Anti-Surveillance Mask Lets You Pass As Someone Else

SonicSpike (242293) points out this article about a mask that can foil surveillance cameras and provide fuel for nightmares. "If the world starts looking like a scene from Matrix 3 where everyone has Agent Smith's face, you can thank Leo Selvaggio. His rubber mask aimed at foiling surveillance cameras features his visage, and if he has his way, plenty of people will be sporting the Personal Surveillance Identity Prosthetic in public. It's one of three products made by the Chicago-based artist's URME Surveillance, a venture dedicated to 'protecting the public from surveillance and creating a safe space to explore our digital identities.' 'Our world is becoming increasingly surveilled. For example, Chicago has over 25,000 cameras networked to a single facial recognition hub,' reads the URME (pronounced U R Me) site. 'We don't believe you should be tracked just because you want to walk outside and you shouldn't have to hide either. Instead, use one of our products to present an alternative identity when in public.'"

Comments

Sure, give that a try

[mlookaba]

Wearing a mask in public is already considered "probable cause" for detain and search. While I agree with the reasons, this product will go nowhere except Halloween parties.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Isn't it funny (or sad) how the government is increasingly using mass surveillance in public places, and yet when you attempt to thwart their efforts at tracking you by doing something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?

The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has many places that ban the act of wearing masks in public places. Free? Brave? To drones, maybe.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[nurb432]

Right. And how long before it become illegal outright?

Plus, try going inside a store with it on, you will be bounced faster than you can blink. And if you DO take it off, zap, you are on camera. Once you are ID'd in one spot, its pretty painless to follow you around, even after you put your mask back on.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[ShanghaiBill]

Right. And how long before it become illegal outright?

It is already illegal in many places. Many European countries have laws against covering or obscuring your face in public. Many of these laws were originally aimed at Muslims, but apply to anyone. Many US states and localities also have bans, some originally aimed at the KKK. Anti-mask laws were used against protesters at "Occupy Wall Street".

This is not a slippery slope. We are already at the bottom.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[RNLockwood]

California has had a mask law on the books long before photo recognition, CCTV, etc. The purpose was to attempt to prevent masked people on the streets as this was (reasonably IMHO) seen as a probable precursor to some sort of in-your-face crime.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Nutria]

and yet when you attempt to thwart their efforts at tracking you by doing something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?

First do research as to why wearing masks is illegal in many US states, and then spout your opinions.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[cold fjord]

...something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?

You can thank the Klan for that in many places. Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?

The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has many places that ban the act of wearing masks in public places. Free? Brave? To drones, maybe.

Blacks, Jews, and Catholics do live more freely since few in the Klan were brave enough to make their allegiance known openly and commit their foul deeds without anonymity. Do you resent that? Do you think that America is less free or brave because the Klan finds it more difficult to hide itself to harass or kill blacks, Jews, and Catholics?

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

California has had a mask law on the books long before photo recognition, CCTV, etc.

When the laws were created is irrelevant to the reality that protecting your privacy is made impossible in many places by government thugs.

reasonably IMHO

Again?

Come on. I shouldn't have to tell people in "the land of the free" that banning things like this merely because criminals could abuse them is disgusting. Even if the safety is real, it's not something any truly free country would do, just like we shouldn't have the TSA, the NSA mass surveillance, or any of the other nonsense that's happening right now.

What's with all these people who claim to want a free country, and yet support policies that take us in the opposite direction? It's just an eyesore.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

First read my post. I did not state *why* it is illegal. I was aware that it has been illegal before any of this nonsense.

But regardless of the reason it's illegal, the fact remains that wearing masks in public is illegal in many places.

Since a few people interpreted it that way, it must be in the wording, but that is not how I intended it.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[angel'o'sphere]

The laws where not aimed at muslims but demonstrants and rioters.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

You can thank the Klan for that in many places.

No, the Klan did not create the law. I blame the government and its supporters.

Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?

I'm in favor of rolling back anti-Klan laws that make it illegal to wear masks in public places, regardless of what the mask looks like. Opposing the Klan is all well and good, but when you ban masks in public places, you're anti-freedom.

Do you think that America is less free or brave because the Klan finds it more difficult to hide itself to harass or kill blacks, Jews, and Catholics?

I think America is less free and less brave because we (i.e. authoritarian idiots like you) continually sacrifice freedom for security (both real and imaginary). I do not think innocent people should be harassed by government thugs merely for wearing masks, trying to get on a plane, participating in a protest (protest permits), trying to get their voices heard (free speech zones), etc.

It's always funny how you come when there is a topic about surveillance, and you're nearly always pro-surveillance and anti-privacy. I say "funny," but I don't really expect anything more from the likes of you. As I've suggested to you before, I really think North Korea would be more to your liking.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[ganjadude]

The first mask laws were about 100 years ago against the KKK

Re:Sure, give that a try

[hodet]

..because....turrists. now pick up that can citizen!

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Hognoxious]

Quite. Muslims were given an exemption from them.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Nutria]

the fact remains that wearing masks in public is illegal in many places.

And darned few people were upset that such ordinances were passed.

IMNSHO, the bottom line is that too few people want the actual responsibility of actually living in a free society. A large population, a too-low need for employment plus two undereducated, angry and rightly aggrieved minorities bears that out, I think.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Lord Kano]

Lots of places have had such laws for decades.

They were often used against the KKK. If they wanted to march, they had to do it without masks.

LK

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Jane Q. Public]

Wearing a mask in public is already considered "probable cause" for detain and search. While I agree with the reasons, this product will go nowhere except Halloween parties.

Now, I don't normally say this, because this is not Wikipedia. But [citation needed]. I do not believe this is true.

Wearing a mask in a bank might be probable cause (and pretty stupid). But in public? I don't know of a single case in the United States in which wearing a mask was by itself considered probable cause for a search. If it were, Mardi Gras would no longer exist.

I'm not claiming you're wrong, but I think you are. I would like to see some evidence before I'm convinced otherwise.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[wealthychef]

"in your face crime?" LOL unintentional puns are the funniest

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Jane Q. Public]

I just looked it up.

8 States and DC have laws against wearing masks. That is a small minority. In general, they are either very Leftist states, or states in which KKK was known to operate in the past.

Further, in almost all of those states, it is only unlawful to wear masks for the purpose of committing a crime or evading the authorities.

So, NO. In general, wearing a mask is not "probable cause" in itself, nor illegal in itself, unless it is done in order to commit a crime.

There are a few exceptions, in a few places. That is all.

By they way: I prefer the Guy Fawkes mask, myself.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Baloroth]

When the laws were created is irrelevant to the reality that protecting your privacy is made impossible in many places by government thugs.

Wearing masks in public is not a protection of your privacy: you're in *public*: everyone can see you, and what you are doing. That's part of the whole concept of a public place. No, wearing masks preserves *anonymity*, which is different from privacy. As is, you have and should have limited rights to privacy in public (can't force people not to look at you, for example). You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[ShanghaiBill]

Quite. Muslims were given an exemption from them.

I believe that is only true in Britain. In other countries, such as France and Belgium, Muslims were the target. When the mask ban was signed in France, President Sarkozy explicitly stated that a primary purpose of the law was to "uphold secular values".

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Anonymous Coward]

Justice systems in open societies rely on the ability to identify
people in public places. You close down open societies
by withholding identity from your fellow citizens. The laws
against anonymity in public were passed by your fellow
citizens in a democratic society because they wanted
an open society, not by government thugs.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Actually, it provides privacy from mass public surveillance. There are different kinds of privacy, and some (i.e. privacy from having people take upskirt pictures) exist even in public places.

And this is about the government, not random people looking at you.

You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public.

Anyone who tries to say I shouldn't is an authoritarian scumbag.

This is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," so you can damn well bet I'm going to claim such a right.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

You can blame it on the Great Pumpkin and be just as wrong as blaming it "on the government and it's supporters".

Question: Who created the law? The government. Therefore, the government and those who supported it are at fault for the existence of the law. This is not difficult.

The grandparent is correct, the anti-mask laws go back decades and have nothing to do with the current conditions.

There's a wide variety of limits to our freedoms that are generally and widely agreed are a good idea

Many things were widely believed to be a good idea, but were horrendous. I do not care about popularity; I care about individual liberties.

(such as the (in)famous "the freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater")

I disagree with such a restriction, but that is neither here nor there. Wearing a mask does not itself do any harm, and shouldn't be banned merely because wearing a mask is something that a criminal might decide to do. This is not something that "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would do, but I can see you despise freedom, so it's not like you care.

If you want to catch more criminals, why not just allow the police to break into any house they please for any reason? You seem to have an absolute trust in the government to suggest that this would be for "the greater good" (an excuse to violate fundamental liberties).

Now, go get molested at an airport, and then fly off to North Korea, you scumbag. You might have trouble finding the right transportation, but I'm sure you'll find some authoritarian asshole who will be glad to take you.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Popularity != good. Slavery was once accepted. Discrimination was once accepted. Don't try appealing to democracy; that's not how you obtain freedom. The minority needs to be protected from the tyrannical majority.

Justice systems in open societies rely on the ability to identify people in public places

Man, you authoritarians are mentally retarded. Why not just allow the government to break into people's houses for no reason? We might catch more criminals that way, which is what's important to you, since you obviously don't care about freedom.

Why do we have a constitution that is essentially a whitelist of things the government can do? Because, from the very beginning, even if it meant we're less 'safe', forcing the government to respect people's individual liberties was seen as desirable. We're supposed to be "the land of the free," not 'the land of the worthless cowards who sacrifice individual liberties to be able to catch Bad Guys.' As "the land of the free," we need to aspire to maximize our freedom, not minimize it like you want to do.

I've debunked posts like yours hundreds of times over, and it gets tiring.

Off to North Korea with you, little authoritarian. Man, I feel sorry for the North Korean people, though.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Anonymous Coward]

California has had a mask law on the books long before photo recognition, CCTV, etc

Go read the law. (emphasis added)

CALIFORNIA Penal Code Section 182-185
185. Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of: One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense. Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

So provided you're not committing a crime while wearing a mask, or using the mask to evade arrest, it's perfectly legal.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[matbury]

Doesn't anyone see the similarity between this and Aphex Twin's video to "Come to Daddy"? - Life imitating art. The fun starts about 1:50 into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Sure, give that a try

[mysidia]

You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public.

That might be true. But, you have a right to the liberty to decide what parts of your body you will reveal in public, and which parts you will keep private.

The "no masks" rule, is essentially a clothing ban.

Nobody has a right to require, order, or force a citizen to remove an article of clothing in public; particularly not clothing worn for protection, or as a political message protected under the first amendment, or as worn for a religious or medical reason, necessitating the patient should wear a mask.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Not good enough.

In "the land of the free," banning something merely because criminals use it is unacceptable; period. It doesn't matter if the safety is real or it prevents deaths; freedom is more important.

Even if the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, protest permits, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, anti-mask laws, etc. did keep us safe, I would be 100% opposed to them all.

I am very anti-authoritarian and privacy-concerned

Nonsense. You would be 100% against having the government choose what you wear on your own body if that were the case.

It's amazing how willing people are to give up their liberties for safety, but I find it intolerable. On 9/11, I just knew the government would use it as an excuse to infringe upon our liberties, and many people begged them to do just that. It's baffling.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

*sigh*

Without fail, you people respond with ridiculous analogies, as if it justifies your anti-freedom nonsense. Well, it doesn't.

Well, by that "100%" logic we could wear suicide bomb vests.

Yes, and? That has less to do with what you wear and more to do with being in possession of something that's probably illegal.

A fake one would be fine by me.

It would be the same principle as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater; you would undoubtedly cause harm.

You do realize that that decision allowed war protestors to be put in prison, yes?

I am opposed to such violations of free speech, and think they are unconstitutional, no matter what judges say. Speech does not cause harm; other people who choose to react to the speech in ways that cause harm do, and in that case, they're at fault. The theater owner doesn't like it? Throw out the guy who screamed. Everyone seems to think they're not responsible for their own actions, but whether they acted on instinct or in ways that a 'reasonable' person would, they are responsible.

I would hate to have that cop tell me he couldn't do anything to protect that animal's 'freedom'.

So you're in favor of limiting innocent people's freedoms because of some supposed criminals? What a draconian mentality you have.

The correct response would be: Freedom is more important. Deal with it.

Ideally, this would be a reasonable law.

I'm saying there is no way for it to be reasonable, if you mean the anti-mask laws.

And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, many places with anti-mask laws only ban the act of wearing a mask while committing a crime; merely wearing one is not prohibited in those places. I don't think that's justified, but that's the reality.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Your logic is significantly more stupid. So let me get this straight... we should allow our government, which we pay for, to conduct mass public surveillance to track us wherever we go in public, just because some kids with a lot of money could do almost the same thing? Your brain must be broken.

The difference between the scenarios is obvious: Random kids don't have as much ability to ruin your life as governments, and the information collected by the government would be going to the government, which is comprised of individuals more than capable of ruining lives.

Are you going to make it illegal for anyone to record what they witness in public?

You're equating the act of recording what you witness with the government conducting mass surveillance. Try again, but this time, use your brain. The scale very much matters.

Just the government? Gee, I smell a big loophole there.

You could also ban the government from accepting such surveillance data from people without a warrant, and the data they could accept would be limited to specific targets.

Fear of public surveillance is just a little stupid IMO.

Hundreds of millions of people throughout history were abused and/or murdered by corrupt governments. Not a single person is some sort of perfect angel that can do no wrong or make no mistakes, and power corrupts. Even the US government has abused many people (slavery, discrimination, surveillance of people like MLK, the TSA, the NSA surveillance, the internment of Japanese citizens).

It is foolish to *not* be fearful. With these capabilities, the government can harass people that it considers its targets (people that did things it doesn't like), or find targets to harass. All this data merely allows it to better oppress the common person. Even if it isn't used that way in the beginning, it will be eventually, and to say otherwise means that you trust the current government and all future governments to never abuse their powers, which is unprecedented in the course of history.

Anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant of history, and ignorant of human nature. Education is the only answer.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[angel'o'sphere]

Muslim womens ban for the shador came after the 'mask' ban.
And it was befor Sarkozy!

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Do you just have to say, "well he technically hasn't broken any laws, so we can't do anything".

Yes. I don't want thugs harassing people because they look 'suspicious'. It happens all the time, but it's wrong. We have given the government far too much power.

I'm someone who would wear a mask in public all the time, should it come to that.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[mr_resident]

"You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public."

True, and yet many people think they have it on the Internet.

(this isn't my real name, by the way)

Re: Sure, give that a try

[mr_resident]

Well said, Mr. A. Coward.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[sumdumass]

Wait until some enterprising idiot uses one of these masks to rob banks and convenient stores. Then all the sudden, everyone using them will be suspect.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[LookIntoTheFuture]

When the laws were created is irrelevant to the reality that protecting your privacy is made impossible in many places by government thugs.

Wearing masks in public is not a protection of your privacy: you're in *public*: everyone can see you, and what you are doing. That's part of the whole concept of a public place. No, wearing masks preserves *anonymity*, which is different from privacy. As is, you have and should have limited rights to privacy in public (can't force people not to look at you, for example). You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public.

You are absolutely correct. There is no way to force people not to look at you in public. But, that doesn't make you less of an asshole for constantly doing so against the wishes of other people. Dammit, this argument is weak, weak, weak!!!

Re:Sure, give that a try

[LookIntoTheFuture]

Please disregard this post.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[AmiMoJo]

So what do Muslims who want to wear a burka do? Genuine question, I feel they shouldn't be allowed in public, but as far as I'm aware only France has banned them and they are generally allowed in the US. I must admit I'm not an expert on US local laws though.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[blindseer]

Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?

Yes. So long as it also means rolling back the anti-self defense laws.

The KKK got away with what they did by first disarming their victims. Those laws come primarily from the Jim Crow era, an effort to keep Blacks effectively slaves. An armed Black man did not have to be concerned about hooded characters invading his property, because they'd be dead and the hood removed in short order.

I don't care if people wish to wear masks so long as I'm not disarmed. If the masked people don't want to get shot then don't go busting down my door. Masked people in a shopping mall, making every purchase with cash, I have no problem with that. If it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg it bothers me none.

Disarming and unmasking people puts the government in a very powerful position. I have the right to associate as I please without the government knowing. I have the right to defend myself as I see fit. The government need not know what weapons I own. If the government fears me because I am anonymous and armed then perhaps it is because the government is doing something they should not.

This is supposed to be a government of the people, for the people. We should be partners, not adversaries. That means the government needs to trust the people with being unnamed and armed. If they cannot do that then we have tyranny.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[nurb432]

I was thinking at the federal level.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Hognoxious]

Are you joking, or are you just someone who couldn't point to Belgium on a map of the bit between France and The Netherlands?

Islamists, led by Laurette Onkelinx, are the second largest party in government.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[gmhowell]

Six of the ten highest population states in the US are among those eight. This yields ~ 105 million people out of a population of 315 million, or 33%. I wouldn't describe this as a 'small minority'.

All stats taken from wikipedia.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Jane Q. Public]

I wouldn't describe this as a 'small minority'.

Since I was pretty clearly referring to a small minority of states, I will stick by my comment, since 8 out of 50 is a small minority.

AND, I will remind that even where there are laws, in only a few places (see the link) are they laws against law abiding people wearing masks. With few exceptions it is about wearing them for illegal purposes.

Well, guess what? It's not illegal to carry a gun around here either, but it IS very much illegal to use one for committing a crime.

So what?

Re:Sure, give that a try

[gmhowell]

You can say that you were referring to a 'minority of states', but that argument is a bit disingenous when that small number covers a substantial portion of the population. I tend to agree with much of your thesis, but I found referencing a 'minority of states' to be be a weak argument.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[wonkey_monkey]

I didn't see what you did there.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Well, guess what? It's not illegal to carry a gun around here either, but it IS very much illegal to use one for committing a crime.

So what?

Because wearing a mask while committing a crime should not result in larger punishments; it makes no sense, and is yet another way for our Tough On Crime government to send people off to prison for as long as possible.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[flappinbooger]

Wearing a mask in public is already considered "probable cause" for detain and search.

While I agree with the reasons, this product will go nowhere except Halloween parties.

If a person is living in an area where wearing a mask is illegal, perhaps some sort of face paint would work.

You've seen the bizarre paint schemes called "Dazzle camouflage" (it's on wikipedia) used on ships at sea?

What about Dazzle Camo face paint? Would that work to confuse the facial recognition algorithms?

Re:Sure, give that a try

[flappinbooger]

Sorry to reply to my own post, I just googled "dazzle camo face paint" and apparently it CAN mess with facial recog.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[cyberchondriac]

Well, if they ban these masks, guess they better ban Burqas too. Or neither. But I'm sure that will never happen in the US. It's surprising that France did.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[cyberchondriac]

The first mask laws were about 100 years ago against the KKK

So....... if you don't support a ban against masks, then you must be a racist? *ducks*

Re:Sure, give that a try

[lsatenstein]

California has had a mask law on the books long before photo recognition, CCTV, etc.

When the laws were created is irrelevant to the reality that protecting your privacy is made impossible in many places by government thugs.

reasonably IMHO

Again?

Come on. I shouldn't have to tell people in "the land of the free" that banning things like this merely because criminals could abuse them is disgusting. Even if the safety is real, it's not something any truly free country would do, just like we shouldn't have the TSA, the NSA mass surveillance, or any of the other nonsense that's happening right now.

What's with all these people who claim to want a free country, and yet support policies that take us in the opposite direction? It's just an eyesore.

I live in a cold climate (winters have 20 below temps and often -40 below). I need the mask to shield my face from the wind.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BasilBrush]

The minority needs to be protected from the tyrannical majority.

Ironically that was the reason for the mask laws. To protect a minority from tyrannous KKK mobs.

To switch away from US law for a second, in the UK it's generally OK to wear masks - we had no KKK history. BUT the police may declare temporary "Section 60 AA" areas for special policing, where slightly different rules apply. One of them is that wearing masks or any other identity concealment is banned. You may be arrested if it's asked to be removed and you refuse. And in any case the mask/disguise it may be seized.

As Section 60 AA is usually used for demonstrations, it's essentially a tool for political policing.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Jane Q. Public]

I tend to agree with much of your thesis, but I found referencing a 'minority of states' to be be a weak argument.

It may be. I wrote "a minority of states" because that was what my reference showed: a minority of states.

When discussing the law, it is important to separate political divisions from population in the same way that the House of Representatives is separate from the Senate.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Only that both have validity.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BasilBrush]

"(such as the (in)famous "the freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater")"

I disagree with such a restriction, but that is neither here nor there.

Actually it's very significant. It shows your true colours as a fundamentalist. A belief in one thing that's so strong it outweighs all other concerns. People who treat everything as if it's simple when few things are. Fundamentalists should never be listened to when deciding the best course of action. Whether they come from North Korea or America.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Ironically that was the reason for the mask laws. To protect a minority from tyrannous KKK mobs.

I'm saying that the government should be restricted in such a way that it cannot violate certain individual liberties merely because the majority want it to be so, not that the government should provide 100% protection (from harm inflicted by criminals) to people. The latter results in people having fewer rights when the government infringes upon people's rights to provide the safety.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[Jane Q. Public]

Because wearing a mask while committing a crime should not result in larger punishments; it makes no sense, and is yet another way for our Tough On Crime government to send people off to prison for as long as possible.

I can accept some "in order to" laws. E.g., it's illegal to carry a gun in order to rob or murder someone.

It's generally hard to show intent, though, unless there is strong evidence of premeditation.

So, take robbing a bank as an example. If one wears a mask in order to rob a bank and then evade the authorities, I can see that being illegal. However, I believe that if it is going to be illegal it should be a crime in itself, not an "enhancement" of some other crime. I think "enhancements" (like for murdering someone with a gun rather than a knife) are bullshit political ideas, not justice.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BasilBrush]

Your Utopia cannot exist. One person's individual liberties very often impinge on another person's individual liberties. Indeed it often leads to a tragedy of the commons where everyone loses.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Actually it's very significant.

Since the comparison itself was bad, nope.

It shows your true colours as a fundamentalist.

Your opinion about what labels apply to me is rather irrelevant.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Your Utopia cannot exist.

Fortunately, I am not proposing a utopia. But I would not expect someone who thinks ad hominems debunk someone's arguments to possibly understand what I believe, or where I draw lines. You say I am a fundamentalist, but you have your own fundamentalist tendencies... which alone doesn't make you wrong.

And you are demonstrably incorrect; many states without anti-mask laws exist.

One person's individual liberties very often impinge on another person's individual liberties.

Wearing a mask does no such thing.

I suppose not allowing the government to molest people at airports (the TSA) would infringe upon people's individual liberties? Certainly not liberties I would consider important.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BasilBrush]

And you are demonstrably incorrect; many states without anti-mask laws exist.

You misunderstood. Unless all it takes for you to be in a Utopia is to be allowed to wear masks. By your Utopia, I actually referred to "the government should be restricted in such a way that it cannot violate certain individual liberties merely because the majority want it to be so" as the Utopia that cannot exist. That should have been fairly obvious from my reference to the tragedy of the commons.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BasilBrush]

Your opinion about what labels apply to me is rather irrelevant.

No more irrelevant than your views on anything.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

When I say such things, I'm mainly expressing opposition to things like the TSA, anti-mask laws, the NSA's mass surveillance, and generally unconstitutional practices.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Right. My views are no more or less irrelevant than anyone else's, unless the actual topic of discussion is taken into consideration. If I say that 1 + 1 = 2, that's true regardless of whether some people consider me a "fundamentalist." In cases like this, where things are subjective, that some people say I'm a "fundamentalist" doesn't mean I'm objectively wrong.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[BilI_the_Engineer]

You do realize that the "government" is mostly composed of normal citizens who were elected into their positions, right? Stop forcing a distinction between "us" and "the government".. It's one and the same.

Our government is not us. The US has a two party system where people are 'forced' to vote for the 'lesser' of two evils, and people do not necessarily agree with even 50% of their candidate's policies.

Also, those in the government are individuals who have powers that ordinary people don't have. We are very much different.

When you make that separation, it becomes much easier to acquiesce to the wrongdoing because it's perpetrated by "the government" which is some faceless golem that is out of reach.

Not even remotely true. Whether my enemy is faceless or not, I oppose anyone who supports the nonsense I describe.

Also, just because I don't mention names (I'd have to mention nearly all politicians if I did.) doesn't mean I don't know who to vote for and who to discard.

Your post is about as vague as saying "Memorizing random poems builds character." You could say similar things about anything. "Mentioning names will cause you to dehumanize people and turn you into a violent thug." How does this happen? No one knows; but I said it, so it's true.

Re:Sure, give that a try

[cavebison]

you're in *public*: everyone can see you, and what you are doing

But none of the people who see you in the pub are the same who see you in a shop and the same who see you walking down any other street every day. There's a BIG difference between being "in public" - where nobody knows you beyond the immediate space - and your life "being public knowledge", which is what it would be if everyone knew all your movements throughout the city.

Comparing public surveillance to "being in public" is a false equivalence. They're nothing like each other.

How convenient for him...

[msauve]

If he gets others to wear his face mask, he can go around without one and be hidden in the crowd. He should be paying others to wear these.

Re:How convenient for him...

[Slick_W1lly]

Plausible deniability.

If a bunch of others are wandering around with your face, you can reasonably say 'It wasn't me Guv, it were one o' them folks wearin' my mask..."

In techy terms - It's a bit like having an open hotspot. "It weren't *my* computer guv, it were one o' my neighbours connecting to my freely accessible SSID."

Re:How convenient for him...

[deathguppie]

I can see this guy robbing a lot of banks if he's successful. Or at least getting pulled in for questioning a lot.

Re:How convenient for him...

[ColdWetDog]

Come on. This is Slashdot. Nobody is going around wearing our faces. Not even us, if we could help it.

How long before ...

[whoever57]

How long before wearing one of these makes you a potential terrorist in the eyes of the police, FBI, etc.?

Re:How long before ...

[Charliemopps]

How long before wearing one of these makes you a potential terrorist in the eyes of the police, FBI, etc.?

Haven't you heard? We all already are.

Re:How long before ...

[SternisheFan]

How long before wearing one of these makes you a potential terrorist in the eyes of the police, FBI, etc.?

They wouldn't arrest Batman, would they?

http://www.instructables.com/i...

Re: Should Be Illegal

[russotto]

Thank you, Dick Cheney. BTW it's your face I'll be using.

Re:Should Be Illegal

[bmo]

They should be banned lest criminals use these.

Criminals use oxygen.

--
BMO

Re:Should Be Illegal

[BilI_the_Engineer]

In a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," banning something as simple as this merely because criminals could abuse them is cowardly, intolerable, and anti-freedom.

I am not a fan of the surveillance state either

From your post, that is clearly not the case. This is the sort of government cheerleading that leads to the loss of our freedoms.

No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded.

No person in their right mind--especially not one living in "the land of the free"--would stand by and do nothing while government thugs are tracking their location.

You don't need this mask

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

All you need is make up. These recognition algorithms work by looking at the corners of mouth, centers of eyes and the tip of the nose. You should be able to take a picture of your mortal enemy load it up to Picassa or some such thing. Then use make up to add/subtract edges to your mouths, add a contrast point to the tip of the nose, take a selfie and see of Picassa matches your made up face to your patsy. Adjust it till you fool it. Then you can go commit serious crime in full view of the cameras, and tip off the police and point them to the guy who stole your girlfriend in high school. In security terms, the automatic face recognition systems hash your face to a checksum, but without a salt. Spoofing will be trivial.

Pretty soon contact lenses will be available where you could color part of it white and some part black to change the distance between eye centers. After that the automatic face recognition system for surveillance will get their well deserved death.

Re:You don't need this mask

[WhiteZook]

The automatic system will flag the mistake first, but if you commit a serious crime with that, the next step will be for a human investigator to compare the faces, and realize the automatic system had a false positive.

Re:You don't need this mask

[PPH]

Even easier, large dark glasses. Cameras can't see your eyes and locate the centers. Or wear a pair of these.

Sunglasses are your best bet, as law enforcement isn't going to be able to use them as probable cause for anything.

Re:You don't need this mask

[denzacar]

Don't forget your clown shoes, pants and gloves to hide your gait.

Also, a wig might be useful. A bright orange or green one.
You'd be practically invisible in a crowd.

As long as that crowd is at a clown convention. An Apple store might do in a pinch too.
Hey... it worked for Captain America and Black Widow.

Re:You don't need this mask

[KingOfBLASH]

Have you SEEN CCD cameras? VGA images where they turn the contrast up to 100 in grainy black and white?

If you take into account any height difference, and choose a suitable subject, the defense may argue that it could have been someone with make up, but they won't find you by a long shot.

UNLESS facial recognition cameras are being installed with ridiculously high resolutions and then downgraded before releasing to the media so that people don't realize they're downgraded.

Scary thought? Maybe. But unlikely. Mostly security cameras are just a scarecrow to ward off the bad guys....

Re:You don't need this mask

[BradMajors]

Or one of these:

http://www.amazon.com/Solar-Fa...

Re:You don't need this mask

[KingOfBLASH]

In Asia, where light skinned is beautiful, people literally cover themselves voluntarily head to toe (including mask for pollution + hat + trendy glasses).

Literally you can't see who a person is. I've literally gone up to another girl outside my girlfriends house because she had a similar scooter / build / mask. Fortunately I was waving when I was coming up, otherwise I might have kissed some random girl on the street.

In secure areas (read: airports, banks, etc.) there's typically a sign at the front telling you to remove all facial obstructions.

Re:You don't need this mask

[PPH]

Elwood: "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses."

Jake: "Hit it."

Re:You don't need this mask

[Frosty Piss]

Wear a berka.

Re:You don't need this mask

[Patent Lover]

These will work just ast well: http://www.dreamstime.com/roya...

Re:You don't need this mask

[antdude]

So women are hard to track.

Re:You don't need this mask

[antdude]

Yes, it also work well for other scenarios like sleeping. Ask Homer J(ay) Simpson during his jury duty. ;)

Re:You don't need this mask

[Sabriel]

Yeah, I've seen CCD cameras. I've also seen a couple of my customers upgrade to the new HD gear as their old VGA stuff finally dies. HD surveillance has come down a lot in price, and it will come down further, so I expect more will switch in future. And in another two or three decades, the next cycle will probably see people upgrading to 4K cams as those get cheap and their old HD gear fails, so... welcome to the panopticon.

Re:You don't need this mask

[cyberchondriac]

But .. but ...on TV, all they have to do is say "enhance" and it comes out like 1080p.

Re:Should Be Illegal

[CRCulver]

No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded.

Under underestimate the power of fashion. People walk around "in their right minds" with bits of metal or ink in their skin, or (just to show it's not just those crazy kids today) codpieces or monocles. Who knows what the future may hold, perhaps it will come to be considered stylish to stick it to the surveillance state.

Irony...

[mark-t]

'We don't believe you should be tracked just because you want to walk outside and you shouldn't have to hide either. Instead, use one of our products to present an alternative identity when in public.'

So they don't want you to have to hide, and they propose as an alleged alternative (re: "instead") a product that they sell for precisely that purpose.

Re:Irony...

[mark-t]

But look at what they said...

We don't believe you should be tracked just because you want to walk outside and you shouldn't have to hide either.

This wording suggests (because of the usage of the words 'and' and 'either') that not hiding isn't merely a clarification of the previous statement about walking outside,but that some form of not hiding is in some way an alternative to not walking outside.

Your interpretation is certainly plausible, but I'm just going on what they actually said.

Stopgap measure

[CODiNE]

Welcome to a new cat and mouse game.

With a sufficient number of people successfully using this technique the detection methods will keep getting smarter.

Sizing a person based on the distance between joints.
Solution: elbow and knee extender prosthetics. Strap it on the upper limb and add a few inches before the joint is visible through clothing.

Recognizing a person through their walking styles.
Solution: Joining the ministry of silly walks and becoming and expert at switching gaits by choice.

Heuristics based on tracking bodies and the likelihood of people doing switcheroos while off camera.
At this point you would end up being a high profile target that gets human eyes overseeing your tracking.

Infrared lights can be filtered...
Errr...
Looks like the mouse always loses this one.

Re:Stopgap measure

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Yep, things like this are just a temporary measure before the surveillance state gets too advanced. It's better to just limit the government's powers from the very beginning, but many people would rather have safety (or the illusion of safety) than have freedom.

Re:Stopgap measure

[Sabriel]

Anybody remember Traveller?

Tech Level 9: Commercial Biometrics. Sensor technologies used to identify medical problems become affordable for general commercial use and are integrated with biometric databases to provide instant identification of targets passing through an established sensor zone.

Tech Level 10: Remote Biometrics. Continued advancements allow the economical integration of multiple sensors (infrared, optical, terahertz, ultrasound, etc) into a compact unit small enough to be carried in the field.

Tech Level 11: Biometric Panopticon. Ubiquitous sensors linked in a global network provide instant and real-time identification and monitoring of entire populations (and their goods, pets, wildlife, etcetera).

Reverse it

[Opportunist]

Don't wear a mask. Get a mask of your face done. And when the feds show up, well, that wasn't me, just someone wearing my mask. I hate that as much as you do, officer, and if I just could stop it, believe me, I would... but people are bad, ya know?

Re:Reverse it

[davester666]

You are responsible for whatever people using your face do.

Re:Reverse it

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, it seems to me the main thing this mask would accomplish is helping Leo Selvaggio hide himself from surveillance, not the rest of us - unless we're willing to wear it 100% of the time we go out in public.

Re:Reverse it

[Opportunist]

Really? In what backwards country? That reeks of "guilty by association".

Re:Reverse it

[davester666]

Yeah, see how the lineup goes after the bank robbery ANYWHERE. You would have to prove you were somewhere else fairly conclusively...and if you were black, it wouldn't matter that you could prove you were somewhere else in many states.

Re:Reverse it

[fuzznutz]

You are responsible for whatever people using your face do.

Really??? How's that work out for identical twins? You are so full of shit.

Re:Yeah, it's illegal

[mark-t]

That could logically extend to the use of make-up, you realize.

Re:wtf? either this guy

[Opportunist]

Looking back through history, it was people who were willing to sacrifice their safety who gained and protected our freedoms.

Don't be silly, citizen...

[denzacar]

Labeling is so... 20th century.
Why would they ever need to label you in any way, if they can simply know who you are and where you are at any given time?

http://slashdot.org/story/11/0...

It's just a matter of picking a law you've certainly already broken. Or taking you in for "acting in a suspicious manner".

Besides... that mask is useless without appropriate clown shoes, big blow-up clown gloves and clown pants to hide your gait.
http://slashdot.org/submission...

Re:Should Be Illegal

[mark-t]

Everyone uses oxygen.

Not everyone wears masks in public.

In many places, it's illegal to walk around naked in public too... so apparently there's plenty of precedent for making laws which might prohibit a certain fashion from being utilized in public, unless explicit exemptions are made for specific events.

Re:Should Be Illegal

[Noah Haders]

it's a way to protest the surveillance state, and protest is a form of speech. so it's constitutionally protected.

Re:Should Be Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone wears masks in public.

And wearing a mask is not something that should by itself be illegal.

In many places, it's illegal to walk around naked in public too

Which just shows that we in the "land of the free" need to start caring about the principles we claim to aspire to, rather than attempting to ban anything we don't like.

Felony in Virginia

[schwit1]

There is no religious exception that I can see. I am wondering why people are not arrested for wearing burqas.

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs...

Re:Felony in Virginia

[jklovanc]

wearing a hoodie at your friend's house

A hoodie and a hood are different things.

Re:Felony in Virginia

[rahvin112]

Did you notice the exemption for traditional holiday costumes? Hello Santa.

Re: Should Be Illegal

[Noah Haders]

here you go.

Re:Should Be Illegal

[Qzukk]

No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded.

No person in their right mind would expect to be recorded everywhere they go (unless they were being chased by paparazzi), sadly "reasonable expectation" isn't defined by people in their right minds.

Re:Should Be Illegal

[mark-t]

There is a decided difference between what some may believe "should" happen and what actually does.

Bitching about it won't change a thing.

Re:wtf? either this guy

[Nutria]

Looking back through history, it was people who were willing to sacrifice their safety who gained and protected our freedoms.

Sadly, looking back through history, there have been just as many -- if not more -- willing to sacrifice their safety so as to illegally take other people's stuff.

Re:Should Be Illegal

[FudRucker]

body must be clothed, face must be naked

maybe make a holiday where everyone reverses that role, and everyone goes naked while wearing a mask

What about....?

[mark-t]

What about the niqab, a scarf worn that completely obscured the entire face except for the eyes, most commonly worn by women who are Muslim? Are they proposing to eliminate religious freedom?

What about people who wear surgical-like masks in public when they have a mild cold, permitting them to freely go in public without significantly increasing the chance of spreading the illness? Are they going to make laws requiring people who are ill to stay at home, even if they are well enough to otherwise do their job, and compensate them for any wages that they lose?

What about wearing a scarf because it's cold outside? With a bad enough windchill in the wintertime, you need to completely cover up your face unless you want frostbite. Are they going to make laws prohibiting cold weather?

Re:What about....?

[jklovanc]

Those are all valid reasons to wear masks and laws take that into consideration. There are also exceptions made for holidays such as Halloween and Mardi Gras. The laws are designed to decrease the ability of people to hide their identity. If someone commits a street crime with their identity hidden it is almost impossible to catch them.

Re:What about....?

[camperdave]

What about wearing a scarf because it's cold outside? With a bad enough windchill in the wintertime, you need to completely cover up your face unless you want frostbite. Are they going to make laws prohibiting cold weather?

Of course. Why do you think they're warming up the globe?

Re:Boo Hoo

[Nutria]

It can be done, it should be done.

By whom? The people who voted in the big spenders?

Re:Should Be Illegal

[Hognoxious]

I know someone who does that, but she charges $20 extra.

Re:Should Be Illegal

[Hognoxious]

Under underestimate the power of fashion.

That means overestimate.

Or am I being "prescriptivist" there?

Form of

[Anonymous Coward]

William Shatner!

Re:Should Be Illegal

[ColdWetDog]

This. Come up with some makeup that screws up CCD cameras (different spectral characteristics?) and / or screws up the algorithms. Weave them into this year's fashion statement. Keep reiterating the process as the Panopticon tries to adjust. Extra points if it works to hide your own imperfections.

Could be some real money here folks.

Re:Should Be Illegal

[HiThere]

[sarcasm]
I notice you posted anonymously. Doesn't that seem inconsistent with your views? Or are you currently perpetrating a crime? Or are you only planning one?

Come on, admit it. You're being an Anonymous Coward because you're committing a crime.
[/sarcasm]

The Walking Dead

[westlake]

or call it the "uncanny valley" if you like.

You may fool the camera but you won't fool the eye and masks weird people out. It's too much like having a chance encounter with The Joker. In a concealed carry state I wouldn't be caught wearing one of these things if you paid me.

A gang of men threatening people in Duston and demanding cash while wearing 'Jason' style masks from the Friday the 13th films is being linked to another knifepoint robbery

Woman in Darth Vader mask arrested for early morning armed robbery

Would-be rapist wearing Scream mask jailed for 13 months, Attorney-General might appeal

Point Break

[mspohr]

This has already been done.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
The 1991 movie "Point Break" featured a gang of surfers who robbed banks wearing masks of presidents.
Pretty good movie.

Re:Wouldn't a scarf work?

[camperdave]

What, like they can't track the person in the green coat with the blue scarf?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Or This ...

[kjhambrick]

[Ctrl]+[V]

https://www.google.com/search?q=guy+fawkes+mask&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=XOtvU9zaBqHjsATXhoDoAw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1621&bih=850

Re:Bill the engineer ...

[BilI_the_Engineer]

Most of your comment makes little sense to me. Especially towards the end.

That goodness we all have our privacy. Time to wear armor and bullet proof vests when grocery shopping.

Once again, emotional appeals like that aren't going to work on me. In a country that truly aspires to be free, safety is less important than freedom. The idea that the government can prevent you from wearing certain articles of clothing is just ludicrous.

This is exactly what out forefathers were preventing when they drafted the constitution.

The constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do. If the constitution does not explicitly say the government has a certain power, then it doesn't; the end. So, it's actually rather limiting.

A truly free country is not all about safety, but about freedom. But then again, people like you use similar arguments to those supporting the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, etc., and I really don't expect you to desire freedom or even comprehend it.

AW Much?

[waddgodd]

There are plenty of masks that can do the trick already, the artist just wants to see lots of images of his face. If you want a living person's visage, go down to the halloween store and get an Obama mask or a Bush mask...

At some point...

[Archfeld]

It becomes impossible to avoid surveillance. If you can't hide then overload the DB with volumes of irrelevant data. I make a new Safeway member card every time I shop. I create one use Hotmail accounts, sometimes 3 and 4 per day. If you could get together with a group of geographically diverse people and all agree to swap faces on a regular basis you could seriously reduce the viability of facial recognition systems all over. It is similar to adding all the NSA trigger words to the footer of your email.

The wolf pack.

[westlake]

Those laws come primarily from the Jim Crow era, an effort to keep Blacks effectively slaves. An armed Black man did not have to be concerned about hooded characters invading his property, because they'd be dead and the hood removed in short order.

The geek's faith in his guns is touching, if a little irrational.

The last stand ---the one against the many. It makes a pretty picture. But in the real world, you are good as dead.

Here's a twist:

[messymerry]

Ok, if the citizens cannot wear a mask in public, neither can the State. So, all you law enforcement people, lose your "digital masks, and your "physical masks". You're not "entitled" to privacy any more than the rest of us. These "civilian" police forces are subject to the same laws as the general populace!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thirteen exclamation marks, one for each colony. ;-)

Mike Myers

[Dabido]

Guess I won't be needing you any more! *throws away Bill Shatner mask*

Make-Up

[DrYak]

I don't know about your jurisdiction, but the several european I know of, only forbid *Masking* the face (i.e.: hiding the face behing an object. what is forbiden is covering the face).
Make-up is still allowed (as long as the face is not covered by an object you can put as much colours you want on it), and face recognition has already been shown to be prevented by some types of make up.