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."
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.
So the technology is already better at face recognition than a woman in Oklahoma. Technology: 1. Humanity: 0.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
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
In college, I was doing research on the fall of Democracy in Chile. What fascinated me about the subject was how Chile, which had been a democracy for about a century, had become a military dictatorship. More importantly, I wondered if such a thing could ever happen here.
It turns out that there is an entire series of volumes titled The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes. There are volumes dedicated to Europe (e.g., Nazism in Germany), Latin America, a couple of more general texts, and a single volume dedicated just for Chile. And the entire scope of this series was summarized best by Julius Caesar over two thousand years ago:
All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.
Or, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." Or the great Benjamin Franklin quote above: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for security deserve neither." They get neither, as well.
We can't trust a government to do anything right. Why do we? Would you trust a bunch of complete power-greedy strangers to feed and clothe your children? Government has to be kept on a very short leash. If you do not set up and defend strict limits on the power officials can have and how long they can have that power, government will get too big for its britches. And if you give them more power than they deserve for more "security," you will find yourself walking down the streets, accosted by policemen. Or arrested without habeas corpus -- or bail.
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.