Slashdot Mirror
Big Blue's Big Blue Eyes Are Watching You
russellamiller directs your gaze to this Technology Review article on eye-tracking, customer-watching camera systems based on IBM research from the company's Almaden reasearch campus. The tracking systems are set up to observe and interpret the behavior of those observed -- not just in casinos, or at the Superbowl, but in retail stores you may have already been in. Though names aren't named, the researchers say "a number of large retailers have implemented" the systems already. Does this bother you like it bothers Steve Mann?
Is this what you want to say? Or maybe this?
Interesting that you chose to focus on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when conventional firebombings killed many times more people in a single attack.
So its not the amount of human suffering caused that offends you, but the emotional reaction to the way in which said suffering was caused.
Truely amazing how the word "nuclear" can turn otherwise rational humans into emotionally controlled dimwits.
Human architects designed the concentration camps and gas chambers. Do they share the responsibility for the Holocaust? Clearly yes.
Human scientists contributed to the development of the atomic bomb. Do they share responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Clearly yes.
Perhaps they may argue that if they didn't do it, someone else would have. That is what the Nazi's tried at Nueremburg claimed. However, it also clear that human responsibility starts with the individual.
The only way human and civil rights violations will stop is if we as individuals realiize our responsibility and say: no.
Act as suspicious as possible. I generally draw 2 or 3 security personnell. Quite often the insistence that they make a citizens arrest or face physical resistence. After several times when nothing was discovered, a security company was fired and many customers went else-where.
I can tell you that the person who's "watching" you is only working part-time for 6 to 8 dollars an hour, and is as likely to be doing crossword puzzles, reading the paper, flirting with co-workers, or sleeping rather than actually watching you. I can also tell you that the vaults of videotapes from these cameras are often only kept for a month and sometimes the people forget to turn on the recorder. These tapes are never reviewed by anyone unless something actually happens that the boss needs to find out more info about. The most common reason for zooming in on someone and surveilling her was that she was a hottie. All the data that's being collected on people isn't going to be processed unless there's intelligent dedicated people to process it, and my experience is that's pretty unlikely, at least in a private company's building. Stores may be a little more insistent that their security actually watches the cameras ...
Now the stores are going to figure out that I'm really only there to look at the cute clerks!
Yes, this technology has potential for many types of abuse, but banning known shoplifters isn't one of them--that's what's known as a legitimate and noble use of technology.
Infra-red light, such as what the BlueEyes system uses, can see right through regular sunglasses. So you're not safe there.
However, someone out there may sell sunglasses that block infra-red.
At a recent cypherpunks meeting, someone suggested wearing an infra-red light-source on a cap. It would be invisible to humans, but would blind many video cameras, as they tend to be sensitive to infra-red light. It would probably be especially effective against the BlueEyes system.
Anonymity is power!
But this makes me think about one of the arguments that I heard in a recent court case about using drug-sniffing dogs on a routine police stop. Those in favor of the use of the dogs asked if those opposed to the dogs would, hypothetically, be opposed to having a police officer with a "really good sense of smell" conduct the stop. To me, this raised the question of "how do you determine what is/isn't reasonable?"
Perhaps this nascent A.I. is all esoteric and high-tech stuff. But so was mp3 once upon a time. I was using computers back in the day of 2400 baud modems (and before) when the thought of a service like Napster was absolutely ludicrous and completely impractical. But today, we've gotten to the point where such technology is cheap and affordable to just about anyone. It seems crazy to try to stop it, if only because it is so easily and freely available. I have no doubt that some day such behavior-interpreting software will be easily and freely available as well. Maybe even Open-Sourced. And then how will we cope with such a world?
So what is my rambling point with this? Simply that, at some point, any advanced technology will eventually become so routine, commonplace, and easily available that trying to legislate it away becomes absurd. Imagine trying to argue that the use of glasses, contact lenses, or a hearing aid by a police officer constituted some sort of stepping over the bounds of governmental self-restraint. (And, yes, I realize that glasses, contact lenses, and such don't really enhance an individuals sensory abilities so much as raise them up to the level that a normal person posesses. But what happens when they can drastically extend a normal person's senses without them having to be burdened by carrying bulky attachments? And it's now commonplace in the U.S. for police cars to have a laptop computer with access to a large database of automobile license plates that are associated with outstanding warrants. Is that so different from other forms of sensory enhancement?)
One could make the argument that all this stuff is not that different than having an employee (or employees) of the store -- with has a high degree of perception about human nature and marketing -- stand out on the floor, making the same observations that the software is making. Except that using the software does it more efficiently and on a larger scale.
Don't get me wrong. I'm struggling to find a good argument against this stuff. Coz I hate it and it angers me. But I really don't know where it is reasonable to draw the line between using a sharp, perceptive person to make these observations and using cameras and software to do it. Especially when the cameras are already there. And the store does belong to them. It is their property, and customers are there of their own volition.
This stuff really bothers me, but where do you draw the line? What is it about using software to do this, instead of using a really perceptive person, that makes it going too far? How is this so different from the philosophical battle over DeCSS -- that one group of people wants to use some software that another group of people finds objectionable?
I am a strong supporter of Napster and DeCSS (and the Princeton professor who just withdrew his paper about cracking the SDMI watermark). I consider myself a big civil libertarian. I love the ACLU. But am I the only one who is bothered a little by the way that the lines can seem to be drawn somewhat arbitrarily?
Right now, the only clear distinction that I can see is "who are the Big Guys and who are the Little Guys?" If a big corporation wanted to use DeCSS and a lot of individuals were concerned that it would infringe on their individual rights (although it's difficult for me to envision right now exactly how that could come about, but please indulge me for just a moment), would Slashdotters be arguing the other direction?
It seems "obvious" to me that the use of this software by governments and corporations is wrong. But as I've discovered many times in the world of math and computer science, what at first seems "obvious" can often turn out to be quite false.
I, for one, would just feel a lot better if I could clearly delineate why this use of controversial, unpopular technology is Bad, but in the case of Napster and DeCSS the use of that controversial, unpopular (so to speak) technology is Good.
Anyways, those are my rambling thoughts. And I may be the only one who sees things that way. But if someone could make the good argument for me, I would greatly appreciate it.
One thing all who 'get' zen early on understand is that everything about them is always public, all the time, so long as other humans are about.
The human nervous system wires us in a manner that we understand each other, whether we want to or not. It's utterly impossible to turn off. We ALWAYS know what others about us are thinking, and if we choose not to see it, we cripple ourselves.
I'm talking brain stem stuff here.. Body language, limbic system..
What I'm trying to say here, is that by simply leaving your house at a particular time you reveal an incredible amount of info about you, even in that simple act.
Scoping people out electronically is actually kinda cool, and could be used for lots of GOOD things!
Paranoia has its' place however, and for good reason.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Why does EVERY SINGLE advance in computer tech have to enhance Quake in some way???????
My parents had one of their credit cards temporarily disabled due to unusual spending activity.
The reason? Someone was using the credit card number in Europe to buy stuff.
Later, when my parents got home from their trip to Europe (Switzerland, Germany, Italy and briefly England, in case you wondered), they found a nice, helpful message on their answering machine from the credit card company letting them know that there had been some unusual purchases lately and asking if they had perhaps lost a credit card and not noticed it...
If these are CCD cameras, I wonder if you could carry a bright IR source and saturate the image -- effectively editing yourself out of the picture. Ramsey electronics sells a cheap kit with a bunch of bright IR LEDs, for night-vision applications (combined with a CCD camera). They compare the beam strength to a strong flash light. Seems to me the same source pointed at a CCD should saturate it.
;)
Maybe ThinkGeek should sell a hat studded with IR LEDs, for the geek paranoid.
Infra-red reflective contact lenses. That's the trick!
(I'll take mine with a mirror finish, please. Whoo-hoO!)
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Well, this wouldn't have happened if it was truly anonymous. Like American Express' plan for one-time use credit cards on the web. Say that punk waiter did have a thing in his jacket that read your card, wouldn't work because a new ID is generated every time you use it. Anonymous and more secure. Well, the credit card company could still have a huge database of purchases, but then it would only be the credit card with a big list'o' info on you, instead of everyone.
---
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
I didn't see anyone really blame IBM yet, although I suspect people will.
The analogy I was thinking of was blaming Alfred Nobel for blowing people up with dynamite (he invented it for use in mining)
what if the wage flunkies in the store don't know this is going on? You can ask all you want, but their answer is moot. Besides, if you ask this kind of question, you'll be scrutinized by actual store detectives in addition to the 'lectric eye.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Doing it with credit cards isn't always bad, though. I've had credit card companies twice have notified me that I had just been charged with some pretty unusual purchases, and I was able to quickly wipe out the problem. Once was from when a credit card was stolen in the mail, another was when some kid from a restaurant kept the number after wiping my card legitimately.
Cheers,
Well, Microsoft has already publicly demoed a similar technology, even though I don't believe it's been mentioned at Slashdot yet. When the time comes that Slashdot does a story about its evils, I can count on you to defend them, too, right? :)
Cheers,
Bet you don't shop at Wal-Mart.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
He brings up some good points. "Shooting back"
Store owners see a lot of theft. A huge amount.
I remember once while I was in a 7-11 the store owner saw kids trying to steal beer on the camera.
The dome refereed to in his concerns are not to hide the existence of the camera.
No body will be fooled by that facade.
The function is to cover for a defect. Cameras swaying back and forth.
Sure you know there is a camera but you don't know where it is pointing at a given moment.
Those cameras are good. They serve a function.
The abuses have to do with cameras placed in dressing rooms and manual control cameras.
Manual control isn't worth the investment. Cameras are 90% deterrent.
In fact there is a big market for fake cameras.
But far to many people risk the camera. So you need the real thing.
Steve Mann makes a very good point.
"Shooting back"...
Cameras in the consumers hands are equally good.
Full disclosure.
They can have them so can you.
You should have every right to carry a camera.
Why the hack not?
I don't like people taking my picture.
But surveillance is just part of life.
Why should only they have that right?
Personal cameras are a good thing...
Any store that won't let people carry personal recording equipment should be devoid of recording equipment.
I don't actually exist.
if somebody wrote handwriting recognition software with the knowledge that it had a high probability of being used to launch missiles, then they've got responsibility for the results.
Really? So General Motors has responsibility for all those bank robberies where someone used a Chevy (or a Pontiac or a Buick, etc.) as a getaway vehicle? I mean, really, you can't say GM doesn't know that people are going to use their cars to commit crimes.
I know, maybe GM should design in an anti-crook system, so that the car can SENSE when its being used by a bank robber and will refuse to start for the bank robber.Yeah, that's the ticket.
My journal has hot
Human architects designed the concentration camps and gas chambers. Do they share the responsibility for the Holocaust? Clearly yes.
Common argument...to which I always respond: do you blame the guy who designed the door knobs on the gas chambers? No, clearly door knobs serve a much larger purpose and like all technology, door knobs can be abused.
Human scientists contributed to the development of the atomic bomb. Do they share responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Clearly yes.
Really? If you live in the United States, chances are you are using technology -- right now -- that came as a result of that research. Nuclear power plants. Even if you don't live near a nuclear power plant, if you live in just about any developed country, your government is using the threat of their nuclear weapons to keep your ass alive and allowing you to say stupid stuff like that.
Do you feel any guilt?
I don't.
My journal has hot
Why can't we complain about the abuse of information gathered about us without our knowledge or consent? We quite rightly can complain about it, disrupt their data collection until it leaves our hands, and discover and disclose the use this technology wherever we find it. We have no obligation to the merchant to let them use our involuntary reactions so they can harass us with higher prices and more pressure to buy, and we have no obligation not to mess with their system until mall security escorts us off the premises. Naturally, since we're in public, the Supremes will say that they certainly can, but any merchant who would press the issue so far has already lost in the court of public opinion by the time the first appeal is filed.
(Incidentally, the heat signature given off by blood vessels in the forehead is as or more unique than fingerprints.)
Oh yeah, that's "speech", not "speach".
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Credit cards are voluntary. Its very difficult to find a walk-in type store that won't take cash. Sure, Rat shack always asks for your name and address, but I simply decline to give it to them. If you choose to give up that information willingly, you deserve everything you get.
:)
However, if you don't have a choice about revealing your identity and interests to marketers, then this is where the line gets fuzzy. If a store is required to disclose that systems such as these are in use, then thats one thing. You can just avoid shopping there, or can take precautions to prevent them from being useful.
However, there IS a potentially useful side effect here. I ignore advertisements. In fact, I RUTHLESSLY avoid them. I never look at banner ads, I never click on them, I don't look at junk mail, no matter what it might be. The crap people like to hang on my doorknob goes in the trash without a glance. When I go to the store, I know what I'm going to get, and I don't waste much time looking around at subtle advertising to see what I can't live without.
IF these systems pick up my complete lack of interest in ALL advertising, do you think its possible that they might mark me as a lost cause and save their precious marketing dollars by simply not sending me anything? Yeah.. I can hope.
Another angle of the same issue.... notice how nobody really cares about intrusion into our lives when its our choice to allow it. How many people have webcams? Now, see how many of those same people would be willing to go along with mandated cameras in their houses. The end result is the same, but in one case, "Big brother is watching you", in the other case, "Bring it on Big Brother".
This newfangled marketing strategy would probably gain public acceptance if not for its secrecy. Just offer it as a free service and everyone wouldn't be able to wait to have it installed everywhere. "Sign up for this free service to automatically notify you when your favorite products go on sale!!!!" Sale of course is an arbitrary term. A store near me has a "temporary lower price" tag on EVERY SINGLE ITEM IN THE STORE, no matter what the price is. The point is... right now, at this instant, its temporarily lower, so you better get it now or the price might go up. People are morons. They don't care. They'd be an easy sale.
But no, they have to conceal it. Hide the identities where these systems are in place. Get the ACLU involved. Way to go there. Way to market your product you bozos. Lets make it extremely obvious that you might have nefarious motivies. At least you're making it easy for us.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
That is not always the case. There is a difference between little family run stores and large chains. I like the feeling of going in a store and having the manager know me. On the other hand, there is something creepy about a computer looking up your purchasing preferences in a database the moment you step in the store.
The difference is that knowing someone is usually reciprocal, the manager in the little store knows you and you know him, at least to an extent. When you walk into the shop you recongise him and think you know what he knows about you. Having someone who doesn't know you, and who you don't know, know about you is much more disconcerting.
what makes this scary is that they could sell it to other stores! Imagine if you shoplifted at kmart, but then you get banned at walmart, sears, etc,etc...
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
The top three enemies of the facial identification era:
Mary Kate & Ashley Olsen
Michael Jackson
Robin Williams (Mrs. Doubtfire)
- Slash
A store, restaurant, or other such establishment is considered "public" in U.S. common law; as such, you are welcome to enter and remain on lawful business unless you are instructed (a) to leave, or (b) not to enter in the first place. If you enter or remain on a property you have been instructed to vacate or not to enter, you are committing "criminal trespass", as some states refer to it. See O.C.G. 16-7-21(b)(2) for a typical example.
--
This is not my sandwich.
And as far as sunglasses that block infrared, any "high end" pair should block at least 90% of the infrared spectrum. My prescription Revo's block more than 95%, plus they look sooooo cool.
I think you'll find they block 90+% of UV (ultraviolet) - not IR. It is the UV that is considered harmful to the eyes (and skin).
On top of being peeved because I had to get the $*&@ card in the first place (because they stopped having their normal bloody sales.) Stupid supermarkets.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Even if you have to opt-in, supermarkets would say "Be Part of the Retinal Scan Members Club!" Which would be tied in to getting sale prices on items at the store :P
They also use the cards to allow you to donate a portion of your purchases to schools, which is cool, but I'm sure they could figure out a way to do that without violating my privacy.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Infra-red lights can be made just as small as any other pen-light. The US Army AN/PVS 7b night vision goggle contains an infra-red light source that is very small, yet will light up a sizeable field of vision.
-jerdenn
Doorknobs vs. gas chambers? I'm waiting to hear what you think how the people who designed & built those gas chambers thought they were going to be used.
Same thing with bombs. You design something to do something, and it gets used in the manner you designed it to work - you've got a direct line of responsibility to the results.
I would submit that the research necessary to build a nuclear power plant does NOT necessarily yield all of the information necessary to build a nuclear bomb. And if you design a nuclear power plant, you can be reasonably sure someone isn't going to drop it on a city to kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Although if you make a suitcase-sized nuclear power plant w/o the expectation that some nut might try and crack it open inside a populated area, you could probably be blamed for negligence if not intent.
Come on, you can't agree with what I said, and then turn around & claim that I'm saying something different.
It's all in the intent - using your example, if somebody wrote handwriting recognition software with the knowledge that it had a high probability of being used to launch missiles, then they've got responsibility for the results. If they write a general-purpose handwriting recognition system with the idea that they're going to sell a lot of pen-based computers, and then somebody coopts the system for use in launching missiles, then it's the person who coopted the system who made the decision to contribute to something lethal.
The IBM software is designed to identify & monitor people, and to apply some analysis to their behavior. The systems that it is being used in, are designed to be inobtrusive (wouldn't want to actually upset the customers by making it OBVIOUS that they're under surveillance all the time).
Whoever designed the system deliberately created something which can be used to unobtrusively identify, monitor & analyse the behavior of anybody that comes into its field of view, with the knowledge that this information will be used to restrain people's activities (e.g., catching shoplifters) and to try and improve their ability to manipulate people (e.g., targeted advertising).
While this is a far cry from something that was designed to kill people, it's certainly not as benevolent as a new kind of bread or a poster with a cartoon mascot on it. And since the people using it know that it wouldn't be popular, they do their best to keep their customers from knowing about it.
Or, even worse, for quality control at tech support lines -- to make sure you've got that upbeat attitude towards the person on the other end of the phone. All of the sudden, over the intercom: "Would the person in cubicle 48B change their attitude about their current customer please?" Instead of having warnings letting us know that the call may be monitored for quality control, the warning will say that the facial expressions of the person on the other end of the line will be monitored.
They should consider themselves lucky, when I lived in the UK and worked in a bookstore I would reguarly have to tell American tourists that unfortunately I couldn't sell them the books they wanted as thier credit card company didn't believe that they were in Europe even when they spoke to the credit card company on the phone. Basically they were told that in order to use their credit card they would have to write to the issuer and tell them that they were going to be travelling in Europe.
A friend of mine once had some interesting multi-pinhole glasses (Hundreds of pinholes) you could see out of (a bit darker), but NOBODY could see your eyes.
The advertised purpose of them was to sharpen your vision. I think that they were called Eagle-Eyes.
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
That's why there are some things that it's best to buy IRL. Like pr0n, firearms, and drugs -- the finer things in life.
--
--
I like to watch.
Stores are using software to determine what sales displays work and which don't! THIS IS A TRAVESTY AND MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS!
Yay for the Slashdot Paranoia.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
I don't see how this is really going to help retail stores. You can figure out whats selling by the purchases and I can't imagine how it could help rate promotions as the article suggested. It is definately impressive technology, but it seems to add a good amount of indirection towards generating additional revenue. In short, I really don't see a strong correlation between emotions and shopping, maybe thats just me.
Where this could really shine would be at a amusement park. Analyzing the emotions of both people on rides as well as getting off of rides would really help give you a more direct picture of how fun, scary, or boring your park is.
Excuse me? Thats a bit like saying that I can't file charges on a person who walks into my house and hangs out there without asking him real nice to get out first. If they have told you, plainly and without equivocation that you are never welcome on their property again, why should they have to remind you of it?
In the case of a store with a different name I could see it, but if they can prove that you already knew you did not have permission to be there, I'd say having to ask again is BS. What ever happened to the great /. creedo of taking responsibility for your own actions?
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
One look shopping, and I will sue big blue.
...../......
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
It's not Big Brother.
Oh wait....
"Old Rallydrivers never die - they just fail to book in on time"
Are the answer. Sure, masks are all but illegal in many places. But you can always wear some nice dark RayBans!
"Population 1,656"
While I dont believe that this would work in stores, it still would be interesting. Build a very small and very simple IR detector circuit. Which would notify via a beep or tone, that you have been swept with a IR source. This can be built for less than a few bucks. Wear it on your shirt! Even better would be to build two small IR emitters into the arms of your sun glasses. This would make it impossible for your eyes to be scanned as it would blind their eye scanning system. For sure, if they were monitoring you, you would get assistance if a flash. As you would show up on there monitors with glowing eyes!
You know, I can't really help but think of this as being just as annoying as the kinds of people who anticipate the second half of all of your sentences and attempt to say them along with you.
Besides, I work at the helpdesk at a university, and I can tell you, there is *no* emotion whatsoever on the face of the average websurfer. Unless maybe that's the point. What I'd like to see is a computer that can analyze my face, figure out that I haven't slept in three days, and have it direct me to caffeine and hacker book vendors. Now that would be impressive technology...
/* Steve */
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
Simple solution. These stores must have to tell you they do this if you ask them. And if they do, never shop there again.
Millions of dollars spent by retailers to find out that my eyes are attracted to bright colors, flashing lights, and breasts. Thanks IBM.
Actually most digital cameras can detect IR light at least to some degree. Using the LCD display on my cheapie digital camera, I can clearly see the IR LEDs on my remote control light up even though they're invisible to my eyes. To detect a system in a grocery store, all you'd have to do is use your camera's display to scan for unusual light sources.
As for requiring notification of video survelliance, where is that in US law? I'm not aware of any relevant statute. I thought most people put up signs of "This area under video survellience" as a deterrant. (Sometimes even in places where there are no cameras...)
"Once identity is established it will be cross-referenced to capture that person's income and buying preferences. It's only a matter of time"
Well, they do that with credit cards already. So we should be used to it (that statement scares me, admittedly). The bad part about this is that it registers emotion and reaction to specific products - involuntary reactions in many cases. The information collected isn't just buying preferences but core values...things that might be DEDUCED from what I buy I suppose, but I still have control over what is tracked and what isn't (pay cash).
Right, so now anything I do, see, or react to can be held against me. It's a marketer's wet dream. We need to find out what stores are using these, pronto. There's a reason why they don't want their identities known! How can we go about doing this? Does anyone work places that have thought about (or are) implementing this system?
--- On the other hand, you have five fingers.
-Marcel
Imagine if we could all express our love of Windows XP simply by walking past the display aisle and [hopefully] faking an allergic reaction. Dropping to the ground with eyes rolling and tongue wagging while grasping your throat and gasping for air has to register fairly negatively on these things.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Excellent... Now when I'm standing around waiting for assistance muttering "How much f***ing longer do they expect me to wait?" someone will rush to help me!
"My mother works for Microsoft now. A whole other cult."
Ewige Blumenkraft!
Ewige Blumenkraft!
two - This reminds me of the recent discussion here about how your right to free speach doesn't equate to a right to anonymous free speach, but should this annoy us? After all, we're, that is, america (sorry for the inclusive) is allegedly based on individualism, if we want our rights as individuals we can't complain when we're pricked out by those same qualities we covet and laud. I guess we have to learn to be responsible for ourselves and live up to whatever we say or do, wherever that is. In other words, screw them if they want to know who I am and what I do. I fart in your general direction. etc.
That is until this information is used by entrenched powers against me. Say if I want to run for political office. Hrm.
As I said, these are just thoughts. To summarize - why do we care if they watch us and identify us individually? It's the misuse of this information that is against the constitution, not the information itself. Right? OK, one last thing. Anyone ever read Gravity's Rainbow (Pynchon)? I'll not get into a plot summary here (mostly because that would be almost impossible w/ that book) but the description of experiments on poor slothrop, where they knew everything about him (including exactly what kind of woman would turn him on, etc.) and used it to generally turn him into a labrat (again, this is not a plot summary). This is turning out to be more accurate than dear Orwell's predictions now, isn't it? -end-
closed minded is as closed minded does
If they hold you and file a police report without giving you a chance to leave then they have broken several big fat laws (false police report, false arrest, civil rights violation) and it would be well worth your while to retain counsel, because you can sue their asses off.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
But the first practical use for the research turns out to be snooping on shoppers.
;)
The whole idea itself does not bother me one bit since I have to choice of entering the store or not so I see no problems with it however I see it as overhyped market hooplah.
Lets see how well the software determines my thoughts based on my eyes when: I have red eye, I jokingly widen my eyes to purposely look like I'm going to do something evil, begin to look around erratically just to piss security off, etc.. What are they going to do charge me with using my eyes for my own actions?
If department stores are stupid enough to think some camera and its software are able to determine my actions, they're dumbasses. Maybe I'll just get those joke glasses with the eyes attached to those slinky links that droop down.
Did their faces register boredom or delight? How many reached for the item and put it in their shopping carts?
Well once many people get a whiff of this I'm sure the jokesters will find ways of shaming IBM's system, and exposing it for the joke I see it as.
When monitoring pupils, the system uses a camera and two infrared light sources placed inside the product display. One light source is aligned with the camera's focus; the other is slightly off axis.
I wonder who will be the first to sue a department store for causing deterioration in their eyesight with their toy
"Soon you won't only be able to capture how many people stopped by, but who they were,"
This doesnt bother me at all I would have nothing to hide going in a department store. "Hrmm that tiger print thong looks tight!
Sometimes people go overboard and wanna bitch about everything, well I think the department stores stand more to lose by placing this in their stores than I do having to worry about what DKNY or Tommy Hilfiger sweater I'm buying.
"Once identity is established it will be cross-referenced to capture that person's income and buying preferences. It's only a matter of time."
What a sad excuse give me a damn break. Advertising agencies have been target marketing for years using other means, so where is the ACLU to bitch about all those Malt Liquor and Cigarette posters in my neighborhood? Shit last time I saw pics of Rodeo Drive there were none.
no respect
360 degrees of Karma
If you REALLY want to find out what stores are using this technology, then spend $5.99 @ The Shack and go find out for yourself.
I had one of these in my junkbox (Oops, that just dated me, didn't it?) that I bought years ago, it works.
Infrared Sensor Card
Special coating allows you to see infrared light. Use to check remote controls, security systems, and more. Locates near-infrared radiation from laser or LED sources.
http://www.radioshack.com
Now go on out and report back your findings, so we can know which stores are using this invasive technology.
And as far as sunglasses that block infrared, any "high end" pair should block at least 90% of the infrared spectrum. My prescription Revo's block more than 95%, plus they look sooooo cool.
If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
Now I finally have a good excuse when everyone complains that I won't leave the house until I've dressed up and put all my makeup on.
"But they're taking PICTURES of me..."
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
.. a grocery store I used to work at. If you where caught shoplifting in the store you where banned from ALL sites around the country for 100 years. I thought it was a little anal at times since they would actually file trespassing charges against people that came back in the store. They had a big book upstairs with pictures of ALL the people cought shoplifting since the store opened.
The big problem was that they had several different names.. Waremart, WinCo Foods, and Cub Foods.. You could inadvertently stumble on a trespassing charge without realizing what you had done.. With technology like this it makes this even more likely. The store already uses cameras to follow customers and watch for shoplifting.
that they have to tell you? Is there some law that I'm not aware of?
I though Steve Mann's essay was very interesting. There are some very good thoughts here.
I especially liked the part about wearable cameras. But S.M. could do with a little knowledge about the boons of cryptography!
We know that images can be electronically altered, he says, and adds that even if they can't they will one day. True, but what about digital signatures? If you have a special, tamper-resistant chip in the cam that signs frames ten at a time (or so) plus a clock, plus some GPS coordinates before forwarding them to a net location via UMTS you have a _very_ reliable witness. (The timestamp could be checked against a clock on the net after the transmission, and if there was a big difference it would be tagged as suspect)
I've been thinking about such a tool for a long time. Now it seems they're already here! Just need to add the signing chip and the GPS, and we have something no UN observer or political correspondent should be without!
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Indeed you are correct that they do use eye-tracking technology for military targeting systems
The most well known system in this case is that of the AH-64 Apache Helicopters. The pilot turns his head and the turret moves with him, the pilot focuses on a certain object in his HUD, the gun locks on and manuevers to shoot at this target.
I might be a little off, but I believe this is what I was told a couple years ago by a pilot of one of these beasts.
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.
Reading this reminds me of a project that one of my professors here at the University of Virginia is workig on. It's called Project Erica (http://www.ericainc.com) and deals with Eye-gaze Response Interface Computer Aid. It's pretty incredible that this technology can be used for good. :-)
He brought in a setup that they use for disabled people and showed how you can type with your eye. Essentially they use the same system where they shine a little infrared light on your eye and then it makes a glint and the computer then watches the glint of your eye move. It's pretty cool. He even had a game that you could play using your eye for your cross hair and the keyboard for everything else.
In addition they were starting to use this technology the same way that IBM is, watching where customers eyes look on web pages to see what attracts the customers attention that most. The thing that I don't mind about this is that it will actually customize that web site for you a bit more hopefully, though it is a privacy issue that I doubt that I would ever want to be involved with.
One thing that is nice to know is that your eyes have to be somewhat stationary. If your body suddenly moves the camera won't know what to track or may begin tracking your cheek muscles by accident. This might be the point of the second infrared beam that they say that they use as it would be able to keep the acquistion of where your eye is.
One great thing to know is that this technology is worthless outside as the infrared will not be able to make your eye glint like it's supposed to and the camera won't have any idea of where you are
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.
Think about how difficult that system was to make. Camera's and infrared sensors positioned at angles so they grab a person's face and eyes then splicing it all together into something useful. The technology, or at least the code, behind it must be impressive. The algorithms at use will probably show up in other things pretty soon, it's just that profiling super-market shoppers is the most profitable at the moment.
Sure right now it's being used to surreptitiously spy on people, but, think what you could do with it.
Systems like this could allow a computer terminal to figure out who is using it, and who else is in the room. No more passwords, no silly biometric scans, sit down at a computer and it knows who you are. Have your computer automatically minimize that quake game when your boss/mom walks into the room.
This system could probably also be expanded to figure out things about people, if their happy/sad, athletic/fat, pretty/ugly, and react accordingly. Understanding human emotions and reacting to them is one of the starting points for believable AI capable of passing the Turing test.
Sure, its being sued for something insidious right now, but think about the technical marvels behind it. Beats the heck out of a stupid 8,000-computer search engine cluster.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
I'm not sure that a filed lawsuit means that you conclusively assign blame. People file lawsuits all the time, but until it's been tried and judged, you really can't say anything. There's this story about a lawsuit saying game companies caused Columbine. So is that it, we can now blame them?
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
That is not always the case. There is a difference between little family run stores and large chains. I like the feeling of going in a store and having the manager know me. On the other hand, there is something creepy about a computer looking up your purchasing preferences in a database the moment you step in the store.