Slashdot Mirror
Report Hints At Privacy Problem of Drones That Can Recognize Faces
New submitter inotrollyou writes "Drones are getting more sophisticated, and will soon carry 'soft' biometrics and facial recognition software. In other news, sales of hats, tinfoil, and laser pointers go up 150%. Obviously there are major privacy concerns and not everyone is down for this." It's not just drones, either: In my old neighborhood in Philadelphia the Orwellian police cameras were everywhere, and they're being touted as a solution for crime in my Texas neighborhood, too. The report itself is more predictive than proscriptive; under U.S. law, as the Register points out, you can expect less legal as well as practical privacy protection the further you are on the continuum between home and public space.
So the solution is simple. Let's all wear burqas to protect our privacy!
I believe you can also analyze people's gaits and recognize them that way. So let's all use Segways.
That would be a rather funny dystopian future, no?
Or I guess we could start making a few laws defending our right to some anonymity.
That's not the problem.
The problem is that cameras plus other spying techniques can see things, and analyze them quickly, and helpfully inform any police officer that's interested that Leinad177 left his house at 7:56 AM, drove 2 blocks east, 3 blocks south, went into a Dunkin' Donuts (from the credit card and POS system, he likes a double latte and 3 Boston Cremes), got back into his car, got on the nearby interstate, drove to the office (where he works according to tax forms), arriving at 8:36 AM. He then browsed /. much of the morning, left for lunch at Applebees (had a chicken fajita rollup and a large soda), went back to work, did some sysadmin work (all you can tell here is the ssh to the company servers) most of the afternoon, left at 4:42 PM, and then drove downtown to the political protest. At the protest, he chatted with a few people, shouted some slogans, and held a camera phone while watching police beat up an Iraq War veteran, and footage of the Iraq War veteran being beaten made it on to the evening news.
And later that evening, Leinad177 got a visit from the PD demanding that he turn over his phone. He refused because the police couldn't produce a warrant, so a secret instruction went out to pull over his car for minor infractions, the IRS was instructed to make sure he was given a thorough audit, and prosecutors asked to look for something they could arrest him for.
I am officially gone from
I often see this targeted specifically towards law enforcement drones. But what about MY drones? Facial recognition software isn't limited to them, and camera-toting low flying drones (or just cameras) are increasingly lower in price. (Example, the AR.Drone.)
If laws are needed to protect privacy, they need to be expanded beyond just law enforcement. I'm certain that Facebook, Amazon, Target, Google, etc, all have far more extensive databases that can (in conjunction with facial recognition software and a camera) not only track where you are (and verify with cell phone data) but what stores are between your destinations, in your vicinity, and target advertisements very specifically.
The government is not efficient enough, nor do they have the technical savvy, to use the vast majority of the data they collect. Even assuming that department A talks to agency C, or that they have remotely compatable databases/protocols.
Historically, airborne vehicles were few, expensive and clearly identifieid by their markings, and carried an assumption of legality. With inexpensive video-driven drones how will the public be able to clearly identify a "good" drone from a "bad / pervert-driven" drone that's upskirting flybys?
That is all. Welcome to the USSA.
Before anyone chimes in with "Do nothing wrong and you have nothing to worry about."
A lawyer friend of mine cited a stat that on average, everyone breaks three laws per day because there are so many laws on the books. In other words, everyone is a criminal. And mix in municipalites with budget problems, well, you can just see ticketing machines like in "Demolition Man".
I wish i could mod up that post, it's quite entertaining. However the article posted is mere speculation and will most likely turn out like flying cars or y2k . I'm all for being worried when a competent system is released. But until then i think that most of us are overestimating the ability of people in the world. I'm all for being wrong though, i'll gladly change my opinion on the subject if you can provide proof that a competent bug-proof program can handle everything you described and is ready for release anytime this year or the next. Anyways my original post was simply trying to point out how obvious it is that things with cameras invade privacy, this isn't news.
It'll keep those damn meddling kids of my lawn.
Isn't that worth it?
I doesn't matter, because the entire time Leinad77 was being controlled by secret radio waves being broadcast from Colorado. What he was shouting during the protest was actually a Homeland Security agent channeling through him. Next time wear your tinfoil hat.
However, if I had had a camera in my car recording everything, I would have had pictures of the person who did it, and they would be responsible for all of that. Hence, the victim of a crime, and a hit and run is a crime, has a very good reason for wanting a police state. They forget the little things they did to others, and remember only their own distress that someone robbed them of their property. As long as Americans, and I am specifically talking about the US here, are criminals, there is going to be a continual clamoring for more security, as long as everyone is personally responsible for everything. Every so often someone will find some deep pockets to go after, which leads to one of those silly sounding law suits –which sometimes are silly, but are often not as facile as their caricature.
So that's the reality, as long as people who are taking every precaution get screwed by the wild westers out there, they will demand more protection, more security, and hence, fewer rights for all. Because real liberty comes with the price of responsibility, and Americans have long since decided they just don't want the responsibility, and would, instead, rather steal from each other.
As for me, while this loss is annoying, it doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for more spy cams. But I'm not most people, having visited some unfree countries, where there is little crime, because the criminals are all wearing nice blue and green uniforms, and carrying automatic weapons.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Welcome to City 17. You have chosen, or been chosen, to relocate to one of our finest remaining urban centers.
Just four stories down Google Fanboys are in ecstasy about Google Glasses streaming every minute of their day -- faces and all -- directly to Google's servers. There won't be any need for drone cameras, just get a warrant for Google HQ.
Notice that in the part about the protest, if they're are, say, 30 people in a camera shot, identifying everybody without this kind of face recognition is quite a chore and is typically only done if the footage shows something illegal happening. By comparison, with face recognition, it's basically a matter of pressing a button, so it will be done whenever the police feel like it. Of course, this isn't entirely flawless: It could very well be that you end up getting blamed for the activities of your no-good cousin who looks very similar to you.
I am officially gone from
Even with facial recognition, you need to have done something that would get your face into a database. Not simply being at a protest, but actually doing something that would get you singled out from the crowd and arrested so that the police can get your ID. If you don't get arrested, and you don't have a record, the police can't give any information to a database to track you.
The problem with security issues like this are not the devices or systems themselves, nor is the government that installs them for benevolent purposes like safer streets or to combat terrorism. The problem with such systems are the governments of the future that use what's left for them to oppress. To us, all of these new issues are, at most, annoying. But for our grandchildren, when the wrong person gets into office, these systems could literally become a living nightmare.
Well with all the new laws the GOP is pushing through requiring voter IDs that include a photograph. You're photo will be on file ready for the drones to ID you as a legitimate citizen.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/14/could_pennsylvania_voter_id_law_help
(This is Pennsylvania's law, which is designed to stop non-drivers, mostly Democrats, from voting by requiring a government id card to vote. It happens they don't have enough time left to issue the millions needed by people who can't drive, thus letting Romney win Pennsylvania and the Republicans win those Senate/House seats they want)
You are already in the system to be able to set up a match regardless of whether you have committed a previous crime or not. Between a license and State ID nearly everyone has something in a state held database for facial recognition.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
CCTV cameras have NEVER prevented a crime.
Also: CCTV cameras have NEVER solved a crime.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
"Even with facial recognition, you need to have done something that would get your face into a database."
Something like getting a driver's license?
I simply can not credit government wanting more money to line their pockets.
Just saying. Not a lot of love from the red light cams when there is a mechanical failure that prevents you getting your car out of gear...
Ah. Right. Overlooked that. >_>
Welp, all I can say to that is the police can already do this, so it doesn't matter if they get a drone to do it for them because it's basically just a flying camera anyway. Whatever restrictions the police might have are going to apply to their drones, too, so a privacy issue for the drone is already going to be a privacy issue from the police. More efficient face recognition does not make a bigger privacy issue than face recognition in the first place, after all.
Who do you trust? That is the real question. We are a stones throw away from every aspect of our lives being recorded and monitored. Who do you trust with this information? Not who has the right to it, not what is public or private spaces, who would you hand your life to and say..here..have this.. everything I do, everywhere I go, everything I say, every dime I spend.. have this information of me. Do you trust the police? Would you readily hand this information to them? How about your state government? Maybe the FBI, CIA, NSA or any other 3-letter agency? Do you trust them with every detail of your life? Or maybe the Federal Govt? Do you trust them to use this information wisely and not abusively? The fact is every one of these entities and probably more will very soon have every piece of this information at their fingertips. So the question remains.. who do you trust? And it is being answered for us.
The thing is, ya gotta ask, "Would old King George III of England have used it against the colonists?" If yes, it probably should be banned Constitutionally.
Oh wait, this is Texas. Ummmm, would Santa Anna have used it against Davy Crockett at The Alamo? Yes he would have.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
Schoolyard conversation a number of years from now:
"My dad's drone can beat up your dad's drone."
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
There is a built in protection against things like cops or the IRS singling out people for political or popularity driven reasons. They don't have the staff to mess with all of the people that they would like to mess with. The IRS alone could easily sweep down on several million Americans who are tax cheats, grab their holdings and toss them in prison. They just do not have the time to reel in all the fish they know they can land. And then there is the expense. It is like busting drug users. You end up spending a fortune to arrest, try and support them in prisons. Since you get beat to death with taxes you just can't win by tossing people in jail. On the other hand the less you wreck their lives the more it encourages others to commit the same crimes.
What facial recognition software can do for us is enable us to snag the worst of the worst criminals among us.
People who holler about privacy seem to me to be wanting to be able to continue in their crimes. Such as getting over on insurance companies by lies about ones eating or smoking habits.
I'm all for being worried when a competent system is released.
If a law or use of technology is wrong (according to community or other public agreement), the time to act is before it's put in place. If the public waits until afterward, the task is more difficult.
The whole problem with this argument is that the value to the police and companies gathering the data (including paparazzi) is huge. But the cost to the average individual is low in that do you really care that the bridge just kept a record of you driving over it?
So those gathering the data try really hard to make sure the law doesn't interfere with them and the average guy on the street doesn't work too hard to stop them.
Where we the average Joe need to pay real attention is the compiling this data. Suddenly it isn't some useless log wasting space on the Bridge Commission's server but government data compiling that starts making an Orwellian list of who you are, your friends, your associations. This way a politician (say the local Sheriff) can target rivals. You might find that the major donors to a campaign can quickly be found to have mistresses, is gay, or things like business dealings that they don't want public (not bad things just things like a land deal that if public is ruined); nothing illegal just private.
People blah blah about the 2nd amendment but power doesn't sensibly come from a well oiled 9mm except in action movies. It comes from control of information. If you control the flow and content of information then you have real power. If we allow governments and corporations to gather and compile real about us then they will have real power over us.
Quite simply the western world needs to massively restrict what information can be gathered but even more importantly its compilation. As I say it is probably better for all of us if the bridge can figure out usage patterns of drivers. But the FBI should have zero access to this information without a specific warrant for a specific car for a specific case and with probable cause. I am not talking about that the bridge would be allowed to refuse but that by law they would have to refuse.
The reverse needs to be true; we need full access to what our governments and corporations are up to; this would massively reduce the stupidity that they tend to get up to. Again control of information works for us here and oddly enough results in the members of a democracy having power returned to them.
A great example of the hypocrisy of most western governments is that they want to video us with speed/red light cameras, drones, police cameras; yet in nearly every senate, congress, parliament, or council they have strict rules about how the cameras are run. In Canada when someone is speaking the dozen or so people who bothered to show up crowd around behind them so that on camera it looks like they are all there; in reality the parliament is usually nearly empty. They say that any other way would "confuse" the people. Also you basically never get images of them sleeping, picking their noses, or just worst of all just never being there.
In one of the worst councils in North America Halifax has nearly every critical meeting behind closed doors. Again the public can't handle the truth or the discussion is proprietary ( meaning they are discussing a deal with a private company that would make you vomit). The same with the completely worthless Legislature. Their discussions are only released something like 90 years later.
The whole paranoia about governments watching us is simple math. If they can watch us cost effectively they will. If they can stop us from watching them they will.
I'll just stay here on my mountain surrounded by my 400 ninja guard pigs and do target practice... Oops that one was a drone. Looked like a skeet to me.
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
Except that it's a safe bet that civilian drones will be heavily licensed, regulated, limited in their lawful abilities/features, and restricted like firearms are now. Likely even more heavily-regulated than firearms. The government, with it's current attitude, would never allow civilians the legal ability to use drones as in your example.
The official in your example would inform law enforcement, and they in turn would send a SWAT team to your house and arrest you after identifying and tracking you with a LE drone and using the drone's various sensors/scanners to check for any weapons/explosives in your home, who else is there, and where each of you are within the residence and monitoring/recording any conversations inside.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I have a drivers licence and a passport. Both of which made me have my taken picture under strict conditions, no smiling, no hair over face, etc. Their excuse: facial recognition. They aren't even hiding it, it is why you have to have your picture taken like a mug shot.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
The Stasi would of loved this anyone can be monitored on a moments notice. Nixon would of loved this Jack Anderson? not so much. W. Mark Felt Watergate's "Deep Throat" and Washington Post reporters would have found it difficult. Reporters everywhere will need a new way to protect their sources. Maybe a website you can upload encrypted documents to...
Any ideas?
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
... and have laws against removing the license plate from your car. The original purpose of a license plate was merely to prove that you had paid a registration tax, not as a means of identifying someone.
And the comment pointing it out was modded troll. I'm having flashbacks to Nazi Germany now.
Report Hints At Privacy Problem of Drones That Can Recognize Faces
Yeah, those drones can be touchy about their privacy. Have you ever seen one with a facebook page? Personally, I would respect their privacy, because having a drone unhappy at you could have lethal consequences.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Oh for fucks sake. GROW UP.
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
The government would no doubt call that stalking or suspicious illegal surveillance and you'd be arrested and charged if not labelled a terrorist. They could fuck with you a million ways before it even went to court.
The millimeter wave scanners ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner ) in use at airports now, have a resolution that exceeds what is needed to catalog faces for facial recognition software. I don't think there is any evidence that the TSA has been tasked with building a facial recognition database. But, I also see that there is nothing stopping them from doing it. There is nothing stopping Congressmen from passing laws that would make such a thing legal. I'm not even sure if new laws would be required, at this point it seems the executive branch has been given a blank check in many regards when it comes to "terror".
Paintball guns - get yours before they are outlawed!
Funny: My grandmother was a stickler for grammar and spelling; I remember her correcting my use of "license plate." "No, it's a registration plate or registration tag. The driver gets the license."
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Of course you're right.