Slashdot Mirror
Face Search Engine Raises Privacy Concerns
holy_calamity writes "Startup Polar Rose is in the news today after announcing it will soon launch a service that uses facial recognition software, along with collaborative input, to identify and find people in photos online. But such technology has serious implications for privacy, according to two UK civil liberties groups. Will people be so keen to put their lives on Flickr once anyone from ID thieves to governments can find out their name, and who they associate with?"
ANYTHING you do online is NOT private! PERIOD!
Polar Rose relies on a combination of our unique face recognition algorithms and the collective intelligence of our users.
They seem to have made a fatal assumption.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
Who says they aren't already doing this? Unlike your credit report, you can't see everything they've been gathering on you.
I do some street photography and, although I don't personally publish material on the web, some of the people who hire me do. So even if you don't put your photo on Flickr because you are afraid of being identified by search engine there is nothing stopping me from putting it up there for you.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
A video on the Polar Rose website (avi format) shows the technique being used to reconstruct actor Tom Cruise's face: http://www.polarrose.com/img/tom.avi
Startup Polar Rose is in the news today after announcing it will soon launch a service that uses facial recognition software,
The only "facial" recognition software I use is Google Image Search with Safesearch turned off.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
let's face it -your information is out there somewhere. Instead of being afraid of getting involved in some online community, let's think of better measures of protection against identity theft.
Unless face recognition has improved drastically, this company will just fail like the last couple companies which attempted to do anything with it.
Ach, so I will finally be able to look up this lovely Russian girl I've met online.
She's been sending me pictures of herself (chuckles) and her name is Sonya..
She's SO sexy she's got me worried, but my worries will finally go away as soon as I check her photo with this new service!!!
I agree with the parent. Anybody that posts photos of him/herself on the net should reasonably expect that anybody will see them. This is the reason that I am a bit uncomfortable posting my bookmarks to del.icio.us.
My advice to anybody who wants their cake and eat it too: Use different handles for different applications.
That is, if you want to indulge in the MySpace/LJ/VOX blogging, then use a handle unique to that type of activity (eg. BlogUser99).
If you want to indulge in Flickr/Photobucket/Picasa photo-sharing, then use a different handle (eg. PhotoDad12).
The same goes for social bookmarking and product reviews on Amazon and the like.
And, of course you should never use your full name except for in business transactions.
By using different handles, you'll give black hats/feds/5kr1p7-k1dd13z a hard time trying to figure out who you really are.
Just my 0b00000010..
idm owns me
Will people be so keen to put their lives on Flickr once anyone from ID thieves to governments can find out their name, and who they associate with?"
The bad guys already know so hiding only hurts your friends. The resources they own are the ISP, your non free OS, your phone calls and public "security cameras". Your friends only have what you can give them. The bad guys want to limit your ability to match their power and knowledge. The only solution is to guard what's really private and give rest away as freely as possible.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
And now, every picture on Myspace will become part of your Permanent Record.
But at least dating sites will be able to filter out copies of pictures of famous people and porn stars.
Been doing that for years.
But man is it hard keeping track of all my own 'identities'. What a PITA. Necessary evil though.
No Comment.
I'm curious how things like this will work with Witness Protection.
Setting aside the fact that, at least right now, sunglasses fool these systems... if someone, lets say, a member of the Talini Crime family wants to find a rat. By giving a picture of him to this company, they could then search for pictures on the internet he appears in.
Considering how many pictures people take with random people in the background, it seems inevitable that said rat would turn up.
I agree with the parent. Anybody that posts photos of him/herself on the net should reasonably expect that anybody will see them.
What if someone else took a picture of you, or say, your wife, or kids, and put it on the net without your consent? Would that be ok? It's not always about what you would do with photos of yourself, but what other people do with your image that you have no control over.
Is there a South Polar Rose ?
I've had a bunch of photos with no faces that I'd like to put names to for quite awhile now.
Tommy Lee was nice enough to identify one of them, but the others are just, well, unknown roses.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Not a big deal, unless you happen to work for a conservative company and maintain an anti-government blog or some such thing.
"Si vis pacem para bellum" -Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
Sure this sounds bad, but look at the rest of the web. Kids on myspace posting pictures of themselves doing drugs, underage drinking, etc... We've all heard of the dangers checking email at coffee shops, told not to follow links from our email to bank accounts, not to talk to strangers, the list could go forever and do we ever stop and think about the dangers? Sure for about a week, then the world forgets the rest. We're untouchable, next risk please. Oh, STDs, hmmm if I apply the method of this article "stop doing X" we should all be fine. Good luck.
It will not be very long (a decade? two decades?) before face, body, gait, license plate, voice, speech, handwriting, textual habits, (and so on) recognition software will be powerful enough to recognize people in real-time, from a variety of real-time inputs.
Even the past will be open to analysis, a theme called "retroactive surveillance." For example, the Seattle bus system keeps timestamped footage of people coming in and out of the bus, and the Seattle bus system keeps records of where the buses are, and when, by GPS. In theory, these two systems can be correlated, and, if you have a system for analyzing faces, you should be able to connect the "network of data" to figure out who is where and when. This type of correlation is what software visionaries are working hard to achieve, with efforts such as the Semantic Web.
People who are worried about "the mark of the beast," through such things as RFID tags and so on, are worried about the wrong thing. You won't need to "wear" anything. You won't need any special marks, once software is sufficiently capable. Your face, your clothes, the way you walk, your posture, the regular patterns you follow every day, your voice, all are sufficient enough, in themselves, to serve as the "mark of the beast."
It is conceivable that you will be able to limit government use of this sort of technology. But will you be able to stop private users from using this sort of technology? If you envision a future revolution of some sort, do you believe that the revolutionaries would not use this technology themselves? To track the motion of police vehicles, and individual policemen, and the people who work for and against you?
The underlying activities behind these technologies: Collecting information, seeing, hearing, sensing, and then correlating what is seen, what is heard- these are foundational. The "problem" is simply intelligence, itself.
I doubt that willful blindness or doubt is going to help us in our path to the future. We see that backwards countries practicing willful blindness, not advanced ones.
this kind of technology will certainly make it easier to find those individual chicks i see in porn that i want to see more of.
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
If you put your pictures online, everyone can see it, copy it, and (gasp!) even draw funny a mustache on your face. If you want to post your pictures online, use passwords, restrict the access. It is amazing that people whine about privacy when they have no regard about their own.
That they are really trying to find out if it's truely Britney in that video.....
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
For example, don't say require FISA warrants before listening, because it is quicker to buy another disposable cell phone than it is to obtain a FISA warrant.
They have NEVER needed FISA warrants before listening. In the event that they need to tap in an emergency (where waiting for a FISA warrant could lose the chance at intelligence), they can just start doing so. However, they do need to apply for a warrant within 72 hours of starting the tap. How could any reasonable person have a problem with this? All they are saying is that you cannot wiretap without ever telling anyone about it.
We obviously need some sort of security. What is OK?
Yes, we do. But we cannot forget that we have a system of checks and balances. Democracy does not move as fast as a dictatorship, and a dictatorship can (in theory) move much faster to protect its citizens. If that is what we truly want as a country then let's just do it and quit pretending. This whole "we are still a democracy with governmental checks and balances but because the president declared war on an abstract concept he can do anything he wants" thing we have going now just does not make sense. The excuses are always so flimsy, it is always a claim that it is perfectly legal under written law and when that proves to be false then it becomes "oh well, none of that matter anyway because he's got unlimited wartime powers".
But you ask what we can do? Obviously we are doing some things that make a lot of sense. Better information between the intelligence agencies is a no-brainer, and I would go as far as saying going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was a good move as well (Iraq was obviously a horribly stupid blunder/distraction though).
However we do a lot of stupid things also. Hiring a lot of poorly trained rent-a-cops to play detective in the airports was probably not the best use of our resources. Insane restrictions on what we can take on airplanes do nothing for security, but make ignorant people feel safer. The whole slew of ways we try to throw billions in poorly thought out "technical" solutions like RealID, MagicLantern, facial recognition (which doesn't work any better than space lasers shooting at ICBMs), and whatever kludged algorithm generates the Mo-Fly list do nothing for security and cost both money and civil liberties.
There are many tried and true intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism techniques, but the current administration is more interested in presenting a color coded security theater for the masses complete with high tech sounding ("it involves computers so you know it must be good") projects. The paranoid thinks they are just using "terrorism" as a bogeyman to implement systems to track and control all citizens. I actually think that is a side effect of their actual motivation to dump money into their friend's and contributer's companies.
Finkployd
As other posters have pointed out, once something is online, it's not private anymore. Complaining about the 'privacy concerns' of this software bugs me, because it's a distraction from real privacy issues.
Reminds of the Libertarian Party (of which I am, unhappily, a member) - seriously complaining about trivial issues means that people will trivialize your complaints about serious issues.
So,it seems to me that we should post pictures of ourselves everwhere, with tons of incorrect names. I guess tonight i will be making several myspace sites about fake people, with my pictures.
Hopefully, nothing. That fact that you hear about someone complaining about every move a gov makes means the system is working (how well its working is another debate). Some of these groups are annoying, some are just stupid, but they all serve as checks in one way or another. Take a look at countries that don't have these kind of groups and there are much more serious problems (treading close to Godwin's Law already).
An old quote that can't be brought up too often: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Ben Franklin
the more miserable you are now, the funnier the story will be later
Wow I can use this to find someone that matches my student card. With any luck they'll know a little about mappings to NP hard problems.
In a technical (and technological) sense, you're absolutely right. Given the nature of digital information, anybody putting any information online would be well advised to act as though it is going to get back to everybody they know, perhaps through channels that don't even exist at the time you put the information online.
But the more complicated social reality is that in most people's experience, the public-private distinction has usually been one of probability and degrees, not an all-or-nothing proposition. It used to be the case (and still is, though less and less so) that you could go to certain technically public places and still have a practical/probabilistic expectation of privacy. For example, you could go to a political or cultural event for an unpopular group (a gay pride parade, for example) and have a reasonable hope that it wouldn't get back to your employer or family. You might be in a technically public space and you (hopefully) knew you were taking a risk, but the risk was small enough that it was worth it.
The problem raised by this kind of technology is that it is eliminating those kinds of physical and virtual spaces -- the spaces where you can meet and interact with others and have some practical (if not airtight) expectation of privacy. The fact is, there are very few real places you can socialize with lots of other people that have a truly complete expectation of privacy, so the probabilistic expectation is often the best you can hope for. For people with some kind of politically or culturally marginalized interest -- and let's face it, who doesn't have at least one interest that falls into that category -- it's a sad development.
The fatal flaw in this process, is that it's Tom Cruise's face. Can't I have one day where I don't have to look at that guy?
This is why I worry about this process. Not because of my privacy, but because there are already too many instances of my large face on the Net. You people have enough of me to deal with already, without yet another database crunching my oily pixels and spitting them back up at you with a hyperlink attached.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Are we really going to pretend we didn't know technology like this was coming? Are we going to act all heated with righteous indignation about something that researchers have been chasing after for decades?
Everybody knew about it and expected this technology to be perfected sooner or later (and for now it seems that it's still a bit later). So, if you were that worried about someone being able to Flickr and Google your personal relationships together, you should have thought twice about putting your entire life up for digital scrutiny in the first place.
The privacy problem isn't with this technology, it's with people who put their personal life on the biggest computer network ever, freely accessible to all and then expect it to be private.
They need to get their head examined and by the looks of it, that's exactly what they'll get.
Now you can find out your neighbor's true identities, their "stage names", and what movies they've been in.
I think many of the people submitting their images to dating or adult sites should start worrying right now...
One thing to keep in mind is that the government generally ALWAYS has its hands on certain technologies LONG before the general public sees them (and often times before the general public even knows they exist). This technology has probably been developed and in existence for a while. The above quote might be better written as: "Will people be so keen to put their lives on Flickr once they realize governments can find out their name, and who they associate with?"
I caught the Mountain Wumpus! He gave me his treasure chest ($100) to let him go free again.
Just have the contents of a robots.txt file tattooed on your forehead.
Have gnu, will travel.
-->What is OK for governments to use to fight terrorism that won't get privacy advocacy groups in a tizzy
Hopefully, nothing.
You are the second person I've heard say this. In a Utopian society, that would work very well. Unfortunately, such a society is a myth, or is at least an illusion put on by governments that are doing all the bad things we are talking about here. For example, a crime-free society would be Utopian, but the security controls and lack of liberty would not be worth it.
Still, back on "nothing". I respect the honesty, but I doubt I'll see a bunch of people screaming, "The government should do nothing at all!" the next time there is a debate on security vs. privacy caused by some sort of security measure. I don't think that argument would have gone far at all on 9-12-2001. As a matter of fact, I heard many people screaming that the gov't didn't do enough. Most are the same people now screaming that gov't does to much. (and by gov't, I mean GWB, of course). The most radical are screaming both at the same time! How many "truthers" out there are upset because they think GWB knew about 9-11 are the same ones upset because of measures designed to prevent the next one? We need a happy medium that is somewhere between Gestapo and anarchy. Of course, that would piss everyone off. Come to think of it, maybe we are there now.
An old quote that can't be brought up too often: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Ben Franklin
Yes, it can. I see your Franklin and raise you two Hamiltons and a pair of Franklins
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.
Alexander Hamilton
Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government.
Alexander Hamilton
Distrust and caution are the parents of security.
Benjamin Franklin
Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.
Benjamin Franklin
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Agreed. I submitted a story to
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15994151/site/newswee
From that story, a good example:
Cheap video technology (esp. video-capable cellphones) and social sites make it all possible.
Simply being in public can get you on these social sites, whether you actually use them (or have even HEARD of them) or not. In the end, the only way to ensure your privacy is to not become a part of society. If you venture into public, you too could end up on some social web site.
And remember--this is the PUBLIC engaging in a type of surveillance on the PUBLIC. For the tinfoil hats out there, it's not just the government's watchful eye you have to be careful around; it's that video-capable cellphone in the hands of the seemingly innocent rider sitting across from you on the train, too.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
This technology would be amazing when working with photo software to add metadata. I would in fact pay a lot for something that would search through my 40,000 photos and tag people as appropriate. It would make life a lot easier.
I like your post. Well, all but one part:
They have NEVER needed FISA warrants before listening. In the event that they need to tap in an emergency (where waiting for a FISA warrant could lose the chance at intelligence), they can just start doing so. However, they do need to apply for a warrant within 72 hours of starting the tap. How could any reasonable person have a problem with this? All they are saying is that you cannot wiretap without ever telling anyone about it.
The issue I have with this is, again, the disposable phone. Habib Mohamed buys a disposable phone to call his mum, Bosama InLaden in Pakistan. The Feds freak and immediately start listening in, only to find out that Mr. Mohamed really is calling his mum and stop listening and remove Mr. Mohamed from any further surveillance. The problem is, they would not have known this if they had not listened. And they really can't go to the FISA court now to get a warrant for tapping Mr. Mohamed's calls to his Mum. It seems the only answer would be to make the Feds get a warrant on calls that produce something, but that kinda defeats the purpose as well.
(Warning, responding to this may get you modded as off-topic because to some, this has nothing to with privacy)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
When I did the celebrity face search It matched me 96% with Kenneth Branagh.
So I can steal HIS ID now.
(Subject line says all)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Faces are not unique enough to identify an individual. Also, faces change with time, glasses, shaving habits, makeup, piercings, and who knows what else. People are much better than computers at face recognition, and it is a task that trained observers will often fail at. There is just no way that a computer can manage more than a wild guess.
>>>"So,it seems to me that we should post pictures of ourselves everwhere, with tons of incorrect names. I guess tonight i will be making several myspace sites about fake people, with my pictures"
This is a good counter measure, if you can automate it by grabbing images of people from Flickr etc, and create
bogus profiles (use the fakename generator). Nothing like dirtying the database.
But if you do go and dirty the database, I have to add the oblig' "why do you hate our freedom?"
>For example, you could go to a political or cultural event for an unpopular group
Parent makes an interesting point. Who would risk going to any public protest for anything (war, whatever) knowing that you will probably turn up in a Google image search for doing so?
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
>>> "Few people can remember where you've been on the 5th of Nov. 2003, but people take geotagged photos with timestamps. The internet has that information and search engines will make it available."
I think i'll start wearing these.
I think we just have to accept that once we have made information public, it is eventually going to be used and abused in every way possible.
If you don't want that, try to keep your online profile as low as possible--there isn't much else you can do.
This always get to me--like when a guy (it happens every couple years) goes to the DMV and buys the DMV database and puts it online--all of a sudden everyone raises a stink. THE RECORDS ARE THERE--because this guy did something "new" with them is not a bad thing, perhaps making them available in the first place WAS.
There is also the implied fact/perception: people are "Trusting" that because the DMV is selling them for $300 or whatever, only businesses will buy them and therefore it's okay, it's the fact that this guy "Subverted" the business purposes and made them public is somehow worse. This is the stupidest pile of crap I've ever heard (and yeah, you hear that argument every time there is a discussion about this stuff).
Everyone would probably be a "Privacy Nazi" if they were smart enough to figure out what could be done with the information they are making public.
A friend of mine works for a security firm here in NYC. They do camera system installs for certain *really*, *really* high security locations. If he wanders around in certain areas of the city, he'll have a nice email the next morning retracing his steps with still photos at various locations. The surveillance operators just feed the system a headshot and the rest is history. Sure, it's a little joke amongst co-workers, but it's fully possible today, right now.
Ok well to start, you cant fight a philosophy. What you are perhaps asking is that the government do more to fight Criminals. I would say that we have enough laws already to fight criminals. Some would say that this is a brave new world we live in and they need better tools to keep up with the crimes. I disagree that the world has magically changed and that we need to become a police state to fight for security. You will never be secure, because security is a concept of the mind (thats why gun enthusiasts think that they can buy security, they are somewhat right). Even your american founding fathers knew this in what was argueably a more savage and brutal world than the one we live in. They say clearly, dont sacrifice liberty for security, and I think whatever country you live in that thats a good idea. I would suggest that you instead look at the root causes and motivations of these particular criminals. Bin laden has said specifically what he wanted, most notably the USA out of the middle east. Why not start with that?
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
ears, et al will increase. I've been wearing my latex nose in public for 4 years now and always keep my hair tucked under my tinfoil-lined cap. And my John Wayne imitation is getting better and better.
.... aaand ACTION ! - *whir-whir-whir-whir* CUT !
The issue I have with this is, again, the disposable phone. Habib Mohamed buys a disposable phone to call his mum, Bosama InLaden in Pakistan. The Feds freak and immediately start listening in, only to find out that Mr. Mohamed really is calling his mum and stop listening and remove Mr. Mohamed from any further surveillance. The problem is, they would not have known this if they had not listened. And they really can't go to the FISA court now to get a warrant for tapping Mr. Mohamed's calls to his Mum.
Why can't they? They go to the court and say: "Based upon this evidence which shows a legitimate need to wiretap Mr Mohamed's phone ASAP we started tapping, attached is the evidence and our application for a warrant". Then after tapping him for a while (assuming the warrant is issued, which it almost always is anyway), if they determine that they were wrong and they are getting no evidence, they stop the tap and everyone is happy and legal.
There is no "punishment" if no evidence is gathered in a tap, BUT they have to have a solid case for one when they apply. If they do an "emergency tap" to get a specific conversation they feel will result in critical intelligence, but none comes up, they STILL have to submit the paperwork to the FISA court and explain why they felt they needed to tap.
The purpose of this is twofold. The court will obviously not allow tapping for political gain (imagine if Nixon tried to get federal judge approval for Watergate). But most importantly, it holds the Executive branch accountable for their actions. Without having to apply for a warrant they can tap whoever they want, whenever they want, on any whim. Fishing expeditions, political gain, corporate spying for their buddies, why not? Nobody except for them will ever know. Even if you do trust this administration, are you prepared to afford this level supreme trust to every future administration?
Finkployd
www.alltefaces.com already does this, and is currently online
My advice to anybody who wants their cake and eat it too: Use different handles for different applications.
Don't count on it. There are tools to identify people by writing style that can be used to uncover and link multiple identities. I think they've even been mentioned here on slashdot along with claims of very high success rates. I don't really know how successful they will be when applied to really large datasets like some of the larger forums on the net, but they are at least a cause for concern.
Here's a reference to one such set of tools: A framework for authorship identification of online messages: Writing-style features and classification techniques
What are you talking about? All I found on your site was some mushy poetry.
I'm not being a troll, but it seems like every energy resource we come up with runs afowl (pun intended) with environmentalist and every security measure runs afoul of privacy groups.
It sounds like you question the validity of the problems the various groups have with various policies. You should consider that the issues they bring up represent real costs in the "big picture" that have been otherwise ignored. Not that there aren't extremists, but that there are extremists on both the pro and the con side in roughly equal (probably bell-curve shaped) proportions.
Thus, when taken as a whole, if the real big picture costs outweigh the real big picture benefits, then in a perfect world, those policies would be canceled.
It is entirely possible that only a minimal amount of security can achieve a net benefit in the big picture. If that's true, then the best policy really would be minimal security measures.
What if the warrant is denied? Would everyone be happy if the Bush admin suddenly submitted all the taps it has done since 2000 to a FISA court? Granted, I'm sure the court would be overwhelmed for a time, but will charges be brought for all those that are not approved? What's the point on oversight as hindsight?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Maybe a robots.txt -esque way of opting out of your picture's being indexed?
The more important question is, why not have oversight in hindsight? I can think of only two reasons: 1) The powers that be don't want any records of their wiretaps that they themselves cannot hide/destroy/deny. 2) The powers that be want to continue with long term wiretaps that they know would never hold up in court. Neither is particularly palatable to me.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
It's odd, everyone seems to be fixated on the fact that people could use this to find images of them. The trouble I see with that way of thinking is that if an image you don't want viewed is on the internet it is there for one of 2 reasons
1)You put it there. In this case it's your own fault and you shouldn't complain.
2)Someone put it there without your permission. Think naughty landlords with hidden cameras or stalkers with telephoto lenses. In this case you generally don't know you're on the $/month "gentleman's website",interent shrine of undying love or heck, even some jerrk at work's myspace page and this image searcher has the possibility to point the fact out to you before someone you know spots it.
I would think people that don't want to be exposed on the internet would be happy to see something like this come out so they can see just how exposed they currently are.
Haven't you guys tried those sites where you upload a picture of your face etc. and it compares you with other celebrity lookalikes etc. ?
An open source version of a content-based image search engine is already available in the Carnegie Mellon-Intel joint research project called Diamond. (http://diamond.cs.cmu.edu/) It has a facial recognition application called SnapFind which can already perform arbitrary face matching and other filtering (given the image data), and it is available for free. Disclaimer: I work on Diamond, which has many other applications than this, and thought it was appropriate to post.
governed by a completely private and secretive Government.
How sweet!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Copid answered this as well as I could.
I will only add that yes, everyone probably would be happy if all the warrants were submitted, if not for approval at least for record. Having a branch of government which believes it essentially has unlimited police powers is much more palpable when there is some record of their actions and more than just their hand picked cronies are aware of what is going on.
What if the warrant is denied?
My understanding is that there is no penalty for a denied warrant, just that all wiretapping must cease when it is denied. Regardless, the most important thing is that there is accountability to someone other than themselves.
What's the point on oversight as hindsight?
In the IT industry, we call them logfiles.
Finkployd
So is the paradoxical question of the modern tech culture we enjoy—which is more important: freedom or privacy?
Why are we so caught up on this concept of privacy? We all should know that almost everything we do outside our homes, and some inside, end up on some sort of database or other. This is especially true since a lot of people don't really use cash. The only real privacy we need is privacy when our clothes are off. Is this software going to infringe on that? I don't think so.
I wonder how it would deal with twins or "doppelgangers".
Preaching to the choir, my friend. Preaching to the choir.
Is this also Federal law or just NY State?
Now I know why it's not only public fashion opinion that is against them... I'm sure the cops would/did raise outrage.
Modern "Rule": Less diversity for all is always preferable to allowing 1 incident of violence.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Privacy concerns are sooooo last month dude.
And remember--this is the PUBLIC engaging in a type of surveillance on the PUBLIC. For the tinfoil hats out there, it's not just the government's watchful eye you have to be careful around; it's that video-capable cellphone in the hands of the seemingly innocent rider sitting across from you on the train, too.
The government does tend to get upset when it's the public filming the government. Or their agents such as the police...
I suppose so. But I tell ya what - I'd certainly think twice about jeapordizing my career by showing up at some public rally if typing in my name was likely to pop up pictures of places in public I'd been.
Basically your statement is a tacit recognition that this technology will, in fact, stiffle protest, relegating it to only those who "really believe". Or perhaps, those with nothing to lose.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Thanx for the explanation. It is so rare to get coherent civil comments here on /. that it's almost shocking when someone like you replies. Well put.
I must also add that you've changed my view on this. The only arguments I've heard before have done nothing but call names and try to convince me that the gov't should do absolutely nothing to fight terrorism or try to secure us from it. "More people die on the highways than from terrorist attacks" is a favorite that gets thrown at me to try to prove that there is not really a problem (see Michael Moore).
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
My response for Copid goes for you as well. Copying and pasting, however, would get me modded redundant (mods don't like me much)
I will only add that yes, everyone probably would be happy if all the warrants were submitted, if not for approval at least for record.
I don't agree with this part however. People like you, Copid and me would be happy, but there are too many shrill voices that do not agree with wiretapping at all, under any circumstance. I feel that these people (ACLU) would use this as a political tool to forward their own agendas. I could see the headlines now, "President has 98% of FISA warrants denied, but continues to spy on citizens and turn in warrants to be denied." And in the want adds, "FISA court hiring to fill 10,000 seats".
The only other problem I see is programs like ECHELON. If a machine is monitoring all traffic for keywords or whatever, does the gov't need a warrant for everyone, even if no human beings are listening, or should the gov't only be required to seek a warrant in cases where ECHELON has flagged a transmission that may be of interest? Another related problem I see is this. Since ECHELON is a joint US/UK operation, and since US courts have no jurisdiction over the UK and vice versa, why not just have the US spy on the UK and have the UK spy on the US (nudge-nudge wink-wink)? Of course, this assumes that this is not what they are doing now.
In the IT industry, we call them logfiles.
Logfiles become public record when they enter the court system. And trust me, the ACLU would love to make these log files public.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Ok well to start, you cant fight a philosophy.
You can fight a philosophy. You should fight a bad philosophy. But one fights a bad philosophy with a better philosophy, not with guns or prisons. Guns and prisons are for fighting bad acts.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I don't agree with this part however. People like you, Copid and me would be happy, but there are too many shrill voices that do not agree with wiretapping at all, under any circumstance. I feel that these people (ACLU) would use this as a political tool to forward their own agendas. I could see the headlines now, "President has 98% of FISA warrants denied, but continues to spy on citizens and turn in warrants to be denied." And in the want adds, "FISA court hiring to fill 10,000 seats".
Eh, personally if that were the case (98% of warrants are denied by a court that historically almost never denies warrants), I would want to know. Obviously something something would be horribly wrong there.
But it sounds to me like you want the FISA law changed, and I am totally open to a discussion on that. However, what bothers me is that Bush apparently does not like that law either, but rather than make a case to change it, he just chooses to ignore it.
Finkployd
Don't expect privacy offline, either!
The problem is: This goes way farther than that. This goes into other people posting photos of you without your knowledge or consent and random people updating information on you without your knowledge or consent.
Been to a wedding in the past year? Look! There you are drinking with the ugliest bridesmaid!
Been on vacation recently? That is not your wife, you dirty dog you!
Fell asleep in front of the TV? Whose nutsack is that hanging out of their undies?
Look ugly one morning? Your husband's lawyer will be contacting you shortly to enquire into the circumstances that led you to be discovered in that particular bed!
These people are talking about context archiving group photos with searches on each individual in each picture. This means your camera has nothing to do with it. Now, any relative with a cell phone can make your privacy disappear.
The worst part is this though: You do not even have to have a net connection or a computer to be archived. You could be a complete luddite, but your relatives or friends will put you there anyway. Any aspect of your private life could be archived on this thing.
Contrast this with blogs or social networking software. In blogs and social networking software, what is up there is up there because you put it up there. However, with Polar Rose, you will be identified if your picture is put up by anyone. No account. No password. No application. No notice. No EULA. You will just be on the list, and there does not appear to be anything on their site about opting out.
This is nothing less than a privacy nightmare. I wonder what the EFF has to say about it...
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
If you're afraid of losing your job due to your personal or political beliefs you should probably be looking for a new one anyway.
Web consulting +
But it sounds to me like you want the FISA law changed, and I am totally open to a discussion on that. However, what bothers me is that Bush apparently does not like that law either, but rather than make a case to change it, he just chooses to ignore it.
I would like to see the law made much more broad. For example:
Allow warrants to track any call made to or from a particular target area, like the Tora Bora region or North Korea (anyone with a phone in N. Korea is a person of interest IMHO).
Not require warrants if the call is not being tapped by a human. A computer tapping the call would not require a warrant. A human reading the transcript or listening to the recording would.
Of course, warrants issued in the two examples above would bet set to expire after a preset time limit, where they would have to be reviewed and possibly renewed.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
AWESOME!!!! Now I can find all the people in my graduating class who got into porn!
Tom Simonite, the author of "the fucking article" is an idiot. The civil liberties groups who said "(the biometric-style tool could compromise the privacy of anyone who has their picture online)" are a bunch of morons. And kwdawson and holy_calamity should both be bitch-slapped for bringing us this asinine bullcrap.
Support the FairTax