Slashdot Mirror
Florida Surveillance Cameras Claim a Victim
kris_lang writes: "The St. Petersburg Times has an article that describes how an innocent man was tracked down because he was used as a "demo" face for Visionics Face-It face recognition software with their on-the-street video surveillance system in Tampa's Ybor City district. The "demo" image was printed in the St. Pete Times, and then sold to U.S. News and World Report which used it in an article. A USN&WR reader in Oklahama misidentified the face as being that of her ex-husband wanted on felony child neglect charges. The Tampa Police tracked him down to his job site and interrogated him. Now here's a question: how did they identify him in the first place to be able to track him down? Well, Florida has also been using digital photos for their newer driver's licenses. So they already have a handy-dandy database to work with."
I don't have a lot of details for how the whole system works. But I can think of two ways to get more public pressure against it:
1. Publish the "wrong" photos from the cameras. A few photos looking down womans blouses would let the public know that it's not just "those people" who are being watched. (The camera angle from the published photo would be almost perfect, so it can be done.)
2. If the face scanning software is really automatic, see if you can track peoples activity based on where the cameras recognize them. The idea that they can be "stalked" by the computers might make even more people uncomfortable.
Policemen torturing people for protesting on public property is a sign of an oppressive state. And the fact that no criminal or civil charges ever actually stuck in court is a confirmation that the state approves wholeheartedly of their actions.
Free Hans!
Unlike walking down the street, you need to be licensed to drive a car. If you fail basic requirements, you can't drive. So if I'm blind, I can't drive a car (I can, however, walk down the street and the government has to make certain reasonable adjustments to the public ways so that I can walk down the street). The only reason that it seems like you have a right to fly is that the airline companies WANT you to fly. They want your money. The power we possess to compel airlines to treat customers with some degree of dignity lies in the power of the almighty dollar, not in a fundamental right to fly on an airplane. (Also note that we use these means of transportation because they exist, not because it's in the Constitution that they should be created and free for use by anyone)
As for your argument that you don't have a right to walk down every street, you're absolutely right. But the state prohibits you from walking on a highway for two reasons: (1) you'll probably get killed, and (2) there are surface streets that you CAN walk on that will take you to the same location. Walking on the highway doesn't make it any faster.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
Wrong. See Terry v. Ohio, in which the USSC said a person may be detained against his will, upon reasonable suspicion, and that such detention shall not constitute arrest (and shall not constitute custody for Miranda purposes).
The fact of the matter is that it is the responsibility of the Police to identify you, not vice versa.
With the caveat that we're less likely to finally believe you when it takes two hours to get your name. You could look like someone wanted for rape and end up getting hooked up, because you matched a description and weren't willing to give us any reason to believe otherwise.
That will escalate things, and if they have something to arrest you for, it becomes that much simpler to shut up and let them ask AND ANSWER their own questions.
I love it when I get to deal with armchair cartooneys. I saw a guy violating some stupid little municipal ordinance. I went to contact him, he started walking away, and I ordered him to stay where he was. He started playing armchair cartooney, and I got curious. When someone caught in the act of a stupid little petty offense is about to get a warning and be released on that, it's very unusual for them to start arguing. That's just not the behavior of a rational person. Lo and behold, he had two felony warrants. Had he not started a pissing contest, I never would have known about the warrants and he would not be sitting in the (DELETED) County Justice Center on about $100,000 bond.
Don't pick a fight you can't win.
Had they first sent the police to get his written permission to reprint his photo, then there would have been no problem!
It wasn't the video cameras that got him caught. He just happened to be part of the advertising for selling the camera system. Its the same thing as if someone recognised a picture of someone on the cover of a magazine and called the police. He wasn't a criminal, the cameras didn't catch him, him getting caught had nothing to do with any invasion of privacy, Get over it.
Vast majority of cops? You're probably right about that, but the rotten ones seem to gather. Read the Washington Post's excellent series of articles about the Prince George's County, MD police dept. More shootings per officer than any other dept. in the nation, and yet somehow, the officers were never wrong. For the last 7(8?) years, they have not found the officer to be in the wrong in any of the shootings. Sure, every other police officer in MD might be a perfect at their job and never do anything wrong, but you better hope you aren't a minority and in PG county, or mentally/emotionally disturbed and in PG county, or even in PG county when the cops are pissed off.
itachi
Ahh, but you are assuming that it would have (wrongly) identified him. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty", doesn't that go for software?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Secret Police. Those two words sum it up for me. Watchers on every street--it doesn't matter whether they are paid informants or software. I don't want to live in a country where the secret police watch my every move.
Moral of the story: when you move to a new state, keep the license from your old one. The new one then won't have your license image to digitize and add to the database.
If you work for the government, they'll take your fingerprints. I temped for the IRS during tax season and it was a job requirement.
After they get your face ID'd, then you get the trial to prove that you say, have never been to Florida, then they have to bring up the wife who says, "no, that isn't him." THEN you get to show your wife of 17 years that says, "I am married to him." THEN you get the chance to go home free in about 20 minutes later. Then they continue the search. There are stopgap measures, and checks of evidence. This is what law enforcement is all about. Pick up a book.
Let's not even joke about that. In many other countries (allegedly in China, for instance), government sanctioned torture still exists. IMHO, we should be happy that most of the readers of /. reside in countries where the paradigm is such that we can rightfully complain that video identification is a human rights violation, as opposed to fearing for our physical well being.
Even more than the privacy issues, I think that the most frightening aspect of ubiquitous security cameras is the impact that they will have on us as a society. How do you think when you have no internal monologue? Do you dare go to the bathroom, knowing that your ass could wind up on a fetish site within minutes? Or, do you simply do as Ellis suggests and stop caring whether or not people see your ass?
I don't have any answers, I'm just positing the question. Personally, I blame the Chinese; these certainly are "interesting times."
Sorry, there are already laws on the books in some places against "wearing masks in public" specifically. I am guessing these were designed to shine some daylight on Klansman gatherings.
The article doesn't mention that Texas is moving to them either, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.
funny munging
Yes, they do.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
that's right bitches
Yes, it is not the fault of the software, but the Florida surveillence cameras did claim a victim. Stop and think about it for a second. We have surveillence cameras pointed at ordinary, presumably innocent citizens. Combine constant surveillence and the fact that people tend to be stupid and stuff like this happens.
What happened was this:
1.Cops wanted publicity for shiney system, press wanted photos.
2. Some photographer took a photo, and the AP or some news wire requested it. It got sent, correctly captioned as saying "this mas is not a suspect".
3. Some intern at US News pulls the photo from the wire (I used to do this job in a major newspaper, stuff like this does get overlooked from time to time), redoes the caption, or perhaps forgets to include the caption, and it is sent to layout people.
4. Layout people redo the caption to suit space requirements and the focus of the story that accompanies it. They change the headline to the sensationalistic "You Can't Hide Those Lying Eyes in Tampa." and put the dudes face below it.
5. Magazine is published and read by an idiot. She calls cops.
I have not seen the caption of the photo, but I assume that the part about the dude being free of all suspicion was dropped to conserve space.
No matter whose fault it is, this still happened because we have cameras in public places, face recognition software enabled or not. This is a shining example to show to the people who support invasions of privacy what kind of harm they can really do, and it does a good job of eroding the "Well, if they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about" argument. This kind of crap is wrong, and the fact that the mistake was made by human eyes and not a digital ones does little to fix it, and little to sooth my worries
Then why is there a cop on right next to my freeway entrance with a radar gun? I don't speed, yet every time I drive by him, he points it at me. Same with that damn speed bump on my street, no matter how far under the speed limit I drive, I still run over it!!! WTF?
Well, depending on where you work, you may well be required to spy on your friends and neighbors. My girlfriend used to work at Wal~Mart, in the jewelery department and she and her coworkers were frequently required to fill out reports on their co-workers. This sort of thing is quite common in some companies. I'm sure, with the way these things go, it's only a matter of time before these reports are filed by helpful corporations with the FBI for "profiling" purposes.
They also required my SS card number, but so far they didn't print it on the card. Some states do (illegally) and more plan to. I really don't give a fuck about privacy or the orwellian police state. We've been in it for a century and we'll never escape it. Just put up with it, dont' do anything bad and try to live your 60 or 70 years as happily as you can.
> Don't pick a fight you can't win.
For a police officer, your attitude is downright unamerican. You really don't believe in presumption of innocence before suspicion, do you?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I am wondering this one: Hasn't anyone thought of wearing a hat and/or sunglasses to prevent recognition? A demo on TechTV shows that it only works if you aren't working any sunglasses or hats, unless the picture on file of you is of you wearing a hat and/or sunglasses. Keep trying...
No TiVo and no caffeine make me something something...
Ok, lets throw some pseudocode at this and prove this statement to be false:
innocent = true
for criminal in criminal_db() {
if you == criminal {
innocent = false
}
}
As you can clearly see, you can easilly code a matching system so that you are presumed innocent until found otherwise.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Maybe we shouldn't blame the face recognition software. Maybe we should blame the release he signed for the press.
Simply because you can initialize a bool with the value 'true' doesn't undermine my argument that face-recognition systems presume guilt. The mere fact that the system chose me to compare against its database shows that I am presumed to be in this database. When humans do this task, they have a mental image that they are matching against real-world faces, not vice-versa.
There is no reason for the system to look at me. If I were in the midst of committing a crime, that would be something different. Since I'm not doing anything wrong, I should be protected by the shield of 'presumed innocence'.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
The Pentagon was built with tax payers money. So were NASA and Area 51. Not to mention the White House, every armed forces base... Do you really think that you have the right to come and go as you please?
Oh - and I'm wondering how the very first response to someone's comment can be modded as redundant? Go fig.
This,actually, is illegal. If you have changed you residence, you are required to have your license reflect that. There's probably a 365-day grace period, but you can get ticketed for it.
When the highway patrol asks "vere are yo pa-pahs?" the address on your registration best match the address on your license. Otherwise alarm bells go off in the officer's head. Moreso if it's a slow day or you've already sassed him.
DoC
And worrying about one's *own* ex-wives-from-Hell can be bad enough. One shouldn't have to worry about *other* people's ex-wives-from-Hell.
How is this any different than police standing at some public location demanding to all passing PEDESTRIANS that they present their papers (ID). Unless they're driving, people are not required to carry ID, yes?
Well, since this guy didn't have a mug shot, how else do you think they identified him?
As a Tampa resident, let me assure you that it's only a matter of time until they hook up the software to the database of DL photos. I presume I don't have to explain how ridiculously easy that would be...
Florida, formerly the Sunshine State, now the Police State.
You may be right, but there's also no reason to assume they wouldn't hook that software up to every damn database they had access to. There have been a lot of news articles in recent years about various law enforcement agencies sharing data, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that they really did use the software to find him.
Free Hans!
actually in many jurisdictions that does not fly anymore because so much of the money is "contaminated". Although it can still happen, some areas of the country are woesre than others.
Actually, he made a joke about a "Tom Cruise missile" (Tom Cruise is one of the more visible members of Scientology, as is John Travolta). The "Church" worked very hard to keep all but very carefully selected phrases of Henson's out of court, removing all context from his comments.
Those who've lived or worked in places with "quote boards" should be well aware of how phrases can sound when taken out of context.
fencepost
just a little off
If they used the face recognition system to identify him (via his drivers licence photo) to be the man on the newspaper photo - the system obviously worked quite well.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
having said this, i did not detect any big brother type ambitions on their part, though they didnt blink and eyelid when informed what their technology was going to be used for. at that time, they were testing multiple recognitions in near realtime off a single frame and it worked wonders in dog and pony shows. seeing your face circled by a green circle a split second after you appeared on camera thrilled the people we were demoing it too.
granted, this /. discussion is about a false positive and the resulting enroachment into mr miliron's life due to a screwup and perhaps has more of a libertarian slant. nevertheless, i somehow think that this is only the start of a new wave of identification technologies. we've always been amazed by how true gordon moore has been with his law, and this is catching up on us. face recognition, and perhaps gait recognition, in the future will make this sort of identification the norm no matter what the privacy advocates say. dont get me wrong, i abhor my privacy being violated as well, but technology like this is too much like candy for law enforcement to ignore. it's going to be hard to stop its deployment worldwide, let alone the US of A.
if you can manage to sue (let alone breathe) after walking around with a plastic bag over your head, you should consider running for pope 'cuz i think that constitutes your first miracle.
also, your idea probably infringes on the patent of the halloween costume from an old halloween snl 'consumer probe' (Dan Ackroyd sketch) - the 'Johnny Spaceman' costume also consists of a plastic bag
I wouldn't consider it cheating when your dealing with an ex. hehehe
But I do like the idotic red light cameras. Don't run red lights and you have nothing to worry about. I would much rather you get your panties in a knot over getting caught by a camera than you plowing into a car that was passing through an intersection lawfully. I feel pretty much the same about speeding. There is a difference between speeding for an emergency and speeding because you feel you are simply more important than other people (whose safety clearly doesn't mattrer to you).
And don't forget, when someone hurts your feelings: SUE, SUE, SUE! If you are suing all of those people, don't forget to sue the camera manufacturers and the makers of all the components inside the camera (even the people who made the plastic for the wire insulators) and the people that installed them. Get my point?
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
If Officer Friendly misidentifies me as a wanted felon, if the case proceeds to trial I'll get to examine him on the witnes stand and test his powers of face-matching.
Who do I subpoena when Amalgamated Profits, Inc.'s latest Eyewitless XP software flags me as being a bad guy? Can I have design docs and test records introduced into evidence? Can I make the prosecution track down every developer and engineer and bring them to the stand?
It's bad enough when cops with no understanding of physics are given radar guns and the ability to hand out tickets. (Did you know that radar waves won't reflect from a stationary metal surface, only a moving one? That was the testimony of a Baltimore County cop who ticketed me last year.) Now cops with no understanding of software failability are being given buggy software and the ability to drag people off at gunpoint based on its output. The fun's just getting started.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You miss the point, probably something that many people say to you quite often. Btw, remember that although "they" can plant cameras everywhere you go to see what you do in all "public" places, you better not carry a camera to monitor what actually happens when cops stop you -- even if they stop you for no reason, then hassle you, threaten you, or knock you around a bit. Your carrying the camera was found to be illegal wiretapping in Boston already.... The justices, in their dubious wisdoms, are worried about the effect on the police of their knowing you might be monitoring them. Now, does that worry you even a little? If not, I give up, for now. Ten years from now, you may understand, because it will almost certainly have happened to you by then.
Personally, I have no problem with this system if used as intended. A camera hooked up to a database of wanted criminals doesn't strike me as fundamentally different than a cop standing on the corner with a book of mug shots. What does concern me is the potential for abuse. Some cop wants to track his girlfriend? Bing! Her picture is in the db. Employer wants to track his employees? Slip the cops a few bucks and, presto, in the db. The possibilities are endless...
I have the same IP address on my machine!!!!!
But he WAS a criminal. The computer AND the media said so. Who would you believe? Lock him up again before he committs more crimes.
Take this personaility test.
That's what I want to know. Some random woman sees a picture and says "That's my husband!" Now, IANAL (maybe someday) but it would seem to me this woman should accept some responsiblity for mis-identfing this man. He was harassed wrongfully. What is this woman supposed to do--say "Oops!"? What in the world was this woman thinking?
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
The masks belong with the gangs of mean spirited thugs who call themselves "protesters" at WTO, GATT, NAFTA, G8 meetings. They should hide their faces in shame.
Privact issues aside, A woman misidentified a photo of someone as her exhusband, who was wanted by police. Police want to use software to match mugshots of wanted crooks against surveillence photos off the streets. If a woman couldn't correctly ID someone she knew, how can the police expect an automated system to do the same?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I predict that T-shirts with nice clear pictures of the FBI most wanted will become *really* popular in that area. :-)
Yes, but it ran captioned correctly in the St Petersberg rag, but it did not say if it did in US News and World Report, where the woman saw the picuture.
An earlier post slammed people for having an expectation of perfection from the police and the government. I agree, expecting anyone to perfect is a bad idea. Clearly, this expectation of perfection was not part of the basis for most Western Democracies - if you could expect the government/police/whomever to behave perfectly, there'd be no need for laws. In the US, the Constitution exists because you can't expect the government to be perfect. The problem here is not citizens and /.ers expecting the government to be perfect - it is the government and police expecting themselves to be perfect. Or at least trying to make the public perceive them as perfect. Everytime they implement measures like this, the message is 'Trust us, we don't fuck up'. I think it's readily apparent that they do fuck up, as often as anyone else.
Man, they should make a TV series out of this. They could get Dom Deluise to host it. With Reality Programming being so big, this would take off like a rocket.
I know, thats what I was saying. The post you replied to was about Rep Condit and his afair with Chandra Levy.
In any case, the fact that the officers got off scott free is even more disturbing than what they did.
Free Hans!
In the state of Illinois, if you are convicted and sentenced to death, you are more likely to be innocent than guilty!
Based on what? Stays of execution? Appeals undoubtedly influenced by the thought that upholding the conviction meant death for someone?
So juries are convinced, then judges and politicians get cold feet when the time comes to actually kill a man. That's hardly evidence that most of the convicts are innocent.
<i>Some people (in Texas) have been convicted and sentenced to death in as little as 13 minutes.</i>
That's bullshit. If you're talking about modern times and civilian courts, you're talking about jury deliberation. What, exactly, is to be gained by long deliberation in such a case? An execution conviction should be clear-cut and simple; if they don't know individually that the accused is guilty before going into deliberation, what on Earth could they learn afterwards?
I think the popular notion of "identity theft" (or some mutation thereof) should be as a result of this.
Milliron, unknowingly under surveillance, had his likeness captured, sold, and reprinted as something completely different from his real identity.
Although unlikely in this case, people could stand to lose credibility, respect, etc. etc. from these types of misidentification.
What does Visionics stand to lose? Not much, until some sort of identity abuse legislation is hammered out.
umm no teenagers there..just retired canadians driving 10mph in left lane
We're in agreement, I was being fecetious in that she thinks her ex actually left oklahoma to go all the way to Florida just to do construction work, as if there's absolutely no construction work to be had between Oklahoma City and Tampa. It was adding to the ridiculous nature of the fact that she thought the guy in Tampa was *her* "no good ex-husband".
Intelligent Life on Earth
I have an old Zippy the Pinhead comic, in which Bill Griffith did a series of Zippy comics centered around a news article that a guy wearing a Phil Silvers T-shirt was mistaken for wearing a shirt with the Dalai Lama (sic) on it. This happened in Tibet, of course, so certain folks were not at all amused. The resemblance, apparently, was remarkable. On a semi-related note, I wonder how freaked out face-blind folks might be about all this.
And so it goes.
This isn't just extending the eyes of the police. It's giving them a database on us, a searchable, programmable, easily accessible database. The owners of the database should be 100% responsible to what they do with it, and answerable to the public to a much stronger degree than they are now. If I find myself in that database, and yet not charged with a crime, I should be able to demand, instantly, that my record be purged. If my record is misused in any way (as it was in the story that started all this), I should expect there to be a powerful application of discipline (immediate firing, barring from further public employment, etc) of the person who misuses it. If I am mistakenly identified as a criminal, and my life is disrupted in any way, I should expect immediate and unconditional apologies and reparations, and proof that disciplinary or corrective action has been taken towards those who made the mistake. The problem with this kind of system is that it's granting a tremendous level of power and access to a group of people who frankly have not proven themselves trustworthy of their previous level of power and access.
The reason it's being done is the overriding, overhasty rush to wipe out a percieved crime wave. I don't know about you, but I've lived in middling to large cities all my life and I've never been mugged. I've worked or gone to school in a crowded downtown area in a city of more than a million inhabitants for ten years running, and I just don't have that problem. Crime has been on a decline, but these systems are installed, and our rights are slowly eroded, by the public's hysterical perception that crime is somehow on the rise, and they are increasingly at risk, when in fact the opposite is demonstrably true. So not only do I see an unreasonable level of power and access being granted to police, I also am unable to find a corresponding force to drive this except the continuing press-driven crime hysteria. At this juncture, I really would rather risk being a victim of a mugging than a police "mistake" just about any day. As several others have mentioned, a child-support rap you can laugh off. Being mistaken for a pedophile or murderer could ruin your career.
Do feel free to barter away your freedom for your safety. Just keep your hands off mine, thanks.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Sounds like you need some Re-education... SEIZE HIM!!!
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
Hehe...well...if your gonna go be the brave guerrilla warfare guy, then at least do your homework on the subject. No thoughtful person takes known and researchable advise and says "whatever"...at least if they had any intention of putting their life on the line with it, which brings me to the conclusion that your talking out your ass in the grand slashdotter tradition. I never said you had to stand up to get mowed down like the revolutionary war british soldiers...however, at least the British had the decency to stand up and say "Hey...we're the British and we're declaring war on you for this", in some form. For all they know, it'll look like a power surge or lightening strike, so they'll just put up improved ones later.
A real EMP would kill your truck...your little gun probably won't. That's probably true enough. Killing a calculator isn't exactly tough however. The thing isn't even in a metal enclosure, let alone grounded.
Look...whatever kiddo. I've known people who've done things not so different from this actually. There was an engineer in a microwave lab who had an emitter in his car that could completely overload a radar gun. (literally to the point of smoking) However...let me give you a hint about this...he doesn't have it anymore...but I guess it was fun while it lasted. *cough*
Even beyond that...a camera wouldn't be difficult to harden to the effects of such a thing. Go ahead...invent a better mouse, and they'll invent a better trap. My point is this: You make a nuissance of yourself without addressing the actual problem in any way. Nuissances generally will eventually get dealt with. If your a big enough nuissance to honestly have any effect...you can pretty much count on that.
Look...it's kinda obvious your mind is made up, so go do it. The only ways to truely address this kind of problem though, are not found in the helm of an old pickup truck.
They are revenue generators.
Hehm... I don't wanna be racist but all black men look the same to a white caucasian (and vice versa and in all possible ethnic combination... ethnic... I insist, there's no such thing as race!) Guess wo's gonna get tormented. I say the most prejudiced (and less affluent) group... we have the same shit (sorry) here too... Just a coulpe of months ago a (BTW quite cute for her age) young girl and her boyfriend slaughtered her mom and brother with knives. The first thing she did was to blame albaninan thieves (they happen to be highly considered in the 'scare the hardworking citizen' contest)
I'm afraid this crap will only exacerbate xenofobia, paranoia and police brutality (if they can step on your privacy and treat you as a potential criminal or better as an inmate who's gonna stop them from discharging a gun in your belly?)
Whoa... l'e' pesa raga'!
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Or by your wife, for that matter...
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
NO, I don't think I do. The picture of Dmitry in this case was taken by an actualy human, and the picure of the other fellow was taken by that human. The picture was taken for the express purpose of reporting news.
The photo of the other guy was taken by an automated, always on camera system. The picture, and many like it, were taken to monitor citizens.
There is a difference, and this is the camera systems fault.
Dammit, mod this down into oblivion, please.
This guy's image was used in a demo of criminal software to the press -- without his knowledge.
The press then sold the image to US News and World report -- without his knowledge, AND without the context that he was not a wanted criminal.
If the guy had volunteered to be a test dummy for the software, that would be all well and good, but to have all this happen without ANY prior knowledge is a little creepy. The Tampa Police were just incredibly sloppy on this one -- how hard would it have been to ask?
So the technology is already better at face recognition than a woman in Oklahoma. Technology: 1. Humanity: 0.
All these people who say: "I don't think having cameras in public is a bad idea" (not a direct quote) think that public spaces shouldn't be private. What next? I don't think many people would enjoy the idea of wearing a tracking device and moblie camera that uplink to your local police department while you are in public. But just think of all the crime it would stop! If everyone is watched, no one can get away with a crime. WOW! I've solved the crime problem! This would only be in public mind you. What's the difference? I don't commit crimes, and I wouldn't with or without public cameras surrounding me. I'd just get a little paranoid of the local police/government/authorities. With that much paranoia, how safe would police be? And we thought the LAPD was trigger happy! Wait until we get the entire public resenting all authority figures. Then we'll see the collapse of a Democracy! I think the personal mobile camera and tracking device is the same as public cameras. As mentioned above, they breed a sense of guilt into everyone who knows they're being watched. This country is going downhill fast.
Shameless plug for my band's website.
....public places aren't private. That is why they are public. It is kinda' like sunny places not being dark, it just can't be both at the same time.
Sorry, thought you knew.
As for the rest, I think the Constitution says something about "unreasonable search(es)," which sounds alot like what you are describing.
Well, I think you just reinforced exactly what I said. Sometimes when people say something really intelligent, people just keep on repeating the same old stuff and the new stuff doesn't sink in.
The point is that you said you don't do X if there is anyone who will catch you doing X. If there is not, then you do X all the time. Well, guess what! Now then can see what you are doing all the time and you are going to have to change your everyday behaviour because you are incapable of voting for someone other than a republican or a democrat!
Take this personaility test.
Second, the photo wasn't published as the photo of a criminal. A caption under the photo read, "The man in this image was not identified as wanted." (from the original article). It was published (probably violating the rights of Mr. Milliron, BIANAL) inside a public demo image of the face-recognition-system. The fact that the woman falsely identified him as her ex has nothing to do with the FRS.
Third, images of suspects are usualy published to identify them, their identification is often not known. You are also asuming that the police will not check the positive identification from the FRS. And the guy on the phot was not the womans ex-husband who was infact wanted, but somebody else entirely. So in this case, like in many others, a human falsely identified a person as a wanted criminal.
In almost all criminal investigations several people are questioned - often in front of their colleagues, friends, employer or family - because some lead identifies them as a possible suspect. And these leads are often some "identification" by witnesses. You may think that's bad, but it's a fact, and it has nothing to do with the face recognition system.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Yah, they do that here in Fort Collins, CO (USA) as well...but I have heard of these OCR cameras. The good thing about the cameras here now is that I can pick them up with my radar detector (http://www.valentineone.com) and slow down. These other ones would have unlimited capability to slow me down...there could be an entire network of them. (BTW...I hit 145 the other week...on a 35MPH mountain road...now that's fun)
Most countries in Europe won't frown on a man with multiple lovers [...]
Yeah, but then you have to live in Europe. As the saying goes, it's a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Actually, I find Europe to hugely more interesting than the US, primarily because of the history. It's everywhere in Europe. I really love exploring old buildings, and it's hard to find a new building in Europe.
But you can't get around the fact that the US rules in most categories (opportunity, convenience, quality of steak, price of food :) ).
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
A model release for a photo in a newspaper story? Not necessary! I think cameras on lamp posts will revitalize the broad-brimmed hat industry. Panama hat, anyone?
Ummm... where did you pull that from dude?
They pulled us out of the car, searched us, and ound our stuff. They laid it on the roof of the vehicle, and turned us around to talk to the officer questioning us. We turned around, and all the "stuff" was gone. The police officer watching the roof of the car let out an assenine remark. He said, I guess the wind got it.
Then you should politely ask "got what?" (and maybe thank him properly). Kindof hard to convict you of a crime if the evidence is missing right?
Why the f*ck is that police officer what he is? He should be pushing burgers down the block from me at the McDonalds.
Well he should be in jail, but whatever. Not having your experience under my belt (interesting story, thx) I'm still going to optimistically assume that most cops aren't that corrupt. (unless of course I'm in L.A.)
Maybe this is the true reason for installing the system, not identifying and catching criminals, but to keep unwanted persons (including criminals and "troublemakers") out of Ybor City?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I would agree that most radar detectors are useless against the photo cameras. I too had a cheapie until i got nabbed by the photo radar. Then I tossed my $100 POS and got the V1. Now I see them (and every other cop with their radar on) coming from a mile away. I'm just glad I don't live in MD or VA (near washington DC) where they can outlaw radar detectors for "national security" reasons. The states, thankfully, don't have this right because radar detectors are regulated by the FCC and therefore under federal jurisdiction. Oh, you can't use them on military installations either.
The point is that its much easier to do this with a computer. Its like automatic speeding tickets or automatic jaywalking arrests.
Society is built on little white lies and when some fool mistakenly tries to enforce moronic laws good people get hurt and the morons who passed the laws to make themselves feel better go unpunished.
See drug war.
Take this personaility test.
Excellent point - that should have been moderated up to the top!
-Bone
Are you kidding?
Yes, I know we have a republic- but we also do have a Representative Democracy. The people should be in control of their representatives. Right now votes are a matter of money, not a matter of ideal, and that should be changed.
The reason money should not be considered speech is because money is controlled by organizations and not individuals. Yes, it would be nice to donate a few hundred dollars to your favorite politician, but it won't matter when some corporation is donating a few million to his competitor. Or worse, some corporation is paying a few million dollars to the politician you elected so that he'd enact legislation that you and your countrymen oppose.
Besides that, you are naive to think that third parties will in any way benefit with fewer contribution limits. We didn't get anywhere near reaching donation limits to third parties in the last several elections- why would getting rid of those limits help them? It seems to me it would only hurt them as the two major parties (whose multi million dollar campaigns are held in check by the regulations) would be getting even more money.
I just don't think the problem is government. It is corporate control of government. The people should control the government- not the businesses.
Maybe somebody already said this, but there is something missing here..
If they used the driver's license database to identify him, and track him down, wouldn't that same information also have shown that he was NOT who the woman claimed he was?
WTF? How did that conversation go?
"I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
You -are- responsible for whom you lend your car to. You can try and collect from the person, you know who it was.
Winnipeg will be getting Red-light cameras soon. I'm glad, way too many people run red-lights in this city. I see someone blatantly run a red light atleast once a week. (And I don't drive that much).
Your speeding vehicle is a serious threat to anybody else on the road. People die from being hit by cars. Those are facts.
"I owe it to the world to have as many children as possible, but it looks like my wife will limit me to two."
Why let that stop you? You do know other women exist don't you? with your superior genetics all of them would love to sire your brood. You can't let one woman stand in the way of your genes. Why rob the world of your children just because your wife says so.
War is necrophilia.
If my employer has the right to monitor my communications, why don't the citizens have the right to monitor their employees' communications. I'm speaking, of course, of elected and appointed officials and all other government employees. Sometime in the past someone got the mistaken impression that the government exists for its own sake. It does not, the government exists for the people--the taxpayers, in our case.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
Based on what? Stays of execution? Appeals undoubtedly influenced by the thought that upholding the conviction meant death for someone?
Based on exonerations. Meaning, the party convicted and sentenced to death had their whole conviction overturned, not just their sentence stayed.
What, exactly, is to be gained by long deliberation in such a case?
You don't think a human life deserves more than 13 minutes of deliberation?
I used to make fun of the inteligencia (And by that spelling you will know I am not a member of) for their fear and loathing of technology. How we would "lose our souls ..." to the machines. I just wished they could have better expressed the horror of watching my fellow humans beat us over the head with tech. I always hoped we stand shoulder to shoulder to battle the metal monsters, not fighting each other as the tv laughs at us. I was hoping for a Star Trek future but it looks like it will be a Soylent Green one instead ...am I wrong?
Clay
If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it. -- Calvin Coolidge
If this happened in Houston Texas and the guy was labled a drug dealer or someone who might have a weapon he would most likely be dead right now.
I base this off the number of innocent people they have shot because someone claimed they dealt drugs.
BTW, here is the online-article from U.S. News (though without the photo) http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010806/usnews/f ace.htm.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
If you think having cops pull you over for a traffic light is bad, try *not* having cops. Believe me, it's a lot better to be pulled over than to be knifed in the back by criminals looking for a few bucks.
Yes, L.A. cops are known for corruption. But to assume that because some cops are corrupt, all cops are bad is sheer idiocy.
After the woman misidentified him, how do you suppose they found the guy based on the photograph? Trial and error? They probably used the software to search the Driver's License database.
Where in the title did it say anything about software?
maru
Stupid kid??? Sounds to me like you have something against young, black people. let me tell you a story my "friend".... We got pulled over when i was in my teens, smokin a "doob" in my friends car. They pulled us out of the car, searched us, and ound our stuff. They laid it on the roof of the vehicle, and turned us around to talk to the officer questioning us. We turned around, and all the "stuff" was gone. The police officer watching the roof of the car let out an assenine remark. He said, I guess the wind got it. Oh well, now we can't charge these guys. So guess what? The stupid people are the people who have confidence in donut eating, egotistical, self righteous, pot bellied pigs. Yes, and guess what? You voted them in there, you don't say a word when something goes wrong. All you can say is.... Well, police are under alot of stress all the time, no wonder things like this happen. Well Sunshine, guess what? Why the f*ck is that police officer what he is? He should be pushing burgers down the block from me at the McDonalds.
Right, and our complaint is that the 'if you == criminal' clause has too many false positives.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Yep. The property seizure rules are nuts.
I've been told by local cops that all they need is a 100 dollar bill on a citizen and they can take anything they want.
Story goes that 90 odd percent of US 100 dollar bills have at some point been in contact with cocaine or heroin. All they have to do is test the bill, chances are it's got some coke of smack on it, then they can take your car, computers...whatever they want under the Property Seizure rules.
Crazy...and totally a story...
The DMV mention was typical Slashdot over-hyped speculation by the submitter and not caught by the editors. The DMV was never mentioned at all in the article.
In other words, there was no computer software that did any identification with this case. The issue is getting hyped because the system has the potential to have software matches, but it didn't happen in this case.
There are two sorts of video camera, those with people monitoring them and those which are only examined after something happens. Who's looking? Nobody knows. On a station on the Underground railway you quite often hear loudspeaker announcements like 'You sir on platform 3 in the blue sweater put out that cigarette'. But equally, vandalism of the trains, though in check, has not been eradicated.
Does it work? By and large, amateurs get caught and professionals don't. Bombings by IRA dissidents have not been solved (the main body of the IRA is still on ceasefire for other reasons). But the Soho bomber, a lone psycho with a grudge against humanity, was caught on video and sent to prison.
Vandals, shoplifters and brawlers can easily be identified: what happens next depends on the costs of prosecution (quite often too expensive). But the well-planned theft of an old master from a museum in Oxford a year ago has not been cleared up.
The effect on nightclubs has been entirely to the bad. Clubs come in two sorts, those which in fact don't want drug taking and those which do but pretend otherwise. The first sort install videos and persuade themselves that they have solved their problems: this is almost always quite untrue. One result is that video evidence of drug taking can be used by police to shut the place down. Another is that harm reduction measures are neglected. A club near London Bridge was for years a venue where ecstasy was taken openly, to the best of my knowledge with no casualties. Last winter it reopened under new management, who installed video cameras, abolished free water and allowed the premises to overheat: the result was two deaths. Clubs which actually want drug taking can use video for their own purposes, to identify unauthorised dealers and to spot the Drug Squad while they are still at the door.
You get used to it, but you also wonder what is coming next.
[Not really an anonymous coward - not being a nerd, alas, I don't usually post here.]
1984 is finally here?
No.
Now please proceed down the hall into room 101.
Thank you citizen.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Let us hope what you say is and will remain true.
Oh just shut up. You've been thoroughly owned in this thread, so why not just bow out of the argument gracefully.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Bull. This has nothing to do with the face recognition system. If you read the article, you'll have spotted that the photo appeared with a caption under it "THIS MAN WAS NOT IDENTIFIED AS A WANTED CRIMINAL" (my caps). The identification was some woman who rang the police and said, "I've just seen a picture of my ex-husband who's wanted for XYZ on the cover of the paper". She got it wrong, but the police HAD to investigate on the chance that she was right.
What do _you_ think the police should have done? You get a tip-off like this, would _you_ just let it go? Of course not, you'd follow it up. Which means finding the person and saying, "We've been told are going under a false name, and you're actually Mr. John Doe, who's wanted for XYZ. Is this the case? Do you have some ID, or can you get some ppl to vouch for you, to demonstrate that you're not?" Why do you think this is so unreasonable? Or is a policemen not allowed to investigate someone unless he _personally_ has seen them committing the crime, and can _personally_ identify them? If so, kiss goodbye to them convicting the mugger who attacks you on the street, even if you saw his face, know his name, and know where he lives!
Insightful my ass.
Grab.
Police found a co-worker, who immediately cooperated with the police, and found his alibi to be foolproof; he had never met the deceased.
Police intent to keep using the technology known as "following leads" despite its obvious shortcomings.
And the color of your car better matches the color in the registration too. And no, dark grey is not the same as black, even if they look very similar to the casual observer...
Get a ream or red paper from your local office supply store.
Use your laser printer to print "big brother is watching you from this camera" in bold dark letters. You can also get some clipart of a suveilance camera and print that too.
Take a stapler, some tape, or wallpaper paste and paste this paper right next to (or above or below) any camera you happen to notice. Include ATMS, building security systems etc. Once the sheeple become aware of exactly how closely they are watched they may do something.
War is necrophilia.
They identified the guy by comparing the photo to Digitized Drivers license photos. Weather this was by the software or hand is unknown.
Thats different. If hes out of a job by December its because people dont like that he sleeps around and lies about it, not because they think he caused the disappearance. If he hadnt slept with the girl and lied about it, hed be fine politically.
I ran a quick errand on foot and thought I saw my car parked a block away. I was furious thinking one of my roommates took it out without asking. Turns out the first (or last, don't remember anymore) three letters of the plate were different and it was a bit cleaner - the differences ended there. Fortunately, when I got new license plates (from North Dakota since I was going to school at the U of Mn ) I never got pulled over again. Go figure.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
At least you took a slightly different approach to whining that stupid "1984" mantra. Kudos.
Obviously no one wants that to happen to them
Come again? I'm sure that guy didn't mind explaining himself to his boss, safe in the knowledge that he had contributed to law enforcement somehow...
And don't forget the cameras can work both ways... they will help identify police abuse.
Yes, tell me where i can find a video feed from inside the Police department
Reboot macht Frei.
That's exactly what i think to. I don't need the government and I don't want the government to need me. Besides, here in Quebec our driver licenses information is being sold to the Mafia.
Now, if this picture (from the article - really, check the link or read the damn article yourself!) had been the one the system had captured, I wouldn't be so surprised :-)
This seems to be more a problem with the newspaper's policies rather than the system itself - I mean they are the ones that printed the damn picture and then sold it to U.S.News!
We interrupt this program with a special bulletin:
America is now under marshall law.
All constitutional rights have been suspended.
Stay in your homes.
Do not attempt to contact love ones, insurance agent or attorney.
Shut up.
Do not attempt to think or depression may accure.
Stay in your homes.
Curfew is at 7 PM sharp after work.
Anyone gaught outside of gates of their suveillance sectors after curfew
will be shot.
Remain calm, do not panic.
Your neighborhood watchofficer will be by to collect urine examples in
the morning.
Anyone gaught intefering with the collection of urine examples will be
shot.
Stay in your homes, remain calm.
The number one enemy of progress is question.
National security is more important than individual will.
All port broadcasts will proceed as normal.
No more than two people may gather anywhere without promission.
Use only the drugs described by your boss or supervisor.
Shut up, be happy.
Obey all orders without question.
The comformental mandor is now mandatory.
Be happy.
At last everything is done for you.
I know *I* certainly have an expectation of privacy on the streets! And your "the only people who don't want this" argument sounds like it came from McCarthy's grave. If I have nothing to hide, then I have nothing to fear?
Shall we install cameras throughout forests and in swamps, etc, too? You never know, someone might just commit a crime out there, too! And let's get some ex-KGB members hired here in the US - thoughtcrime abounds these days, I hear!
Perhaps you disagree, but I've never viewed getting pulled out of work by the police for crimes I didn't commit, in front of my co-workers and my BOSS no less, as something I'd enjoy or benefit from...
The Free desktop that Just Works
Apparently you are not aware that prisons are a big business in this country. States frequently have contracts with prison companies to build and maintain prisons. In fact some states have contracts with out of state corporations and ship their prisoners to other states. Of course in these contracts are volume requirements. So it's in the interest of the state to imprison people as much as possible.
Also prisoners now provide extrememly cheap labor to major US corporations. We have joined the likes of china in using prison labor to help corporations. These corporations are not likely to give up slave labor so easily so they pressure politicians to make draconian laws and tougher mandatory sentencing.
This is america and the prison industry is the new slave trade.
War is necrophilia.
I'm not sure why the article mentions the DL photos. Probably just to cause a panic. The cameras are connected to a db of mug shots, not drivers licences. And the cameras don't record anything. If your image matches the mug shot db, according to the software, it pings the police. Otherwise it ignores you.
Yes. In many ways, we've already gone down that path. It used to be that a 'crime' meant robbery, murder, assault, or rape. Now we have the police arresting a guy for failing to pay child support. Sure, failing to support your kids seems like a sleazy thing to me, but it ought to be worked out in civil court, not by the police.
Spray paint works for me. It really helps with the red light cameras too. ATM cameras are the easiest for the neophyte.
If you ever walk around in a Florida city with cameras, wear a clear plastic bag around your head. If they identify you, sue them under the DMCA for circumvention of an encryption device (the plastic bag).
qslack.com
This is straight out of 'Brazil'. Good thing is was something relatively innocuous... Just think if someone I.D.'d this guy as the Olympic Bomber, terrorist, or worse, a drug dealer [GASP!]
davejenkins.com |
The software that does the face recognition is so bad i dont see why we dont stop worring about it until they improve it.
My UID is prime is yours?
"By your logic, someone with poorer-than-average eyesight should not be allowed to identify a criminal, just because the chances of misidentification are a little higher than if the eyewitness was Superman."
No, that is not my logic; you have misrepresented my statements. I clearly stated there was a great difference in probability, not a little difference.
"So you sue the individual you lent your car to. "
...stupid driving. My Speeding is SAFE, much safer than most people on the street doing the limit. I pay attention and avoid bad situations...they just mindlessly point their cars. It's like saying that guns kill people, they dont. It's the retards behind the guns that kill. It's not the speed of the car (the power of the weapon) but the user and his/her lack of ability to operate.
No, you go to the ticket office and show them the picture, say "this isn't me" and leave. But I shouldn't have to prove my innocence like that.
"Your speeding vehicle is a serious threat to anybody else on the road. People die from being hit by cars. Those are facts."
The latter is true, but my speeding vehicle is no threat. It is not speed that kills, but people that can't handle their cars, people not paying attention,
In Beaverton Oregon, where I work. The time of the yellow lights have been reduced at intersections with the new cameras.
r ie s/news-specialreports-78637420010523-140557.html
r ie s/news-specialreports-77893620010516-200526.html
. ht ml
0 0N ov1.html
http://www.koin.com/c6k/news/specialreports/sto
http://www.koin.com/c6k/news/specialreports/sto
"KOIN's investigation found that amber lights connected to cameras changed to red much more quickly than those without the cameras. Armey says that the news story gave him the proof that he needed to call for a national study."
A study done in Farfaix County Virgina found that increasing yellow times made intersections safer.
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/vastudy
I was wrong about out here, the company isn't LockMart, it's an Australian Company. And yes...the Company DOES issue the tickets.
http://www.theage.com.au/bus/20001102/A21000-20
"The company's attraction is that it offers an entire traffic service, from the taking of photos, to processing and collecting the money from motorists. Redflex will provide Beaverton with cameras, evidence processing, court evidence, training services and a toll-free hotline as part of a public education service."
It's simply wrong to force people into breaking the law in order to increase revenue for a city.
... ok, maybe it's just a california thing...but *we* get fingerprinted when we get a license...and if you join the military you get fingerprinted there, too. I'd imagine the police get fingerprinted, and sometimes kids get fingerprinted too, when they visit a police station for fun.
But yeah, there are limited reasons to be fingerprinted, however cameras everywhere would essentially be fingerprinting you all the time...and then checking those fingerprints against a record...every time!
I tell you...I'm not a fan of these cameras AT ALL! How many people can honestly say they've never done an illegal thing...EVER? (j-walking, warez, unreported income, etc...). Hell, for something like j-walking, how many people can accurately define it and tell the difference between that and a legal street-crossing? Ignorance may not be an excuse, but I sure as hell would rather be allowed to make ignorant mistakes.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
I think this article shows two things about the face recognition stuff: (1) it doesn't work that well, and (2) even when it doesn't work, it's not as horrible as people think. This guy was obviously embarrased, but nothing all that bad happened to him. He was not arrested. He was not tried and imprisoned. Of course, the real failure here is on the police. A simple background check on this guy would have revealed that he was not the person the woman claimed he was. I don't know if the police did this before dispatching officers to question him, but I hope they did.
But like an idiot you think the only people involved are the man, police and women. The damn camera and software scanned everybody who came close to it.
It really does not matter. Once you have ntered the legal system you are fucked beyond belief. You will be tried, you will have to hire a lawyer, you ill lose your job, you will go broke. If you are married your wife will probably leave you and take the kids. Most of your friends will think that you were probably guilty and if they don't they will never be sure.
Compeletely innocent men have been jailed, sentenced to death and probably killed in this country. Even if you avoid avoid getting killed (perhaps you are a white person for example) or found not guilty your life will be ruined and you will be destitute.
War is necrophilia.
Take a close look at the upper-left-most thumbnail. Is he picking his nose?
Edith Keeler Must Die
No one has given a satisfactory answer as to why extending the eyes of the police is any different to putting more police on the street.
That's really easy to answer.
Here's one way: Take a group of 10 people and give them some pictures or short video clips to study. Have them write down what they believe is happening in those situations. (this is done in many US elementary schools to prove a point)
You'll see many COMPLETELY conflicting explanations.
That's because the context of the events has been removed.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
In our democracy, we must always remember that the government should always belong to the people- the individuals that give it legitimacy. Our government is currently controlled by nebulous business organizations with the money to influence the government to favor these organizations over individuals. We should not just give up on government, we should take it back. These "Orwellian Measures" came about because someone created a supply and convinced the government that there should be a demand. As long as money is considered speech, and corporations are considered citizens (without citizen responsiblity), government is going to be untrustworthy.
You sound like someone who hasn't spent much time in the reality of poor people.
Quite frankly, I don't need the cameras. I live in a nice house in a safe area. It's poor people in poor neighborhoods who need the cameras. Not only to catch crooks, but to also catch bad cops. It cuts both ways.
I would argue that you are the sheep, and paranoia is your herder.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I was thinking, what if identical twins were misidentified, if one of the twins was a convicted felon (twin A), and the other a upstanding citizen (twin B)... If twin A performed a criminal act with an APB for being armed and dangerous, and twin B was unfortunate enough to be seen by the cameras, what would be the excuses given by the cops if they tackle twin B on the street, or gun him down outright?
OTOH, I see a future burgeoning business in Hollywood style do it yourself facial appliances and makeup kits... You won't just see Klingons marching down the streets at sci-fi conventions anymore...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
You are a troll. Unfortunately, a lot of reasonable people make this ludicrous argument. To say that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear, therefore they should not have a problem with this is to ignore the unbelievable potential for abuse. By your inane reasoning, law-abiding citizens have little use for the 4th amendment. After all, they shouldn't mind a search of their houses, cars, or person because they have nothing to hide right?
The point is charges do not need to be pressed for this to be a tool of oppression. There is tremendous evidence that unscrupulous police officers are already using driver's license databases to stalk women, spy on ex-lovers, and pursue revenge. A corporate-controlled system that has the ability to locate a person is ripe for abuse. I suggest you wake up and stop swallowing this crap that these systems are here "to protect you" and that "only criminals need to worry".
One more thing: To quote Ben Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I say you are one of these people. Perhaps you should consider relocating to a country that better suits your attitude - perhaps China?
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I disagree that one could argue that the presumption of innocence is being violated here. The presumption of innocence only protects a person during a criminal trial. The jury must presume the defendant innocent until they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Law enforcement never presumes that anyone is innocent--in fact, the main function of law enforcement is to presume just the opposite.
Of course, the idea that our government can perform surveillance on all of us as we walk down the street is distasteful, it's not illegal or violative of our constitutional rights. Using satellite surveillance technology to observe a person at home is much more disturbing, and that techonology has been around for years.
There is no right to privacy in public. If you are in the public. I can watch you. I can video tape you and audio tape you in some jurisdictions. If you leave you super illegal gun/wee/dwhatever out in the open then a cop or anyone can look at it. Someone recognizes you or has a pic of you they can compare to anything they want. That's the legal facts jack and that's how the legal jurisprudence views this area. Sure it can be dangerous and databases need guidelines and oversight....but if someone wants to get you they will get you..regardless of the law
I'd take out the part about "not... on private citizens" and just say, cameras for one, cameras for all. Either everybody gets to be on camera, or nobody. Hmmm... wait a minute! Anybody who enters a public place, politician or hooker (often in the same public place, oddly enough) IS caught by any cameras present! Of course, they fail to catch any crimes which are committed behind closed doors, in the comfy chairs at the country club or in dimly-lit mahogany rooms at the State Department.
Maybe politicians and bureaucrats should have surveillance in their offices. If they do, so should you! You both have jobs to do, and honest responsibilities to uphold.
Bit of a quandary, eh? An obvious solution is to let everybody see what's on the cameras, of course. How about the "Orrin-Hatch's-office-cam" for website of the week?
(Disclaimer: the previous views are heavily influenced by "The Transparent Society" by David Brin. To quote Scripture, "There is nothing new under the sun"...)
Freedom: "I won't!"
For those of us who were too young to have remembered the plot of this excellent movie, quite a bit of the plot revolves around an arrest warrant mistakenly circulated because of a 'bug' in the computer.
Bzzzz....
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The solution.
The price of food is pretty cheap in most places in the world (except maybe japan) but even if was more expensive I would rather eat in Italy, spain, greece, turkey, israel, tunisia, or just about anywhere else then the US. The food in the US simply sucks big time. Amrican fruits and vegetables are bred to have tough skins, to be able to survive extended shipping, disease resistance, pesticide resistance etc. Anything except to actually taste good. Combine that with the fact that are picked under-ripe and then are ripened in a dark truck full of toxic gas and you have a tomato that tastes like cardboard. I would trade a billion burgers for a tomato from spain.
War is necrophilia.
We have a guy who gets tagged as a demo person in a trial version of some new hardware. Kinda like being sent one of those "You may already be a winner!" envelopes; you didn't ask for it to happen, but it happened, and so be it.
Now, somebody sees you on national television (kinda like actually WINNING the prize) and decides that you owe them money (which happens a lot to lottery winners).
So the police come in, question the guy, and find out that nothing's really going on, that it was just a case of mistaken identity. Big freaking deal.
Ask yourself this: would you care at all if some other schmuck in Florida was walking down the street, somebody thought that he was their long-lost ex-husband who had been negelcting the children, and reported them to the police, only to find out it was mistaken identity? Of course not.
But because this was done using some new technology that hasn't been perfected yet, and because in some Orwellian universe this technology may be able to infringe upon privacy, well, it's important.
Keep things in perspective here, ok?
the problem is that he looks guilty infront of his coworkers, his boss, and anyone else that saw him get interrogated. He has lost respect. That, in my eyes, is worth quite a bit.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
I have to start with this comment. If you don't think that putting cameras like this on every street is a loss of a Right, then you are blind.
Obviously you don't know what the phrase "expectation of privacy" means. In legal terms, it means that you expect to be unobserved. In public (particularly a restaurant, sheesh), by definition, you can't expect to be unobserved.
We're not talking about being observed, or in other words seen. We're talking about being monitored, about having your face scanned and compared to a database. That is fundamentaly different than being observed. And it's very different than simply having your picture taken. "Expectation of privacy" is not a legal term. There is a "Right to privacy" in my legal dictionary which I think is what you're talking about. According to that, there is a right to privacy, in the absence of a reasonable public interest. Now, I'm not going to argue with you about the term "reasonable", but the fact is that this right of privacy does exist, even in public. I don't know where you get your legal advice, but I hope you didn't pay a lot for it.
So then, do you think that all police should be banned from the streets, unless there is a crime in progress? No policeman should be allowed to view you in public?
I never said that, why do you pretend that I've said something I haven't and then proceed to argue that non-existent statement? I don't think that we should ban police from the street, I'm talking about surviellance camers.
Check out AbiWord.
Police (and FBI, secret service, or whatever other law enforcement agency) make mistakes all the time.
Just because this mistake happened to involve a relatively new technology doesn't mean the technology itself is necessarily bad.
Who knows, maybe having these types of databases and face recognition software could actually -prevent- some mistakes by providing better leads to follow.
If the cops came to my work and wanted to talk to me about mistaken identity based on photos taken by street cameras and then plastered on the pages of US News and World Report. I'd sue the living hell out of the Corporation that sold the cameras to the City, the City and I'd go after the City Council members that didn't vote against it with a recall. If they were apointed, I'd sue them.
These are as bad as the idiotic "red light" cameras that are popping up like mushrooms.
I don't break laws (other than speeding) and I don't cheat on or have an Ex...and I don't want these damned things on the street.
The woman couldn't identify her ex. Any wonder why they aren't together any more?
...I'll procrastinate tomorrow...
Lockheed does not issue the tickets. They make and service equipment that is used by cities to issue tickets. Lockheed does get most of the revenue from the tickets, but that does not bother me. The cameras are to improve safety, not generate revenue... that's what taxes are for. There is nothing to stop you from arguing the ticket, and as you can see, the pictures are of quite good quality. If someone behind you would rear-end you if you were to stop for a red light, then they would likely either (a) also run the red light, or (b) screech to a stop. They would have to due to their speed -- either of which would also be visible in the picture and would strengthen your case when challenging the ticket.
Also, I have seen many intersections that use these cameras and I have never noticed the time for the yellow light being reduced. Check your facts next time, and don't think all people will believe what you say just because you state it as if you know it's right. Show me evidence.
The controlled intersection nearest my apartment has got to be the worst I have ever seen as far as red light runners. Having cameras there could really help, and I will request that cameras be installed there now that I know more about them.
What's wrong is that there are so many people so willing to endanger others and then bitch about it when it becomes more difficult to do so. Boo-hoo.
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
Aren't you now giving people an irrational fear of teenagers?
By far, the vast majority of teenagers are honest, but confused, people.
Out of all the teenagers I know, none are gangsters.
--Fac Iustum Nec Time-- --Veritas Prevalibit--
but the Florida surveillence cameras did claim a victim
Change the topic to the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov. Reporter writes a story about how Dmitry was arrested with an accompanying photo. Behind Dmitry in the photo is a man. Woman sees picture, says "That's my deadbeat ex!" and he is arrested.
The reporter never should have reported Dmitry's plight because it led to a someone being wrongly arrested???
this still happened because we have cameras in public places
No, this happened because the media prints photos and SOME people who see the photos are idiots. This is unrelated to the fact that public officials are making bad decisions and putting cameras in public places.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
I agree 100% with you. Those who marked that as funny missed my point completely. You however, caught it.
You say you want a revolution?
Following that logic, all speed checks are illegal, as are beggage checks, road blocks and showing of photos of previous offenders to witnesses to identify criminals.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
You must not be familiar with a quote from one of our founding fathers:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
With these cameras and the software, you are trading an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety!
Say what you will about us Oklahomans, at least we don't use scary face-recognition cameras on our streets. Jerks.
This is truly scary. I'm talking about seeing cowboyneil naked scary. Luckly, there is an answer to all this though....
Keep Austin Weird!
spose i should preview my subject lines too. . .
We're talking about being monitored, about having your face scanned and compared to a database. That is fundamentaly different than being observed.
It's exactly identical. What's the difference between a policeman seeing your face on the street and comparing your face to a "database" in his brain, and comparing your face to a database back at the office? Hypothetical: If we could implant a device that allowed perfect recall of police files in a policeman's brain, would you be against it? Why? Policeman should only have imperfect recall?
"Expectation of privacy" is not a legal term.
I hope you didn't pay much for your "legal dictionary". For your education, check out this law review article about these very issues. My favorite quote is this: "Therefore, based upon prior cases, it seems unlikely that the Court would characterize police video surveillance on the street as a "search," because the Court has stated that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists on public streets."
I never said that, why do you pretend that I've said something I haven't and then proceed to argue that non-existent statement?
The "?" symbol at the end of my sentence indicates a question, not a statement. I notice that you dodged the question at the end.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
What the damn hell are you talking about? You jumped over the part where the police question you , determine you're not the man they're looking for, and let you go. You know, like what happened to the guy in the story that was submitted. In your little fantasy world, police officers pick people out of the crowd (at gunpoint) and immediately whisk them away to court to be tried for their crimes.
No District Attorney in America will proceed with a prosecution if the only proof they have of your guilt is that you bear a facial resemblance to the suspect in the crime.
Once again, Slash-holes are making mountains out of molehills. NO ONE is claiming that these cameras identify criminals with 100% unquestionable accuracy. All they do is make it easier for authorities to identify where criminals MIGHT be.
If there's a serial killer on the loose who looks just like me, I WANT the police to question me so I can prove I'm not him. And although it might be inconvenient, I don't mind if it happens more than once.
-Poot
Anyway, nowhere in the constitution does it say you have the right to walk down any street you want without being monitored and/or checked whether you are a criminal.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
There was recently a program on French TV (within the last week) with a segment about video surveillance in Monaco. Apparently, there are cameras all over the place -- effectively, the entirety of the public areas are covered in this mostly-a-country.
Of course, the rich walking around the place just love it. "Keeps the riff-raff off the streets, don't you know," et al. And even the non-moneyed people seemed to be happy, with many commenting how safe and secure they felt.
The most amazing quote came when the show turned to a security officer, who said something along these lines: "We aren't interested in keeping tabs on your every movement. We only take note when there's something out of the ordinary, and people seem to really like it. Besides, everyone knows that only criminals have something to fear from being watched." (Emphasis mine, though of course it's not an exact quote anyway.)
Whoa.
With gated communities so popular and the ever-increasing wealth gap (especially in the US), would it really be any surprise if something like this came to pass in the US? The attitudes are already present, the tension between have's and have-not's already high. And I think it's safe to say that the have's tend to have more clout when it comes to public policy.
Imagine it starting in Washington, DC: "oh, it's for the safety of the diplomats, your elected officials, etc." Then, in select areas of large cities -- not high-crime mind you, just those that the officials want to "keep safe". Then...?
The _Big Deal_ is that this is _another_ incremental step in the destruction of anonymity. Tools like this are all well and good when used by someone who does not want to put _you_ behind bars. What happens when something you do, think, or are becomes an offense in the eyes of the criminal justice system? If it ever happens I'm sure you will view these supposedly harmless developments differently.
-- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
mod the parent up!
...
Now this is where it really gets fun. Get some of your own face recognition software. It doesnt' have to be perfect, just adaquate and combine the photographs with GPS locations. Then build a database of the daily observed activities of individual police officers. If some public access was allowed to the public recognition systems in question, photographs of cops could be run against databases of wanted individuals until a false positive shows up and then publish that information.
Exactly. And one should also apply for a search warrant for this "criminal" and search their home for illegal gotten gains.
In a city just north of Seattle they're getting about 20 percent false positives on red light license fines - these are not the car they charge them for. At least here you can get a hearing to prove it's not you
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
IANAL, of course
Oh, of course
Oh, and you are a lawyer sharing your wisdom? Why don't you spare us the hypocritcal, snide comments.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Scary, really really scary. I guess I'll contact my Florida congresscritter to give them a piece of my mind... not that it'll be good for anything but to vent some air.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
Screw microphones, use camera's! Damn this is scary. Sort of make me want to move to a more free country. We're still lagging behind China in the human rights violation game, but if we pull together and work hard we can catch up!
http://james.nontrivial.org
It's called Brazil - one of Terry Gilliam's finest flicks.
I don't really see what the big deal is. The tracked him down, and asked him some questions. Identity theft is real people... if he was the deadbeat dad or whatever hiding under a new identy, this would be a good thing. The guy wasn't arrested. The guy wasn't charged. He wasn't even hauled down to the station. Cry me a frickin' river.
time to cut down on the coffee
It's funny, I don't care for survielance cameras on the street, but timing toll booth passes sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Look at the incredible idiocy of the activity you describe. The truckers, afraid of getting caught speeding, rush like hell to the very end of the toll road, risking all kinds of havoc on the way, and then stop completely at the end to avoid getting caught, thus completely negating any real benefit they gain from violating the speed limit.
It's stuff like that that continues to convince me that people speed only because it gives them a hard-on. I've never seen someone actually make it more than a car length in front of me, even on a major highway, when they speed like that. All they're doing is racing to the next bottleneck. Amazing.
I expected this 17 years ago... I wonder what took them so long.
Face-recognition systems assume the opposite: you are a wanted criminal and only a null result on their database search proves you are NOT, in fact, a criminal.
Errr, WRONG. Face-recognition systems try to find matches from their criminal database. They don't ASSUME anything.
It's like that guy I watched on the Travel channel who works free-lance for casinos in Vegas. He has photographic memory, and remembers the faces of the people caught cheating in casinos. He drives around in his car, and the casino people feed suspected cheater photos to him wirelessly. He looks at the pic, and tells them if he was caught cheating before.
The memory guy hasn't proven the gambler is cheating -- he just flags that person as a higher possibility than the others, and they keep a closer eye on the guy.
I have a right to expect that I am assumed to be an innocent civilian until proven otherwise.
You do have that right. Some cameras with face-recognition software haven't taken that away. The only thing that can take it away is mis-use of the technology. For example, picking up every match from the database, and taking them downtown to the local precinct for questioning, without some other mitigating factors.
These things should be ruled unconstitutional.
It is not unconstitutional for you to be brought into a police precinct for questioning. And if you are wrongfully harassed, you have steps you can take to fight back.
IANAL, of course
Oh, of course...
"And like that
This had nothing whatsoever to do with the software or face recognition system, and was simply a case of a mistaken identity: Happens all the time, and certainly happened before face recognition systems were in place.
If there is an issue here it is simply one of the media and the police using his image (or facsimile thereof) without his permission: Unless they got a signed release he should be able to sue the media (as he should: Unless they put GIANT letters stating that the photographed was some innocent guy on a lunch break then they have it coming to them) and/or the police for such an incredible breach of trust. Sounds like someone at the police force was a little loose with the system.
If there's a crime halfway across the nation and then there's a match on you, do you honestly think that they're going to bother you? Of course not.
What's more likely to happen is this: Your face gets identified as a "Bad guy". The police come up to you and ask to see your ID, and say, "Somebody resembling you has committed a crime, are you willing to answer a few questions?".
Now imagine this: there is no software, they simply looked at a "Wanted" poster and saw the resemblance. Come on, get a life and stop worrying that "they're out to get you" and "my privacy will be demolished".
Oh, one more thing: quoting a bunch of authors while not spelling things correctly does NOT make you seem intelligent; it makes you seem stupid.
It has begun, 1984 is just running a little late.
I can't say I agree wholeheartedly, but I do not fear the stupid cameras.
It amuses me to see how paranoid people on this site are. Yeah, bad things happen. Always have, always will. You don't see too many witch trials or lynchings these days though, so if you ask me things are better than they used to be. Let them put up cameras.
It's hard to believe a fanatic. That's why whenever I mention Slashdot to people, the first thing I usually hear (assuming they know of Slashdot) is, "Oh, God. Here we go."
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
...not very easily, however I live in a southern Florida city (one of the /larger/ ones ... if you can call it that) and they tried the camera thing here and noone seemed to notice it. So they didn't stop there, they installed sound monitoring equipment to really give it that extra _uNF-uNF_.
/everyone/ got quite peeved. Needless to say we did get the camera and sound equipment off of the buildings due to the fact that, if I remember correctly, it was an 'invasion of privacy' - since at any time you could see into appartment windows, or listen in on private conversations behind closed doors in the case of the audio equipment.
.ph0x
Now lemme tell ya when people found out about that - everyone.. and I mean
It just goes to prove that individually we cant do squat, as a group however, we can change things.
---
ps -aux | grep mind
Excesses in the war on drugs, such as confiscation of property and long jail times are there because that's what people voted for. But whether I agree with them or not, it doesn't matter.
The law in the U.S., for the most part, is clearly spelled out (one good thing about our system is that we have a paper trail for EVERYTHING). Because of this, I'm not going to be shedding tears for people who break the law and get thrown in jail. If you don't like the laws, work to change them. If you don't like the idea of jail, DON'T BREAK THE LAW.
Really quite simple.
A 43 to 50 percent error rate seems to me to be an astonishly poor showing.
If you've ever joined the Armed Forces, you've been fingerprinted. Also, professional licensing and certification sometimes requires a fingerprint check, for some professions and some states. If you've been printed for that fingerprint check, then your prints are on file. Law enforcement and teaching are prime examples of professions requiring this, and I think it's now required in one or two states for firefighter certification (but don't quote me on that)
Also, some states are taking an inkless print or inkless ten-print card when you receive a driver's license. I don't know why: I don't know if the FBI is all that willing to take inkless prints. Last I had heard, they were trying desperately to avoid them.
Had this guy done anything wrong? If not, he didn't have anything to worry about! In fact, he should be able to sleep a little better at night knowing that the camera system works!
DD
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
Rofl...Willing to stand up and fight for freedom, and post from the Anonymous Coward account. Thats the way to stand and deliver. Scarey indeed...yeah...I'll start running in a minute here.
With that being said...go read a survivalism newsgroup...search for EMP and diesel engines. I am not going to do your research for you on your vehicle...but there are some rules of thumb. The coil in a traditional system might be vulnerable to EMP, as would a voltage regulator, and various diodes. (Yes...there might be diodes in the alternator, etc.) Basically EMP is really bad news on any low voltage/high amperage system. If there are any transistors on that thing anywhere, kiss them goodbye. Odds are every gauge and sensor in that engine is NOT completely mechanical. No computer does NOT mean no required and sensitive electrical components. A purely mechanical diesel needs pretty much NONE of that stuff. Those are the engines that survivalists who are worried about an EMP have...and they have some good reasons. But even with all of that being said, I doubt you'll generate enough of an EMP to do terribly much (including mess up your truck that easily)...and if you manage to damage a few cameras, you can make a pretty safe bet that you'll either get brought down in a very bad way, and/or the new cameras will be hardened to it. But anyways...go ahead...be a hero. What your talking about is the idiots way to "fight" for freedom. Go ahead though....you'd make a great darwin award.
Here's the scoop: Police install cameras Police take picture of guy Police put guy's picture in a magazine Woman buys magazine, reads article Woman believes (mistakenly) that guy in picture is her ex and calls police. Police go after man Man gets angry However.... Tampa police Detective Bill Todd, who took the call from the Tulsa woman and interviewed Milliron, said Milliron did not seem upset. "He was laughing about it," said Todd, who spearheaded the software project that captured Milliron's image. So, authorities can invoke the Good Humor Man in the case of constitutional improprieties? Let's see, get pissed, piss off cops, get hauled down for being uncooperative. Laugh, let authorities think it's not an inconvenience, releases liability. Can I have a Popsicle with that Fifth Amendment Violation?
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I say we, the /. faithful, gather in mass and charter a bus to Tampa. Once there, we have shirts screen printed with phrases like "Big Brother Sucks" or "Quit Looking At Me, I'm Already Paranoid" and march around the cameras at random, giving them the occasional bird. We do this for a few hours, and when the cops come to make us disband, we start spouting about the first ammendment. If they did this in my town, I'd be out there with a .22 picking the cameras off...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
In the United States, there is a presumption of innocence. Face-recognition systems assume the opposite: you are a wanted criminal and only a null result on their database search proves you are NOT, in fact, a criminal. It's hard for us to be critical of these systems because, superficially, we don't want the bad people to get away. The pro-surveillance arguement is something like: "Well, if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear". But it's not that simple: I have a right to expect that I am assumed to be an innocent civilian until proven otherwise. I should not have to prove my innocence on a daily basis. These things should be ruled unconstitutional.
IANAL, of course
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
The cameras are so ubiquitous in some areas that crime has actually gone down, presumably because the crooks know that the chances are good they are being watched and taped.
I don't live in the UK, most of this is gleaned from watching TLC and Discovery Channel. Any locals care to comment on how video surveillance affects daily life in the UK?
*This page intentionally left pointless*
Did you know that fingerprint analysis is now being done by computer? Can you believe this? Computers are fallible, you know! Let's say that I have very similar fingerprints to a murderer; the computer software matches my print up to the print taken from the scene. I am then pursued as a criminal. They have no trouble finding or capturing me, because I'm not on the run and I am innocent. After questioning me, they realize their mistake and I am released (although I missed a bit of work because of it).
Give it a rest, already. This is NOT a threat to you, and one error does not make the system flawed.
The title of this post totally shows how DESPERATELY the editors want this to be an issue. When the software IDs someone incorrectly, fine.
INSTEAD, some lady in Oklahoma saw a picture of this guy, and said "That's my deadbeat ex!" This has no reflection on the software (which, BTW, I'm no fan of)
You hurt your cause when you present nondamning "evidence"
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
I've worked at a few places in my life, that I'm quite certain that if the police stopped by, even just to talk to you, you'd be called into the office the very same day, to pick up your paycheck and clear out the locker. What's worse, at the next job, there would be rumors that you'd been fired after the police dropped by... hardly something that is very defendable, when you're interviewing, or on 'new hire probation'. Thank god I've moved to a city big enough where a new job is a fresh start.
Next thing you know we'll have OCR cameras reading out license plates and giving us tickets for having an average speed over the speed limit. It's happened in other countries. There need to be serious laws passed against cameras used like this. No photo radar! No red-light cameras! No face-recognition cameras! No illegal keystroke wiretaps!
"I don't think it's right," he said. "They made me feel like a criminal."
And this affects you how ?
When I was younger, there was a kid in my highschool who looked remarkably like me. One time he was riding his bike recklessly and he knocked over an old man, who then complained to my parents, who believed them until I could establish an alibi. My question is - how long do these picture stay in the database, and what measures are there to emperically identify you as who you are? The potential for abuses on this kind of system seem astronomical to me, as often times appearence is the least consistent or reliable method of identifying someone, especially when a picture is old or out of date.
$45 per U Colocation Special
You better get used to it, because you have been watched by surveilance cameras for a long time.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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.
"secure in their persons", IMO, seems to disallow random searches of faces in public places, without consent, at least by the gov't, Nothing in the constitution prevents private individuals from denying speech (as in chat rool AUPs on AOL), particular religions (worshipping Satan in a catholic church), or requiring searches (drug tests of employees), as that's NOT done by the gov't. Violate away!
I'll ignore the gratuitous ACLU swipe and the troll-like use of "Barf me".
I may not have a right to privacy in public, but I have the right to an assumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Cops on the beat can make a mistake identifying someone. This is not a problem. No real harassment, just a case of mistake identity. These things are the equivalent of having checkpoints out on the street where you have to prove you're innocent. I refuse to put up with that.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
gnn,gnnn, no I can't help it, I have to reply to this BS post, being neither a criminal nor a wife-cheater (shudder to think of a government which uses _that_ against you). Problem is, even if you naivly presume that the police as an instution is your friend and helper, out there to protect you from bad people that are of course != you, any institution per se consists of individuals - who may be corrupt or misusing their position of power. Misuse of police data for political purposes eg is a practice that is fairly common even in democratic countries. And the list goes on well beyond that. Give it the slightest consideration and you will agree that total surveilance is a blank cheque for ay totalitarian notion whatsoever, be it of an individual, a group or a governmental body. Of course this might not sound so threatening to people like you after all.
From the article:
But in this case it wasn't the system that flagged Milliron, but simply a woman who saw his picture with a news story.
This is not a case of the police department questioning this guy because the software picked him, this is a real live person making a bad ID. There is not difference in this and if he was at a Tampa Bay Buckaneer's spirit rally and his picture got published in a news story because he was in the crowd and this woman making a bad ID off that picture. This story has nothing to do with the faults in the software, it only further illustrates how erroneous visual IDs by people are.
MY GOD, the lady who made the ID can't even recognize the man she'd been FUCKING for years and for whom she bore a child. I fear that her obviously dominate STUPID-BLIND-BITTER-VENGEFULL-"Mommy, who is my daddy?"-"Gee son, I couldn't pick your father out of a full color photo array if your well being depended on it."-"Smithers! Releas the hounds!" gene might have been passed on to the child. And this is the greatest argument against HUMAN CLONING.
My favorite part of the article was the ad to the right of the story:
"For dozens of live florida cameras, click here!"
I guess they havent learned their lesson.
-J5K
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Whe police fuck up, they have to pay the consequences. Otherwise what will stop them from arresting/interrogating people willy nilly? Where are the checks and balances?
Why shouldn't we be more worried about a florida alligator claiming a victim?
Personally I think bank/ATM security cams need to get a lot better so they can actually identify the bank robbers.
Take this personaility test.
- Police install cameras
- Police take picture of guy
- Police put guy's picture in a magazine
- Woman buys magazine, reads article
- Woman believes (mistakenly) that guy in picture is her ex and calls police.
- Police go after man
- Man gets angry
I don't see any mention of face-recognition software anywhere in that list (nor the article). The fact that the cameras were on the street is largely inconsequential because I've seen cameras on many, many, many pieces of public (and private) property in the Seattle area. None of these are hooked up to face-recognition software (AFAIK) and they can be used to find criminals just as easily.marotti.com
So... if I print out pictures of the FBI's 10 most wanted people to scale, and my friends and I wear the picture as a mask- what kind of police response would that provoke?
Can I make the prosecution track down every developer and engineer and bring them to the stand?
You seem to be assuming that this will be an automatic guilt machine just because you have been identified by the camera. This is no different than if a tourist happens to catch you on tape committing a crime. It's just one piece of evidence. It still has be reviewed by a jury along with all the other evidence.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
OK, not that I agree with the system but realize that the SNAFU was really the wife's doing. The surveillance system was the means of observation. Couldn't she just as easily have seen him in the background of a live news broadcast or something and have the same result?
-just my 00000010
This was a chick with bad eyesight. The picutre of the guy could have been from anywhere. She just recognized it. The fact that it was in the context of the facial criminal recognition system is what triggered this. If the caption had been "Random guy sitting on bench" nothing would have come of it. The scary thing is that just being on this camera brands you suspicious, even if it looks at everyone walking by. People assume you're up to no good if you get singled out, which is why the system is flawed. Assumption of innocence is everything.
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
You only say that because you haven't had your time wasted by wrongful police accusations. I say more power to this guy to get legal damages. 'Frivolous' lawsuits like this are one of the great ways that our country is able to keep it's own government in check.
Okay...don't know jack about the laws around this. But from the article, it sounds as if he didn't know he was the demo person - no problem there...kinda like me snapping a shot of a random person to see if my camera works.
But wouldn't they need some sort of release to publish his photo? On the DV list I'm on, every other month a thread comes up about getting releases when doing public shoots. So, how or why did they go ahead and send this photo around the country without his consent?
They had a photo of a man who was sitting at a cafe in Tamapa. The police were then able to track him down?
What was the connection? The name the wife would of accused him with would not have matched up. If his name was linked to the photo wouldn't he of questioned where the photo was going to be used?
This doesn't sound quite right somehow. Can anyone offer some insight?
From the article:
Milliron's photo ran in the St. Petersburg Times June 30. A caption under the photo read, "The man in this image was not identified as wanted."
The Times later sold the photo to U.S. News and World Report.
Folks, the surveillance cameras' involvement is coincidental. The Times sold his picture without getting his permission!
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
Double standard?
Of course, if I were here husband, now would be a good time to move to Florida AND take on the fake identity of the man accidentally questioned. Lightening rarely strikes twice - and the legal suits which (undoubtedly) this guy will try to put forth against the police will deter them from ever investigating him regarding some event even remotely related to this trial for a while.
You say you want a revolution?
You left out 3) Everyone who disagrees with you and 4) Straw men who are easy for you to tear down
I don't worry about my privacy. I do worry about finding my way into a database whose users are not answerable to the same public that they are supposed to be protecting. What happened in the article above is a clear indication that it's not going to be pretty.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
There should be ZERO possibility of mistaken interrogations. In fact, without a warrent there shouldn't be workplace interrogations by the police.
With the amount of money the Federal and State law enforcement organizations get for crime databases...there is no reason why this mistaken identity garbage should happen. Not only are the police stopping and questioning people at thier workplace...they are mistakenly invading homes and shooting people because of failures with 911 systems or just plain screwups. It's not right and it needs to stop.
If the Police get to run around in black smocks and refuse to identify themselves to the public, why should the public have to put up with crap like this?
And I don't want to hear (or read) that "If you have nothing to hide, then it's not a problem" crap. An eye over my shoulder, even if for no other reason than to watch what I'm doing, is very disconcerting.
Especially when that eye is attached to an error-prone system that treats everyone it identifies as criminals. The Bill of Rights is supposed to guarantee that we are innocent until proven guilty, but cops and employers treat individuals the opposite. Not only is Big Brother a mean bastard, but he is also an idiot. If law enforcement has power that exceeds their competency to use it properly, they are as children with bulldozers; no matter how good their intentions, innocent people are going to get hurt. This incident had mild consequences, but it shows that the system is being used recklessly.Just because the system says that a picture of you looks like a picture of a criminal it has dosent meen your guilty. You arnt sentanced. Guns dont pop out the front of the camera and execute you. The cops come out and ask some questions. They didnt take this guy downtown and throw him in jail or ship him back to whatever state it said his wife was in. They didnt even take him before a judge. They found out who he was and went away. How manny people get called in a year for a lineup? Those people dont make the headlines but they go through more trouble than this guy did. The system is a tool not a judge and jurry. If someone had a sketch artist make a picture of you the same thing would happen. Hell its probably more likely to happen with the sketch artist. Its no different than what happens now with wanted posters, its just more efficient.
Leonard Peltier has been in prison for over 20 years for a crime everyone knows he didnt commit, including the FBI agents who coerced witnesses into providing false testimony so he could be extridited from Canada. Only he's still in prison now, as we speak.
Now, *that* would be a lawsuit.
A few days? Bah.
The URL is too funny.. Read it carefully.
I'd like to see someone start selling cheap masks of the folks on the FBI 10 most wanted list. We could wear them while walking/driving around cities that use this technology.
Here, we are seeing Government going beyond its Constitutional role to harass an innocent man. It really bothers me to see so many people in this forum say, "So What?". The "What" is that a person should not have to fear that the Government will randomly pick you out of the crowd and threaten you! Questioning is a form of Governmental threat because you know if you don't get the answers right or look the wrong way, you go to jail until you deplete your bank account on a lawyer -- plus as a bonus, when you are found innocent, you don't get reimbursed for your expenses.
If anything in the US, the cameras should not be trained on private citizens but on public officials. They are the real criminals. I would love to have the bright light of sunshine pound down on each and every politician -- focusing in on the actions they commit during their waking hours.
Frankly, as far as I am concerned, Uncle Sam should go have marital relations with himself. Its so sad to see the "Freest Country on the Planet" resort to this Fascist behavior. Even worst are the bleating sheep that think these cameras are a "Good Thing®".
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
technology developed by aerospace companies (to remain nameless) and guess who gets comission on the tickets - the same companies.
Ask yourself this: would you care at all if some other schmuck in Florida was walking down the street, somebody thought that he was their long-lost ex-husband who had been negelcting the children, and reported them to the police, only to find out it was mistaken identity? Of course not.
I'll admit I would care less about that, but that is not what really concerns me. What concernes me is this:
Suppose there is a criminal who resembles me in basic appearance, buld, facial characteristics etc. (be honest, how many times have you mistaken at total stranger for someone you know) and I go off to the mall/movies/park/office and the software pegs me as the bad guy, and I get swarmed by police officers. But wait here comes the best part, four days later on my way to dinner downtown it happens again.
This really can happen. My favorite coffee shop is apparently frequented by someone who looks amazingly like me - some of the barristas even get confused about who is which. To me, I don't look anything like the guy, but to an optical camera, I would probably become a false positive.
I've never done anything that I should be arrested for. For all I know this guy has a long string of warrants out on him. If they install a camera near the coffee shop, they may do a match on him and stake out and then arrest me.
And, since this is Seattle, they'll probably shoot first and ask questions later. If I was African-American, I'd have a 50 percent chance of getting killed in such an incident.
Luckily for me, I'm not. So I only have a 5 percent chance of being shot for something due to such cameras, should they install them.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Here is an earlier story that says that it is illegal to film police misconduct.
Now what we have is the police recording a person doing nothing wrong and released it to The St. Petersburg Times. From the article "The Times later sold the photo to U.S. News and World Report."
So, the press made money off of an innocent man, without his permission, in a deal that was enabled by the police.
What's wrong with that?
Fuck I hate idiot trolls.
State of Love and Trust
Did the SPTimes get a model release from the guy? If you are the main subject in a photo (as opposed to a group shot of people on the street) and easily identifiable then the photographer is required to have a signed model release before publication.
Well, I guess we fall a little short on the 'easily identifiable,' but that was the woman's fault. You'd think she could recognize her own ex.
If they are questioning you of anything to do with sex and kids (no matter what age, this includes teens), you will have a very hard time finding a job again.
One of my teachers from school was charged a long time ago, the charges were dropped, but he had to leave the school, last i heard he was no longer in the teaching profession, because something like that sticks with you, guilty or not.
This is somewhat off topic, but this article has made several points extremely clear. First of all, we are allowed to take random pictures of people in public and sell them. Someone should walk around that city with a digital camera and take pictures of people and make it obvious enough that they know about it. Eventually, someone will complain, and when they do, point out one of the public cameras and tell them thats what the city is doing, why aren't they complaining about that?
Someone with a lot of guts and no criminal history whatsoever should do this with cops. Whenever you see a police officer, go right up to them and take a picture of them and follow them around at a reasonable distance and continue filming them. What are they going to do? They're doing the same thing to you, its only fair. If they question you about it, hand them a business card, or better yet a big colorful flier linking them to your website and offering to sell them CD's of pictures of police officers in that city. To make it even more interesting, have a crowd of people follow you around with camcorders so any interaction by the police will be recorded. Also, if possible, get a permit from the city to perform artistic observations on the street, so they can't even accuse you of loitering.
Now this is where it really gets fun. Get some of your own face recognition software. It doesnt' have to be perfect, just adaquate and combine the photographs with GPS locations. Then build a database of the daily observed activities of individual police officers. If some public access was allowed to the public recognition systems in question, photographs of cops could be run against databases of wanted individuals until a false positive shows up and then publish that information.
Personally I hope that guy does sue, if only to lose. Specifically he needs to sue whatever stage it was that sold or provided a picture of him to the media without his consent. If the court decides that it is acceptable to do so, then all the preceeding activities should be legal.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
This is a troll at best. I'd tag it as flamebait as well.
I'll be waiting when this one goes into meta-moderation.
Posting as AC since I'm sure I'll get -1 offtopic for being the messenger..
If the cops came to my work and wanted to talk to me about mistaken identity based on photos taken by street cameras... [blah vengence]
So you think that there should be absolutely zero possibiliy of mistaken interrogations? What about if a tourist video tapes you and they happen to see someone that looks similar on America's Most Wanted? Should we ban all cameras in public? What's the difference?
This is a difference issue, and I agree with you here. There is no excuse for publishing someone's photo in this context, although the problem is not with the cameras, it's with the news agencies.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Lets assume that, unless proven otherwise, all people are law abiding.
Thus, there is no need for cameras in public.
*Sigh* This will probably be modded as "troll".
Dasunt, master of the understated argument.
See drug war...oh please. Some of those laws aren't quite based around catching "little white lies". If you think for one second that there aren't a LOT of more serious issues that fall under the "drug war" catagory your kidding yourself.
Even beyond that...if there are speed traps all over the place...I sure as hell don't speed. (Unless I have to - medical emergency etc, which can be excused under the law...hell...you'll probably get a police escort if they know what's going on.) If there are some cops out there cracking down on Jaywalking problems, I sure as hell don't Jaywalk. (Again...unless I have a DAMN good reason that is excusable in the eyes of the law.) If there is a drug war in place...guess what I do assuming I don't have a superceding need? (It's just that non-addictive folks! And we are smart and sophisticated drug afficionado's afterall, right?)
As a side note, I wouldn't be doing it without said war either. I've seen more than a few people dumb themselves up to the vegetable catagory with it...it's kinda funny to watch at first...but it gets quite depressing after awhile.
I am a counterexample to your theory. My reasoning is the same as Carnivore; maybe it would catch a few criminals faster, but the large potential for abuse outweighs that benefit.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
What if someone passes a law criminalizing my conduct when they find out about it and then instantly locate me with the CARNIVORE system?
Take this personaility test.
I don't worry about my privacy. I do worry about finding my way into a database whose users are not answerable to the same public that they are supposed to be protecting. What happened in the article above is a clear indication that it's not going to be pretty.
Except you don't make any argument as to why this is different than ANYTHING we have now. Police make the same mistakes. People videotape in public now, and can turn over those tapes to the police if they thought they saw a criminal.
No one has given a satisfactory answer as to why extending the eyes of the police is any different to putting more police on the street.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The guy should sue the makers of the camera and the police and the relevant jurisdiction. Not for the invasion of his privacy, but because they used his image in their marketing without his permission.
Anyone know how much Hedy Lamarr got for that when she sued Photoshop?
--Blair
I can't remember the author, but the story was about a man who had an overdue book, _Kidnapped_, by Robert Louis Stevenson. The story is told as a series of emails (or paper mails...) from the computer, eventually claiming the person had *kidnapped* a boy named Robert, and he was convicted and scheduled for execution. The only evidence and argument was the computer records and...
Nah, could never happen in real life.
The gov't has been doing this stuff for years, NSI anyone?
I saw a Colombo episode where the bad guy had his girlfriend deliberately get a speeding ticket at one of those automatic cameras while she held a picture of him over her face to give him an iron-clad alibi. I think someone should start doing cameos as Elvis in front of some these cameras.
Police need to be FORCED to compensate people when cops fuck up because they sure as hell won't do it on their own.
Police don't want to have to be really sure before they make a bust.
This is a parody, so laugh. Please.
This morning, at 6am, hacker extra ordinaire, Steve Gibson was hold up for questioning in his Florida summer house by the FBI (again), but this time for, apparently, molesting little female dogs.
"Those sick perverts!," said Mr. Gibson, "They wanted me to wank into a jar to analyse it, or so they say... What really happened is that Micro$oft implanted some of those raw sockets in my arse! I dont have proves yet, but soon they will come!"
Later that day, the FBI said "Apparently our face recognition software in Florida mistook Steve Gibson with a young, blonde, big breasted female fugitive named Patricia Diddy, wanted for the crime of molesting and abusing small female animals, mostly dogs. Ooopsie."
The director of this operation had this to say to our reporters "Well, our boys noticed that something just wasnt right when our agents tried to rape, err, strip search Mr. Gibson and found 'unusual' female sexual organs in places that... simply werent there."
Some other FBI agent, that desires to remain anonymous, added "Who cares, I GOT TO STRIP SEARCH HIS ARSE!@#% L33T!@#%"
Oh well.. Who cares.. Were all doomed anyways.. And I dont live in America! woo hoo! Im free and youre not!!! ahah!
Now cops with no understanding of software failability are being given buggy software and the ability to drag people off at gunpoint based on its output
Holy cow. You started out by misunderstanding the article and then went way off the deep end. The software did not misidentify the man. A flaky single mom from the 2nd most boring place in the country read a national rag and thought she recognized her ex (who left her so he could become a construction worker in Florida). This has NOTHING to do with "flaky software" and it certainly has nothing to do with people getting dragged off at gunpoint by "the Man".
Holy shit. There are paranoid people here, who exaggerate to make a point.. every damn day.
Intelligent Life on Earth
When you get your photo taken for your driver's license in New hampshire, you are allowed to say whether or not you want the photo stored in their database. I can't remember how because I know that I forgot to specify I didn't want my photo in there database last time I had my picture taken. I wonder how many states ask you? I would think they'd have to ask you, or at the very least let you know they are keeping the information. Any else out there know of states that ask you?
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
If only they would use their powers for niceness, instead of evil.
I know that this is an invasion of privacy. I'm to lame to realize that there are few rights that guarantee me privacy, so I'll whine a while.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
RTFA, The computer identified him as NOT being a criminal.
Stop this goddamned nightmare brave new world merry-go-round... I want to get off...
Here's a link to what I was talking about...
= 20 01/July/6/camera
http://www.baynews9.com/newsstory.asp?storyname
(pull the space out in the "20 01" part)
The officials will call this an accident, the system is so new, this will never happen again, yadda, yadda, yadda. Welcome to 1984, a bit late, but nevertheless my warmest welcome. While this system might be used for good, it also introduces a complete new level of observation which can lead to some pretty funny things. Like employer (official agencies in the first place) research. Oh, Mr. Anderson, you have a second life. During the day you are a computer programmer at xxx and during the night you are known as Neo, Cyberpimp, we cannot hire you for the new job ... and so on, just let your imagination play a little ...
I've got a deal for you, why don't you and everyone else who doesn't mind being monitored 24/7 just wear a radio collar so the police can keep up with you and make sure you're not doing anything wrong. The rest of us will just continue with our lives as they are.
The only people who don't want this are 1) criminals, and 2) people who cheat on their spouses and don't want to get caught.
Wrong! The only people who do want this are the sheep who don't understand that by agreeing to this kind of thing in the name of public saftey, they are slowly giving up every shred of personal freedom they have. Another poster said it, but's it's worth repeating, Rights just don't disappear, they're slowly eroded away over time.
Check out AbiWord.
Perhaps you disagree, but I've never viewed getting pulled out of work by the police for crimes I didn't commit, in front of my co-workers and my BOSS no less, as something I'd enjoy or benefit from...
Obviously no one wants that to happen to them, and we want to minimize it as much as possible. That's one of the reasons I'm in favor of cameras... mistakes happen because of a lack of knowledge, not more knowledge. Public cameras give us more knowledge of the crime so we can put the right people in jail, not someone pegged by an 80 year old lady peeking out her window in the dark.
And don't forget the cameras can work both ways... they will help identify police abuse.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
lets introduce some of the crazies on the extremes of our culture to make it fashionable to start wearing masks as protest. Like hats were stylish, (for well, god... forever,) in the 40's. (at least that's what the movies I have watched have burned into my brain as being our culture then.)
start wearing masks everytime you go outside. Critical Mass(r) of people all wearing masks around in Tampa Bay. First the crazies with ski masks and hats and big 70's Carly Simon sunglasses crop up.
Then the skate/punks/alienated youth start to throw fashion in the mix and masks become an unstoppable trend that thwarts the software.
The Boys don't end up buying the software until much later, when everyone else has snuck the software and cheap cameras into the community.
we are looking at inevitability with these things.
or do you not view your unconsious disregard of the gas station and grocery/convenience store camera's as creeping towards this fork of culture?
who needs to write sci-fi when you can live it?
My own warfare on red light cameras. I built a larger version of the EMP cannon described in an Electronics Now article and mounted it pointing straight up in the bed of my non-computerized 74 pickup truck. Whenever I see one of those red light cameras mounted on the traffic light, I hit the button on the dash just as I pass under it. Blammo. I'll show the city that these cameras will cost the city more to keep replacing than they generate in revenue and then we see how much this is really about 'safety'. Best of all, no one can "see" the attack on the camera as it happens.
he could just as easily have been watching a food processor demonstration or standing next to a famous celebrity who was being photographed
Ahhhh, but he wasn't standing next to famous celebrity or in an infomercial audience. When you stand around near the limos outside the Academy Awards, there are flashbulbs and TV cameras all over the place. When you get paid to ooooh and aaaah at Ron Popiel doing ungodly things chicken legs and motorized blades, you expect your ugly mug to show up on late night cable TV.
Was this guy doing either of these things? No, he was just eating lunch and minding his own damn business... something the authorities (and two media outlets in this case) should do more often, methinks.
I take drugs seriously.
Don't just paint your face like any old 4H schmuck, do it like Picasso.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
have been taken on a road that will someday lead to a world much like that depicted in the movie "gattica" You can say i am just being paranoid,but think for a moment, what kinds of freedoms did our parents enjoy 30-50 years ago ?? and then ask your self are they ALL still there today ??? no they are not. Freedom is taken away one very small step at a time until oneday you look around and think, gee what ever happened to my right to do XYZ ?
sorry bub those rights are gone.
welcome to the new world .
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
I think it's time for all these things to be embargoed and protected by the kind of organization Greg Bear describes In "Queen of Angles" and "Slant" where you have to prove you have a pretty darn good reason in order to be able to search surveillance records. When I first read it 8 or 9 years ago it seemed a bit far-fetched.
Now I think it's necessary. NOW.
The Fourth Amendment must be used to prevent such invasions of privacy, or we'll slide down the slippery slope until we're living in a country that'd make the old Soviet Union look open and enlightened.
The Fourth Amendment is practically going the way of the dodo. Ever been through any number of police checkpoints? They claim to be checking for drunk drivers, people without seatbelts, lack of insurance, etc. Most people are within the law, but they get stopped and harassed just the same. Generally I have faith in the Supreme Court, but the Court is of the opinion that the benefits of these checkpoints outweigh our rights that were supposedly guaranteed to us.
July 4 (Independence Day) is a prime time of year for these intrusions without probable cause. Ironic?
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
Woah there, buddy. The camera took a picture of him... was this with or without his permission? This guy's picture went in a paper distributed *worldwide*. If I had seen my picture in that newspaper taken without my permission with surveillance cameras while walking down the street I would be talking to a lawyer. These cameras are a violation of the residents' constitutional rights.
False positives put a lot of innocent people in jail and on death row. Just one false positive involving these cameras is enough reason to dismantle them.
You are all fartheads.
I personally do not think it is the government's job to watch me, Take care of me, feed me, fund me, etc. I can take care of my self. All I want them to do is leave me alone, Stay Out of my life, and quit trying to infringe on my freedoms! If the government wants to watch some one and check there backgrounds they should start by installing this system in congress. Lets see how many of them pop up with records, warrants, etc. They may catch more crooks that way!
These things are the equivalent of having checkpoints out on the street where you have to prove you're innocent. I refuse to put up with that.
How so? How is this different from just having more police on the street walking the beat? I agree that checkpoints are a pretty gray area, but in no way do the cameras impede your progress.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I think one of the most basic freedoms in the US is to be free of government surveillance unless there is at least some evidence (ahead of time!) that a crime has been committed. Otherwise, mistakes may happen, and apparently they often end with innocent people in prison - even on death row. Certainly DNA testing has recently borne this out on numerous occasions.
The Fourth Amendment must be used to prevent such invasions of privacy, or we'll slide down the slippery slope until we're living in a country that'd make the old Soviet Union look open and enlightened.
On a somewhat related note, I'd be very wary of a government that repeatedly calls for more police and prisons, even though the crime rate has been going down for years. (This same government has also decided to artificially inflate the crime rate by pursuing an unwinnable "war on drugs"...and is using that as an excuse for all sorts of excesses including confiscating vast amounts of private property.)
186,282 mi/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The meat of the issue isn't the fact that some one mis-recognized his picture. Its the fact that the police were able to take the digital photo from the survailance camera and match it correctly to a person in the DMV database using the driver's licence digital photo. He was the guy in the picture, just not a non-payer of child support.
The danger for privacy is that the next step is doing the match for reasons other than suspicion of criminal behavior. Marketing, intimidation, or whatever. This story is evidence that all the issues of tracking people's behavior on the Web are now a concern in the real-world too.
I'm sure a store would love to know who you are just by taking your picture when you walk in (or just walk by)
The only thing we have to fear...
is all that really frightening stuff
Tampa is lame.
Here's a solution that doesn't involve masks. Each day, use facepaint and make pretty designs on your face! Be creative! Smiley faces, caligraphy, last nights hockey scores, anything!
And for camera systems that might track by the *shape* of one's face, one could wear various accessories, such as an ordinary pair of Groucho Marx joke glasses.
In particular, they took a photo of this guy, published it and sold it without getting a model release. As a direct result of their actions, he ended up if not in trouble with the police at least in the appearance of trouble.
In the USA these days, odds are good that if he sues them (if nothing else, the model release issue gives him legal grounds) he'll get either a significant settlement or a significant award in a trial. In publishing this, I'm sure the SPTimes is hoping to a) keep him from pursuing them and/or b) reduce the amount of sympathy he could get from a jury. It's not a retraction of the earlier story because there's really nothing to retract, but given the nature of the previous story this is about as close as they could get.
Maybe the above marks me as cynical, and I'm sure that's not the only motivation (and it may well not even be a key one - if it was would it be admitted by anyone?), but I'm sure that editorial staff there are aware of it.
fencepost
just a little off
You, and people who think like you, are stupid fools. "The only people who don't want this are 1) criminals, and 2) people who cheat on their spouses and don't want to get caught. Well, my public safety is more important than your ability to get to your motel room unobserved." Do you know it's a _criminal_ act in China to say anything bad about the government? Well guess what. Just because we have a "benevolent" government right now does not mean that it will always be that way. It's already illegal to say you'd like to see the president be, well you know. (Screw you carnivore!) It may soon be illegal to burn the flag. And that's just the beginning. If you don't think it's possible for our government to "go bad", then you are a fool. All it will take is for them to make some really contriversial decision that royally pisses off one half of the nation that the other half of the nation is 100% for. Then maybe we'll have another ciivil war on our hands. And do you want to be on the side against the government when they've taken away your right to have weapons as good as the ones they have, and they have placed cameras on every street corner so they can track dissidents? I bet you think that's crazy to think that could happen. We got over that back when slavery was abolished, right? Well what about when Pearl Harbor was bombed and we rounded up all the Asians in the US? You'd have thought we were "enlightened" back then, but we weren't. What about when the government released a virus in New York on purpouse back in... what was it, the 30's? To test it to see what would happen? Our government is not guaranteed to be benevolent just because we have the constitution "protecting" us. Our government is always testing the limits of what it can get away with. And over time, our freedoms have been drastically eroded. You used to be able to go out into the woods, and if it wasn't land obviously owned by someone, build a cabin there. Now the government has control over all the land even if it's not being used. And they prevent you from building a home by A) requiring certain building "code", and B) charging you tax on the land you "own", wich you don't actually own because if you stop paying taxes on it they can take it away. Heck, they can take your land away if they want to build a road through your property, or if there's some endagered bird living on it, or if they just want to build a snowmobile trail. I saw a story on TV about this guy who dug a pit out in the desert and built an undeground house on someone else's land. That land owner didn't mind. But the damn government told the guy who owned the land that they'd fine him if he didn't evict the other guy because the building wasn't up to "code". So you don't even have the same basic rights as an animal in the US. You have no right to life or liberty unless you own land and pay taxes on it. And things are only going to get worse. You used to be able to get to work by walking. Now you have to use a car because highways have made it so all the buisinesses concentrate in one place. But the government controls the cars. You can't own a car if they don't think you should have one. So you can't get to work unless you're lucky enough to live near a place where you can work. Our country SUCKS. And these camera systems suck. Oh and btw.. ever heard o that speed trap town in Florida? Wait till they get their hands on this technology. They'll be the richest city in the US in no time... thousands of tickets an hour! Mailed right to your door! As simpl as snapping a photo. Maybe they'll use the face recognition to catch jaywalkers too. If you say you've never commited a crime, you're a LIAR. IT is impossible for anyone in this country NOT to commit a crime at some point. There are too many laws. Swearing in public is even a crime in some places.
A snapshot from such a steep angle makes it pretty hard to tell. How do they calculate the percentage chance it's a match? Can they increase that % to be sure?
Considering that story some time ago about cops using a database of citizens' records for stalking...er...tracking down people for personal reasons, the chance for abuse is high. The UK has these kind of cameras all over the place. How does that system work? Do they use a computer matching system? Does a human ever enter into the equation?
Honestly, I track down people all the time as a member of the news media. It takes me an afternoon WITHOUT VIDEO OR PICTURES. We pride ourselves on finding the unfindable. You know what? Honestly, if you think that the police coming to your place of work is a big deal, then you need to get a serious grip. The police come to people's places of work for car break-ins, subpeonas, and all sorts of other things. HIS HONOR AND WORKPLACE RESPECT? That is worth a lot? Is it worth more than catching criminals? This man needs a million dollar check for a police questioning. Please get a grip. Realize that the police are looking at people like they are criminals BECAUSE IT IS THEIR JOB. You really wouldn't like the alternative to the police. Ask some of your programmer friends who fled their countries.
hmmm...do i smell bacon?
yes, but NSA (not NSI) didn't arrest you... you just became a missing person.
If they're using driver's license photos, I would think there is no threat at all -- how often do DL photos look anything like their subject?
And I'm NEVER going near that place now. I did find the coverage of protesters passing out masks amusing, though...
From: Establishing a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy in Clickstream Data
Subsection IIA:A. A Brief Overview of the Fourth Amendment's Expectation of Privacy and Reasonableness Requirements
http://www.mttlr.org/volsix/Skok_art.html#IIA
The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he 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."
As an initial matter, a defendant raising a Fourth Amendment challenge to a government search or seizure must show that he or she is entitled to the Amendment's protections by establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy that was infringed upon by the government's actions. The legitimate expectation of privacy test traditionally entails a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the defendant had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and (2) whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable. In analyzing the second question, "'[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly "private" activity,' but instead 'whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment.'"
The existence of a legitimate expectation of privacy is subject to an important limitation: "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." The Supreme Court subsequently expanded upon this principle, first announced in Katz v. United States , by holding that a person lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in information which he or she voluntarily provides to a third party, even if that information is provided in confidence or for business purposes.
If a defendant establishes a legitimate expectation of privacy, the inquiry then becomes whether the government's intrusion upon that expectation was "reasonable." The first step in this analysis is to determine whether the intrusion was regarded as an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed. Where this inquiry yields no result, courts must evaluate the search or seizure under traditional standards of reasonableness by weighing the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy against the degree to which the search or seizure is necessary for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.
Footnotes available in the original version.
As an experiment, find a highway with a police officer matching your speed with his car to measure speed. Now, go too fast down the street and get a ticket. Take it to court. Will you be found guilty or innocent? You already know the answer. Do you know why you'll be found guilty? Right. Because the officer's car said you were guilty.
The issue isn't the technology used to catch criminals, the issue is the honesty, integrity and competence of the police. All things being equal, and without any other corroborating evidence, in many cases an officer's word will be taken over a suspect's word.
Now, off-topic, that's not to say that I don't think traffic laws need dramatic overhauls... turning police in tax collectors is insanely stupid city policy.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I guess you've never applied for credit...
Edith Keeler Must Die
I vaguely recall an article (on drudge) a few weeks back about how a number of the city council members who voted in favor of these cameras claimed to have had no idea what they were voting on?
I'm not sure which is more disgusting, that they voted for it, or that they admit (wish I had a link, sorry) that they are incompetent.
Heh.
Welcome to /.
Still fighting with your former bandmates?
I always thought you were computer illiterate....
And you should really preview your posts before submitting them, cause "ports" was supposed to be SPORTS, remember?
America's favorite pastime, for lazy idiots.
If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
I guy I know was caught shoplifting at Sears in college. He alegedly stole a shirt - he claims it was by accident. In fact, he realized his error and brought the shirt back to the store to pay for it. They arrested him and charged him with shoplifting, and as part of his sentence was not allowed in any Sears store again. They would charge him with tresspassing if he ever went to Sears. Sears back then had the manual equivalent of the system in question -- A bunch of morons looking at video of the stores, and a bunch of pictures of people not allowed in the stores. Several times the cops accused this guy of tresspassing in the store -- they had a grainy video of another Asian male in a Sears store somewhere as the evidence. Each time he would have to prove it wasn't him. This thing is just the automated equivalent of what Sears had then, and from this story, it looks like it will be equally ineffective. Hopefully the police won't have time to investigate all the false positives it generates and will ultimately scrap the whole idea. Until then we will see more and more stories like this one.
Off-topic.
I remember there were some accuracy numbers in the articles before. But I'm curious, does the system concentrate the factors to differentiate individuals on something that may be prominent in one race and not another? In effect saying "'That group' all looks alike to me."
Sue these people into bankruptcy. If they have to guarantee the accuracy of their service, they'll go broke, because it isn't that good and probably can't be. Incidentally, Florida is a very plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction. BUWAHAHAHA!
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Illinois captures biometric data when your drivers license photo is taken.
I don't suport the ideals of the Clan but no one came to their defense in the 80's to keep their faces covered. Now there's jurisprudence and precedence to force us all to show our faces in public.
Do you think this is what they had in mind when they went after the KKK? We'll force them to face the cameras and be identified. Make sure they all stay in line!
how the hell did you know i'm from florida?
Beyond the digital photos there are numerous ATM machines that take surveillance photo's, along with the face you have numerous other areas of the body, including full body shots... with a littel creativity this could also be used to create a database....
the issue here isnt whether or not our rights are being trampled on, I think we all know that happens frequently, and at the discretion of those who have had the mantel of power placed upon them... of course this is NEVER abused *cough*
our only shelter from the reality that our rights are steadily decreasing, is the numbers in the united states that usually prevent us from fully realizing how often/much our rights are being destroyed..
Tweak like your pocketbook depended on it!
It will only "cut both ways" if the database is open to the public, and the operators of the database are easily and readily made responsible. Thus far it does not appear that it's "cutting both ways," and I'm not quite ready to trust the parties in question to do so. They (and you) are welcome to "cut" with that particular razor somewhere else.
People should get wanted posters and show them to the camera to see if it gets a bunch of false IDs.
A co-worker tells me the other day that his neighbor's house was broken into by the police, his own security cameras (crushing irony!) and a whole bunch of other stuff (licensed guns, a remote control toy truck, and who knows what else) was "confiscated," while he was away. A warrant was left by way of explanation, but the kicker was the address was wrong by two digits.
Such is the state of Property Seizure Incorporated, otherwise known as Police Budget Acquisitions. The guy got his stuff back, much to my surprise (it's in a rural town and the guy probably made a huge stink about it), and he got a free vacation on the police department. I wouldn't expect as much luck for a dweller in inner-city L.A. The problem is not that the police made a mistake. The problem is that they have more authority than they need already. They don't need the authority to override our property rights whenever it's convenient for them. That's for the courts, when and if a conviction is secured.
Dadgum! I know the apostrophe does not belong there. Bah, I screwed up. *grumble*
--
The Coward
..awaiting a flogging for that screwup.
I can now appreciate why long time ago some of the native cultures were afraid of white man's camera stealing their souls. :(
Because different states have different laws. Secret cameras can record you in public while you are in Florida, but you cannot secretly record police when they pull you over in Massachusettes. Its not a double standard because the laws were passed by two different legislatures and affect two different groups of people.
Did they check anything besides an old picture of him??
The difference is that the tourist isn't actively scanning every face in the crowd against a database. Of course you know that, but you ignore the fact because it doesn't support your position. A tourist's tape may be used as evidence after the fact, but the goal and design of a survielance camera is completly different. It scrutinizes you whether you've done anything illegal or not. And who is to say that these devices will always be used in the right way? Can you honestly say that you think every law on the books is good and just. These things can be used to enforce unjust laws as easily as they're used to enforce just laws. That's the real fear with these devices. It's a very powerful weapon which can be used in forcing the will of the government over that of the people, instead of the other way around which is one of the ideals this country was founded on.
Check out AbiWord.
The photograph! The photograph!, yells an odd short man in his late 30's or early 40's with a strong accent originating from the Middle East or Latin America.
According to the acticle the accused stated: "I don't think it's right," he said. "They made me feel like a criminal."
Welcome, welcome to the new United States!
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Half a dozen police and as many or more men dressed in trench coats with ear pieces and glasses and stiff backs and the whole bit all aim their pistols at us. A young woman and her two little kids.
It turns out they mistook us and our vehical as that of a man who was known as a tax evader (to the tune of about $100k over the ten preceeding years).
For the sum of $100k, a dozen men from the local (or state - i'm not sure) police and federal IRS division surrounded and pointed weapons at an innocent and unarmed mother and her children as if they were the latest wanted felons in some bizarre mass murder.
So ask yourself this. If they'll do this without photographic and computer approved matching, what will they do with it?
This may be offtopic, but people seem to forget that when someone "wins the legal lottery," it almost always means that some other party (in this context, a government) has broken the law. This isn't just a system that arbitrarily awards money to people, it's an extremely important method for enforcing the law. We have three branches of government in this country for a reason, and I am glad for it. It may be unfortunate, but lawsuits are often the only way to enforce the law against misbehaving executive and legislative branches. Blame the people breaking the laws, not the ones excercising their rights to have them enforced.
I can tell you first hand how much controvery this has spurned in the greater Tampa Bay area. The cameras were installed quite awhile ago, and have been used as passive crowd surveilance to help the police monitor and track criminal activity on the busy streets of Ybor City.
The cameras on the street are not hidden whatsoever, and with the media hype that surrounded their installation, I would imagine the larger percentage of people who live in that area, were aware of them being there.
Unfortunately, mistaken criminal recognition problems are going to arise anytime the only verification method used is cameras in a surveilance environment. I think the main goal now should be to make sure that mistakes are recognized before law enforcement contacts alleged offenders. If there had been even the most minimal of checks and balances involved in the investigation of the gentleman in this article, the problem would most likely have been averted.
- tre
http://piclabs.com
Nowhere in the newspaper article is a database of digital photos mentioned. Nowhere. Pure FUD. C'mon, we can do better than that....
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
So a computer can identify your face. Big deal. So can a human. And either one can make mistakes. Just don't do something wrong.
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
How is this different from walking down the street, and having a police officer misidentify you as some who is wanted? Mistakes happen. But what's the alternative? The police never pick anybody up unless they are observed in the process of committing a crime? [And then the ACLU lawyer says that the police should get permission from a judge in order to stop the crime].
Milliron, who says he plans to retain an attorney, hopes the software system will be removed. "I don't think it's right," he said. "They made me feel like a criminal."
Yet another greedy SOB hoping to win the legal lottery. Waaaah! They made me feel bad. Barf me.
Count me as one of those people who would love to see a camera on every public street corner. Key word: "public". You have no expectation of privacy in public. Deal with it. The only people who don't want this are 1) criminals, and 2) people who cheat on their spouses and don't want to get caught. Well, my public safety is more important than your ability to get to your motel room unobserved.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
There is much here that need addressing and most of it has been addressed. Such as the rebuttal to the imbecilic "you have nothing to fear if you're honest" argument. I like honesty that doesn't need camera enforcement. Real honesty.
I have no problems with some cameras.. the ones that record all and recordings are then are reviewed if AND ONLY IF a crime was commited. Otherwise they are stored for time and then tapes recycled. This is not that. This is presumption of guilt.
Would YOU want to be fingerprinted EVERY time you set out of the house? No? Guess what.. that's EXACTLY what this system is leading to.
Now, what to do to disable the system? Damaging property is genuine illegality, so that's out. But where does a bit of street performance fit? Could things be acted out (that are genuinely innocent, no real looking weapons, even.. but maybe something the cameras can mistake..) With multiple live witnesses denying that there was what the camera 'thought it saw'? Fill the database with innocent stuff like that. Make using it such a pain that old fashioned values and honest work are seen as simply, cheaper, and more effective means of getting the job of finding real crooks done.
If the cameras are good enough for the public, they're good enough for the public officials. How about petitioning for a local cable channel to cover the mayor.. ALL DAY. And the Cheif of Police..ALL DAY.. and all meetings, ALL of them should be open and televised, and recorded for posterity.
If they won't let me carry a camera and take pictures of them, they are hypocrites who should no be taking pictures of me.
Another thought: Hey, is this photography against anyone's religion?
--
The Coward
If being photographed is good for the public, it's good for the public officials.
Having things to hide does not necessarily mean you have ILLEGAL things to hide.
My visits to a political party's headquarters,
a planned parenthood center, or my girlfriend's
house should not be monitored by the government, period.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Don't magazines/news/film people normal have people sign a waiver/legal paper saying its ok to use their name/image in their magazine/show/film?
It seems to me that the police never did that with this poor guy. Thus giving the photo/video to newspaper agencies who then made money on his image. Seems to me this opens a nice lawsuit aimed at both the police and the newpapers.
Aliens? Magnetic Rings?! Bah! Who needs that when we have
I believe that is only applicable with teaching. I have heard many times from teachers that an acusation of rape will cost them their job. But outside of education, I havent heard of any profession that the acusation is enough to lose your job.
While we're at it, why not ban all meat and gasoline, plus institute 7 day waiting periods on all chainsaws and running shoes!
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
Apparently George W. Bush doesn't know he didn't commit it, or he would be pardoned.
"Caching!"
His truck had been stolen, but later recovered. However, the police had neglected to remove it from the 'stolen-cars' database. The result is that he was pulled over, roughly pulled from his car, and handcuffed for several minutes until the problem was sorted out.
She deserves at least a dick slap for fucking with his life... or how about a week in the county lockup (all male, of course!).
Just a note, as of yet the cameras have not caught one criminal, however to date the cameras have produced 5 false positives.
Secondly, understand that Tampa tries to portray itself as Metro and Retro, but I'm convinced the Mayor and City Councel transferred from Mayberry. Remember, we're in the same state that can't correctly punch a hole in a f**king card.
Awesome!
Im sure that you would say the same lame thing if it were you?
From the article:
If the image is a match, officers are dispatched to question the person. But in this case it wasn't the system that flagged Milliron, but simply a woman who saw his picture with a news story.
So this really isn't about a computer messing up, it's about his ex. Hello? What's up with the headline, folks?
Also, it's probably safe to say that he wouldn't have been so aggressively treated if it had been the computer who identified him, since people still trust other people more than they do machines.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Just to continue on your thought, even if systems like this are used only for good, it gives an uncomfortable feeling. The thought of being watched in public, even with nothing to hide and no one after you, is simply uncomfortable. Of course, if I had something to hide or the systems were used in evil ways, it would be even more unconfortable.
<rant>And I don't want to hear (or read) that "If you have nothing to hide, then it's not a problem" crap. An eye over my shoulder, even if for no other reason than to watch what I'm doing, is very disconcerting.</rant>
Developers: We can use your help.
For some techno-knowing people you all sound like some technophobiacs.
The alternative is to allow people to sue the police for damages caused by this. For instance, this guy was questioned for all of about 5 minutes. Give him $5 and let him go on his way. On the other hand, Sklyarov was put in a jail cell for X days, he should be able to sue for a large amount of money if he is ultimately found innocent. Otherwise, I agree with you, let the police use whatever technology they have when it's in public. Technology (though not blindly believing in it) will help catch more guilty people and fewer innocent people.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
AP (Tampa). "Police used software today to nab a roaming quake revenant. This revenant was alleged to have used cheat codes to slip through walls and elude capture."
He has a mullet.
Statute 1380 of the Florida Fashion code outlawed mullets in addition to acid-washed jeans, spiked jewelry and mesh shirts.
"My fingers Emit sparks of fire in Expectation of my future labours." William Blake
I live in Tampa. Which recently has turned out to be unfortunate. Here are the facts about the face scanning in Ybor City.
First, thus far the system has not identified ONE SINGLE criminal.
The system has falsely identified numerous innocent passers by. However, officers were easily able to determine that the identification was false, without detaining the victim.
Florida driver's license pictures ARE digitized and maintained in a State database, which IS how they tracked down this man.
The Mayor of Tampa has stated that he is not interested in the objections of the City Council or the general public. The Mayor's veto power will prevent the removal of the system. The Mayor has public stated that the system stays!
So, lets see. The system doesn't work. The system falsely identifies innocent people. The city is connecting with other databases such as the states DL pictures to broaden their tracking capabilities. Oh no, there's no problem here.
However, I think one might be able to get away with a hood, mask, veil, etc. by making a religious argument. Some people (e.g. conservative Muslim women) are religiously required to cover most of their faces in public. (GUess this wouldn't defeat the retinal scanners...) Perhaps someone needs to start a First Church of Anonymity and Privacy, whose doctrine asserts the sacred duty to wear shapeless, head-covering, logo-less clothing (and dark sunglasses) in public.
I'm not positive this would be allowed, even if it were found to be a valid religious practice. The KKK may have tried that argument too, and failed. I don't recall for sure...I'll have to ask my wife if she remembers the case law...
The surveillance cameras are inconsequential to the whole story. The problem arose when a magazine ran a photo of him -- he could just as easily have been watching a food processor demonstration or standing next to a famous celebrity who was being photographed.
It would be one thing if the cameras themselves accidentally marked him as a criminal (as the headline misleadingly suggests), but the only way you're gonna prevent problems like this is if you force all publications to remove all faces from their photographs so that ex-wives in Oklahoma don't mistake strangers for deadbeat husbands.
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
Seems to me everyone is using this situation as an example of the problems with face recognition software. Unfortuantly this incident has nothing to do with that. Some woman saw this guy's picture in the paper and thought it was her ex-husband. It's not like the system looked at his picture and concluded he was Mr. Dead Beat Dad. It's no different than someone misidentifying a person in a lineup.
I agree that there are definiately some privicy rights issues with this type of face recognition system but this particular situation DOESN'T exemplify those issues.
Band together and fight this issue or suffer it's fate. You all seem like a bunch of intelligent people. Do something about it. You may say that this is something the people of Florida need to decide for themselves. If so then you need to remind yourself of the last time the folks in Florida needed to make such a large decision and ask yourself if you trust they'll make the right one this time around. Personally I don't have anything against Florida or it's people. I've never been there myself. It's not like I think everyone there is backwards and foolish. Just the even ones ;)
I think this would also be against any state laws regarding profiling as well as unconsitutional in that it's an unreasonable search. Hopefully a case will wind up in the Supreme Court over this and SOON!
This is the question we should really be asking not only among ourselves, but also of the institutions (police, security companies, DMV's, etc) that are considering this technology. I suspect the Ybor PD will be quite reluctant to implement this now that it has been shown to be rather badly flawed, but what about other cities that are considering it, or have already signed on? Who do you hold responsible for these kinds of mis-identifications should cameras be upheld by the courts? Do you blame the software manufacturer ('Their software called me Hannibal the Cannibal'), the police ('They should have been able to tell it wasn't me'), the politicians ('They just want to look good at my expense'), or someone/something else? What about recovering the costs of defending yourself in court because of a bad ID?
I suspect that one of these choices is incorrect. Correct.
In this day and age, much more crime is committed remotely, so police need and have new techniques for identifying potential suspects from afar, like the face recognition thing. There should be no problem with that.
Also, it appears the technology wasnt even the cause of the false arrest - the woman identified the man from demo footage.
The only lesson to learn here is in the attitude towards the technology. It is all too easy, when seeing camera footage of people while being told about police using cameras to catch criminals, to assume the person shown must be a criminal.
The police themselves appear to have made that mistake , and treated the man with perhaps less benefit-of-the-doubt than they should have, because he was identified in connection with their fancy new computer system, which could obviously never go wrong.
I live in Tampa and often visit Ybor City. However, due to the arrival of this face recognition system, I will not set foot in Ybor City until such "Gestapo" equipment is removed.
Umpf. I wish it were a crime to be stupid.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
COngressman Condit have anything to say here. He will be lucky to have a job by December and he only had an affair with a woman who disappear. Facts me nothing its all appearance
Judges disable computer surveillance software. Why are cameras in public any different?
Constant surveillance assumes you are going to do something wrong. In America, we are innocent until proven guilty. There's no reason to look for evidence until there is suspicion of wrongdoing, and that's the problem here.
Constitutionally Correct
The "demo" image was printed in the St. Pete Times, and then sold to U.S. News and World Report which used it in an article. A USN&WR reader in Oklahama misidentified the face as being that of her ex-husband wanted on felony child neglect charges.
She didn't read it in the St. Petersburg Times. Instead, she read it in USN&WR where it is very possible that the caption was changed or removed... as the poster that you replied to pointed out.
Now, what were you saying about the "ass-u-me" jokes? ;)
1) Police checkpoints. They're everywhere. Police units with Army backup at all the major points where people travel from one side of town to the other.
2)Surveillance towers. These are especially prevalent in Derry. They contain equipment to spy on people's communications via microwave and movements via cameras. They dominate the skyline, and people hate them.
3)Curfews. Need I say more?
My point is that the British employed all this stuff because they wanted to combat terrorism, the breach of civil rights was extreme, and imposed from the top. I was damn glad to get back to the US, where I thought this kind of thing could never happen.
Crime is such a huge bugbear in the US, and it seems that people would be more than happy to do all this and more in order to 'prevent' crime. It won't, of course, but will happen is that a lot of people who haven't done a damn thing will be inconvienienced, harassed, or worse.
But I guess if it prevents one convienient store robbery, then its worth it right? Never mind that crime has steadily been dropping over the last few years, not because of round-the-clock surveillance on innocent people, but because the economy was doing better. When less people are in desperate times, less people turn to desperate measures.
If the government was really interested in preventing crime, they'd try to make it so less and less people feel the need to commit crimes.
The argument that "If you've done nothing wrong, then you don't have to worry" is actually irrelevant to the issue. The issue is, the Supreme Court has upheld the notion that we have a right to privacy, and the 4th Amendment (attempts) to guarantee that we are protected from unreasonable search and seizure.
Why stop at cameras? Lets have a secret police. Everyone should be required to have an ID card on them at all times, and under penalty of immediate imprisonment for an undertermined amount of time must surrender it to law enforcement for inspection for any reason. That won't prevent crime, but we sure will feel safe at night, won't we?
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
I live in St. Petersburg, FL, and have been to Ybor many times. I don't go anymore because of the criminal element in that part of town. If you want to find a criminal in the Tampa Bay area, Ybor is probably the best place to look... :-)
I support the cameras, because you have no right to privacy when you are in public.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
In this case, for example, I think it wouldn't work even if the rate of false positives was no higher than it is for "Wanted" posters. Because the number of individuals scanned is so much higher, the absolute number of positive matches would be much higher. As a consequence, even if the rate of false positives is the same, the probability for you (or anybody else) of being misidentified increase dramatically because of the higher numbers. Is that acceptable? I don't think so. And are you going to increase the number of police pursuing these leads? Who is going to pay for that?
Furthermore, even the rate (not just the absolute numbers) of false positives is likely to be much higher, because with "Wanted" posters, people do the recognition and they take into account other knowledge they have about the person besides appearances.
I'm noticing a reach-out-and-touch-someone trend here...whether through photographs or 'helpful' virii, why can't I just be left alone? I'm starting to feel like the woman that used to send my company letters about people watching her and having sex on her lawn (including Bill Gates, hmmm...). I think I'll go lock myself in the closet now.
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
it is now a crime to look like somebody else who is a criminal!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
As long as slimebags are ripping people off, or doing anyting else to harm others, I'm all for any measures law enforcement can take to automatically help track them down. Honestly, the threats to the innocents aren't significant; if there are screwups, they'd get straightened out pretty quick.
I'm all for anything to nail the buggers... If you want full civil liberties and perfect privacy, go live on your own private island where there are no crooks. As long as there are "bad guys", society needs some checks, which might be seen as slightly invasive to the purist.
-me-
So big Borther is running a little behind schedule.
Don't worry with advances like this he'll be able to make sure everyone smiles and thinks happy thoughts in no time!
That would make great sense and I would accept such an explanation instantly if not for this.
Dyolf Knip
America's Most Wanted can get a hundred calls about a single show. Almost all of them are similar to this story. Newspapers also get calls about people pictured in random shots. There are only two contentious issues here: 1. The police setup cameras to watch public areas. This has happened in at least two parks in New York City and it was _WELCOMED_ because those who might otherwise have objected would _NEVER_ go to the camera-free park anyways because it was so unsafe. Of course, there were hundreds of people who didn't live there who saw it as crime against humanity, but the local police and local residents care more about whether their daughter's going to get raped coming home from preschool tonight than whether their childrens children are going to live in an Orwellian state. 2. The cameras are hooked up to a computer system that can make the officers job easier. It is sufficient to say that the technology should be welcomed where the task is welcomed. Many people have expressed their distaste towards the mentioned application and I somewhat agree. If it was a sting operation to catch someone in particular, I would be more OK with it. To sum up, who cares if computers are in the process. The US has to decide soon whether/where it will tolerate this type of observation. If nothing is done, we _WILL_ follow the path of Japan and England allowing surveillance of most major roadways and many public gathering places. (Hmmm. It doesn't sound that bad.) EndersGame -- PS. About 86% of New York City is currently under surveillance. It doesn't bother most people because we can't process that much information today, but in a few decades...
This is informative. There is nothing funny about identity theft.
Imagine if this occurs again and again, especially if there are still bugs in the system. If these mistakes are published, criminal organizations could easily find such instances and take advantage of them. The story involved the US News and World Report and was published in the St. Petersburg Times. That's enough publicity to penetrate into the underground.
I do want the mistakes of "Big Brother" published, but the resulting consequences, that can be abused, are not funny.
redking
Rangers Lead the Way!
This is real simple. There is a big difference between being seen and being monitored. This does rob our rights. I can understand a cop being present in a public place to monitor what's going on, however, I would draw the line the minute he begins probing into my life without a cause. Unless I commit a crime, he has no right to delve any deeper into my life, and just because somone else may have committed a crime doesn't mean that they have a right to investigaste everyone.
Furthermore, I would like one example of a power the government recieved that they didn't abuse. I would like the comfort of knowing when I'm alone, I'm alone. And the rinky-dink little CCTV setup at the local 7-11 is not the same as a machine that attempts to identify you, and then reports you if it believes you're a crook. No one takes the tapes from the CCTV to the police unless there's been a crime. Besides, how long will it be before this system notifies local officers of "potential" offenders based on past offenses? Screw that, life will fuck you, life will hurt you, and eventually, life will kill you. Stop fucking it up for the rest of us just because there has to be a few casulties along the way.
Pretty soon you'll have nothing more to do in your home that eat and watch TV, or else the Police come busting down your door for the unwholsome activity of speaking out against the government. Oh, and while I have the soap box, we wouldn't have so many liability laws if people would just take responsibility for their actions.
Please help us, the Constituion is dead.
"God is REAL
Unfortunately our world doesn't work like this.
People believe what they hear, so if someone hears that some teacher raped someone, thats it, he's done.
It doesn't matter if they are innocent or guilty, just the fact that it could happen is enough for most people to believe it, and enough for the guy to lose his job, and probably have to switch careers.
IaNaL, but I don't think the 4th prevents police from employing weird technology merely to identify you if you appear in a public place. There is an implicit assumption in English common law that everybody already recognizes everybody else in a public place. Back when common law was still developing, there weren't so many people around as there are now. Entering a public place automatically forefeited your identity; with so few faces to remember, people recognized you easily. Now, we're used to being able to disappear and be no more than a nameless face in a crowd. But this is really a modern convenience, a small reward we get for having to live in a world overpopulated with so many jerks.l l1.htm) :
From a guy who is a lawyer (John C. Hall, J.D., www.cwu.edu/~millerj/academic/methods/readings/ha
While granting police considerable latitude in taking warrantless action against suspected criminals when they are located in areas outside the residence, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to afford the highest levels of fourth amendment protection to those privacy interests normally associated with one's home. Illustrative of this point is the Court's relatively recent application of a warrant requirement to police entries into private premises for the purpose of effecting arrests inside. In 1976, in Watson v. United States, the Court declined to impose a warrant requirement for felony arrests that occur in public places, holding that the validity of such arrests hinges on the existence of probable cause and not on whether the officers have an opportunity to acquire an arrest warrant.
Being "secure in your person", I think, has more to do with whether the 4th allows warrantless searches of your purse, pockets, and body cavities.
What I find disturbing here is not the fact that faces are being photographed. These have been "knowingly exposed in public" and are consequently not subject to a "legitimate expectation of privacy," but that Florida is keeping a database of digitised DL photos. Formerly, one had to be formally charged with a crime before getting fingerprinted and consequently entered into global law-enforcement databases. I think there is room for a presumtion of innocence beef there. Is exercising one's priviledge to operate a motor vehicle regarded as suspicious?
illegitimii non ingravare
I'm a potential criminal!
illegitimii non ingravare
Is it really fair that I have to pay a lawyer at least a grand to defend me in this 5 minute case?