Slashback: Counterstrike, Identification, Patenxtortion

Slashback has updates tonight on the fate of Counterstrike in Germany, PanIP's lawsuit-happy past, and facial recognition software's spotty results so far. Go on, read more!

False negatives, false positives, anda false sense of assurance. coryboehne writes: "TechNews has a report on the face recognition system installed at the Palm Beach Internation Airport early results of face-recognition surveillance suggest the technology is proving once again to be unreliable.

The ACLU said the first four weeks of testing at the Palm Beach airport showed the technology was "less accurate than a coin toss." The system matched the faces of the volunteers just 455 out of 958 times, or about 47 percent of the time.

Seems to me that this is a controlled environment for the most part, and still they have problems this big? I wonder if this technology will ever be accurate enough to work properly. I suppose the biggest problem is the size of the database that would be necessary to hold the high quality pictures necessary for accurate identification.

However I must admit that I am rather glad that this is'nt working yet as I'm not too sure I even like the idea of being able to digitally locate and track anyone within range of a camera."

This is what's meant by "repeat offender." Audent writes: "Following on from this story on Slashdot about PanIP's nasty habits, InfoWorld is running a story about it all.

To quote from the story about PanIP's boss:

'These lawsuits aren't the first time that PanIP principal Lawrence Lockwood has initiated legal proceedings against companies he felt were infringing his patents. Lockwood filed a lawsuit against American Airlines in 1994, claiming that American's SABREvision airline reservation system infringed on other patents he holds. Lockwood lost the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and then lost again on appeal in 1997.'

He's since had a bunch of patents disallowed. He's obviously learned from his earlier 'mistake' and is only going for the smaller companies.

Kick his ass I say. Disclaimer: I work for IDG Comms in New Zealand)."

Temporary sanity. CyberQ writes: "Some news from Germany on the censorship front: Despite demands from prominent politicians the responsible Federal Authority decided today not to ban the sale of Counterstrike to minors [Link in German, use the fish]. This came after weeks of public discussion following a school shooting by a student who apparently trained by playing CS."

Comments

bans don't work

[linuxislandsucks]

you would think by now germany would know better..

Bans don't work in the long run ..

Fro example the ban on nazism in Germany forced everything underground in which the German police have to expend more hours than otherwise to keep track and monitor theri actions..if they weren't banned everyone woudl know what they are doing due to the fact that they woudl be out in the open in public view..

Re:bans don't work

[at-b]

you would think by now germany would know better..

Bans don't work in the long run ..

Fro example the ban on nazism in Germany forced everything underground in which the German police have to expend more hours than otherwise to keep track and monitor theri actions..if they weren't banned everyone woudl know what they are doing due to the fact that they woudl be out in the open in public view..


I'm not sure how much you know about Germany; for all I know, you may be German yourself. Whilst I am German, and whilst I don't support bans on violent games, I honestly believe that banning the open display of Nazi symbols, the Hitler salute, and the organization of radical fascist parties is a good thing.

Right now, 20 people will jump on that statement and scream that bans don't help, that you need to have everything out in the open, that it's great and fabulous to have radicals integrated into society, etc.

And that's all fabulous. And wrong. The Nazis in Germany came to power through democratic means. Although behind-the-scenes wrangling happened that ultimately allowed Hitler to become Chancellor without a genuine popular mandate, the NSDAP was one of the most, if not the most popular party in 1933. Through democratic means. They then used the democratic mandate they'd gained without illegal means to dismantle the Weimar Republic. (France allowed the National Front to enter local governments here and there, and local councils in certain regions of France have already seen an alarming rise in incidents where radical right-wingers successfully removed a variety of critical works from public libraries, critical newspapers from circulation, etc. Critical of their neo-fascist tactics that restrict democratic expression, mind you. Of course someone will go on about how ironic it is that it is those very fascist who are banning things, just like Germany is banning stuff, but they need a serious reality check.)

That's why radical groups are banned. That's why they have to operate underground. That's why Germany is quite keen to ban 'ideas' (I can hear the flames already) and things that are 'dangerous'.

Because people in general are easily seduced by things that make them feel good about themselves. Hitler told Germans that they were special and superior.

Thus, you want to make sure that radical groups that want to dismantle democracy are not allowed a popular mandate. You do not want to legitimize them by allowing them to exist in the public sphere. You do not want to allow them to become coalition partners, to enter local governments, and to slowly subvert and destroy freedom, tolerance, and democracy.

Because that's what they want.

And they're not going to get it. We've been there, we're not going back. We like democracy, we like freedom, we like being able to say whatever we want without being locked up, we don't want to be herded into camps because of our racial distinctions or religious beliefs, and we sure as fuck don't want to let radicals who want to destroy all of that back into the limelight.

So go on all you want about 'bans are bad!' and 'information wants to be free!'. Naivety will only get you so far, and jackbooted thugs will exploit all of it quite happily while you sit there letting them take away everything you hold dear.

Alex
St Andrews

See also my earlier comments at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23633&cid =2549 958
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23633&cid =2550 035

Re:bans don't work

[Simon Brooke]

Guns are banned in most countries of europe.

This is a funny issue and I'm not sure where I stand on it. It's also seriously off-topic. I'm not trying to make an argument for one side or the other, just stating a few (weird) facts.

Guns are indeed banned in most countries of Europe. Here in Scotland, hand guns are totally banned following the Dunblane school massacre, and licences for sporting guns (shotguns and rifles) are extremely difficult to obtain. Carrying knives is also banned, even quite small pocket knives. Nevertheless, we still have a pretty serious problem with street violence and particularly with domestic violence, compared to other European countries.

In the US, of course, guns are not banned, and lots of people have them; and, not very surprisingly, the US has more gun crime than anywhere else in the developed world.

So, hey, more guns in people's hands means more gun crime? More weapons in people's hand means more violence?

Errr, no.

Right across the border from Germany there's Switzerland, and it's a very odd place populated by very odd people. Not saying anything against them... but they're odd. Every man is required to keep an automatic weapon in the house. You walk down a high street and there's weapon shop after weapon shop: not just firearms, but also swords, knives, crossbows, longbows, battle-axes - battle axes, I kid you not - Japanese ninja type things, armour, you name it they've got it. You could easily equip an expedition to Mordor in the streets of Geneva.

So do they have a problem with violence? Well sort of. They have more violence than they used to, more shootings than they used to. And they're getting worried about it. But they still have not only less violence but even less shootings than practically anywhere else in Europe.

Very odd.

Re:bans don't work

[Simon Brooke]

Stop trying to make excuses for your country's evil past. You have no excuse. Stop trying to say it wasn't your fault. It was your fault.

This is insightful?

Are you responsible for the slave trade? Are you responsible for the genocide against Native Americans? What is the moral distinction between genocide against Native Americans and genocide against Jews?

Every nation has in its history events of shocking and unforgivable inhumanity. But no-one now posting on Slashdot took part in the massacre at Wounded Knee; no-one now posting on Slashdot guarded the camp at Balsen.

The United States is guilty of genocide, yes. Germany is guilty of genocide, yes. Individual Americans and Germans posting to Slashdot today are not guilty of genocide.

So it is not his fault.

Time to get creative

[MarkusQ]

These lawsuits aren't the first time that PanIP principal Lawrence Lockwood has initiated legal proceedings against companies he felt were infringing his patents...He's obviously learned from his earlier 'mistake' and is only going for the smaller companies.

So, what we should do is keep our eyes out for companies that are violating his "patents" (e.g., get a phone book) and start notifying them that they appear to be in violation. Copy PanIP on the notice, and see what happens. If enough people (hundreds? thousands?) do this to enough companies, it should surely stir up some dust.

Foe good measure, 1) pick companies that look big enough to fight him (or obvious sympathy cases), 2) also copy the patent office on the message, and 3) send a copy to the journalists who have covered the story.

Smirk. One good way to kill things that live under rocks is to expose them to daylight.

-- MarkusQ