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?
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.
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.
Actually, even in public, I have SOME expectation of privacy. In particular, I have the expectation that none of the people I pass on the street know every single place I go every moment I am in public. Furthermore, I expect that the people who do see me don't look me up in a database so that they know my name, age, and residence (or even have the ability to do so). Nor do they keep records of seeing me (for the most part).
Right now, the cameras are referencing criminal records. Who's to say they won't look up DMV records tomorrow. If they do, will anyone be told?
I wonder how the police in Tampa would feel if a citizen's group decided to match them camera for camera but watch police instead.
Not really, especially if you're under criminal investigation. Ever seen one of those documentaries where they discuss how they track Mob members? They're constantly tailing them, taking photos of them and anyone they're with
One reason there is little concern about that sort of operation is that the expense involved forces the police to have strong justification. They're not going to assign several plainclothes cops to me because I MIGHT commit a crime one day. On the other hand, the cameras and recognition system make it possable to monitor EVERYONE for next to no cost. The natural check on that behaviour (high cost, limited budget and manpower) is gone.
If someone gives a shit about what you're doing, your privacy is pretty much an illusion anyway. Might as well just get used to the idea. What is it that you're so concerned with if you haven't done anything to be prosecuted for?
I am always concerned when any government agency seems bent on removing an important check against their power. Generally, they want this either out of laziness or because they intend to abuse the power that's checked. The former isn't so bad, but the latter is a real problem.
Another side effect is that constantly watching the citizens will further reduce police understanding that they work for those citizens, not the other way around.
I also say this as someone who has been pulled over and confronted at gunpoint by a cop who didn't bother to notice that my middle name and a parole violator's were different (he pulled it up from my tag number). I did NOT get an apology or anything like one. Instead he spent some time trying to find SOMETHING I was doing wrong.
The camera system will only increase the number of such incidents.
Not really - someone still has to watch the tape, someone has to show up at the scene, etc.
Since face recognition software is to be used, nobody has to watch the tape, they just have to verify a few still frames.
You seem to be assuming that the system will be used as they say it will, and that the use won't change later. You seem sure the system won't come to be abused. Why not?
In Atlanta, cameras have been set up to watch traffic. Public officials all swore that the system would ONLY be used to monitor congestion. Guess what? NOW that the cameras are there and everything they want to track suspects and catch speeders. Elapsed time between the two statements? 2 years.
Yes, I am focusing on one negative facet. Yes, I do think that that's enough to more than offset the positives (sure, it does have some).
Cops and politicians only feel comfortable abusing their power when the majority of the populace lets them get away with it, or they feel that they will.
Exactly, and a massive surveilance system with automated recognition software is very likely to give them that feeling. After all, unlike a cop standing on the corner, you can't tell what a computer system and cops miles away behind the camera are doing. The population won't object to things it doesn't know about.
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..
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.
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.
-
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?
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
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.
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.
--
(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! :-)
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
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 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.
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
Slashdot Deja Vu
Back by popular demand
Play it again Sam
No Zen is good zen
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.
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.)
You are correct, that's the real worry. Scanning faces for criminals is a bad start, but it's the convergence and analysis of all data that will make the real police state. That's why it's important to fight this kind of thing at every step of the way.
Just wait until millimeter-wave radar is installed next to the cameras. They'll be scanning for weapons and counting the change in our pockets.
The slippery slope is a cliche, but that doesn't make it any less slippery.
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.
If you are getting mugged or raped, the camera can't pull the bad guy off you or shoot him. Surveillance may make the cleanup easier for the cops, but I doubt it will make people a lot safer.
If I ever have to blow anyone away, at least there may be a video record proving it was a righteous shoot.
You may or may not be any of the names you've asked people to avoid calling you, but one thing you are, in my opinion, is a revisionist historian.
America as a nation has always consisted on immigrants, be they from Germany, England, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, France, and lands further out.
To suggest that America was not intended to be a multi-cultural empire like the British Empire is to ignore where the first citizens of the colonies immigrated from. New Amsterdam, the Pennsylvania Dutch, German farmers in the south, and later, the French fur traders all mean nothing to you? Or they're all "okay" because at least they're European?
It's interesting that you mention Israel- I know you mention it in the supposition that America will fall siege to a conflict similar to the one that nation suffers. More interesting is that many Israelis jokingly consider their nation to be the 51st state. Many Israelis were Germans, Britons, and Americans who emigrated to Israel. Many Americans who emigrate to Israel return home to America frequently. They don't bring conflict with them, they bring economic prosperity... and isn't that what the current bent of our government seems to be? Bowing to every corporate desire in the name of economic prosperity?
The reason why there's such internal strife in America can be boiled down and over-simplified.
Over-simplification says, "Immigrants, as late as the turn of the century, felt a need to belong to America, and not preserve and cherish the old ways with a staunch refusal to integrate the American way into their life. Yes, the traditions were kept and revered, but not at the expense of refusing to participate in the American way of life. Now, we have people worshipping at the altar of multi-culturalism, rejecting America."
the second thing is, "We have lost our innocence as a people. JFK was the first president to make an effort to stop the spread of arms and give the impression of making an effort for the civil rights movement. His death, MLK's death, Malcolm X's death, RFK's death, are all big question marks that have taken innocence and faith in the government, from the people. With no faith, there is no trust. With no trust, there is no respect for authority. With no respect for authority, there is no way for authority to lead other than by force. Use of force proves the conclusions that lead to the loss of faith."
Thanks for citing the source you used for the FBI statistics. However, those who have lost all faith in the government would say that those statistics are as hokey as the institution that published them, the same institution that killed Randy Weaver's family and the branch dividians. Whatever their crimes were, I don't believe they needed killin'.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Expectation of privacy is a funny amorphous thing-
I may not have an expectation of privacy in a public place, but I also don't expect that my actions or presence will be recorded in near-irrefutable evidence to be used against me at some later time. How long will these records be stored? What's to prevent a compilation tape from surfacing that's been edited creatively to show me in my worst light?
And knowing that video can be altered (see substitution of ads in ballparks and times square, in place of competitor's ads..) why is it that my video footage will not be admitted as credible evidence, but the government's will?
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
You said:
Most any device or technology for law enforcement could (and probably will) be abused at some point - but it doesn't negate the benefit of the technology nor provide a substantial argument for abandoning it.
I say:
Weren't we the country that said we'd rather let criminals go free than let innocents be convicted? We SHOULD abandon technologies that have wide potential for abuse, regardless of the possible benefits.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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"
Sounds like it's time for me to dig out my BB Gun of Camera Slaying.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
yea and cop cars too...and their guns
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.
#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?
Sure, *if* that's the way it works. I seem to recall a heated discussion with the discount store clerk over a pair of shoes that rang up $299.90 instead of the $29.99 they should have been. Miss "Smarter than the Average Bear" kept pointing at the checkout display, "proving" that the store actually sold shoes for $300 and that I must have misread the label. To add further evidence to her claim, she pulled the register receipt out and showed me that the paper printout agreed with the screen.
That's irritating, but it pales in comparison with what happens when I'm heading in to work some morning and get pulled over, handcuffed, taken downtown and booked, locked up like a criminal because "the computer says" I look like a wanted felon? I call my boss and say, "I know it's 11:00 am and I haven't shown up yet, but don't worry -- I only got arrested."
What happens when the local news gets wind that they've arrested this horrible fugitive and plasters *my* face all over the evening news?
A basic principal of jurisprudence in a democratic nation is this: it's better to have a guilty person walk free than risk an innocent person losing his liberty. That's why we're innocent until proven guilty. That's why we throw out suspect evidence, severely weaking the prosecution's case, rather than risk bad evidence being used against a guilty party. This strikes me as a VERY risky thing to do, even if it's very reliable.
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