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!
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
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.
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...
The argument that it's only used on criminals holds no water. Criminal is in the eye of the beholder. At any time a government can decide that it doesn't like a particular group or activity, and when that happens, there are years worth of tapes that can be face matched for the purpose of seeking that group out. Not to mention that criminals have rights too, and that principle is what protects all of us from unfair actions by the government.
The difference is one of degree. Sure that guy walking behind you could be an undercover cop, but he can't see everything and he can't record everything he does see. He sees what he's looking for, that's his job. The same goes for a guy in a car taking pictures. The difference is that a video camera armed with face recognition software sees EVERYTHING and forgets NOTHING and it's recordings have the potential to last FOREVER. They can be stored indefinitely and used at ANY time by ANYONE for ANY purpose.
It's fun to say "That could never happen" and call people kooks or freaks. During Hitler's rise to power the jews thought they'd be okay in Germany... things could never go as far as people were saying. But it does happen. More often than we'd like to admit.
During the McCarthy Era, many many people's lives and careers were ruined because of who they had coffee with or called on the phone. Your private life was turned upside down if you talked to someone who talked to someone who once read a communist newsletter. Imagine how far they could have gone if only they had this face recognition/ubiquitous camera technology. And this all took placein the USA... land of the free.
Go back as far as you want and you'll find the same things happening. They call these things witch hunts for a reason.