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."
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!
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.
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
> 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.
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 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
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.
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.
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
Or by your wife, for that matter...
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
So the technology is already better at face recognition than a woman in Oklahoma. Technology: 1. Humanity: 0.
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 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.
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?
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...
1984 is finally here?
No.
Now please proceed down the hall into room 101.
Thank you citizen.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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'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 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.
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...
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Only if he had zero respect among his peers in the first place could he suffer any damage. I don't know about you, but if this happened to me, I would simply tell people "mistaken identity". My peers, knowing me, would instantly accept it. Case closed.
If our standard for the police is never making a mistake, not even the most minor, as in this case, we might as well as close them down.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
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 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?'"---
- 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
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
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?
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.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.
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
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.
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.
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
Before I became a computer nerd, I worked on several construction sites. While I don't like the system mentioned above, I don't agree that he lost any respect by having the cops come interrage him.
It is quite common for it to happen on job sites (I'd guess at least once every other week someone gets arrested). I remember when we would work with other contractors (air conditioning, roofing, etc), we would begin to recognize each other's groups, and we knew several people from other contracting sites. It was always funny to ask "Where is Bob" and have the response "oh, he's in jail for 6 months"...
Doh!
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.
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
Make what happen? Give people an irrational fear of the police? By far, the vast majority of police officers are honest, decent people. What's the old saying, a few bad apples spoil the bunch?
Don't blame the police for the kid bolting and killing himself. Blame his stupidity, his driving skills (or lack thereof), and maybe put a little blame on society/news media.
I'd love to have a world where cops wouldn't have to carry guns. But when teenage gangsters already have better firepower then they do? I'm sorry, but we live in a violent world, these men and women put their lives on the line every day, and should have a means to defend their lives.
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
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
Maybe if they guys so embarrassed he could let his co-workers and his employer in on what happened. It's one of those things you joke and laugh about with your buddies.
Back before I was born, my parents got hauled in for questioning because they looked like a couple a criminals that were robbing stores in the area. Of course, they had to go to the station and be questioned and prove their identity before they were allowed to leave. So this guy got off pretty easy.
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.
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?
Thus spake Jello: "The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory."
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The difference is who exactly is behind the camera and what the camera is being used for. A tourist is not an agent of the state, and the camera is being used for recreational purposes. By both context and chance, the opportunities for mistaken identity of those who *may have* committed criminal behavior are less likely than for a state-operated camera that is *supposed* to catch criminal suspects.
That and there's much less of a power imbalance involved when a tourist is photographing you. Wave to the guy in the oversized hat and Hawaiian shirt. When the state, officially the most powerful force on this planet, is photographing you, the equation changes drastically. Smile big (and nervously) and pray to your diety that you won't be ticketed for jaywalking on an empty street to get to your job on time by the city's new revenue machine.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
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.
What if the cameras are set up to send their video to a central location, and the last car they show is always your non-computerized 74 pickup truck?
This reminds of some computing event I once helped to organize. Schools would come with their PC'es to demo their pet projects, and at the off times, all the PCs were used as a cybercafe. One of the PC was fitted with a webcam, pointing right at the guy using it (it had some other fun stuff too). One evening, we found that particular PC to be powered off (without a proper shutdown...), and the next day the culprit's mugshot was all over the show's website!
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.
An ugly pall of suspicion has been cast over him. He has to explain this to to all who saw it. Whether or not he was arrested or charged, many people will figure he must have done something wrong if the cops want to talk to him. If he has been falsely identified for some offense which evokes a visceral revulsion such as indecent liberties with a minor, it makes little difference whether he's arrested or charged, people will talk.
Eyewitness identification was involved here. That has been shown to be unreliable. Well, here we are relying on it. Twenty years ago, a buddy of mine was falsely accused of robbing a bank. He was fired from his job. He was later cleared and received an undisclosed cash settlement from his former employer but he never worked for them again or any other comapany in the same industry.
Big Deal? It might be. And you might be the next test case.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
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.
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
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!"
Hah!
Instead, for a truly fair system, limit *all* political spending to a flat ammount provided to any candidate who meets the basic requirements. Provide free airfare and a certain ammount of free airtime. Prevent *any* political donations.
Political donations are bribes, plain and simple. Bribes subvert our political system and should be treated like treason, long jail time and revoking of your right to participate in the political system.
Spending caps are the only way to get any equity into the system. No third-party candidate can get a fair chance, the fact that the big two parties get almost all the funding means only the independantly rich can run for office.
Your great ideas for freedom will get you exactly the opposite.
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
That would make great sense and I would accept such an explanation instantly if not for this.
Dyolf Knip
The idiotic red light cameras are not owned or operated by the state or county or city.
They are owned and operated by a division of Lockheed Martin. Most of the ticket goes to them, not the local government. This flies in the face of conventional common-law tradition by allowing an organization that isn't a government to issue tickets.
Sure a person can citizen arrest someone, but a traffic ticket isn't a citizen arrest. Nor do you have any recourse in court with the company.
That's what really bothers me about them. Plus the fact that in many places that they've put them in, they lower the time the yellow light is on. Sometimes when going the speed limit and someone is right behind you, there is a choice between running the yellow/red and stopping, causing a wreck. What would you choose? I'd run the yellow/red...that's what the yellow is for. Now if I do that I might get a ticket from an automated machine owned by a corporation and I have no recourse. Of course if it was a human...I'd be able to talk to him about it...or go to court and take my chances with it being thrown out. But no...red light cams take that right away.
It's wrong.
Did we read the same article? Nowhere does it say anything about the woman's former spouse having gone to Florida or anywhere else to work construction or any other occupation. She said that her ex-husband was wanted on felony child neglect charges. For all anybody knows he's still in Oklahoma somewhere. Or Timbuktu.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Not in Florida:
876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.--No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
History.--s. 3, ch. 26542, 1951.
Now I wonder about Halloween?
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
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
> Who decides the "basic requirements"? The incumbents. That's exactly the same problem we have now.
The basic limits to get on the ballot are fairly easily met, and are usually just a certain number of signatures. That's a way that supporters who want to help their candidate can get involved.
> Who pays for the free airtime?
The taxpayers.
> No, thanks! I don't want any portion of my money (taxes) used to support the candidates I oppose!
Nor, any of your precious money spent on libraries with books you don't like, or roads used by people you don't support, I'm sure.
It's a package deal. You support my candidates, and I support yours. That way they compete on ideas, not money.
> So it's illegal for me to express my opinion? That's what I do when I support a candidate, by speaking on his behalf or contributing financially.
How is that different from supporting your local police officer? Just hand him a fifty when he pulls you over. Or the judge. Make sure to tip him a few grand whenever you've got a case being tried.
It's illegal, for good reason, in those cases. Why do you think bribery is a good thing with politicians? Or do you think that they'd forget a large cash donation and rule impartially?
> I should have the freedom to support whom I choose, and oppose whom I choose,
As should everyone else. If "campaign contributions" are allowed, people from richer areas (California) will have a lot more power than people from poorer areas (Kansas, etc). (Simply based on the average incomes, estimated by a multiple of the cost of living in each area.)
> TV/radio stations are businesses, and they deserve to get paid.
Sure. Just like the government pays for all the rest of the airtime it uses. Some is payed for in cash, some is part of the deal allowing the stations to use part of the EM spectrum, which is a public resource.
If all stations were required to cover the election, for the same ammount of time, at the same times, there wouldn't be an undue influence on one over the other. They'd be paid for the value of the airtime, and really, I can't think of anything more in the public interest than fair, unbiased coverage of the political system in action.
An informed populace might actually care, and if money didn't always decide the issue, they might not think voting was a waste of time.
I think people should be able to support their politician of choice, by putting in time at the campaign office doing so. Time is something all people have the same allotment of, and can decide to spend on an equal basis.
How do you honestly propose to limit corruption in a system where people could give a politician a million dollars, while describing their pet issue, and "hoping that it might be looked at."
I honestly don't see a way. To me, that system would be the equivalent of having C-SPAN display a price for each issue being argued, ala ebay... Your company need the EPA shackled while you dump some toxic waste? $1.5M. Need a residential zone changed to industrial? $.5M / square kilometer...
Removing spending caps wouldn't even help get more parties involved. Why would a corporation bother funding a third-party candidate when they could just buy the two main parties? I think removal of spending caps would just ensure that nobody else ever got into power.