may not like. Automatic face recognition takes another bit of this freedom away.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
I'd love to have mod points for this one.
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
It has no need to be perfect, or even functional. All they have to do is get info about where a criminal will be at a certain time, and then claim that this device recognized them. Everyone claps politely, goes back to business.
What do you have then? A dummy device that vastly extends police powers to stop, arrest, search, detain, and question anyone they like, all because a computer supposedly told them to do so.
The cops aren't at all stupid, and have come up with yet another way to hasten our descent into a police state. Hurrah. <sigh>.
Here in the UK, this sort of face scanning software has been used for some time
OK, so your system "works." Crime is down, which is good.
But how does it feel to have Big Brother constantly watching over you?
I sure as hell wouldn't like that, especially since I'm no criminal.
---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Gee, you're absolutely correct. Police should be required to get a fingerprint or DNA sample of a suspect, and compare it to their database, before they stop him. No, wait ... that probably wouldn't work too well.
The 'racial profiling' thing doesn't have anything to do with this. It's a problem because it involves harassing people without any evidence. On the other hand, having a face that looks just like a criminal is evidence enough to warrant stopping someone.
I'm sure that the positive matches are run by a human, to check that they really do look very similar. Therefore, the number of false identifications should really be no higher than it is without this technology. Don't just assume that, because it has the potential to be powerful, that it will necessarily be evil.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Too bad that was just the NFL players. Xiadix
Cops are not bad people, usually. A job that gives power like that, it does tend to attract losers, but on the whole cops are decent people.
Not that they'll treat you decently much of the time. I admit that. I have my own stories, like many people. And I am still a cop supporter.
I know cops. They rapidly get desensitized to all the awful things they see. It's a defense mechanism. If they didn't get that way, they'd go crazy with worry and stress. That goes for the bad guys and the average Joe Citizens they meet on the job. Stick to the rules. No discussion. No analysis. Do the job. Survive. From a citizen's point of view, it sucks. But look at it from their side -- it's the only way they can stay effective in their job AND stay sane.
Cops also have a very strong clique mentality. Ever been on a ridealong, or hung out with cops? It's a whole 'nother world. Suddenly, you are on the INSIDE of this giant, powerful machine. Even as a hanger-on, on your ride-along, you start to look at "civilians" a little differently. Like they are a little lower on the food chain. It's undeniably COOL when you get to wear the ballistic armor with "POLICE" on it as you walk around with your cop friend, looking for some scumbag, and people passing you on the street say, "excuse me, Officer." Weird feeling. I can see how one would get to like it.
Power is intoxicating, and then when your whole day is spent dealing with the worst society has to offer, it is hard to spare any enthusiasm for the good people you meet on the job. Civilians are the things you interact with to perform your job. Some are bad people. Others are just... less bad.
My best advice for dealing with cops is just COMPLY. When a cop interacts with you, there is some transaction he wants to get done -- getting information, ticketing you, arresting you, whatever. Your actions won't change his goals, except maybe for whining your way out of a speeding ticket. So be polite. Be cooperative. Let the cop get his transaction done, and he will leave you alone. There are courts to sort things out afterwards. That isn't the cop's job.
Even if the Waco folks started the fire (which is REALLY debatable) everything up to that point was a debacle, compliments of the Feds.
All they had to do was pick up Koresh when he was by himself running errands in town. Which he did frequently. Everyone in the community knew him. Thought he was strange, but not violent. But the Feds decided to, well, make a federal case out of it and send out the thugs.
There were little kids in that compound, and for weeks the Feds played all sorts of awful noises for psych warfare purposes -- the noise of animals in pain and other such stuff. They cut off the electricity and water. And eventually they started using tanks to knock the building down. If they were really interested in a peaceful solution, they could have tried a lot of different things.
It didn't have to end that way. It could have been handled differently. And just because someone is an unsavory religious freak doesn't mean it's OK to abuse their rights.
Citizens should always keep a sharp, critical eye on the actions of their government. Better for us to be a little too critical of the government's actions than a little too lenient, because once things start going to hell, it takes a LONG time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.
man, I'm destroying my karma tonight!
I've never had luck arguing against the "what do you have to hide" guys by giving examples of escalation. Invariably, they say, "I still wouldn't care if the state videotaped me and my blowup doll, I'm no criminal, it's worth it to be safe, what do you have to hide, blah blah blah."
I don't know if those people genuinely FEEL that way, or if they are simply intellectually lazy, and don't feel like thinking the situation (or their own true feelings) through.
It's always easier to sit on your ass and say you don't care, even if a little bit of you does. People lie to themselves and to others all the time. If we can find a way to overcome this apathy, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, fear is the best antidote, and by the time these type of people are scared it's way too late to do anything about the situation.
Ever since OJ we've been able to doubt our heros... Who the heck here considers OJ a hero? I'm 29, and at this ripe old age OJ is still "that football player in The Naked Gun" and "the footbal guy from the car rental commercials." If Shaq knifed someone, I could at least understand why it was the top story every day for over a year. I bet I'm an old fart for the Slashdot crowd... the OJ trial hype was probably TOTALLY incomprehensible for anyone younger than me (it was just "mostly incomprehensible" to me). Are there a lot of teenagers here who always looked up to OJ? I'd be surprised.
if that face scanning software would mistaken me for every other asian male.....cause, you know, we all look alike, right?
Like the DMCA was?
They are going to install them in the bathroom stalls at said stadium to catch the guy who pees all over the seat of the stall, or hits the floor instead of the urinal.
*Shrug* WTF do I know?
E.
www.randomdrivel.com -- All that is NOT fit to link to
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Here is a snippet from that article
Are writers entitled to profit from their novel ideas? Evidently not, if you take the example of US Patent 5 878 155, issued on 2 March to a certain Thomas Heeter of Houston, Texas. It covers a scheme for writing invisible symbols on people that can be used to verify their identity when they use credit or debit cards.
The idea is a bit odd, and the patent's citation of an episode of the X-Files TV series in which aliens etched bar codes on the teeth of human abductees is even odder. But what really caught my eye was that Heeter's patent comes very close to an idea I suggested--not at all seriously--in a science-fiction story titled The Number of the Beast that was published in 1994.
I thought my story should trump his patent. It was published in June 1994, more than two years before Heeter filed his application on 5 September 1996. Publication of an idea more than a year before a patent filing makes it "prior art", which voids applications under the American patent system. However, when I called the US Patent and Trademark Office, I found that this only works for nonfiction. Science fiction is a different matter. A patent examiner said the patent must describe some way of building the invention. Patents on wrist radios are being issued today although comic-strip hero Dick Tracy wore one over 40 years ago, because the technology wasn't available earlier.
I would be more annoyed if my idea had been serious. But that twist of patent law still isn't fair. Fictional inventions take real skill and some prove truly prescient. Besides, patent royalties would be a welcome supplement to the paltry pay that goes with science-fiction writing.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
That's all this software does, and it does it cheaper than people.*
Yes, it may be 'cheaper'. But you fundamentally changing the way the system works. In one instance you have people (cops or their designates) who are asked to monitor a public space and look for Bad Guys(TM). In the other case you have an automated system, programmed to act to its best ability, to 'assume' that a person is a member of the Bad Guy Group(TM).
What happens in the latter case is you remove objectivity, you remove the idea that a person is 'entitled to due process, compassion, assumption of innocence (etc etc) that only *people* can administer. When a program has the ability to make an accusation, without it being tempered by the above, or the *responsibility* that comes with being able to make this accusation we are treading into new territory.
Scenario: Bad-Guy-o-Tron-2000(TM) spots a member of the Bad Guy Group in seat A12. Police remove, detain, harass, bother, interact (whatever) with Person A12. When the police realize that they dont -in fact- have a Bad Guy(TM) what is this innocent citizen's recourse? What ability does this person have to assure it doesnt happen in future? What you have done is enable the Police to detain, remove, harass, bother, interact with someone on the basis of a computer's accusation. The police no longer have to have 'reasonable suspicion' (tempered by human judgment & responsibility (given based on the police's assumption of reward and consequence)).
People have the 'human right' to *NOT* be harassed, to be presumed innocent. This type of system removes that 'right'.
*And: Community principles should not be compromised based on cost. That's fucking ridiculous.
Ask anyone who has attended a protest what the police are like. I am a responsible, educated, citizen (if i do say so myself)- who happens to also have some *very* 'liberal' ideals.(some people consider them Communist - which I would accept). I generally abhor the the ruling classes (for many reasons) - so I am pretty biased.But I am also capable of some objectivity. When I attended a protest in my home town - the police turned the city into a war zone. The protesters proposed to 'shut down the conference' this *may* appear to be a 'violent' behaviour ( i would disagree, it is mostly a matter of generating attention & demanding the right to participate in democratic functions (when the ruling class would not care to 'offer it to you') but thats another story)...
It is not a crime to protest. It is not a crime to be angry, 'contrary' and rude. During the 5 days that my city was hosting this event I *PERSONALLY* watched police violently harass, bother, follow, track, disrupt and assault other citizens. When the police have been 'empowered' to act in this way, with no recourse or responsibility in *MY* presence I understand the concerns of yourself and others.
The POLICE are *NOT* 'your friends' as long as you dont act contrary to their handlers. If you somehow hold opinions that are contrary to those held by the ruling class you will quickly find that the police are quite capable, willing, and able to harass you. Face logging/identifying systems will only be used responsibly if *YOU* are not on the 'shit list'. Otherwise they can and will be used to harass you. Trust that.
Now, do I think these systems are inherently evil? No. Its that our 'democracies' (Canada & US) have slowly been corrupted. There is no balance. When the 'authorities' use their positions to justify the 'fortification' of their ideals - and deploy tools which may aid them in maintaining the status-quo (whatever it may be) we fall out of balance. No 'side' should have the ability to act over the other (the 'ruling class' over the 'people'). I would simply propose that something be done to assure balance: If the 'authorities' use these devices people must consent to them. Meaning: If you refuse to be tracked - its your right... my proposal may not be 'workable' but I think everyone gets 'my point'.
The idea is balance. In western democracy the judiciary is supposed to temper the control of the government and maintain balanced based on ideals (Charter of Rights and Freedoms & US Constitution). These ideals are not 'set in stone' by those documents - but the ideas must be upheld - and must have more authority and power.
Im beginning to ramble...
BOSS: Is this a picture of you entering Super Bowl XXXV?
YOU: (hanging head in shame) Yes.
BOSS: Get the fuck out of my office.
Your right - this kind of crazy shit will never affect your *job prospects* or *ability to work as a member of a productive business vernture* so why the fuck would anyone care... eheheheh silly us for thinking about liberty, freedom to determine our personal destiny and our futures heheheh eheheh. As long as it dont stop us from 'getting paid our due' why would we care.... heeheheh
If you would deny property owners the right to protect their property by imposing draconian limitations about what they can and cannot do on their own property
This is not a property rights issue - they may request that people with warrents *not* attend there functions - they do not 'have the rights' to _assume_ responsible citizens would not care if they are being tracked.
I personally feel this is terrific - maybe actions like these attached to a 'super-bowl' event will excite the Average Joe Yankee into waking up a bit about the direction of his country.
We can safely bet Average Joe Yankee hasnt't heard of the DMCA, General Erosion of Privacy, DeCSS Case or the problems with IP/USPTO... you can bet that he *WILL* hear about this. What will be interesting to see is what spin Big Media(TM) puts on this issue, and how long it lingers. Will Average Joe Consumotron Yankee look up from his McBlouandals McMonkeyBurger long enough to ask himself what brought him there..? and why there are cameras tracking the 'comings' & 'goings' of everyone - and to what purpose..?
The tank story is quite possibly an urban legend but it does illustrate the problem.
In response to other replies to my post: Fight against the technology being used for things that are a violation of your privacy, but don't fight against the systems current use. Sound fair?
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
SIG: HUP
Pray tell, precisely what freedom (minor or major) are you giving up by the use of this system?
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
To quote George Carlin on the topic of airport security: "The whole thing is fucking pointless... there are no bombs." He goes on to say that the primary motivation appears to be that they want to remind us all that they can fuck with us whenever they want-- as long as we'll put up with it.
I know he's being funny, but it's funny because it's so truthful. And it brings up an important question, "How is it going to look if _I_ don't put up with it, but everyone else does?"
I do not have a signature
...not very American.
Keeping
American culture is very paranoid. It's whole democracy is based on a paranoid premise. In the 1700's, a group of rebels decided they no longer trusted the British government, and so came about the American Revolution and the United States.
I was born in England, but live in America and went to high school and university in America. What I have observed is that a lot of Americans are brought up with the story that Britain had a bad and wicked government that had to be overturned. This no doubt had verying levels of accuracy.
Built on top of this is the Amendment allowing civilians to bear arms. This is based on the premise that government cannot be trusted, and so you should be able to stockpile weapons in case you need to throw another revolution. This is an ingrained thread of American culture. Always be prepared to overthrow the government.
Unfortunately, this is where the paradox lies. The United States and Britain are representative democracies. We vote for people to represent us in government -- to make decisions on our behalf, to take care of the nitty gritty of governing while we plow the fields and write cracks for the latest video games.
So, on one hand, American culture says to its politicans "Hey, we trust you to run our civilization", but on the other hand it says "Fuck up and you die". Not only that, but everything a politician does is highly scrutanized -- even aspects of his or her private life that has no bearance on his career.
America has also followed a different course through modern history. Persecution of ethnics has occured to a greater degree in the States, students were shot for protesting during the Vietnam war, and Rodney King was beaten within an inch of his life by a bunch of LAPD thugs.
British police and politicans certainly have had their moments, I'm sure, but Americans have reasons to be paranoid of their police and politicians. Some are valid and some are not, but they exist.
We may speak simular languages, but we are different people.
At 20010202-07:48 authorities have noticed a deviation from your normal behavior.
Namely, you took a different path between your apartement and your office as usual.
By authority of the law prevention act (4, 321a, LPA-20010914), we are authorized to take appropriate measure unless you turn yourself in to the next law prevention unit.
To protect and to serve, yours truly
LPU Central
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
By the end of the comment, 'being hassled by police', I can see you haven't often had to actually deal with most of the cops in the US. I think I've run into two, maybe three cops with common sense, the rest just follow their rule books like automatons, oblivious to anything not spelled out in the books [personal example: woman is very VERY upset after a relatively minor, but potentially expensive fender bender {her car had quite a bit of damage, the other person's car was almost untouched}. Said woman is crying, proceeds to actually vomit from nerves. What does the cop do? "You are being cited for following too closely." No sympathy evident AT ALL!]. Sorry, I can't trust humans who don't act like they're human.
[yes, I know I will be modded into oblivion soon, and possibly flamed, but I had to say it. This 'cops are your friends' bit has been proven dead wrong in practice to me all too often.]
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
time to pick up some stocks in that cheap sunglass company!
Damn straight it would have. Would've kept anyone from driving a vehicle made of metal into that garage, by gum.
Unfortunately, he parked it on the street.
Why not strip search everyone comming out of a store to protect us from theft? Or making everyone use chopsticks to eat on plane because a fork and knife can be used to kill. What about handcuffing everyone into their seats because some nut might break into the cockpit?
So explain to me, then, why we even bother asking people not to carry handguns and grenades onto planes. I mean, by your rationale, it's just another stupid means of trying to tell people how they should act and stripping them of their right to do what they want. The obvious answer to society's ills is total and unequivocable trust in every single anonymous individual that ever crosses your path, right? Doing anything else would instantly strip them of their most basic rights, and just ends up being a mindless excercise to keep good people from living free.
Welcome to life on Planet Earth. If you simply can't accept social pragmatism overriding some degree of your personal freedoms, I strongly advise that you take whatever steps are necessary to fully isolate yourself from society.
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Do you want security or privacy? Shoud have thought of that before the elections, because the republicans are back in power and since this tech concerns two items that the republicans like (security/law enforcement and the economy) personal privacy will be dumped pretty damn quick. This tech will be perceived as a boon for the security/law-enforcement industry as well as [slighly] helping the economy. Imagine if these systems were put to good use; at airports, bording crossings, and various security check-points. The company(ies) putting out these systems would get rich, the law-enforcement industry would get a kick in the ass (after locating all sorts of minor criminals (ticket scalpting is as a bullsh*t charge as resisting arrest (what reasonable U.S. citizen wouldn't) and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution (again, who wouldn't)), and the company(ies) selling the tech would obviously contribute to the political party that helped them squash those irritating privacy right advocates. I'm hopeful that this event was just to test the systems. To see how well the systems handle a heavy load. I'm also hopeful that these systems can be self-regulated (the republicans in power certainly won't interfere). As long as the faces being scanned aren't stored in a database (they should be kept in memory and discarded if a match isn't made), there shouldn't be a problem. Yes, it is the old 'if you aren't a criminal, what the hell are you worried about' arguement. A little paranoia isn't bad, but the level that you (a non-criminal) are worried about a camera taking a quick shot is a bit over the edge. I can somewhat see this point of view, as I disliked being caught on video, but you have to get over it. Just as people get over fear of snakes by handling them, maybe you should get over being camera shy. My advice for that - a trip to Las Vegas, where you will be on video nearly full-time. From the hundreds of cameras on a casino floor to the camera atop the traffic lights, somebody is watching you, taping your every movement. The place made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end for the first month. Then I got used to it; hell I'm not a criminal, what do I have to worry about? Nothing. End of story. As soon as the algorith is tweaked to get the minimum false matches these systems will be all over the place. Until a Gattaca like DNA scanner is built, this is what we will have to put up with. Will this system be a pain to put up with? Initially, yes. Given a few years, no. As long as you keep your nose fairly clean, you have little to worry about (and a quick finger-print scan should take care of any false matches).
---
And then they put police on the street, and soon they'll be in our homes, watching our every move. Right?
Forgive my sarcastic paranoia. Let's talk Civics 101 - there are some things a society has to give up (e.g. the ability to be able to perform any action without fear of consequence, complete anonymity) in order to have a society at all. The little slices you're talking about come no where close to 1984. We live (in the United States) in a democratic republic, which means that, by and large, the little slices are subject to numerous checks and balances. Get involved, and have a bit more faith in the system of which you are a significant part.
(I mentioned 1984 - do I get free karma?)
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
any LAWYAs in the house? I would love to hear their opinions on this. How can we approve something like this, which picks faces out of a crowd according to a few indicators of similarity, when we question the constitutionality of police profiling, in which humans categorize large numbers of people for potential crimes?
The sociological effects are enormous. People will refuse to go to places because their faces may pop up as criminal. Faces are not fingerprints, people! Is a similarity of face probable cause to stop someone?
Even if the technology were accurate, it will create an underclass of people who darts around in old buildings, old cities; who are afraid of coming to the public centers of the cities because of something in their past.
It is dangerous to corner a cat, to remove its freedom of motion. Do we want to corner all of the criminals of society in blind holes, hiding from cameras?
Goat sex free since 2001
My last sentence was about a cornered cat. I am worried about criminals who are in a situation like that cat; they are still "free" but they are so restricted in their movement that they become defensive, organized, and dangerous.
if there is a reliable video technology in every store, and if the databases and indexes of faces are used proactively as well as after a crime has been committed, I can imagine many groups of citizens that will be living in fear, forcibly isolated from the mainstream of American society and economy.
To get a job in Puerto Rico, one must present a "certificado de buen conducto" or a certificate of good conduct, which you can only get if you have no arrest record in the state. Not conviction: arrest. This certificate divides the working population into those who have a certificate and can work under protection of the law, and those who do not- and can't find decent work, since all work they are offered is itinerant or under-the-table work.
The technology will not identify criminals; it will train cameras on the faces of those who merit suspicion. Poor people and people of color are likely to be especially targeted.
Goat sex free since 2001
No, I mean exactly what I said. There is a "gray area" here but generally, if you take my picture and send it to your friend, as long as that's "private" (and you can consult SCOTUS if you want on how to define that) you can keep it, but if you make my picture that you took generally available to everybody on the 'net, you are in beeeg trouble both with me and the authorities.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
And, in fact, didn't quite put it as well, thus a little emphasis here. Well spoken, sir.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
No, they use metric criteria selected by human beings and implemented in deliberately written software. The neural net is even worse in real implementation, did you hear the one about the "tank detector" that was trained to detect tanks, except all the "tank" pictures were taken on cloudy days and the "no tank" pictures were in a mix of weather, so it was really a "cloudy day" detector.
The thing is, implementing stuff like this is a bad enough idea when you know how it works. It's an even worse idea when you don't know exactly what the machine is doing.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
...which is the type of sentence I used in that post. Linux type people eschew bloat in all things, including punctuation.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
This is illegal, thankfully, not because of any sexual connotations at all (whether or not there were any), but because you own your image. Nobody can publish your picture without your permission unless you fall into a number of clearly enumerated categories defined by the Supreme Court, making you a "public figure." Attending the Super Bowl or the beach does not automatically make you a public figure, so if somebody takes your picture and then publishes it, at a minimum they owe you royalties. I'm sure the parents of the kids involved would not have approved of photographs such as you describe, therefore it was illegal to distribute them (but probably not to take them; that's a different animal altogether).
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
First, I don't have a major problem with surveillance cameras in public places (a minor one yes) It is just a side effect of living in a high tech police state. There will be fewer Stasi drones trying to look better by turning up/manufacturing dirt on their neighbors than in the tried and true low tech police state.
But I do have some problems with the biometric nonsense
Lets see now, from the article: Unknown to the 100,000 people who passed through the turnstiles... The cameras identified 19 people with criminal histories, none of them of a "significant" nature, Tampa authorities said.
19 out of 100,000 or 99.981% accurate!
Now, the article didn't mention how many false positives there were, but my (limited) understanding of probability suggests that there should be people with no criminal histories misidentifed, and people with criminal histories who went undetected.
What is the percentage of the population of Florida at large that has a criminal history(note they said history not outstanding warrants)? I suspect it is more than the 1 in 5000 suggested by the results above. Although they didn't explain what constitutes an "insignificant" history, lets assume that anything that makes it into a history - parking tickets, public intoxication, being a registered Democrat...
Even after excluding all those currently in prison (well relatively safely.. when the StuporBowl comes to Texas a reasonable person would expect a "significant" portion of the prison population to be exercising their religious right to watch f'ball from the stadium with a beer in their paw).
I'm rambling a bit, but I hope my point was in there somewhere.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
This system is very very dangerous. The UK have this system already in place around major cities. No one can escape it, but it does not prevent a single crime at all! Ask yourself this how can a camera stop a crime? It doesn't, all it does is to watch the crime happen. There is no way a crime can be prevented unless there is a officer near by. The main purpose of this system has always been to watch and spy on honest citizens that are too dumb to know how dangerous this is. The system is very advance because once you been tag, they can fellow you anywhere you go. Who get tag? Everyone. The UK government knows where all the citizens are at all times. On the other hand criminals escape detection because they know how the system works. Not only that once your face is tag it will stay tag forever. It will be in a huge database forever. UK has finish the first step. The second step is being done right now. Citizens are now require to give out DNA sample to the government. Now they have the DNA to match the face. Tag like dogs, cage like animals. Another danger to this system is that all data collected will be save forever. In other words, lets said that at age 16 you did something dumb (you did not break the law, just something stupid) and the system caught you in the act. Now at age 26, you become an outspoken about the government. They decided to put you in jail or embarrass you in public and to do this they will use the system. All they need to do is enter your face or/and DNA into the database and in seconds they have all the information about you even the stupid act you did at age 16. This is the number one threat to democracy!
Given the number of times I've been mistaken for someone else by other humans, I don't know how I feel about this sort of thing. Even if you're innocent, being hassled because a piece of software that thinks you look like a felon would be pretty annoying (to say the least).
If you've got a criminal record, don't go somewhere where somebody might recognize you. Duh.
What happens if you happen to be said person's twin brother (or sister)? You should be arrested and/or harassed because of the misdeeds of someone else? What if you were separated at birth and you never even met your twin?
Someone in the article mentioned that had they caught a terrorist, everyone would think the system was very worthwhile. Two points. One, they didn't catch any terrorists. Two, a paraphrased quote of Ben Franklin, "Those who will trade liberty for safety, deserve neither."
When something is accepted for even a small group, it will become accepted for society as a whole. In terms most slashdotters can understand: "We must be able to encrypt our movies to stop the pirates." How many people would argue against that statement? Now how many people (and I don't mean only slashdotters, I mean people as a whole) would argue with what has really happend? The answer to both is very very few.
If you want to boil a frog, you don't do it by setting the flame to high, you do it by setting the flame to the lowest possible setting and slowly increasing it.
-- All that evil needs to be victorious is to have a good man to do nothing.
--
This type of automated surveillance system creates both quantitative and qualitative differences from the mere presence of police officers. On the quantitative side, it makes it feasable to place surveillance in literally all public spaces. This is something which is just not going to happen by hiring police officers. There is a difference between knowing that occasionally you might pass a policeman on the street who sees you and knowing that your every public move is being watched.
This type of system also allows qualitative differences in the types of video surveillance it allows. Sure, right now it is billed as a system which only looks for felons. However, it is a trivial extension to have it watch everybody all the time. Every time you go out in public, the "eyes" will watch your every move. Imagine the benefit to a totalitarian government of having accurate lists of everyone who was within a certain radius of a demonstration or police shooting. Imagine the chilling effect on people knowing that there is no longer safty in numbers. Even if you have a large group of people, you will all be identified and dealt with individually later on.
Right now, it's pretty easy to act in an "acceptable" manner in public and reduce your chances of being hassled by a cop to almost zero (at least for white people(meaning that minorities are often "profiled" as criminals, not that minorities are incapable of behaving in public). Behaving in public is part of living in a society. However, with this type of surveillance your behavior won't be judged by your fellow citizens. It will be judged by an invisible and anonymous computer system. Your every move will be tracked and compared to statistical norms. Any deviation from normal behavior will flag you as someone worth investigating.
If you really think that such a system is impossible to abuse, I suggest that you think about it some more. If you really think blanket, invisible, omnipresent surveillance is LESS intimidating than the occasional officer on the beat, I have to wonder what you're smoking.
No biometric technology is 100% accurate, and the potential for false positives are not non-existant, especially for something that's working in near-real time from data as complex as imaging of faces of people who aren't looking straight into the camera. It's entirely possible for someone, like say, yourself, to be detained when they register as someone they resemble, and that would suck.
How do you "lose your rights" by getting your damn picture taken when you enter a private building of your own volition?
Sort of like when you lose your soul when your picture's taken.
-elf
Maybe make some easily removed masks of various wanted criminals. Walk past the cameras nice and slow. Discard mask. Repeat. Give the good officers a serious hard on to think that 8 of the 10 most wanted were in there...somewhere....
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
I'm usually against anything like this, but I can't really find anything wrong with this. The people who run the place have said OK, and it's not violating anybody's rights because they are only trying to find people with outstanding warrants and arrest them immediately. Now if they started using it to track where people went, then I'd have a problem!
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
SIG: HUP
Do you think our democracy "worked" as you describe for the folks of darker complexion who were discouraged from voting in Florida by police checkpoints near the polls, or the ones who were unceremoniously dumped from the rolls because a database (built by a company closely allied with one and only one of our two major political parties) said they were felons?
Terrible shit is happening all around you! Whatever shall you do? Both of these things are overmanipulated stories that are part of media sensationalism.
UK, land of the infamous Terrorist Act that allows you to be held without bond and interrogated for, what is it, 7 days
Umm, we here in the US have this stupid thing call Secret Evidence (tm). The FBI holds people for years without having to disclose the evidence they have against them. Ever hear of a guy named Mazen Al-Najjar? (Sorry I can't find any links to any articles that don't want $$ to show them). He was finally release on bail in December after being held for 3 years, without trial, because of some secret evidence the FBI had against him.
so?
ok, i can understand that there is a Big Brother concern in some people minds that they are being watched by camera, and that this may be stored for long term use. what I don't understand is what people are REALLY getting so concerned about. how is this significantly different than having a still picture of you taken (i.e., with a shutter-action camera) when you are on the street (as has been done for years)? What is so bad about it?
do NOT invade my home.
do NOT invade any other parts of my private life.
But when I'm in public, I'm public. If I don't like it, well, tough shit, because I can't reasonably expect to not be seen when I'm at a football stadium.
Weylin Piegorsch
weylin@yahoo.com
67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that....
Oakland Raiders Senior Assistant Bruce Allen agreed with the need.
"Whatever they want to do to protect this country, I'm for. . . . So anything we can do to help, I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that."
Riiiight... "whatever they want to do to protect this country..." Let's just implant microchips in everyone and track their every move. Let's start with Oakland Raiders Senior Assistant Bruce Allen, cuz that quote just scared the hell out of me, and I'd like to know when he comes within 100 miles of me.
From what I've read, those claims were fairly baseless; the police checkpoint was a mile and a half away from the polls, and was a response to crime committed in the area. That being said, your overall point about "choice" in American politics is legitimate: we got to choose between the son of a former president and the son of a former senator, and for all intents and purposes it was a tie, perhaps justifying Nader's observation that there were no real differences between the two.
Today's sig brought to you by http://www.swankypimp.com
In his opening monologue he made a joke to the effect of: yeah they didn't actually find any criminals until they pointed the cameras onto the field.
And, as has been posted earlier, MLK was not trying to unseat the government. He was seeking greater political, economic, and social equality for blacks, not overthrow of the governemnt (or any political office, for that matter...)
As pointed out by the law professor quoted in the article, "People have no reasonable expectation that when out in public, they cannot be photographed."
If you've got a criminal record, don't go somewhere where somebody might recognize you. Duh.
Now if they started KEEPING all those photographs against a possible future need, that'd be a different thing altogether...
> If they abuse this power, unlikely, you can just vote them out.
Tell that to Martin Luther King, Jr. He worked to protest the government in power and was trying to unseat them by peaceful and lawful means. However, those in power liked being in power and didn't care for his activities.
First, they labeled him a Communist (not that a free society can ever "outlaw" something like that). Then they began the investigation. They bugged his phones. They discovered that he was having an affair. They sent him a letter urging him to commit suicide to avoid having this information leaked.
J. Edgar Hoover was in charge of the FBI at the time. For the most part, Hoover's actions today are considered by the mainstream to be excessive. Nevertheless, the main FBI headquarters are named after him, so I don't know how much "mainstream" thinking pervades the FBI.
This wasn't the work of a military junta running the country, these were just ordinary, elected Americans. Imagine if someone really unscrupulous were elected.
The LAPD, until very recently, made a habit of keeping phone taps and files on celebrities. You never know when that might come in handy.
Nixon used the IRS to harass his opponents. He felt compelled to resign after covering up a break-in of his (mainstream) political opponents headquarters.
Either through clerical error or massive corruption, the Clinton White House had detailed FBI dosiers on prominent Republicans. And Clinton was never voted out of office. Even after his Attorney General burned to death a religious cult. The accusation alone that the cult leader was molesting children was enough to convince most Americans that Koresh got what he deserved.
In a democracy, you do NOT give the ruling power the means to destroy any political opposition. While you've removed "crime" by 70%, you've virtually guaranteed that any political opponent can have his every move tracked.
But at least your property is safe, I guess...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Which is fine as long as the authorities don't object to anything you do. But maybe one day you want to oppose something. Maybe City Hall is planning a waste incinerator upwind from you, and you suspect that the relationship between the builders and the politicians is a mite closer than it ought to be.
So you start being a nuisance. You write letters, you get articles in the local press, you organise demonstrations. At some point you become sufficiently annoying that someone decides to take some extra-legal action. A list of your comings and goings for the last few months might be very interesting. Have you been in any bars where drugs get traded, for instance? A few examples, taken out of context, could easily be used to get a search warrant to turn your house upside down. A search of computer data could be tacked on to the end of such a warrant, enabling them to take your computer. And so it goes on.
The bottom line is: knowledge is power. If you let them have knowledge about you then you let them have power over you. The danger (and it is a very real danger) is that they will abuse this power.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
How do you "lose your rights" by getting your damn picture taken when you enter a private building of your own volition? If you wanted to set up a camera to take pictures of people on your property, shouldn't you have the right to do that? If so, then why doesn't that right extend to other property owners?
If you would deny property owners the right to protect their property by imposing draconian limitations about what they can and cannot do on their own property, I submit that it is you that is infringing on essential liberties, and you that are advocating a dangerous, authoritarian police state.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
The truth is that security cameras and other surveillance technology is ubiquitous and the technology behind them is only going to improve and get as cheap as dirt. The question is, as a society are we going to do about it? Judging from how the discussion has gone so far, i can only shake my head. Lets move the discussion passed, the police surveillance is "good vs evil" stage.
For those who believe that having the police check every ones face as they enter the gate at the Super Bowl is a good thing, are you naive? How do you know that your not? I'm sure they kept the camera's secret because It would creep people out to know that they were being scanned against known criminals, yet they did it anyway. How do you know that they are just looking out for your interests, what did they do they deserve this level of trust from you? This is a very powerful tool in the hands of the police that can be used for both good or ill. What's to prevent them from betraying this trust in the future?
For those who are apposed to this kind of Technology, lets get past the 1984 analogies. Let me remind you that, You don't need technology to create a very chilling authoritarian state, and technology only played a minor role in the book. For better or worse the technology exists and fortunately the picture of the future for most of us is not a "boot stomping on a human face". In fact surveillance can act in reverse, making the police much less likely to beat someone if they believe that they themselves are being
watched. Watching the watchers watch may one key to preventing the abuse of this technology.
Someone who has put a great deal of thought on the matter is David Brin, and I'm quite surprised that is lucid thoughts on this matter has not yet come up in this thread. This short piece in Wired and this Discussion are a good place places start. From what I can tell, many of you have not been exposed to these ideas yet. I put these in the "must read" category.
Enjoy.
They spent who knows how many bucks to install cameras, high-speed data lines, a control center, and links to municipal, state, and federal databases of bad guys. And positively identified no known perps.
Because they were looking in the wrong direction, perhaps?
The middle linebacker of the Ravens, Ray Lewis, is presently on probation as a result of his plea bargain in two homicides a year ago. The news media made quite a stir a while back about the alarmingly high percentage of NFL players with criminal records. A former receiver for the Carolina Panthers, Rae Carruth, was just convicted of felonies for his involvement in the death of his wife; Mark Chmura, formerly of the Green Bay Packers, is presently on trial for sexually molesting his 17-year-old babysitter.
Why are the cops looking at the fans?
We lose our rights by a thousand little slices. Fingerprinting was only for criminals, now we get fingerprinted for drivers licenses. Metal detectors were only for airports and high schools that had riots. Now, it's for any government building.
Fight Spammers!
But this is slashdot. 99% of the posters here are incurably paranoid; it's part of the enterance requirements.
To those who are whining about it: would it be wrong for police to look at pictures of known criminals, and then keep a lookout for them? Of course not; that's essentially what they do all the time. So what's so wrong about having them use technology to do their job better and more effectively? It sometimes seems like slashdotters can't realize that law enforcement is a good thing. We should try to fix its problems rather than try to destroy it at every turn.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
...that's what my mother would say. "I'd gladly give up a minor freedom if it would help catch criminals."
Of course, she's never had her door broken down by cops with the wrong address in the middle of the night, without so much as a semblence of an apology, either.
She's never had her car confiscated because a pot seed (from her nephew's friend) was found in her vehicle.
She's never had her boat drilled full of holes because an invited guest's son was being watched by the Coast Guard.
She's never been stopped and had all of her cash "impounded" because she matched a "profile."
She's never been questioned because she bought an airline ticket with cash.
Of course, she's a Republican, too, so your mileage may vary...
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
This technology was originally developed for use with mug shots, which are taken with calibrated camera position and lighting. Maybe they even work under those conditions. The idea is supposedly that they measure features like the distance between your eyes and ratio of that to mutual distance to your mouth which can't be altered by disguise. In fact, though, my friends continue to play relatively unmolested. They have been nailed by this tech a couple of times, but not nailed by it countless other times, even at places known to use it.
I am also completely unconvinced that this system won't produce errors -- especially when used with photos taken in public space, with uncalibrated lighting and uncontrolled camera angles. There are just too many people in the world and the resolution of the photos is too poor that there won't be some schlep whose nose, eyes, and mouth will all be dimensionally similar enough to mine to cause us to raise each others' alarms.
I figure this tech will last until the first bona fide innocent tourist is roughed up by cops who are convinced he is a big-time felon, then the Big Brother types will go back to dreaming of tracking us with implants.
I wonder -- the article says they identified 17 wanted pholx in the crowd. Did they act on this "discovery?" If not, how do we know these 17 lawbreakers were ID'ed accurately? Answer: We don't. If they really thought this was such hot shit they would have demonstrated its utility by making a few arrests, and it would have certainly made this article. But they aren't quite as stupid as they sound. They know it isn't perfect, and I'm betting even the developers know it never will be.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
A little less paranoia would go a long way
Let's see how far it would go...
POTENTIAL BOSS: I see from your DoubleClick profile that you surf several porn sites. Geekporn.com? Isn't it bad enough that you surf porn, but geek porn? You disgusting pervert. And salon.com as well - a bunch of dangerous free-thinkers, if you ask me. We block them at the firewall.
YOU: that wasn't me...it was my next door neighbor using my computer...
BOSS: According to our police check, you have seven speeding tickets - automatically deducted by the drive-through EZ-pass system when it detected that you must have been speeding to go from entrance to exit so quickly. Scofflaw as well! And here's a picture taken from a traffic light that shows you jumping the light. My my.
YOU: it was only a few miles an hour over the limit...
BOSS: What about this? Police camera records show that you are often in an area of the city associated with deviant lifestyles.
YOU: It's near a subway stop I use...I only pass through...honest!
BOSS: They also show that you had lunch FIVE times last month with a married woman who is not your wife.
YOU: She's a coworker...
BOSS: I'm sure. Perhaps we could ask her husband what he thinks of that. Also...I see that your medical record shows that you had a prostate exam five years earlier than is recommended for men. Do you have some sort of problem that we should know about? Also, a genetic test showed a positive marker for early heart-disease. That's too bad - we like our workers healthy.
YOU: I was merely being cautious, and that gene doesn't mean that I'll GET heart disease...
BOSS: Whatever. Your credit-card buying records show that you subscribe to Playboy and also take karate lessons. The only thing worse than a pervert is a violent pervert.
YOU: Karate's just a hobby...
BOSS: Your credit report is bad as well - you paid 30 days late 3 times in 5 years. That's not the sort of person that we want representing our firm. I've gotten the picture of a lawbreaking, immoral pervert who probably belongs in jail. I'm sorry, you're an untouchable.
YOU (silently): (maybe I should have been a little more paranoid!)
Oh, I suppose there is the possibility that "Big Brother" might take the pictures of you entering the Super Bowl and use them to control your life. Imagine how it might end up wrecking an otherwise-successful job interview:
Use your heads. A little less paranoia would go a long way.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I would really love to see the software that is capable of determining that I am breaking into a car rather than, say, wiping birdshit off the windshield before entering it. This makes the facial recognition thing look like ELIZA for the TRS-80 by comparison.
Its just a question of trusting the authoriteies. If they abuse this power, unlikely, you can just vote them out. That is what a democracy is for.
You really should pay more attention to American politics. Do you think our democracy "worked" as you describe for the folks of darker complexion who were discouraged from voting in Florida by police checkpoints near the polls, or the ones who were unceremoniously dumped from the rolls because a database (built by a company closely allied with one and only one of our two major political parties) said they were felons?
I suppose your city doesn't see it as a major problem if a few people get stopped by the cops and questioned for a few minutes because some computer in a basement fucked up. But if your genes had the bad taste to give you a similar facial profile to some Genuine Bad Dude (tm) so that you got stopped all the time your personal self, I bet your attitude would change quick. Especially in the UK, land of the infamous Terrorist Act that allows you to be held without bond and interrogated for, what is it, 7 days? Yep, I'm sure you wouldn't mind being dragooned every time you entered a new city where you weren't personally known because this shit had become universal, after all, it's for the public good, right?
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Crime in Glasgow city centre has fallen by some 70% since this system was introduced, and the city has become a much safer place to socialise in.
These types of systems are permeating the UK at an amazing rate, and they are really showing results. As long as they are controlled by the police, and used in a responsible manner according to the law, I really have no problem with it at all. You have to be incurably paranoid to have a problem, I think. Its just a question of trusting the authoriteies. If they abuse this power, unlikely, you can just vote them out. That is what a democracy is for.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.