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."

Comments

there's a way out

[EaTiN cOfFeE bEaNs]

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...

Henson correction

[Fencepost]

in a recent case of a Cult of Scientology critic who was prosecuted for humorously threatening their religion with a Tomahawk cruise missile and fled to Canada to seek religious asylum

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.

Who is this random woman?

[pgpckt]

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?

Take the matter into your own hands.

[Malcontent]

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.

1984? Maybe. Brazil? Definitely!

[Bonker]

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....

Re:Big Deal?

[chef_raekwon]

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.

Re:No New Technology used (really!)

[LittleGuy]

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?

Re:Jesus...

[ethereal]

Well, in this very article there was a crime across the country and the police bothered this guy, so, yes.

As far as being "swarmed", in a recent case of a Cult of Scientology critic who was prosecuted for humorously threatening their religion with a Tomahawk cruise missile and fled to Canada to seek religious asylum, the CoS turned him in to the police in Canada and he and his wife were arrested by a fully-armed SWAT team in the middle of a crowded parking lot.

I think the situation would have been a whole lot worse for this guy from Florida if his face had matched up with Osama Bin Laden's, or someone like that. It would be real easy for someone to get hurt in situations where the police get very excited very quickly.

Is this worse than just mistaken identity from a "Wanted" poster? Maybe, maybe not. The possible reach of a mistaken identity is a lot farther, since now your photo can be compared everywhere around the country rather than just in your town. The chances of you looking like a criminal in some jurisdiction is higher than the chance that you look like someone in your own town, you know.

And if that weren't enough, I have problems with people assuming that I'm guilty when I go somewhere. A surveillance society assumes that everyone is just waiting to do something wrong. I'm pretty sure that's not the sort of attitude we want to be fostering.

Well, congratulations

[friday2k]

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 ...

woman's mistake is irrelevant

[unusualPerspective]

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)

Why the SPTimes printed this

[Fencepost]

The way I figure it, the St. Pete Times really had to give this story good coverage for practical reasons.

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.

political fallout?

[Maditude]

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.

Re:Crimes...

[fishbowl]

I got one for you:

Getting a ticket for being on a nude beach,
where nobody at all is complaining, can make
you a "Sex Offender", no different in certain
eyes than if you raped their 5 year old daughter.

No one'll read this, but...

[allism]

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.