Slashdot Mirror
Tampa's Cameras Not Just For The Superbowl
kcurtis points to this CNN story about using cameras to scan people walking in the streets and matching them to mug shots. I'm no privacy freak, but this would be a bit unnerving. What if I happen to look like some murderer or DMCA offender?" This is the same technology that Superbowl attendees were unknowingly subjected to as well. Not to worry -- you're considered innocent until matched by face-recognition software. Yep, this is a duplicate story - naughty Tim!
A fun way to protest this would be to put wanted posters in view of all the cameras.
During the Princess Di feeding frenzy, some mention was made of a device that interfered with cameras, that was used by celebs to prevent unauthorized photography. Does this really exist? If so, would it work on these video cameras?
Posted by polar_bear:
Frankly, I don't see the big problem here. Video cameras in public places - emphasis on *public* - where you have no expectation of privacy in the first place.
A worst-case scenario is that they'd have a false positive and stop someone, then let them go.
Hell, they ought to put cameras in a lot more public places - think how hesitant muggers, rapists or other criminals would be if there was a decent chance that they'd be videotaped in the act. It's kind of hard to beat a conviction if you have video-taped evidence.
I'd be a lot more concerned if they were using audio snooping devices instead of video. If you're walking down the street with a collegue you have no reasonable expectation that you won't be seen and possibly photographed or videotaped - which is only useful to apprehend wanted criminals or to capture evidence of a crime in progress. On the other hand, audio surveilence would gather data that could be used to gather other kinds of evidence and I would think it would violate someone's 5th amendment rights.
As long as video surveilence doesn't intrude into areas where you'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy - a hotel room, dressing rooms, bathrooms, your residence, your vehicle - I don't see the issue.
While we're at it, I think we should require elected officials to wear a wire and video camera 24/7 while they're in office... maybe this would get rid of some of the corruption in office.
If you are mistaken for someone else and detained, you go and sue for wrongful arrest. It's not like you're filing a frivilous lawsuit, you're charging them for your time.
If you have to spend a night in a holding cell, you sue them for a couple of thousand. Not bad for a night's work, eh?
I'm in favor of all these cameras. Go look back to the slashdot story from long ago titled "Good riddance privacy" or somehting like that.
It looks like Slashdot could use some story recognition software.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
stop being the person the cops are looking for, and it'll all work out.
Unless the cops in question are corrupt, and they're looking for me because I have the evidence to prove it. Or perhaps just because I have said they MIGHT be corrupt, or that I don't like the cameras.
That's the problem with systems like that. One day they are looking for violent criminals, the next they're everywhere. The day after that, they're looking for people who actually think the constitution is a good idea and that it should be strictly upheld.
By then, it's too late. It's all part of checks and balances. It seems that for some reason, law enforcement is increasingly hostile to those checks and balances.
Accused poor people get some semblance of legal help, and it can be quite useful, but it's nothing like what a rich defendant can pay for.
Unfortunatly, in many cases, the client meets the attourney less than 5 minutes before the trial begins. Sometimes the public defender isn't even a criminal lawyer (instead, he is a civil lawyer pressed into service).
As for a civil case vs. the police (for repeated harassment), if you can't afford a lengthy court case, forget it.
Big Brother is definatly here. Man, this starts to get scary. They take pictures of your licence plate if your speeding. They watch you in malls in case your shoplifting. Now, they're scanning your face, 'in case your an escaped mass murderer'.
All of this stuff with the best of intentions, 'just in case'.
So much for a free country.
From
Live free or die
To
Live Recorded or be Deported
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
By automating the ability to find and catch criminals, it becomes possible to catch and prosecute all instances of crime. Automation removes the "ignore" element that you mention.
Necessity is still the mother of invention.
And who decides what is "necessary"? I hereby decide that it is "necessary" that I know every detail of your sexual life so that I may share it with everyone who knows you or may meet you in the future. So I'll invent unavoidable devices that spy on you 24/7. The fact that I can develop said technology is, by your argument, a fairly good indicator of need. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.
Here you'll probably say that my "need" is invalid since it's not for the "greater good of society." This argument assumes that the government will never abuse their power. Who is in the government, faultless saints and angels, or flesh-and-blood, fallible humans like you and I? Perhaps you should do a web search on MK-ULTRA and find out. No, I'm not talking about the band; I'm talking about when the CIA chose to use mind control experiments including using LSD on hapless civilians. No, I'm not kidding. And that's just the tip of the iceberg once we start talking about abuse of government power in this so-called "Land of the Free."
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
If I am doing nothing wrong, then I am a law-abiding citizen and I fully object to the cameras just watching me to make sure. As a law-abiding citizen, they have no ethical right to follow me around just because it's possible that I may do something illegal. There's a big difference between being seen while walking down the street and having yourself recorded for later review.
If you are a good citizen, then it is defying one of the basic concepts our nation was founded upon - You are to be considered innocent, unless proven guilty. If I am being tracked by a camera, I am NOT being considered innocent.
Tell ya what, these days, the average politicians and the average cops scare me more than the average criminals.
Gimme a fuckin break, a bit impossible to survive without going outside. I'd just like to go outside without my actions being recorded. Doesn't help to use idiotic/unreal arguments.
Because of the immensly successful recycling of stories, why not recycle comments from past stories as well?
As we move closer to the world of Orwell's 1984, remember why this country is failing (and sadly the story is the same around the world). Japan is a rare example of a successful, non-violent, low-crime nation, but more on that later.
The US has one of the highest crime rates in the world (except for some African and South American countries.) The reason for this is simple, but not exactly "politically correct". If you weigh the crime rate averages together for the population groups in the US, it makes perfect sense.
- The low crime rate of the Asian/Japanese-Americans make up a small percent of the population.
- The low European-American crime rate is about the same as that of the native people in most countries in Europe.
- The African-American crime-rate(1) is orders of magnitude higher, consistent with the extreme crime rate the sub-Saharan African countries.
- The same is true for the Hispanic crime rate, which mirrors that seen in Mexico and the other South American countries of origin.
Instead of facing these simple facts, the liberals go to great lengths trying to disarm honest citizens whose families have been law abiding for hundreds of years in this country. Since gun ownership is already illegal for criminals, there is no reason to expect felons will obey new laws if guns are outlawed for everybody.Politicians continue promoting the flooding of America with 3rd world immigration that compound the problem further.
The final result of this is still years off, but the US will be no different from The Roman Empire, Egypt, India, Bosnia, South Africa, Israel, Zimbabwe, The English Empire, The Soviet Union or anywhere else where multi-cultural empires have existed. The end result is always the same: The empire's government disintegrates when the "ruling" class becomes too heavily outnumbered, and tribal warfare breaks out.
We're already seeing the beginnings of this in Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Seattle and Washington and other cities around the country.
Measures such as the government cameras (and electronic passports you must carry on your person, and other future protocols) are becoming increasingly necessary while politicians and police scramble to hold the scattering pieces of America together.
The constitution was intended to govern a country populated by the people who founded the nation. Jefferson and the others did not predict that America would turn into a multi-cultural empire (like the British one they has just left), where a legal system based on freedom and liberty cannot work.
So back to where i started, why is Japan so much more successful than us? Because they are not a multi-cultural empire. Japan is a homogeneous nation, made up of 99.8% native Japanese, basically an extended family, with a high average intelligence, and very similar to each other. They do not allow any significant immigration, and as a result, they will continue to prosper while America and Europe deteriorate into tribal civil wars sometime later in the 21st century.
(1) The rate at which Blacks commit murder is thirteen times that of Whites; Rape and assault, ten times. These figures, as given by the F.B.I. reports, vary somewhat from year to year but fairly represent the trend for the past decade. [Source: the FBI uniform crime statistics reports, and Harris, Marvin, Why Nothing Works. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY]
If you are going to flame me, do not use words such as "racist", "bigot" and "hater" that you have learned to repeat after the TV. Reply with your own opinions that you can back-up in a debate, not immature name-calling.
In this St. Pete Times story, this Bay News 9 story, or even yeterday's slashdot article.
What if I happen to look like some murderer or DMCA offender?
The exact same thing happens to you that would happen to you now if a cop walking by thought you looked like some murderer.
Only, less often, since the software is more accurate.
A human being would be told you were a possible match, and would then look at the picture and see for himself if he though you were a match. If he did, a cop (or more than one) would stop you and ask you to produce ID. If your ID were convincing, they'd send you on your way with a brief apology. Exactly like happens now.
If you couldn't produce ID, or they thought it was fake, you'd be arrested, exactly like happens now.
Like it or not, under the law as it stands now, looking like somebody who committed a crime IS legally probable cause for being detained.
Standing in public is probable cause for being looked at, too. How could it be otherwise?
You know, we occasionally have glowing articles about cool technology that will allow us to have "mediated reality" where everybody who wants one can see the world through a camera, processing and editting it to your tastes.
I guess we're all OK with that as long as cops aren't allowed to use it, right?
Got a webcam? Are you getting everybody who passes by to sign a waiver, allowing you to put their image on the Internet? Do you require a statement from anybody who logs on to view it, certifiying that they're not a law enforcement officer?
Privacy is something very important, that you have when you're in private. When you're in public, you give up quite a bit of your privacy, necessarily. The right not to be seen is among those small sacrifices.
-
Glad to know I'm not the only fan of Slippery Jim around here... ;-)
Regards,
ehintz
hmm
prosebeforehos.com
When the conservative right realized they couldn't burn blasphemous books. When the liberal left realized they couldn't ban speech.
That's when ACLU became a dirty word.
Je ne parle pas francais.
First none of the sysadmins read /. at 2am, now the editors don't read it either. If you guys don't read your own shit, why should we?
If you look like the guy on the wanted poster (actually look like him, not just the same race), then the cop has probable cause to check your ID. Walking down a street is not probable cause.
-B
I find it very ironic that geeks are among the most afraid of the implications of technology. We made the recognition software, yet we hate it the most and believe in it the least.
...dontchathink?
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
You are to be considered innocent, unless proven guilty. If I am being tracked by a camera, I am NOT being considered innocent.
And what about that cop that sits on the side of the road with that RADAR device. If I am doing nothing wrong, then I am a law-abiding citizen and I fully object to the RADAR just watching me to make sure. As a law-abiding citizen, they have no ethical right to follow me around just because it's possible that I may do something illegal.
And how about that cop just standing on the street corner watching people go by. If I am doing nothing wrong, then I am a law-abiding citizen and I fully object to the EYES just watching me to make sure. As a law-abiding citizen, they have no ethical right to LOOK AT me [...] just because it's possible that I may do something illegal.
Really people, this society has used technology to increase the productivity of every citizen's job. The police force is just one more industry that can be made more efficient with technology. Consider that people with outstanding arrest warrants TEND TO BE CRIMINALS. Then consider that criminals TEND TO COMMIT CRIMES. I don't consider it a bad thing that 1 policeman can do a better job than 10 and do it less obtrusively. It keeps my taxes down; furthermore, the less secure that a car thief feels, the more secure I feel.
Do you ever consider that in all those mistopian movies where the evil police forces track down the hero with cameras that they IGNORE a whole lot of people? If there is a point to debate, it is not what technology the police use to track criminals, but what criteria classifies someone as a criminal. As always, the hard questions are social, not technological.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Why? Because gov't (and people in general) have a history of abusing this sort of thing. How long before you read a story about a cop using it to track his girlfriend/wife?
How about the one where a cop tells her friend she saw the friend's husband with another woman and they went into a condo together? He wasn't doing anything illegal. Maybe he was just walking and bumped into a timeshare salesman? He wanted the free cruise you get just for listening to the pitch. Gonna surprise his wife. (It happens in all over Florida's coast.) In a jealous rage, she blows him away.
Finally, consider that Florida has a "Government In The Sunshine" law. This means that most likely the video footage can be deemed public record and should be available to anyone who wants it. (Hmmm, where was my daughter last night at midnight.)
The potential for abuse outweighs the potential benefits.
Oh, yeah. The "Right To Privacy" is enshrined in the Florida Constitution (Article I, Section 23). You can't "give it up".
--
Charles E. Hill
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
When did "ACLU" become a dirty word? How did defending the bill of rights come to be out of fashion? Did I miss the spaceship that took all the rational people away?
Seriously -- practices like this are becoming far too acceptable by the general public. Why? Does it start at home? Are we as a society raising drones who refuse to question authority or take an active role in something as running this city/county/country (i.e. voting)?
Ok. Stop the ride. I want to get off. It's finally starting to make me sick.
Hi,
r _p olice_cameras_g.shtml
I do not remember the first person that made this quote
"Freedom is lost not in one major way but one small step after another". I think I paraphrased it and sorry if it is not completely accurate.
The better quote is from the article in the other slashdot article:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/063001/TampaBay/Ybo
From article:
In the future, the police department hopes to add to the database, including gang members and missing children, Todd said.
First it is mention that this is to track out standing warrants and sex offenders. In the next steps the thing that is wanted is missing children and gang members. Notice the plan, one small steps after another. Who decides is a gang member? What group decides whom the cameras should watch? The community, the state, or the local person? No it is the police feel in the best interest of the community as the police see it. It is not as per the laws, or per a locally decide rule but a feel or hope to add to the database at that point. Instead of gang member put in raciest, communist, liberal, antisocial that does not do what most of the general public does, etc. It does not take much of a step to add suspected to the adjective of the person under the camera nor the other labels. If someone is interested think how another person would look at them if they did not know them (or ones parents for example if they did not know you).
Just my thoughts. Please take them as my opinion only and not to offend. Most of this has already been discussed before in the comments but I just wanted to add my comments.
Thank you, Jack
Nobody has a right to enter my private property unless I say so. Everybody has a right to walk the public streets unless they have specifically forfeited that right by committing a crime which is punished by incarceration. Conditions (e.g. having a picture taken) may therefore be imposed arbitrarily for the former, but not for the latter.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
It depends on how the State defines "wrong". In the US, it is/was pretty liberal. With an all-powerful, all-seeing state, the definition of "wrong" gets pretty tight (ref. _1984_, USSR, any dictatorship). Even thinking the wrong things can get you into trouble. Wait, that sounds like the US...
--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Yeah, that's right. The story has been posted less than 30 hours ago...
so you're not mistaken for a similar looking criminal.
--
(Nice troll, ya hooked me ;)
But are we a society that "needs" such measures?
You've failed to establish that. So have, IMHO, the politicians. "It's for the chillllldrun" and "if it saves one chyyyuld" does not constitute logical argument.
> It took two weeks to straighten it out. Ladies and gentlemen, Big Brother is here.
I had perfectly-formed abs once, too. You wouldn't believe the amount of beer and chicken wings it took to get rid of 'em.
(I got this body lifting weights, 12 ounces at a time...)
(What the hell, Slashdot's reposting stories, I'll repost replies... this one to a poster who tried to consolidate all the "great works" in one thread)...
> These are the books I've seen listed on privacy violations so far on the discussions here. I figured I'd put em all in one place so their easier to find. George Orwell, "1984." Franz Kafka, "The Trial." William G. Staples, "The Culture of Surveillance: Discipline and Social Control in the United States." David Brin, "The Transparent Society." If there are any other ones, feel free to add.
Are you nuts? Do you have any idea what our politicians will do if they read all those books at once? Any idea how many ideas it'll give 'em? (Don't fall back on the fact that most of 'em are sub-literate, they got aides and interns to read the books for them.)
Shit, man, we had to pass antiterrorism laws to keep "The Anarchist's Cookbook" out of the hands of kids, and we had to pass that antidrug law to keep textfiles on methamphetamine manufacturing out of the hands of would-be-crankheads...
Now, thanks to this guy who posted a list of all those books in the last Slashdot article, I gotta get off my ass and lobby for a new law - this time to keep books like "1984" out of the hands of politicians. They use these works of fiction are like .HOWTO files, damnit!
You think I'm gonna trust a politician or a lawyer with a copy of Fahrenheit 451? (I'll see every copy of that book incinerated before I ever let a Congresscritter get his slimy little tentacles on it! :-)
Just have to copy-and-paste all the smart comments from the previous story, and I'll have my +1 mod bonus in no time!
Thanks, Michael!
This is not the first step down the slipery slope that will lead inevitably to Big Brother.
This is technology being used to reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of doing what has been done before--protect society against people who abuse it.
I for one would rather have a few tax dollars spent on a camera system to patrol a large area than have a lot of tax dollars spent hiring a lot of police officers to do the job less effectively.
What are we going to demand next, that all police officers either be blind or were blindfolds? When your rights are voliated, then complain. When your tax dollars are wasted on ineffective ways of doing the government's job, then complain. But when the government actually makes progress--when it discovers that it can be more efficient using the technology you know and love--supress the Pavlovian reaction to foam and the mouth, and be glad that progress is being made.
"What happens when an irrefutable argument meets an immovable opinion?"
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
First, was the final "Yep, this is a duplicate story - naughty Tim!" in the original posting of this story, or was it added later? If it was in the original posting (in other words, if Timothy knew he was posting a dup), then I think it's time somebody talk to him about potential abuse of his editor status at Slashdot: There's having an adgenda, and then there's going too far.
Second, I am reminded of the "Stainless Steel Rat" stories by Harry Harrison. In them, the main character, "Slippery" Jim DiGriz, a master criminal, always perpetrates his crimes wearing a disguise. The disguise is always the same, and is designed not to look like a disguise - the police are intended to believe that Jim DiGriz is a middle-aged, balding, slightly overweight cigarette smoker, when the real DiGriz is a young, trim, cigar smoker with a full head of hair. DiGriz never commits any crimes without his costume, so he can walk about safe from the cameras and checkpoints.
I wonder if it's not time to start doing this: have one personna (e-mail, face, and ID) for one life, and one for another. Of course, it is far more difficult to set up a second ID that will stand up to real scrutiny than most people believe (right, Miss Bush?)
www.eFax.com are spammers
The same way the adding of cameras to convenience stores meant that their clerks now feel safe, right? Or that cameras in banks and supermarkets mean that those don't get robbed, either? Or, for another astonishingly successful bit of legislation, how there are not shootings in D.C. thanks to the complete prohibition on handguns?
Naah. It *may* help nail the perps long after they pick up what's left of you, but that's about it.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Camera footage can be recorded -- or forge in a way that still makes it look reliable. Memories aren't nearly as good in that respect, and are far harder to abuse.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Welcome to Hermano Grande, FL...
Tourism 2002: While here, the police request you carry an identifying device. Only the police and other crimefighters can read it. You have a choice of RFID, contactless smartcard or barcode bracelet /anklet. Its For Safety!(tm) [Only required in Public Places. Bracelet free, others $25/day rental fee. Waterproof versions $15 extra. Do not store where signal could be degraded. 40 bit encryption extra. Cars, restaurants are public. Hotel rooms are public if they have balconies- check before removing device]
Tourism 2003: Welcome to our 'Your Vacation the way You Want It' services. We recommend tourist services that meet your needs. Does the meal you're about to order meets your Health Insurance's guidelines? Will that hotel hit you budget a little too hard? [A service of the Fraud Prevention division of the police. Remember, going over your credit limit or cholesterol limit costs you, your Health and Credit Maintenance Organization and all of us- that's why its a misdemeanor offense. Restaurant-permission overrides must be purchased in advance from your HACMO.]
Tourism 2004: Welcome to 'Location Based Tourism' services. A partnership of local merchants, your cellphone company, and the Tourist & Children Safety Division. It prevents 2Similar2Criminal(tm) people from approaching you AND offers you valuable discounts at nearby stores. Its fully private- the offers go to you alone! Merchants only have a credit & criminal rating profile and your first name! (Local residents only see your criminal rating.) 5% merchant discount if we fail to greet you by your first name! [Your Registered Wireless Device must be on at all times. No Shoes, No Shirt, No Sufficient Credit Rating, No Service. Children under 14 opt-out fee $15/day (Cannot be used by adults- sets credit rating to zero). In the rare event of a false positive 2S2C, the YesReallyI'mSafe RFID is $75/day + $75 for background check. It only takes 3 hours and we'll do it automatically for you before you leave the downtown precinct]
Tourism 2006: Hermano Grande, FL recommends the following for your vacation: Goshen "Peanut Capital of the World" Alabama, Belzoni "Catfish Capital of the World" Mississippi. [if you think this is in error, are just passing through, or if you come to Hermano Grande for business, YesReallyI'mSolvent RFIDs available for $100/day. Please have 2+ local contacts email their ProofofLocalContact 1 week in advance. Special rates available for family visits. Local resident must guarantee MinimumDailyTouri$m with credit card]
don't bitch about it or worry.take matters into your own hands as a free people.get out that old pellet gun,drop some oil in the appropriate places,pump it up,load it and take out big brothers eyes.hey they got only so much money to spend on this crap.embarrass them,keep yourselves free cause the government sure as hell isnt.
***********
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Groucho Marx glasses. Goes right along with the 1st ammendment, you choose the way you look.
i have misplaced my signature.
...but cameras can't ask.
I happened to be shopping last night and the girl at the checkout couldn't get over that I had purchased a comic book. After a bit it came clear, she mistook me for a minister that has the misfortune of looking like me.
This was just a harmless incident and cleared up quickly. Now, imagine I knew of this situation and set out to cause confusion. (No, I don't plan on it. I have better things to do with my time). It could take a while to get it sorted out.
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
In the UK, Newham council estate have 144 CCTV cameras linked to face recognition. This is in turn linked to a database of a police supplied 'watch-list' so that they can be tracked as they walk around. You worry about being spied upon when walking into a Superbowl game? Soon we won't be able to walk around our own neighbourhood without the Government knowing exactly where we are at all times. And all this without putting GPS into our mobile phones and our cars.
:-(
No hiding online either. UK ISPs are going to have to store 7 years of traffic, and the Government already have state access to decryption keys. Our current government has been working for years to turn the United Kingdom into one of the most oppressive Big Brother states
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Once you can easily and routinely scan essentially everyone going by, you can start analyzing all citizens' traffic patterns. Then you can target deviation in those traffic patterns for investigation. Though chances are you'll catch more people having affairs than visiting their favorite drug pusher. And without privacy legislation, any company that wanted to could do this. Hmm. I wonder if such a system would violate stalking laws...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The amount of utter shit that this guy spews out is amazing. How the hell did he get to be an editor? He just joined Katz in the elite ranks of my blocked authors.
The down side is that Public Defenders' offices are almost always overburdened. Accused poor people get some semblance of legal help, and it can be quite useful, but it's nothing like what a rich defendant can pay for.
Two things bother me about this stance. The first is that, while the apparatus of the state is currently aimed towards criminals, there's nothing to prevent it from being aimed at other "undesirables." It would take no time at all. The second is that while solid citizens may have nothing to fear, what about all us hollow citizens? Are any of us so scrupulously observant of the law? Or does the sight of flashing blue in the rear view mirror or the sound of the word "audit" give you a chill?
I received a traffic ticket in the mail once. I felt as though I'd been anonymously denounced to the authorities. It's one thing when the cop pulls you over; it's something much more disturbing when you're told that you were observed violating the law by persons or machines unknown.
Are you paranoid if they're really out to get you?
I just read through some of Visionics' press releases. They had gross revenues of $7 million last quarter, though that includes their more established business of fingerprint and other identification products.
In addition to Tampa's installation and the oft-cited London setup, Mexico is using the FaceIt software to prevent duplicate voter registrations (wonder how they handle identical twins), and Iceland's Keflavik Airport is installing it to nab crooks and false asylum seekers. A number of law enforcement agencies are also using the software to analyze/compare still images rather than live video.
Analyzing still images of known and suspected criminals sounds less controversial. But once agencies start comparing victim-description sketches to government photo databases of non-criminals (drivers licenses, passport photos, university IDs, etc.), many of the same issues will arise.
My guess is that the American public will ultimately value the benefits of real-time public face analysis more than the costs and risks. It will always have detractors, and there will be false arrests and discrimination cases. (E.g., higher rates of false IDs of certain minority groups seem likely if the groups have higher-than-average proportions of convicts. Or some poor criminal-look-alike will be questioned by police every time he tries to fill his gas tank, buy a Big Mac, or get money from the ATM.). But after a couple fugitive child molestors are picked up scouting the local mall or subway, I bet supporters will outnumber opponents.
because cops don't compile a history of your behavior over the past 3 years and analyze it to determine your future actions. Cops forget stuff. Cop's brains dont' hook up into a massive govornment database.
"huhuhuhh, go away. we're like closed or something"
-Legion
Some additional interesting (and slightly depressing) reading can be found here.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
You know what, I /do/ have something to hide, that all those little embarrasing secrets everybody has.
--
Bizar technology?
I agree that someone compiling a database of everything that makes you a person is a Bad Thing. But trade offs have to be made. Look at the differences. Cable companies databasing TV you watch. Con: Someone knows you watch prOn all the time. Pro: Commericals are revelent you. Cameras at the Superbowl: Con: You have an evil twin! Pro: 30,000 people don't die when the mad terrorist gets caught at the gate.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
I think this is lost by most slashdotters. If you're doing nothing wrong, why do you care! These are on the streets, there could easily be undercover cops wandering around looking for evil doers, why is a camera that much different? It's not like they're in your house.
--
Free Mac Mini
These cameras are out in the public, not in my house.. If you're out and about wandering down the road ANYBODY can see what you're doing from their windows, cars driving by, people walking buy. They could be snapping pictures.. Hell, I'd rather KNOW that they have cameras then have a cop up in a window taking snapshots and not telling anybody...
What you describe is them coming into my HOME, that is a TOTALLY different ballgame.
--
Free Mac Mini
Do you have a right to privacy in a public place?
--
Free Mac Mini
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Big Brother is Watching You
one is that I wouldn't want to have the MPAA ask for a public record to be destoryed (the police video) after I walk about town with my "Got DeCSS" shirt on. I mean someone might just use the FoIA and request that video and use the code on my back to make a player so that they could watch DVD's on their Commodore PET and then the MPAA would be out big $$$ from this unlicensed player. Then the MPAA would obviously go out of business from this loss of revenue. Then how would AWESOME movies like the Mummy retures ever come to a "theater near you"
Not to mention that evil 2600 shirt he wears. That must mean he's a criminal. After all, don't you know? All readers of 2600 are evil phreakers! And, to buy a t-shirt and wear it?? He MUST be EVEN worse!! We'll just listen in on and record every phone conversation he has as he walks about town and uses the pay phones...
Don't worry!! According to the "Slashdot Ruining Act of 2038, p1239 r 20" and our Handy-Dandy Psychameras with Time-Travel Action, we will apprehend this no-gooder in due-time! As soon as he shows up in our Time-Space Continuum, we will have him identified and bodymogrified and sent back to the early years of the 21st century with a modified behavioural chip. And, well... you know the rest.. oh, wait. You DON'T... but don't worry, *we* DO. >:|
Yeah yeah, they're calling Ybor city the "nightlife district" but what it REALLY is, is the Cuban part of town.
Sounds like racial profiling to me.
Make up your minds!!!!!! :)
No Zen is good zen
Slashdot Deja Vu
Back by popular demand
Play it again Sam
No Zen is good zen
Even more concerning is the fact that there are no safeguards to prevent the government to use this for other purposes. Can you imagine what McCarthy could have done with this kind of technology? Although it is apparently astonishing to some people, most of us do have things to hide that are not illegal. Maybe I like to visit left-wing book stores and attend communist party meetings. Nothing illegal about that, but I may not want the government to know about it. This kind of system could easily enable them to ID people who engage in socially unacceptable, but legal, activities.
Now, prove to me (using the US Constitution -- not just personal opinion) that the government has the right to use this system and that it won't be used in an abusive manner.
Why should anyone have to put up with this kind of nonsense? Getting arrested is frightening and stressful, whether you are guilty of anything or not. And lawsuits aren't much fun, either. I have never talked to anyone who has been through a deposition that wanted to repeat the experience. Lawsuits are expensive, long, and extremely stressful. And I don't know about you, but a couple of hours behind bars for walking down the street is a pretty big deal to me. Imagine the embarrasment of being out in public, minding your own business, and having police come up and handcuff you and cart you off to jail. A lot of people would be humiliated.
it is illeagal to do something that obstruct the efforts of law enforcement. they tell everyone that they are doing this. then everyone shows up wearing a hat to obstruct the view of the cameras. are they criminals? of course not. that would be like it being illeagal to post links to DeCSS on your web page. :-\
Oh yeah, great idea.
How about we start a fire-engine mud bog circuit next.
What do you suppose the error rate of eye witness identification is? Of police line ups? Of wanted posters? Of mugshots on COPS or America's Most Wanted?
I can't imagine that face recognition software does any worse of a job than some person calling the police saying they saw that axe-murder from America's Most Wanted jogging down Main St.
Furthermore this is simply a data gathering tool, not an automatic prison sentence. So you might look like a known felon, and you get spotted on a camera. A police officer walks up to you and asks for some identification. If you aren't the felon, end of story. If you are, then you're going back to jail where you belong.
In order for you to have a right to privacy you must be in a situation where there is a resonable expectation of privacy. Part of your right to privacy prohibts unreasonable searches, if you have a joint in your pockets there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it falls out of your pocket while you are sitting in a restraunt, there is no longer an expectation of privacy for that joint. The same applies to people. If you are in your house you have a resonable expectation of privacy. The police can't use thermal imaging gear to see if there is a room in your house that is substantially hotter then it should be because you are growing marajuna in it. If you grow it on your front lawn and a cop sees it you are going to get arrested. In public there is no resonable expectation of privacy, anyone can see you. Therefore there is no right to privacy.
"You can't fight in here! This is the war room" --Dr. Stra
Maybe we didnt fight back because some of us would like to have the serial killer sitting next to us at the super bowl or at the park arrested.
What are you afraid of? Its not like you own the stadium, or maybe you do? If you dont want your picture taken that badly stay at home, or move to Canada, or wear a bag over your head.
If by some miricle if you match the face of a serial killer and the software flags you, its not like your going to jail for 5 years before they figure it out. It will take a minute or less to show your id and be on your way. The cops will report it as a false alarm and the system will learn that you are not a serial killer. Isnt that a good thing?
Smile!
I wonder if Florida, or perhaps the county surrounding Tampa, is one of those jurisdictions where the correctioal system has been privatized. This technology is an excellent marketing tool for a privately owned prison system.
cat
Perhaps your police are all honest and pure of motive. (Most of ours in the US are pretty good, but we definitely have a few bad apples.) Will they always be?
Will this surveillance make you safer anyway? Show me the proof. At first glance, I would bet that spending resources looking at everyone, instead of following up legitimate leads on crimes, might actually divert police resources from where they will have benefit.
The idea that living in society requires one to reveal all information about oneself is a new one. Please show me why this is not a bad thing. In the US, our Constitution explicitly limits the information one must reveal to the authorities. Listen to yourself! How many times has someone said something like "If you have nothing to hide, you won't object to this search. Now, just bend over please."Perhaps you live in a country where every law is just. But will that always be the case? Ask Christians in China whether secrecy is useful.
Perhaps you live in a country where information gathered by authorities about your legal, but embarrassing activities will be kept safe from disclosure to your neighbors. But I doubt it.
The point is, any government is potentially much more dangerous that the most fiendish criminal. Wisdom insists that we limit the actions of government while we can, before it becomes tyrannical.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
Stores are selling out of Richard Nixon masks.
Of course, this would be a privacy issue if people were using cameras to look at my home. But public places - I think you're stretching it a bit when you say its a privacy issue.
Personally, I'd be glad if the cameras were up on say the boardwalk in my area or the street corners. If they help law enforcement agencies protect my family from criminals, then that's fine with me.
It's not a questions of WHETHER the cameras come, it's a question of WHEN.
What we need to do is asses and understand what the implications of this advance are, and deal with it INTELLIGENTLY.
This does NOT spell the end of the world.
But it IS the end of an era.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
The real problems start when they start putting this with other information they have gathered. Suppose camera1 and location "X" records you at 10:354am. At 11:15am you are recorded by Camera9 at location "Y". A quick check of the system reveals that it is 27 miles from "X" to "Y". However, following the speed limit means you should arrive no earlier than 11:28am. Automatic sppeding ticket! OR your drivers license say you way 130 pds. The software syas you weigh 180 pds. Sell that info to a weight loss center to defray the surveillance cost. Automatic SPAM.
Problem solved. If you're out in public, you're putting yourself out there anyway, you're up for grabs. Should we tell police not to look at your face as you walk down the street, lest your rights be violated? This is dumb. Like the Barretta theme song says, If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime, yeah, don't do it.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Maybe some criminals will be caught? That would be good. I doubt that mistaken identity would really be an issue. In rare cases, say your doppleganger is a criminal, it should be fairly simple to show that you're not them. I also doubt that resembling a criminal would be enough to lock you away mistakenly.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
"John Doe spent two hours drinking at Joe's. He then stumbled three blocks to the nearest titty bar. He was observed leaving the bar with a woman who is a known prostitute. They were seen entering cab #31337 on Fillmore street."
The cops could then tail your cab and bust you. This system is to open to abuse. No matter what way you cut it, the problems outweigh the benefits. I would rather let a few criminals walk than live in fear that I would be arrested for someting I did three weeks ago that the cops just found while reviewing their tapes.
Masks, or people making themselves up to look like people on the wanted list... that's the civil disobedience I'd like to see. Every geek in Tampa should hit the FBI's 10 most wanted list and see if there's anyone they look like.
Jeebus, this is depressing. And Independence Day just around the corner.
If/when this kind of automated surveillance becomes commonplace the US gov't will probably pass laws protecting the police from various forms of lawsuits. There's precendent for this -- right now, you can't sue your HMO if they misdiagnose you and screw up your medical treatment. It's not such a stretch to add similar protection to the police.
(the HMO thing is currently under attack in the federal legislature, it remains to be seen how it will turn out.)
What's the chance of error for this face-recognition software? That's what I wanna know. If its very minimal, then I don't care...
--
"That's one small step for man..." "STOP POKING ME!!!!"
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Get pictures of the most sought-for criminals, have masks cut out of them and have a big party in the streets of Tampa Bay. Wonder if you could fool the cameras that way. Believe me, I'd be glad to join you guys, but living in Germoney, I probabely wouldn't get there in time. "Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things" - D. N. Adams
The hypocrisy that I see here is - Napster can be used for something legal, so it shouldn't be banned. Never mind that the vast majority of use is illegal. On the other hand, this might be used for something illegal, so it should be banned?
I'm not saying that the police should be allowed to use this any way they want, but that there should be clearly defined and regulated ways that it can be used.
I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Exactly how does this increase security? Because whenever there is someone who looks like a mugshot a cop will be sent to check him out? That won't help security...that will just make the police chase a bunch of false-alarms. Let's also examine the constitutionality of this issue. Even assuming a positive match, there is no guarantee that the person will commit a crime. It is illegal, therefore, to detain him IN ANY WAY. The only reason the police have the right to stop anyone is IF a crime has been commited by or there are outstanding warrants on a certain individual that fits their description. Of course, this requires that a law has been broken...thus security has not been increased. I beleive Benjamin Franklin said, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Do what I did in high school when they installed security cameras....walk around with a sign and hold it up every time you walk by a camera (like at sporting events where they put the camera on people holding signs). Be creative (Dear Big Brother, how is Winston? Did he enjoy the rat cage?) or be funny (Hi Mom! or John 3:16 or something) or both (TPD==Thought Police Department).
---
Please mod this up...
If you were to ask the average slobbering Slashbot how they would react if the government prohibited them from installing security cameras in and around their own private property, they would go ballistic. They would say things like "It's my property! I own it! I have a right to protect it! I have a duty to protect it! Who are you to say I can't install security cameras!" And they would be right; property owners have a right to take steps to protect their property. These steps include the use of security cameras, and such cameras are used all over the place (private homes, convenience stores, banks, casinos, etc.)
.. how would it have been any different if individual policemen were working the gates, looking for suspicious people?) As near as I can tell, this primarily amounts to hatred .. hatred of property owners and hatred of owner's rights. Hatred of the Constitution and hatred of freedom.
But now the foaming Slashbots are in an uproar over this very basic principle of private property ownership that they (apparently) have no problem with in any of the above examples. They are ranting and raving as if this is a big deal (which it isn't
Too many of these people have called for restrictions on what private property owners can do on their own property and furthermore have suggested that owners be severely restricted in the steps that they can take to protect their property. Well, guess what, kiddies; that sort of idea might have been wildly popular with Josef Stalin and his ilk, but it's not going to fly here in the good old U.S. of A. The agenda of the anti-camera people is clear: the gradual erosion of private property rights and ownership until all is owned and controlled by a collectivist government/society.
Well, it ain't gonna happen.
they've been doing that here in big brother(the UK) land for ages, there also thinking about putting speed cameras in cats eyes. for those of you who dont live in the most cctv populated country. Speed cameras are devices beside the road that use radar to find out how fast you are going, and take a picture of licence plate if your going faster than the speed limit, there quite often hidden in bushes and placed around bends or places where people are lightly to be going fast or overtaking. there thinking of miniturising them and placing then in the cats eyes in the middle of the road. i don't know anyone (except me of course) that hasn't been caught by a speed camera at some time.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Well, I do, for a decent fee. For my better customers (no drooling over the items therein, no sticky fingers), I try to ensure there's an occasional racy lace item or two.
Tom.
Oh arse
By that rationale, If you have nothing to hide in your house why not let the FBI look though your wifes underwear drawer?
TK
remind me to print out a face mask that has the entire DeCSS code on it.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Does anyone know about how accurate this system really is?
I need to set up a kiosk there selling hats and those novelty eyeglasses with the big nose and mustache!
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
Have any of you read 1984 by Orwell? Its a great book.
:-).
:-)
Basically everyone is constantly monitored via telescreens and are constantly searched by the ministry of love aka police. People are executed every single day for crimes in which there are no laws for.
There are no laws at all in Orwells version of the future but the thought police notice things like negative facial expressions or weird tones in peoples voices used in various subjects. They then use this as basis of a counter revolutionary and they kill them. All who are upset and notice that an individual is gone are also brought to the thought police and executed as co-consipirators of the counter revloutionary. You have no choice but to except that the police were always right and after they change something except it as always true. The society was suppose to be utopian but the police quickly abused their authority with the telescreens since their powers were unchecked. Communist China is alot like this and was actually this abusive in the 1950's and 60's when not everyone blindly believed in chairman Mao. Our American forfathers were smart in dividing our goverment in 3 different branches. The judical branch( judges ), legislative branch( senators, congressmen, etc), and executive( police, president, various deparmtents). Since the police can not write laws or interpret them, they can hopefully be in check. A president may abuse his power since the executive branches report to him but the legislative can impeach him if things get to bad (like getting a blowjob from intern)
Power is like a drug or addiction. The more you have the more you want. Same is true with Gates and Microsoft. After getting consumers to pay for big fixes aka Win98 they wanted more money so they are now raising the prices of their software for things like Office. Now they are even raising the price again after Bill decided it wasn't enough. Time bombing and now renting to keep having access to your own data and using manditory upgrades. Everyone just wants more and more. Police and some govermental agencies are also doing the same with power rather then money.
I live in an area in lower manhattan which is under constant surviliance and there are over 300 camera's in a 400 yard radius of my apartment near the trade center. This is something that has always bothered me. The good thing is I never have to worry about being mugged.
The good news is that a judge has the power to throw out a piece of criminal evidence if it was obtained illegally. The police wanted to change this but smart legislators knew it would give the police too much power. I believe the supreme court rules that mandotory searches in airports are unconstitional so this may help with the camera situation. I believe if a policeman wanted to abuse his authority a judge could throw it out.
http://saveie6.com/
I was at the super bowl, and passed by their face-scanning cameras. Unfortunately for me, there was an arrest warrant out at the time for Antonio Banderas. And sure enough, when the system scanned my mug, a red flag popped up.
"Come with us, Antonio," said the security guys as they hustled me away, my shirt falling open to reveal my sweatily perfect pectoral muscles.
"You've got the wrong guy!" I pleaded, helplessly.
"Yeah, yeah. Your perfectly formed abdominal muscles won't save you now, Antonio."
It took two weeks to straighten it out. Ladies and gentlemen, Big Brother is here.
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
I hereby give up my right to privacy. I don't want to be a 'private' citizen anymore. I want the police to follow my face about the town. I want cameras on every corner, and clipper chips in everything.
A little harsh, perhaps. Extreme? Certainly. Safer to go out on to the streets and have fun with my friends in a stressfree and easy atompshere without having to worry about being mugged/murdered/beaten up/terrorised? Definately.
Yes, you have a right to be a private person. yes, you have a right to do what you want. But as soon as you decide to live in a society that needs these sorts of measures in order to keep track of the criminals you should realise that this is not a bad thing. If you have nothing to hide then hide nothing. If it weren't for a criminal minority then this sort of thing would never arise. Target those who this is aimed at, not the people who are actually trying to work at making the streets a little safer.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Everyone should have access to these cameras (public bought, used in public areas), to keep the cops honest....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
What's funny is this isn't the first time they've reposted... there was a Science article not too far back that was also posted twice by two different editors. Pay attention guys :P
In the US, there are publicly funded systems for those in criminal or civil court who can't afford a lawyer. You are *given* a lawyer, abiet a stressed one, if you are charged with a crime. The gov't also has money earmarked for other types of layers.
And adding on to that, lawyers are required to have a certain number of hours per year "pro bono."
And on top of THAT, there are non-governmental nonprofits (UCLA) that will take up legal cases.
These computer monitor examinations of people walking on the streets is most certainly a violation of the 4th amendment against unlawful search and seisure. I'll repeat it here for your pleasure:
Face-scanning cameras violate this pretty directly. You're searching someone, doing a check on them, in an automated fasion without their consent. This is similar to a case recently where the right of officers to scan a house with infrared (from the street) was struck down as an unreasonable search. Without a warrant, you're quite limited in what you can do.
Traffic cameras, such as auto-ticketing running of red lights, have been variously struck down as unconstitutional (at least here in Texas; it differs by states currently), although the matter has not been fully resolved at the high court level. Traffic laws are special anyways, since driving is a "privilege" by law; walking down the street has many more protections. This isn't Frace, after all, where you can be stopped walking on the street and required to show your ID to a cop.
I had a discussion about this exact issue last Friday with a local officer who works part-time at our company doing security (they let you do that in Texas). I was telling him about new face-recognition technology and its applications for law enforcement. He was rather skeptical for two reasons. The first is the constitutionality issue; in spite of what you kids learned from 2600, most officers of the peace are actually educated in the constitutionality of what they do and are exepected to abide by it (there are exceptions of course, as with anything). The second is a practicality issue; the most dangerous part of a cop's job is traffic stops, and they don't know what's going to happen or who they'll run into, and face-recognition is bound to be useless unless everyone has to get out of the car and be scanned on every traffic stop. In addition, many of the criminals you really want to catch, the dangerous ones, change their appearence through simple things like facial hair and up to plastic surgery. The faceprint won't work on that.
So the conclusion is that, while the fourth amendment varies in interpretation, generally this kind of auto-video recognition technology for the police won't stand up to a constitutionality challenge. Even if it did, it's not practical against hardened criminals.
As a final note: Remember that movie Point Blank? The surfers discuised as Presidents robbing banks? They wore masks. Duh.
How is such scanning different from cops checking ID's of people who look like the 'wanted' posters the cops have seen ?
I may disagree with your opinion, but I will defend to death your right to speak it.
...we all wore t-shirts with pictures of the FBI's most wanted - could it tell the difference between a face and a picture of a face?
this story was posted already, yesterday.
Anyways, I think this is f'ed up. Seems like a huge violation of our privacy.
Yo, you guys reposted this story you know!
Anyway, here's my two cents. I'm not sure I like this. I don't mind the police checking me against there memory, but the camera is out of line. I read an article where they had cameras all over the UK and had some sort of software that could trace you and tell you who everybody was in a crowd. While I don't like being tracked by companies, I don't like the government constantly checking me as I walk down the street.
If my employer uses cameras I don't have a problem, they own the country and stuff like that. In the US I own the country as a citizen, so unless I can view the camera images at the same time in live feed as the government and know exactly what they are doing I don't think it should be allowed. There should be some website where I can look at the cameras for entertainment.
And what about a kinda weird cop getting into this. You could conceivably be 'stalked' or 'profiled' by a bad police officer. Anyway.
Just my two cents.
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
OK, so I can understand trafic monitoring cameras, and such things; I'm actually quite impressed with the trafic monitoring systems around New York City that flash trafic information about congenstion around upcoming exits, on bilboards for motorists.
The problem with that technology, of course, is it was the slippery slope that paved the way for this garbage. Here's the next great idea in internet Kiosks:
See if you look like a criminal... Only $2
With a little camera and some facial recognition software, you could make a fortune. Find out if it's safe to walk the streets without risk of being picked up for looking like a criminal, and at a vary affordable price too...
Now, in all seriousness: The question becomes, how did we ever let it get to this point? You can't blame politions for this. Blame the public. There clearly wasn't enough of a public outcry to force the removal of cameras after the superbowl story came to light. By-the-way, were there ever numbers released as to the arrests made as a result of video footage made at the superbowl?
Realistically, if you're a anted criminal you probably don't ant to go to such a high profile event regardless of weather there are caeras there snapping pictures of everyone. This is of course the justification that such video comperisons are acceptable.
When arguing against such invasions of provacy, and other issues such as the right to free speech (semi-unrelated) organizations who are politically active in this way, can't draw a line. They have to argue in favor of all degrees of privacy, and all forms of speech. This is where opposing lobyists get their fodder for retaliation, saying such chings as 'The Electronic Frontiers Foundation supports pornography' and thinds of this nature. The claim on it's face may be true, but it's only because if you get in the business of drawing lines in the sand (especially in this area where the terrain changes so rapidly) you will spend all your time re-drawing these lines - time we can't afford to waste on things other than the central issue.
This is our own fault, for not fighting back more vigorously when we started down this slippery slope.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Hmm.....maybe you guys should come and visit the UK sometime - this system already exists (to some extent) over here - cameras on every street corner in big cities, or hidden away on rooftops. Cameras along the motorways (freeways) which take your average speed between camera points in order to catch you speeding....pretty much anything the police want to do with cameras really.
And its all because 'if you're innocent, you've got nothing to worry about - and besides, who wants to let crime occur undetected'. To me, this logic is a lot like 'won't somebody please think of the chlidren'-style arguments to defend massive censorship and internet traffic monitoring.
Oh, btw - over here in the UK the government has the power to monitor all internet traffic and personal comunications AND demand encryption keys - all this legislation was passed due to kneejerk reactions to 'ooh...internet - that sounds like a big place full of terrorists and child pornographers, so lets invade everyone's privacy to catch the miniscule minority of people perpetrating these crimes'.
This logic fails me - how can and 'democracy' limit the rights of a huge swathe of its citizens in order to catch a tiny proportion of lawbreakers? Its like sinking a yacht just because one of the sails had a tear.
So I defy anyone to come up with a solid cost/benefit analysis in favour of catching an absolute minority at the expense of defiling the majority.
-Nano.
why most /.'ers will appear to have this point 'lost' on them, and it is because we were taught in high-school civics that "I'm not guilty, so why should I worry?" is a position of ignorance that lead down a path of erosion of rights for everyone in the name of /insert cause here/.
LEXX
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Actually, what seems to be "lost" on many Slashdotters is the fact that the Enforcers of Law (TM) themselves are neither infallible nor even necessarily law abiding. Sure, you may be doing nothing "wrong" (though, with the Christian Coalition and friends in power, this is an increasingly large category of activities), but that doesn't mean you won't get falsely accused because:
The history of the United States (not to mention other nations) is filled with examples of people who had "done nothing wrong," but who were mercilessly hounded by the state. (I recommend books such as It Did Happen Here or Lies My Teacher Told Me for the uninitiated.) If you install a system such as this, in which people's identities are continuously "searched" by law enforcement authorities, then -- mark my words -- you have created a situation in which substantial abuse is all but inevitable. By a combination of technical error, maliciousness, bigotry, corruption, and good, old-fashioned incompetence, you're going to get a large number of substantively innocent people who will be harassed, charged, and jailed (or worse) because of this kind of omnipresent enforcement system.
Those who consider such concerns to be "paranoia" are in dire need of a history lesson. Alas, I fear that they will suffer precisely the society that they deserve....
-Carter
Target those who this is aimed at, not the people who are actually trying to work at making the streets a little safer.
That's the most unbelievably shortsighted response I could imagine. Yes, let's put more people in jail for holding a chemical in their pocket. The majority of prisoners are now non-violent drug offenders. I don't believe posessing any substance should be illegal in the first place. So why would I want people constantly comparing my face with pictures of people known for posessing drugs? I don't carry them. But I don't want to be badgered by police for looking like someone they know carries around drugs.
And what you're missing is that this is only the beginning. Did you read or watch 1984? Yes, it's an extreme example. But it's a vision of what can happen after government starts watching everything you do. As another example, what if someone took pictures of all balding men walking down the street. Those pictures are compared to a database and a marketing department targets those people to be bombarded with advertising because they're balding.
How do you think opressive governments obtain and retain their power? Only through control of the population. Hitler used mass propaganda, Castro uses military force and propaganda. Big Brother will use technology to control thoughts on a personal level.
I have a constitutional right to be "secure in my persons." Well excuse this law-abiding and moral citizen for feeling insecure with 37 cameras facing him as we walks down the street.
---
Developers: We can use your help.
Oh yeah - another question - do you have a scheme like legal aid? (that is, state funded legal cases where there's a reasonable case to answer)? I always wondered. If not, what prevents the police from using arrests as a form of harrassment of those too poor to afford the cost of a legal case?
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It could, and probably will, be argued that this is an instance of unreasonable search and seizure. We'll probably be hearing more about this.
this story
The Technonaut
see past slashdot article.
mod: -1 redundant
Get your Unix fortune now!
Sounds like it's time for me to dig out my BB Gun of Camera Slaying.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
I don't like the cops having access to these and I certainly wouldn't want to see what some random shmoe could do with them given enough time.
:-)
What if some thief could manage to know you're normal schedule via these camera's and knew when the perfect time was to rob your house? And I won't even go into the whole stalker issue, that would open a whole new world for them to keep track of their victims. I don't think anyone should have access to these cameras. They're just creepy
Give 'em an inch and they take a mile.
This is why privacy "freaks" are necessary. At least they believe strongly enough about something to fight for it.
If I was a citizen of Tampa, I have a feeling that I would do this as a form of civil disobedience. If I ever have occasion to be in Tampa, you can be sure that I will!
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
This is the system that is currently use in the UK. What it does is take your picture and store it on a database forever. It does not matter if you are guilty or not, your picture will be in a database for everyone to use. Not only that it will keep track of you wherever you go at all time and store it on a database. This is a threat to our democracy where the government do not trust it citizens. Where the government control track and tag us like animals. Read 1984 if you haven't yet.
First, with respect, this story has already been discussed in a slashdot thread from just Sunday. See the prior story at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/01/034822 6&mode=thread
/. editor who posted this story alluded to, humans confirm the computers matches before the person is confronted. I remember seeing on a TLC presentation or the like that this software has an 80% accuracy rate. For now, that means a human element has to be present.
As the CNN article notes, this technology is currently being used in Europe and US Federal buildings. The reason that this is important is because it is the first time such technology has been used on the public at large. For those who are concerned with false positives as the
I think having this on the streets of Florida is a little worry, but I think that having this in airport would be very valuable. Such technology might prevent people trying to flee the United States to escape judgement, and screen for terrorist groups.
I am a little scared too. 1984 is my favorite book ever. I once read it 96 (yes, 96) times in 24 weeks...seriously. The fear of technological darkness is not to be swept under the rug. The way I see it, just about every technology that has good uses can be used for evil too. I have not seen any government abuse this type of technology yet, so I will have to say its ok for now. The technology used well has too many useful purposes to be cast aside.
For the other side of the coin, the worry is the government is being legit now, but later they will abuse the technology. Such people worry that once the technology is in place, it will be too late. For those who disagree with me that this technology has legitimate and useful purposes on those grounds, I have complete respect.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
I'm no privacy freak, but this would be a bit unnerving. What if I happen to look like some murderer or DMCA offender?
Probably the same thing that would happen if the criminals face was on "Americas Most Wanted" or you were stopped by the police in the street, they'd confirm your identity then let you go. No biggy.
"Faith is the last resort of a desperate man" - Me
Sadly, people do the time for not committing a crime, and this face to face thing really scares me. The only result i can see coming from this is even more people being arrested on mistaken identity. And when the police makes a mistake, mind you, most of the time it isn't corrected right away. There have been innocent people locked away for even years after they've been cleared of criminal charges. I say this with all sincerity: no good can come from this.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
/.
"He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither."
"Privacy" is a poor choice of words. However, in our buzz-word laden society, we generally pick the catch phrase that is closest to our actual issue. This is part of the problem. When we allow our language to be dictated to us, our thoughts naturally follow. Further more, the lie that police protect. How many burglaries in progress, muggings in progress, rapes, ad nauseum, have police stopped. The police persons job is to take statements, collect evidence, and MAYBE if they are very lucky, punish the bad guy. The only one able to protect your family, is you and your family. Please don't think of this as some militant rambling, I am merely relating to you what was related to me by friends and family who ARE police officers. Now back to the actual topic of discussion... "Feeling safer" because of a bunch of cameras is silly. The cameras will do nothing to stop you from being hurt, insulted, or otherwise inconvenienced. In addition, there is a huge potential for missuse (as illustrated by stonehand). You may think that because you are a law abiding citizen, that such measures work for you. This is naive. Any beauracracy seeks to expand its power base, this is done through law making. Governments cannot exert force or influence on citizens that have not broken any laws. Thus, over time, more and more things become illegal... This doesn't just apply to our country, or even our time. This is a drama that has been playing and replaying since the beginnings of civilization. But before it can stop, it has to be recognized...
#1 -- I think those face-rec algorithms are far better than humans at actually recognizing someone. I know they are better than I am. I would bet they are better than the police officers, too.
#2 -- If you're that close of a match, you might have just discovered that you have a long lost twin wandering the streets.
#3 -- Remember that most of the photos they are looking for are probably known criminals with prior records. If they arrested you, an identity check would probably clear your name. I think the worst you'd have to endure would be a couple hours behind bars while they verified your identity. Plus, you'd have the grounds for a really cool lawsuit (false arrest). IANAL!!
#4 -- Face Rec is a really cool geek technology! Most /.'ers would be proud to say they were mistakenly fingered by it. :)
Now, if they start using the system to look for people based on "artist sketches" or something stupid like that, I'd say we have real cause for worry.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
The face printing technology used in casinos isn't really good enough to even match faces, a lot of user input is required. Even with a system like this, the camera is never going to get a mug-shot view. Its difficult to extrapolate a view, and then accurately match reference points. this system totally fails when dealing with relatives who look alike, and identical twins... seth
A couple days ago my neighbor is driving to McDonalds with his 4 year old son. He notices a police officer serveral car lenghts back that seems to be following him. He is not concerned because 1) He hasn't done anything wrong, 2) he's not in his own car anyway, and 3) the guy he borrowed the car from is visiting from clear across the country. (Car from Florida, police in California). A short distance later he sees another 3 police cars blocking off a cross street. Again he is not worried for the listed reasons, plus he remembers that a baby was found abandoned near here a few weeks ago, perhaps they are still investigating.
He pulls into the McDonalds, buys the Happy Meal for his son and is pulling out when a police officer pulls the "COPS Maneuver" and squeals in in front of the car as 3 other cars block him from behind. There are now 5 police cars with at least 7 officers "Checking his ID". They have guns drawn and 2 of them are screaming at him to put his hands out of his car. (Try this, in rush hour traffic try listening to two people screaming almost the same thing at almost the same time, it's hard to understand)
He gets out of the car, follows the instructions, (puts hands behind his head, backs up several feet, slides sideways a few feet, gets handcuffed, etc.) all the time he is trying to explain to the officers that his 4 year old is in the car. Every officer looked extremely mad and the 4 year old part didn't phase them.
After placing him in the back of their car and calling in, checking things (read 30+ minutes) they get the report back that this isn't their guy.
The explanation, his license plate number (from Florida) matched a Washington plate number for one of the FBIs 10 most wanted. Wait, no, that wasn't it, the license had expired, no, wait, no that actually doesn't happen for another couple of weeks, well we're sorry.
He calls back a few hours later so that someone can explain to his 4 year old that he is not a "BAD Guy" and receives the best explanation. He matched the physical description of the suspect. This means some officer saw him, from 3 blocks away, through tinted glass (legal in Florida, not in CA), with a baseball cap on and decided to "Check his ID".
The hilarious part, the criminal has an arabic sounding name, my neighbor is a 300 pound white guy.
Simply checking the ID is more complicated than it sounds.
Public street = Public
You have *no* expectation of privacy if you are walking down a city sidewalk. You make your face "publicly accessible" to all those in line-of-sight (and your voice is "publicly accessible" to those in earshot). The argument can be made that you implicitly surrender you right to privacy by being in a public place. If you don't want others to see you (scan your face) then don't go out in public.
______
______
Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.
I happen to have the (mis?)fortune of living in Tampa at the moment, and as the law abiding kind of person that I am I always strive to stay perfectly legal.
Except....
Well, this is kind of hard to talk about, but as all the residents of Tampa(Tamponians? Tampons?) know it illegal to eat cottage chesse in the city after 6PM on Sunday. And though, try as I might, I just find it impossible not to inguldge on my favorite of the Cheeses on the traditional day of rest.
This new policy of watching my every movment as me worried as I strole through Historic Ybor City on a Sunday's eve with a large pot of Cottage Cheese and a few Ritz Crackers. I now find myself constentlly checking over my shoulder, afraid that I may be jumped by one of the vicious law keeping forces that normally only strive to ensure my safety.
This kind of thing must stop. If and end is not met soon I will die of a heart-attack long before my abnormally high cholesteral would have naturally killed my of.
If you're going to rerun the same story every day this week, Tampa has much better uses for cameras.
If you're on a public street, the police and anybody who wants to can take your picture unless they go too far like start following you around and then it becomes harassment. Anyway, this is constitutional but their should be some law against it for government use.
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
During the Super Bowl, we got overwhelmed," Todd said. "That's the other thing: When you get a match, how quickly can you get to these people?
Not bloody quick, at an event of this size, it seems.
Now we got authorities watching us, and it doesn't even work well in large crowds.
I'm glad I live in Fort Lauderdale, and not Tampa!
exactly
I respond to your sigs
How is this a major privacy problem? Couldn't an undercover cop with a good memory for faces stand on a street corner and look out for known criminals? Many police departments already do that.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Not to mention, police in some cities are no better than the criminals themselves. Whose to say they'll act when notifed of a detection?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
The difference is that the images taken by the cameras are compared to images of criminals. A cop on the street corner can't set up a checkpoint a la Johannesburg or Belfast, these security cameras are basically passive checkpoints. Considering that 'sobriety checkpoints' aren't kosher, how can these be?
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Who knows what other oddities we will see in the coming days now that Slashdot has the mystical power to repost stories in alternate formats!
-NeoTomba
At least its somewhat reassuring that the online poll at CNN.com claimed that 60% of all participants thought it was a violating of privacy, while 40% thought it was fine.
Then again, if the people on Slashdot voted, it was probably 40/60 before it got slashdotted. Maybe that isn't reassuring at all.
---
There are cameras all over the building where I work. There are also cameras everywhere inside the business park in question. What privacy am I entitled to? If any?
http://www.themeparks.ie
I keep seeing people point out that this is no different from having a police officer standing on the corner comparing faces to a mug shot. Well, it is different, in a very significant way: This technology enables them to (eventually) have a police officer on every corner of every street. This police officer is never going to exercise his/her personal judgement and decide to "let one slide". Picture that scenario in your mind the next time you go for a walk. If that doesn't bother you, then you are already gone. You're not the droid they are looking for.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of people spying on me. But, the streets are a public space, right? Not YOUR streets. The city's streets. Granted, we are tax payers so we 'own' the streets, blah blah blah. But we're not all out there shoveling them when there's snow, or cleaning them after a parade. No, the city uses our funds and thus owns the street. So they have every right to keep an eye on who is using their streets and what people are doing on their streets. They are not invading your privacy (in a legal sense) by taking pictures of you without consent(which is perfectly legal). Doesn't make it a nice thing to do, but it is legal, and hopefully will do some good.
Yeah, that was an illegal search because it was made without a warrant on private property. This is public property, so a warrant is not necessary. Nor is it illegal to take a picture of someone on public property even without their consent. If it were, there would be no papperazzi.