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

[Permission Denied]

I've read Mein Kampf. I went to a prestigious private university in the US where this was required reading in our Western Civilizations course. (In the US, all the top universities force all their students to go through certain "core" classes, which means that engineers have to take humanities courses and poets have to take calculus.) While your culture may remember why Mein Kampf is banned in Germany, ours doesn't. I didn't understand hatred until I read Hitler; I didn't understand racial superiority until I read Nietzsche. To be honest, I still don't quite understand it, but I can now recognize how it starts.

When unemployed programmers post to slashdot to complain about how all the jobs are being taken by Indians with H-1B visas, I recognize the danger. Although I'm extremely pissed at the job market right now, I know I have to control these feelings, which are absolutely no different from those of the French who voted for Le Pen, hoping to ameliorate the "immigration situation."

We are all taught tolerance, but in some cases, intolerance is more moral. Without the free dilution of ideas, how am I supposed to know what to tolerate and what not to tolerate? I may have joined in with those slashdotters complaining about "Indians taking our jobs" had I not read Le Pen recently - remember, I was already pissed. I was, however, able to see how they were putting forth the exact same arguments as Le Pen, and I realized the direction in which they were headed.

You've pointed out that Germans are less likely to stand up for unimpeded speech out of idealism, but rather deal with the issue out of sheer pragmatism. How does one learn hatred? I say it can only come about after immense propaganda and repetition. You do not suddenly go from toleration to hatred by listening to one speech or reading one book; it takes years of "brainwashing," for lack of a better term. When an open-minded people learn to recognize hidden hatred agendas and the same fascist arguments, rather than continue listening, they turn their heads in disgust.

The fascists always use the same arguments and the same methods: they won't tell you about their agenda of hatred outright, at least not right away. First, they instill outrage. They'll start off by demonstrating the "collapse" of a nation, economically and morally. They'll appeal to unemployed and the under-employed. The second step is an appeal to history: they'll explain how great the nation was in the past, and how it's now falling apart. The third and final step is to lay the blame on a minority.

Some examples of these methods: the American white supremacists begin with an anti-affirmitive action agenda. They attempt to show how the qualified are losing jobs to the less-qualified simply out of race. The second step of the American white supremacist is to identify himself with American history: here, you'll find lots of flag-waving. A few years ago, I encountered an advertisement for a KKK rally. What I found particularly of note was that they stated only certain flags would be allowed at the rally, including the flag of the Vatican (Holy See) and the American flag. Their third step involves crime statistics about inner-city black youth. By this point, the agenda is clear.

When slashdot ran that story about the H-1B visas a week ago, I recognized step one. One person in particular was already at step three. I saw the progression and I closed my browser.

Now, from where did I recognize this progression? Did I originally see this in American white supremacist propaganda? Did I see this in Le Pen's anti-immigration ideas?

I originally saw this in Mein Kampf, in the part where Hitler explains his blue-collar days in Vienna. Did the anti-Indian slashdotters read Mein Kampf? I'm willing to wager that they didn't. It didn't take openly fascist literature to plant the start of hatred, but it did take fascist literature for me to recognize it. Read these posts carefully, and then read about Hitler's description of his working days in Vienna, and tell me what you find. It's quite disturbing.

You linked to some of your previous posts which make some interesting points. I'll reciprocrate: this regarding freedom of speech and this regarding the limits of democracy. You'll note from the context that not only are certain people willing to forcefully silence extremists, but they are also willing to forcefully silence those who would disagree with the extremists and yet stand up for the extremists' right/privilege to speak.

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.

well...

[jeffy124]

From the poster: 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.

A similar story on Wired indicates higher match rates (90%) at airports in Dallas Boston. The maker of the recognition system speculates that lighting was a factor in the Palm Beach for the low match rate. 90% still a bad rate (better than 99.9% or something like that would be ideal), but it shows how differences of environment can affect these things.

Re:The whole idea that violent video...

[bobdehnhardt]

Or my prefered example:

Fire is hot
I am hot
Therefore, I am on fire.

Now, this is utterly ridicul AAAAAlIIIEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Re:The whole idea that violent video...

[FyRE666]

leads to violent children is bogus.

Damn right! I've played video games since I could reach the coin-slot on a Pacman machine. I'd love to meet some of the people making these unfounded allegations linking the games to violence. I'd give them such a savage beating they'd never say it again! Let's see how they'd like a few smart bombs up their asses! I'll frag the lot of them! Kill them, kill them all!!!AAARRGGHHHHHHH!!!

;-)

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

He was also in the gun club

[metalhed77]

he was also a member of the local gun club. I'm sure that gave him far more training than playing CS did.

Re:Better than it sounds.

[BCoates]

That's quite a feat. When that hits 95%, and it's pattern matching Osama Bin Laden, what do you think airport security would do if there's a match?

The problem isn't so much that it only matches successfully 47% of the time, it's that the 47% doesn't appear to be random--the article makes it seem you can make it very likely that you will consistently be missed by the system just by wearing glasses and not looking straight at the camera. Once it's well-understood how to avoid being caught by the system, it's worse than nothing (false sense of security) even if it correctly identifies 95% of people not taking countermeasures.

Not that Osama bin Laden would be on a flight in florida anyway, and remember that identification would not have helped prevent the events of September 11, since we knew who the hijackers were when they walked on the plane, we just didn't know what they had planned.

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:German Inconsistency?

[EboMike]

Why does the German government seem to be so inconsistent with censoring/banning games?

Germany has this problem with violence, similar to the US trying to censor "indecent material". You can say "fuck" on German TV without problems.

My guess is that this dates back to WW2; Germans now have this built-in problem with anything related to violence and discrimination.

Quite a while back when the game Carmageddon came out I remember I read in the news that the German version had zombies to replace the people that you could run over in the original.

Actually, the zombies were in the UK version (who do have this violence problem too). In the German version, you had to run over traffic cones. Yes. Traffic cones. No joke.

How is Counterstrike different?

Well, the rationale as far as I understand it is this:

In Carmageddon, the purpose is to mindlessly kill people and get rewarded for it. While Counter-Strike lets you kill people, the focus of the game is on "strategical thinking and communicating in the team". Hey, don't flame me, that's the BPjS' explanation.

The irony of history Re:bans don't work

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

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

... except pro-Nazi things, apparently... and that's the irony, and that's the problem: a faux respect for democratic opinion, unless it is the "wrong" one. I'm not German, and I cannot really prescribe to Germans how to handle this tension in democracy. But I am an American, and without being too jingoistic, I think we get this one right: Allow a free market of ideas. Don't allow the government, or the moral minority, or "the People" to legislate that some ideas are "wrong". Let them all fight it out. Because I believe in democracy and in the basic dignity of humankind (both possibly ludicrous beliefs, but hey...), I also believe that the right and the true will triumph.

This isn't mealy-mouthed bleeding-heart East Coast liberalism. It's a hard-eyed view drawn from the history of a free people: The only cure for darkness is light -- it's never more darkness.

If a people is presented with the neo-Nazi thugs and the radical idiocies, and given the chance to honestly evaluate them, and still fall for them... well, there is no power in Heaven or on Earth that keep such a people free. If they cannot be trusted to see through this propaganda, then they cannot possibly be protected from it. And no well-intentioned political elite is ever going to safeguard them from their own democratic process.

People are free, or they are not. They are not made free by the actions of someone else; they are free by the strength of their commitment to freedom. Let the idiots, the racists, the radicals bray and howl. I know that a free and educated people will rise above that, will see them for the sham they are, will cast them back into the darkness and ooze from which they crawled.

even 99.9% is a bad rate

[David Jao]

A lot of people do not understand the fallacy of the false positive. A system like this with even a 99.9% accuracy rate is still almost useless.

Suppose 1 out of 10000 people in the US are terrorists. This strikes me as an absurdly high ratio, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is this high. This system claims to scan 10000 faces in one day. At that rate, it will catch one airport terrorist and nine innocent people per day.

See something wrong here? I do.

If we assume a more realistic ratio of 1 terrorist per 100000 people, then you end up catching 99 innocent people and 1 terrorist every 10 days. At this point the utility of the system looks very questionable indeed. And this is without even considering the ease of importing new terrorists that aren't in the system yet.

I'm not that big a fan of face recognition technology in general, but airport terrorism is just about one of the absolute poorest possible applications of the idea.