Slashdot Mirror
Facial Recognition Cameras Peering Into Some SF Nightspots
Fluffeh writes "On Friday, a company called SceneTap flipped the on switch enabling cameras installed in around 20 bars to monitor how full the venues are, the mix of men and women, their ages — and to make all this information available live via an iPhone or Android app. Privacy advocates are unimpressed, though, as the only hint that people are being monitored is via tiny stickers on the windows. Beyond academics and policy experts, some San Francisco bar owners that originally partnered with SceneTap have said that they're pulling out and will be taking down the company's cameras. An increasing number of bars still listed on the SceneTap's site are now saying that they're not working with the Chicago startup, including Mr. Smith's, Southpaw, John Colins, and Bar None."
FWIW, I've lived in San Francisco for 17 years and I've heard of maybe one of these bars. I wouldn't want to extrapolate any kind of "trend" out of this. As the summary suggests, I think there's more press release than reality here.
Breakfast served all day!
Traffic Cameras: Government Surveillance?
http://usahitman.com/traffic-cameras-a-part-of-big-brother-police-state/
Scariest speed camera of all... It checks your insurance, tax and even whether you are tailgating or not wearing a seatbelt
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1326035/Speed-camera-checks-insurance-tax-wearing-seatbelt.html
Talking Surveillance Cameras Coming To U.S. Streets
http://usahitman.com/tsccts/
"it's just a light!" ... not anymore!!!
just need some vetted moderators to rank the attractiveness of people from either gay or straight perspective, then making tallies per gender per estimated age buckets (21-24, 25-28, 29-32, etc.) THEN you'd really have something.
Considering what kind of records exist elsewhere, this company only tracks the number of males and females in a disco, and they say that they don't store any images.
Furthermore, the cameras are outside, not where the action is happening.
With the reports of undercover officers instigating incidents at protests, I am waiting for the protesting activists to start a facial recognition database of police. In crowd hand held camera's and small toy remotes scanning and feeding images to a central system like this. Already at protests you see both sides scanning both ranks with cameras.
When you can snap a picture of someone with your iPhone and get a "police" or "not police" report - that will cause the *hit to hit the fan about all sorts of things.
to monitor ....... the mix of men and women,
How can they differentiate between them?
Have gnu, will travel.
I remember setting up a spare video camera in our lab back in the early 90's, capturing images and dumping them out onto an experimental web server we had running. This would be an early hack of the webcam concept.
I hadn't considered that it would be an issue. But my colleagues were distinctly not impressed, and so I quickly tore down the rig. I think that, to them, the lab was a private space. The camera violated their expectation of privacy, and they didn't like that. I've been thinking about it ever since.
The expectation of privacy is contextual, of course, and we each have rather firm internal rules about how it works. But often these rules are tacit even to us, so it's not easy to specify them in a way that would be generally useful. For example, is a bar a public space or a private one? See, it turns out to be both. We may go to a bar to meet people, in which aspect it's a public space. And we may also go there because it provides cover for having an intimate conversation, in which aspect it's private.
As an acceptable tradeoff between security and privacy, we may be okay with security cameras monitoring us, because we assume that those images ordinarily remain locked away in a box somewhere. If the same cameras were to put the same images on the web, we might consider that the tradeoff is no longer acceptable. What about the case where the images are to be scanned for identifying features by some third party? I think the answer will depend on whether we regard the resulting data as anonymizing us or identifying us and tracking our movements. And our legitimate reason to be concerned is that, once the images have been passed to other hands, we just can't know what will happen next.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
This seems just like a different manifestation of those ID scanners that some bars have installed, though less obvious to the patrons. Or perhaps they are linking the two systems so that they can tie the image captured by their cameras to the name, address, and date of birth from the scanned ID.
Glad I don't go to bars. :^)
Today I was listening to the radio and I heard that they are being used in Austin, TX too. I guess that it helps where to find young females but what about wealthy men? It works only on image recognition and I am not sure that it scans for platinum or black AMEX.
Mentioned on the DNA Lounge Blog: http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2012/05/16.html
Bugger that or a bad nightmare.
Just as I *refuse* to enter any bar/club which requires to scan my drivers license (no seriously, trust us we very carefully throw away all the information, it's as if you were never scanned), I would also find somewhere else to drink rather than put up with this massive invasion of my right to at least some semblance of privacy.
Vote With Your Wallets, People.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Around the world (eg central London) there are cameras covering some public spaces. I would like to see the output of those taxpayer funded cameras on the www. Privacy should be a non issue. Our culture will have to change because privacy in public places has (like copyright) been destroyed by technology.
If you want privacy, rent your own space, put it in a Faraday box and sweep it for bugs.
Otherwise all you do by not making those images public is deprive all but the powerful, the wealthy and the hackers of the information gathered by publicly funded cameras.
It would make sense to alert potential patrons that they will be monitored in this capacity. I can imagine that a big QR-type code on the front of the building would alert not only the humans, but their smartphones or other gadgets. Perhaps you can correlate your social-networking friends with local patrons, and bring up a chat-list in your iGlasses.
We've seen how certain types of makup and hats can foil facial recognition. I wonder if that will make the Guy Fawkes mask more popular, when people wear for an anonymous nite on the town.
I do stuff Zhrodague
Oh, not that kind of facial?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Persistent surveillance is precisely what the lost concept of privacy in this country is supposed to prevent. This need widespread public awareness to offset widespread police, federal and judicial approval. The 4th branch is the last branch.
Put the camera up in the ceiling in the corner and lower the resolution a bit.
Farther away and slightly out of focus. You can't distinguish anyone, and just know how big the crowd is. That's what you want.
Such cams could be quite valuable to bar patrons. Some don't like things too crowded and some like a joint that is packed to the gills. In addition you might spot people you want to see. It also could act as a proof of where you were at any given time and that can save your life easily. Many men rotting in prison would love proof that they were not the one who did something at a certain time and place.
It is called Cans. It is know as a place to go if its getting late and you don't have a piece yet. Take that as you will.
Crowd: >90% full
* Normal Women: 50% * Normal Men: 43% * Down-On-His-Luck Private Detective: 1% * Mysterious Inside Contact: 1% * Hired Goons Preparing For Ambush: 5%
The point is that San Francisco is a focal point of Big Brother oversight, because it is more likely to be a security problem in the future. After living there, it is obvious it is heavily patrolled/controlled after the instability during the 60s/70s. The current protests are now simply a gesture to help support tourism, but they do provide non-profit workers with a hobby. However, despite the fact it is a very docile city, it remains an area where ideology has threatened the establishment in the past. The funny part is that they are trying to watch people as they eat/drink, rather than the UK-style street-corner cameras (research seems so harmless, so it is easier to get approved). A better twist on this whole thing, is if they instead moved the cameras into fast-food restaurants, since the imagery would be completely disgusting as you watched non-stop greasy slurping noises from fat fried in oil. Perhaps that research might be more relevant to America as a whole.
It's just a case of some dumb business stretching laws.
since the imagery would be completely disgusting as you watched non-stop greasy slurping noises from fat fried in oil
I find it interesting how certain memes just tie into each other. Here we are talking about some nebulous Big Brother putting down the fine people of San Francisco and suddenly you segue into fast food bashing. The human mind is a remarkable piece of hardware, but it sure makes some loopy connections sometimes.
They are fooled if you wear flowers in your hair
Above you said "then no one has them."
There are lots of private webcams all over the place. In shops, parking lots and god alone (aka Tax Dept) knows where else. These are all accessible by government (subpoena as last resort). Since they are privately owned and on private property, you are unlikely to be able to access that information as a right. And I don't see any practicable way of stopping people from photographing what is going on in their own property. ("practicable" here in the same sense as it was impracticable to control alcohol in the 20's, or psychoactive drugs since then. Sure you can make laws, but they won't be obeyed.)
So stopping governments putting out webcams only makes the situation worse. The info is there. Governments can access it. You have no right to access it.
You also said (further down) "It is good that you don't feel threatened but when you do it will be too late."
Not if the government thugs are photographed on public webcams doing questionable arrests. The more open we make information, the harder it is for the government to keep secrets. And government wrongdoing relies on keeping government activities secret.
Also "And this information is kept forever and could be trotted out many years in the future. Do you want to be justifying what you did twenty years ago?"
OTOH. If some miscreant was doing something very naughty I would love it if he was caught even 20 years later. I view it as a situation similar to those people who are now being convicted or set free because genetic technology not previously available either proves or disproves their guilt.
Police wear helmets.
Not the undercover cops who are sent into crowds to instigate violence when convenient.
just need some vetted moderators to rank the attractiveness of people
"+1 Interesting"
...
"+1 Interesting"
"+1 Interesting"
"-1 Troll"
Note: The "Troll" moderation doesn't refer to behavior, either.
How much of a typical bar's business comes from guys going there hoping to find chicks, and then discovering it's full of... guys going there hoping to find chicks. If they knew ahead of time, they'd just get drunk at home.
Yeah you could but then they would just seize your gear.
for us ugly bastards!
The problem with that assertion is that the ideology is the establishment in San Francisco. As to being a "security problem", San Francisco could be in open rebellion from now until the heat death of the universe and not threaten anyone's (particularly, any establishment's) security outside of the city borders.
Haha, absolutely true. As a longtime resident of San Francisco, if any politician declared that San Francisco was some kind of bellwether for the rest of the country, I'd think they were completely incompetent. On the other hand, personally I kind of like living among this brand of idealistic loonies, rather than the other brand.
It's just a case of some dumb business stretching laws.
Stretching? I dunno... I doubt I've walked into a 7-Eleven that didn't have cameras pointed at me in my lifetime. The face recognition stuff just seems to add an extra wrinkle. I don't think there are any laws about that, and I'm not sure there should be. That's kind of like saying you can take video of me when I walk into your business, but we're going to limit how long you can watch the tape. People react strongly to this because there's a computer doing it. But if you hired someone to watch the tape every night and take notes -- "woman, man, man, man, woman, woman... hey, that guy got 86'ed last week!" -- should that be illegal? What's the difference, really, except that one version is automated?
Breakfast served all day!
I think most people know the guys with the riot gear are cops. This is about the guy with dreadlocks in the drum circle who's an undercover cop trying to instigate a riot.
I think most people know the guys with the riot gear are cops. This is about the guy with dreadlocks in the drum circle who's an undercover cop trying to instigate a riot.
They probably should spend time on recognition for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny first...
Hint - the simplest answer to "who is the guy in the dreadlocks" is just - a guy who wears dreadlocks.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...be okay with security cameras monitoring us
Sadly, there are some people that really do find this acceptable.
Why is this sad?
I am one of the people who do not care what cameras view me in public.
The benefits, if everyone felt the same way, are pretty nice. I could always check out some place to see how crowded it is or who was there (or the demographics as this system tries to do). If there was any kind of problem it would be recorded later for posterity OR, if you think about it, an even COOLER ability would to be able to go back in time to any place you were and pull video of yourself having a good time, like "check out this awesome bar I was at".
I don't understand the luddite mentality on Slashdot of all places being so wildly against a system that has tradeoffs but has a lot of technologically cool benefits on offer.
I am fully for protecting privacy when privacy is warranted. Walking around in public or going inside any space where any member of the public can go, is not one of those times. The sooner we can all accept that fact the better as far as I am concerned, because it makes privacy stronger when it is warranted by making it more clear when it should be expected.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's the difference, really, except that one version is automated?
One is feasible and one is not. Part of the problem is that some technological advances allow for surveillance and monitoring that just wasn't feasible decades ago when many of these regulations were passed. It probably will be possible in the near future to derive economically valuable information from video cameras. How would you feel about a future business that datamined public video to get valuable information (including medical information!) on what you wore or how you acted?
Sure it could be done now with vast panels of $50 per hour experts monitoring everyone's moves, but that gets a wee bit expensive and unrealistic.
Portable android intégré GPS
http://www.bonpascher.com/nouveau-a9230-android-4-0-3g-gps aucune taxe!une carte mémoire 8Go gratuitement,la livraison gratuite et 1 an de garantie.