Search the World's Smartphone Photos

mikejuk writes "Researchers have devised and tested a system called Theia that can perform an efficient parallel search of mobile phones to track down a target photo. It could be used to perform a realtime search for a missing child accidently caught in a photo you have just taken or the location of a criminal or political activist. You might think that the security and privacy aspects were so terrible that you just wouldn't install the app. However exceptional photos of a sporting or news incidents are worth money and the profit motive might be enough for you to install it."

Comments

Steal another phone

[slickepott]

So if you're planning to commit a crime make sure you steal another phone without the app installed?

Re:Steal another phone

[Anonymous Cowar]

If you're planning to commit a crime, make sure nobody takes a smartphone pic of you.

Re:Steal another phone

[Anonymous Cowar]

ever

Re:Steal another phone

[plover]

No, if you're planning to commit a crime, download the app and hack it. Watch the images the server is sending to your phone to say "find a match for this image." If you see your picture, you know there's a secret APB out on you, so it's time to run and hide. If you don't see your picture, maybe you got away with it.

Right

[Anonymous Coward]

>However exceptional photos of a sporting or news incidents are worth money and the profit motive might be enough for you to install it.
Who is going to pay for the bandwidth?
And people have to stop thinking that monetary incentive is enough to justify anything. Far from it research shows.

Re:Right

[FatdogHaiku]

Far from it research shows.

Posting AC again Master Yoda?

Re:Right

[AngryDeuce]

Logging in feel like he didnt.

Re:Right

[nospam007]

"However exceptional photos of a sporting ..." ... and publishing it will get you a visit from the New York Yankee (insert Sports Club) Lawyer Brute Squad.

Re:Right

[plover]

And people have to stop thinking that monetary incentive is enough to justify anything. Far from it research shows.

What research would that be? If a little money will be effective on 15% of the population, a lot of money will be effective on 85% of the population.

It's only at the ends of the bell curve where the amount of money doesn't change the rates people will accept for [taking a bribe|selling out their friends|giving up their privacy].

Re:Right

[cvtan]

And what cellphone ever took an exceptional photo?

Profit motive is questionable

[wrencherd]

I'm not convinced about the "profit" motive involved with this.

Every sporting event I've been to recently is pretty strict on where photos may be taken from.

I don't see the average iPhone user beating those people on the field with the lenses on monopods.

Now, shooting celebs as they come out of the tanning salon, maybe.

Re:Profit motive is questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

You never know what images the network will be interested in.

Re:Profit motive is questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

hey asshole. They're aren't any images on that page.

What about security cameras?

[Whatsmynickname]

Just think if this tech was tied to all the millions of security camera servers out there. These two coupled together would allow someone to be found pretty rapidly in this day and age if they are anywhere near civilization.

Re:What about security cameras?

[AngryDeuce]

What about people that don't want to be found? Guess they don't get a choice in the matter, huh?

I can see that there's going to be a lot of hats and sunglasses being worn in my future...

Re:What about security cameras?

[Doc Ruby]

Those images of publicly viewable should be subject to automated searching for criminal evidence. If a billion cops could legitimately stand there watching and writing down notes, it's legit to replace them with sensors, networks, and AI.

But a billion cops would do more than stand there watching and writing down notes. Replacing them with sensors, networks and AI doesn't eliminate all the problems with using real cops. Many prohibitive problems of comprehensive public surveillance still remain when the cops are automated. Primarily the abuse potential of compiling all that info, crosstabbed and logged. A higher probability of abuses committed, a higher amount of damage doable by abuse, a higher probability that abuse will never be caught, a higher probability that abuse will not be corrected, remedied, or abusers punished. Therefore more abuses.

Until the US reforms privacy laws to comply with the Fourth Amendment, the right of the people to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects (AKA "privacy"), against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be frequently violated. All data collection that touches our private information must be subject to open review for abuse, must be required to aggregate and anonymize data wherever possible, must prevent crossreference except under legitimate court order, must report collection or crossreference events to the person measured, and must truly delete any data identified with any specific person or small group after the immediate justification for its collection has passed. The people doing the collection, crossreferencing and retention, whether directly or by either setting policy or implementing it (including programmers and legislators), must be quickly subject to stiff penalties for any abuses.

Unless there is a bright and easily defensible line kept between public and private, the public will always invade the private - typically in the interests of some favored private interest attacking the others. We are already far down this road, but not too far to back out of it.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you mean criminals who don't want to be found? Well, no, they don't.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Dogtanian]

Those images of publicly viewable should be subject to automated searching for criminal evidence. If a billion cops could legitimately stand there watching and writing down notes, it's legit to replace them with sensors, networks, and AI.

There are two assumptions here. Firstly that anything you do in public is fair game, and secondly any activity that we accept when it's done the old-fashioned (and tedious) way is equally legitimate when it's done in a high-speed, automated manner.

Some- myself included- disagree with both these general premises. A hundred years ago, if you did something in public, people could see you and talk about you, but there wasn't the chance of some video of you doing something stupid hanging around forever, or someone in power easily being able to see you doing that.

In short, the implications of doing something in public have changed a lot, even in the past 30 years, and the social rules surrounding that date back to before this time. Even then, you generally couldn't have got away with (e.g.) stalking someone, even if they were doing it "in public", so it's not like there was ever *no* level of "privacy" towards people in public spaces.

Secondly, doing some surveillance activity in the old-fashioned, tedious manner by definition limited it to people the police had a reason to focus on. Doing it in an automated manner makes it possible to gather information on and track people in general, regardless of whether or not there is a fair reason to do this, and makes a police state or "surveillance society" possible in a way that doing it by hand doesn't.

In short, this is a case where a quantitative change in how much something can be done makes a *qualitative* change to its effects, i.e. it is *not* simply a case of letting the police do their old job faster- it fundamentally changes it. And this is why (IMHO) doing it the new way should *not* get a free pass because it's always been like that.... because it hasn't.

Re:What about security cameras?

[AngryDeuce]

No, I mean law abiding citizens that don't want to be found. They do exist, mind you, despite what Facebook and Google says.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Jhon]

Aren't there already means to find people who "don't want to be found"? Such has credit card use? Debit/ATM use?

Speaking as someone who's nephew was kidnapped (we got him back after 2.5 years and the help of a few of these "OTHER" means to find people who don't want to be found), this does *NOT* sound like a bad thing.

Re:What about security cameras?

[AngryDeuce]

Well, I'm certainly sorry your family went through that, but as someone that's been watching more and more abuse of power going on in this country, especially as concerns our rights to privacy, this sounds like an awful idea.

I mean, they've already started conditioning people to accept that their 4th amendment rights don't really exist because "ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! AND TERRORISM!!!!!!!!" but that doesn't mean that they're right in doing so. For instance, I don't care if they catch illegals in roving checkpoints down in the southwest if it costs 99% of the people that go through them their 4th amendment rights to anonymity without reasonable cause. Is driving down the highway reasonable cause? Is being outside your home reasonable cause to be recorded and scanned and tracked? I don't believe so, no.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Jhon]

I agree with you on your example -- but I think your analogy doesn't equate.

How is this different from the searches of databases of which I'm a part to find "matches" or "hits" already (cell use, cc use, debit use for example)?

I understand and relate to the fear of abuse -- but that possible abuse already exists in the systems that can already be searched and is mitigated by law and regulations.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Doc Ruby]

"A hundred years ago" there were also problems with unfair consequences of doing things in public. The persistence of recordings of even public acts doesn't strike me as unfair. If you did something in public, that will always be true. The replay of evidence of it doesn't seem unfair. Indeed, that persistence seems more fair to the public actor, since legitimate acts are more easily defended by persistent evidence of them. Bad acts should remain available to the public - why not? Because you were stupid? How is that a defense?

The practical limits on traditional in-person (or even most technologically assisted) surveillance were never a proper protection for everyone. That's one reason why the founders of the USA built its government on instructions to protect rights such as privacy (and the next step, protection from quartered soldiers). The privacy itself must be protected, however practical it becomes to invade it. Legitimate search and seizures are limited to only people the police had a reason to focus on, and even more specifically to only the things to be searched and seized, named up front in proposing a judge authorize the search/seizure.

However, as I noted in the comment to which you replied, the abuse of cross-reference and data retention by powerful entities of even public acts requires protection. Because the powerful (government, private, and the mushrooming "hybrids" of the two) are more able to hide their public acts than are individual people. We also need more power to expose, crossreference and retain information about the public acts of powerful people and orgs. But preventing them from exploiting their full power is necessary in the real world where we'll never gain the full powers they have. Even if that's not quite "fair" to them in specific terms, it's necessary to restore some fairness to those not as powerful.

Re:What about security cameras?

[AngryDeuce]

All those examples you gave require the user to opt in. For instance, I have older uncles in my family that absolutely refuse to have a credit card. Flat out refuse. They've literally never had one in their entire life. Everything they own they've paid for cash, even their homes (this is, of course, back when someone could more reasonably do such a thing, but it is still possible. Ditto with cell-phones, bank accounts...it is increasingly difficult to imagine life without these things, but people do it.

However, people not wanting to be tracked via networks of security cameras and cell phone cameras have what recourse? Stay in their home and never come out? That's ridiculous. At some point we need to draw a line and leave people their anonymity. The way it seems now, all the people that refuse to live in this "we know what you're doing 24/7" society are going to have no recourse but go live in the woods like Ted Kacynski (sp?). I think the line can be drawn a little more close to home than that. One shouldn't have to live at a 3rd world level to have some privacy in their lives in a 1st world country.

Re:What about security cameras?

[kent_eh]

There are things that I choose to do which harm no none, inconvenience no one, and should be no one else's business.
Some of those things also seem to offend some other people for some reason that I can't understand.
There are also people who have power or influence over me and my financial security / freedom of association or that of my family members.

Now, what might happeng if these various factors overlap?
Might I not get a promotion, or not get a new job
Might my son not "make the team"?
Might my wife be turned away from some of her volunteer activities?

Yes, some of these things might happen by direct one-on-one observation, but it's much more likely to happen if there is an automated method to permanently store pictures taken in all locations 24*7 and search those archives automatically.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] the fear of abuse [...] is mitigated by law and regulations.

No it isn't.

Giving the government more powerful surveillance toys when they've proven repeatedly that they can't be trusted with the current set is a BADIDEA(TM).

Re:What about security cameras?

[Doc Ruby]

Then don't do those things in public. Privacy is for private places.

And if those public acts enable some people to unfairly affect you, then the problem is those people's unfair power over you. That's the place to resist. Not in pretending that public acts have privacy expectations. At the very least because those people's power will be used to exploit what's available to the public to the maximum extent, unless you limit their power.

Re:What about security cameras?

[kent_eh]

So I shouldn't attend any more gaming conventions because some mid-level HR drone has it in their head that D&D = Satan worshipper?
Or I shouldn't watch the local pride parade because someone might think I'm gay, and therefore am no longer qualified to be a scout leader??? Or even that I should lose custody of my kids?

Sorry, but no.
I agree that people should just mind their own business, and not impose their prejudices on others, but that's not the reality is it?

So I think a good first step is not to make it easier for them to screw around with other peoples' freedom to act freely (so long as it doesn't actually harm others)

Re:What about security cameras?

[Doc Ruby]

No, you should fix the problem that those people have too much power over you. Your fear of public assembly and association, and preference to hide it rather than protect it, is positively un-American.

The reality is that recording public acts is never going to go away. The reality is that it is possible to protect your freedoms of public assembly and association. When you stop making excuses for your fear, you'll get more security from what threatens you.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't there already means to find people who "don't want to be found"? Such has credit card use? Debit/ATM use?

A person's gait is also unique. Distinctive enough to help identify you anyway even if you cover your face and eyes.

Re:What about security cameras?

[AliasMarlowe]

The reality is that recording public acts is never going to go away.

Or, "the reality is that prejudice and bias will never go away"

One of those problems is more easily solved than the other. One requires a legal restriction on technological surveillance and recording. The other requires a drastic change to human nature. It would be nice if human nature would miraculously change, but don't hold your breath.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I can interest you in a timeshare? http://www.cnbc.com/id/40531340/For_Sale_The_Unabomber_s_Montana_Land

Re:What about security cameras?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he holds his breath, his human nature will change. About seven minutes ought to do it.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Jhon]

1. Did you read your links?
2. Do you know what "mitigate" means?

Looks like those grievances/abuses are being addressed.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Jhon]

Right now, do people of an option to not be recognized by some person as they walk the street in public? If you can find a way to protect people from THAT, then we can have this discussion. This just looks to me like an extension of someone getting recognized in public...

Am I saying that our movements should be monitored 24/7/365? Hardly -- it's just if the data is already recorded, I don't see a huge problem with authorities mining the data providing they get a warrant...

Re:What about security cameras?

[AngryDeuce]

If it's being mined at all, it's being looked at. Not only that, but pesky things like warrants don't mean shit anymore, the government has so many loopholes in things like the Patriot Act and other laws coming down the pipe that they can pretty much make up any old reason they want and take your data.

The government has more power than it should in that area already. I'm not one of those "the government is out to get me!" nuts out there or anything, but recent developments in the way of personal freedom in this country are scary and contrary to it's ideals. While it may indeed be utilized for good in the way of finding missing children, I feel that it's potential for abuse is so high that it is too great a risk to give anyone that level of access.

Honestly, it's probably a moot point anyway because odds are there's some NSA group monitoring this shit regardless. All they're trying to do is legitimize it so they can start locking people up based on the evidence they're already looking at.

Re:What about security cameras?

[Captain Centropyge]

It's different with government and police. If an ordinary citizen catches you in the act of committing a crime and then reports you, I don't have a problem with that. But If the police set up surveillance and automate things to discover people breaking the law, you'll have people spitting chewing gum or tossing cigarette butts getting tickets faster than a bear on honey. While I detest both of those things, neither of those people did anything wrong prior to that act. There's no cause to put someone under surveillance just because you feel like it. Just as police need a warrant to search your home or tail you around, they should need a warrant to have automated surveillance put on someone. Otherwise you get a society that's paranoid of even stepping outside their homes for fear they may be arrested for something they didn't even realize they did. It'll be impossible to just let loose and have fun anymore. What's the point in living when your every move is scrutinized?

Re:What about security cameras?

[Jhon]

I guess we'll just have to disagree... I see abuses from within the system -- and I see lawsuits, bills, investigations, etc to address those abuses. When we over-reach or over-react and demand our government "take action", we eventually get our representatives to fix the problems "passions of the moment" created.

Maybe it would be less of a problem if we get rid of the 17th amendment and allow the Senate once again to be selected by states and not the people -- as it was designed -- to cool the passions of the people by slowing the process of our legislature.

So...

[symes]

They find an impage of a missing child on your phone... then what? Guys in black balaclavas burst into your home? Presumably this app would access to more than just the photos in order to work our who you were and where you are? That said, I quite like the idea but so long as I can trace my cheating ex-wife

Re:So...

[Ethanol-fueled]

They find an impage of a missing child on your phone

Or worse, finding a picture of your toddler kid naked in the bathtub playing with the toy boats. The ICE would kick down your door screaming, "PERVERT!" and would hold you and your wife at gunpoint. Then you would go to prison for possessing child pornography and live out the rest of your life behind bars as a quadriplegic because a 400-pound thug named Tyrone stabbed you in the neck with a shiv he made from a stolen spork.

Re:So...

[Pseudonym Authority]

Yeah, he'll stab you in the "neck" with a "spoon". I love the slang kids use these days.

Re:So...

[Pseudonym Authority]

Begone rude lout. Back to the Idle section with you.

Wait a minute...

[AngryDeuce]

If they can search it, odds are they can access it, so what's preventing them just taking the damn photo and not paying you a dime?

Jesus, when did people get so fucking naive when it comes to business and government, especially businesses like tabloids and whatever government agencies would be checking your pics for whatever the hell they feel like whenever they feel like it? So many people just ready to torpedo any rights of privacy we have left...what the hell is wrong with this country?

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidently, the same rich people running the show are hiding behind ever thicker walls of lawyers and personal PR handlers, and disappearing off to private islands. They must think we're as stupid and selfish as they are to even think of trying to wangle this sort of shit past us. Why isn't this sort of abuse of power and wealth treated with the derision of a kiddy fiddler?

The description tells the tale

[Whuffo]

It comes right out and says "political activist". That's very timely, all things considered, By "political activist" they mean protesters or those holding demonstrations outside of the designated free speech zones.

Just right for quickly identifying those who would dare to threaten the established order. Can you think of any reason why you might not want to take part in this system?

Re:The description tells the tale

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still so confused about the entire idea of a "free speech ZONE" in the "Land of the Free"...

"You're free to say what you want... but only where we want it and when we want it"..

"Free speech zone" really gives me some kind of the human equivalent of a 'parse error'..

Captcha: 'subject', how fitting..

I was worried...

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome, I was worried that 1984 would never get here.

Selling Out Your Privacy

[Doc Ruby]

mikejuk:

You might think that the security and privacy aspects were so terrible that you just wouldn't install the app. However exceptional photos of a sporting or news incidents are worth money and the profit motive might be enough for you to install it.

Ben Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Doc Gonzo: They who can give up essential privacy to obtain a little temporary cash deserve only a little temporary cash, but neither liberty nor privacy.

This app might be worth granting access to your public images, if you could trust that the app would not get permission to access your private images (or anything outside the public images you allow). But then it wouldn't have the side effect of "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

Re:Selling Out Your Privacy

[Doc Ruby]

I posted it to give credit to Franklin, before I applied it to the specific terms of the current discussion. Whose wisdom deserves quoting in full and citation every chance we get. Because the reasons for repeating it have become only more urgent and necessary. We have failed to heed it, and traded security for (the illusions of ) a little temporary safety.

It's people like you, Anonymous carping Coward, who try to sound smart by taking Franklin's guidance for granted as if it's actually practiced. Retarded, idiotic, and dumb.

this gets worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I predicted this plus a further power around half a year ago.

Next step is real-time previewing of the camera itself, bypassing user capture of the images.

don't forget to factor in data and data roaming co

[Joe_Dragon]

don't forget to factor in data and data roaming costs,.

red herring

[Anonymous Coward]

"However exceptional photos of a sporting or news incidents are worth money"

That makes no sense. You can sell the photo yourself, and it's worth MORE if you don't let everyone copy it for free.

Re:red herring

[plover]

First, this system doesn't let everyone "copy it for free." The photos go only to the Theia server. From there, whichever photos they accept would go to the buyers, perhaps the AP or Reuters.

If I'm an average schmuck taking a photo at a sporting event with my camera phone, what are the chances I'll take a good one? Really low. But maybe I'll get that perfect photo of Big Star cracking a smile after scoring the winning point, as he exits the stadium, or whatever. Being average, I probably won't even recognize it's a valuable photo. Let the system upload it to the editors, they sift through the hundreds snapped at the event, and holy cow, they like mine! Here's $500, thanks for taking the picture. I just made money as a lame but lucky guy with a phone. I never would have considered selling it on my own, as I wouldn't even know where to take it.

I read a book once

[brabo_sd]

I read a book once. It was about a society where spying eyes could detect the acts of political activists. It wasnt a pretty book.

Re:I read a book once

[St.Creed]

Oh come on... that is soooooo 1984... :)

Crowdsourcing Big Brother

[weav]

Can I patent crowdsourcing Big Brother? Is it possible to trademark that phrase, "Crowdsourcing Big Brother"? Service-mark it?

Eastern District of Texas, here I come...

Big Brother

[AnnonUSA]

Big Brother is recruiting help in the destruction of our privacy.

Re:Big Brother

[tidepool]

Big brother moves to THE CLOUD!

(Hey, you, get off of my CLOUD)

Didn't this used to be called Napster?

[Anonymous Coward]

...or gnutella or something? Can we share music with this?

Re:don't forget to factor in data and data roaming

[Belial6]

Don't worry. I'm sure the phone companies and the government can come to an arrangement where data they retrieve from your phone doesn't show up in the bill or logs.

Not just no

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell no, no, not just hell no, but FUCK no. I know that the Facebook/Youtube/IM/Text generation doesn't get privacy but I sure as fuck do and no one needs anymore access to any data that can remotely be used to identify me, track my movements, give the government an edge (which is ALWAYS evil no matter who is in power), or be sold to a business to market to me.

Re:don't forget to factor in data and data roaming

[AliasMarlowe]

Don't worry. I'm sure the phone companies and the government can come to an arrangement where data they retrieve from your phone doesn't show up in the bill or logs.

Oh, for a +1 Funny mod!!!

The charge will be there in your bill; it just won't be very obvious.

Sound like a slow boil to me ...

[giorgist]

It seems that they are raising the boil temperature slowly so we cant tell.

In the one blurb we have "think of the childred", catch "criminals and political activists" (the two belonging to the same category) and also "make money".

What we provide is our photos with our GPS and our timing location where we took them as well as the subject being our choice!!

Sooooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

So... how long will it be until this is a standard (undocumented) function of smartphones?

Next war?
Next terrorist attack?

Patriot eye act?

I don't see a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

Hold on a moment... there was Nazi Germany, the USSR pogroms, what happened in Rwanda, criminal gangs tracking down targets, unethical administrations, political parties currently in power seeking to restrict the freedom of rival parties, greater ease with which those in power can restrict what I want to do... maybe I do see a problem with it after all.

If you're not part of the ruling elite you've got everything to worry about.