Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Surveillance Mask Lets You Pass As Someone Else

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-thik-I've-seen-you-before dept.

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.'"

36 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Sure, give that a try by mlookaba · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Sure, give that a try by BilI_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:Sure, give that a try by RNLockwood · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Nate
    3. Re:Sure, give that a try by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...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?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:Sure, give that a try by BilI_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    5. Re:Sure, give that a try by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Sure, give that a try by ganjadude · · Score: 2

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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Sure, give that a try by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:Sure, give that a try by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Sure, give that a try by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    10. Re:Sure, give that a try by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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".

    11. Re:Sure, give that a try by BilI_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    12. Re:Sure, give that a try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:Sure, give that a try by matbury · · Score: 2

      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?...

    14. Re:Sure, give that a try by BilI_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    15. Re:Sure, give that a try by blindseer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  2. How convenient for him... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:How convenient for him... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Re:Should Be Illegal by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They should be banned lest criminals use these.

    Criminals use oxygen.

    --
    BMO

  4. You don't need this mask by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:You don't need this mask by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:You don't need this mask by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:You don't need this mask by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2

      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....

    4. Re:You don't need this mask by PPH · · Score: 2

      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."

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  5. Re:How long before ... by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Should Be Illegal by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Stopgap measure by CODiNE · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Stopgap measure by BilI_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  8. Reverse it by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:wtf? either this guy by Opportunist · · Score: 2

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

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:Should Be Illegal by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  11. Re:wtf? either this guy by Nutria · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  12. Re:Should Be Illegal by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  13. Re:Should Be Illegal by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  14. Re:Should Be Illegal by HiThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [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]

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  15. Point Break by mspohr · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?