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.
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
And the comment pointing it out was modded troll. I'm having flashbacks to Nazi Germany now.