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.

10 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Privacy Burqas anyone? by glop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? by lightknight · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if you make laws to protect people's privacy, then the terrorists win!

      Because only a terrorist would want to protect their privacy.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  2. Re:Cameras can see things? by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  3. What about *MY* drones? by felisconcolori · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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".

    1. Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Notice, also, that in the example I gave, Leinad177 probably committed no crime more serious than going 5 mph over the speed limit.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      And the reason why everyone isn't arrested is because the police couldn't give two fucks about what you're doing as long as it isn't bothering anyone else or quite obviously dangerous.

      Again, if you actually read the post, the reason my hypothetical person was targeted was not because he committed a crime, but because he filmed police doing something that was embarassing to the police and possible illegal. And given that police around the country have been caught harassing people for filming them committing crimes, to think that they would react that way is not a paranoid delusion, it's realistic.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the police couldn't give two fucks about what you're doing as long as it isn't bothering anyone else

      A majority of arrests and convictions in the USA are for victimless crimes (recreational drugs, gambling, commercial sex, etc.). The police (and politicians, and voters) care very much about what you do in private.

  5. The argument for the police state by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Is that everyone is strictly liable for everything. My car, parked in a garage, was hit while I was parked. The other driver just left, now I am left holding the deductible, and the insurance surcharge. In effect, this is going to cost me at least 1200 USD unless I can convince my insurance company –who would be the beneficiary of that 1200 dollars – to waive liability. But since no one saw, and there were no cameras, there's only forensic proof that I wasn't at fault. Which means having my solicitor argue in court, which costs money as well.

    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.

  6. The Real Question... by SuperCharlie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.