Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

German Minister Wants Facial Recognition Software At Airports and Train Stations (www.rte.ie)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the I'll-be-seeing-you dept.

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a surprising report from Ireland's National Public Service Broadcaster (based on a report in the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag): Germany's Interior Minister wants to introduce facial recognition software at train stations and airports to help identify terror suspects following two Islamist attacks in the country last month... "Then, if a suspect appears and is recognised, it will show up in the system," he told the paper. He said a similar system was already being tested for unattended luggage, which the camera reports after a certain number of minutes. The article reports that other countries are also considering the technology.

68 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. And so it begins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Germany has managed to carry enough post-Nazi guilt to respect privacy, but their underlying culture is fairly authoritarian. While those with a good memory haven't all died off yet, the country does stand a good chance of going from 0 to 100 with a couple large scale attacks.

    Which is exactly what the terrorists want, but people are fucking stupid.

    1. Re: And so it begins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would say people want safety. They want it so bad that they will believe almost anything if it will make them feel more safe (see cryogenics and bomb shelters). We need leaders who refuse to pander to those that believe destroying freedom is the road to safety.

    2. Re:And so it begins. by encad · · Score: 3, Informative

      West Germany had a lot of this as well,

      Just look at the Spiegel-Scandal, Rasterfahndung, especially after the RAF had a couple of hits. Not to the extend of the Stasi, but sometimes not far off. And then there is still the scandals around the Verfassungschutz and the BND.

      It's not the first time, that Interior Minister put measures like that on the agenda, but most likely it wont proceed. Some very intelligent people put a lot of thought in Human Rights Conventions and our courts honor them most of the time, beside a lot of pressure build in the press and NGOs. Best example for that is the data retention law, which is already in its second incarnation after the first one got hammered by the Federal Courts, and this one has quite good chances to get hammered, too.

    3. Re: And so it begins. by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      It's going to take another World War to make that happen. To either wake them up, or wipe them out.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    4. Re: And so it begins. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Democracy will not get those people into power, the purveyors of simple recipes make it every time, due to fundamental stupidity of most voters. Now, despite being an atrociously bad and dangerous system of government, Democracy is still the best known one. Which basically shows that the human race as a whole is not much more advanced better than cave-men.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:And so it begins. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes West Germany had interesting laws to ensure no cult, far left or right political party could ever endanger democracy again put in place after ww2.
      That gave people democratic expression in to any West German mainstream political party that was gov approved.
      Anything political that was not allowed in the West was hunted down with ruthless efficiency as been a cult, fascist or communist.
      After the 1990's, East Germany was exposed for its vast databases, informants, total domestic and creative international spying.
      The West German laws got political free pass in Germany. Privacy friendly but are in place ready to be used as they have been for decades.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re: And so it begins. by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      I would say people want safety. They want it so bad that they will believe almost anything if it will make them feel more safe

      That's Trump's tactic in a nutshell.

      Mexicans, ISIS...etc. He's the only one who can keep you safe. He'll build the walls, he's the only one that can keep them out.

      Look at how well he's doing in the polls based on that.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re: And so it begins. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      We live under a government created under principles that Thomas Hobbes came up with and while others views of man were too optimistic, Hobbes view of Man in nature reflected his poor home life growing up and he had no sense of how families actually work. I have said that I will be family for anyone who will be family for me, and that simply does not fit into Hobbes' philosophy. The Hamiltonians played dirty when pushing for passage of the Constitution. The Federalist papers were filled with bully and con language. The Hamiltonians broke with tradition and made it so that passage was not of unanimous State decision. Hobbes had a radical hatred of violence. I feel that violence is a natural part of the human experience. The reservation of violence to the State interferes with the natural experience of violence by man. It should be tempered, but not removed entirely. Hobbes decision to make the Sovereign and not the Pope the decider of religion was not particularly novel and merely created many smaller Holy Roman Empires, when it came to religion. Religion should be the decision of individuals only. His ideas hampered discourse and the free flow of ideas by Balkanizing the world when it came to individuals. Hobbes was a Dr. Frankenstein, but worse, he had no idea what parts of Man he was even using to construct his so-called Artificial Man. He had little indication that the parts that make up Man were represented in whole in his Artificial Man. And in fact it is not. Hobbes had no sense of personal preference, When he said Man was the same, he meant that Man was the same in the same sense the Cybermen from Doctor Who were all the same.

    8. Re:And so it begins. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what the terrorists want, but people are fucking stupid.

      How is it that people always think they know what the terrorists want ?

    9. Re:And so it begins. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Germany has managed to carry enough post-Nazi guilt to respect privacy, but their underlying culture is fairly authoritarian

      That is an interesting thought; If I'm not entirely mistaken, the Germanic culture is what dominates most of Northern Europe - including the UK, not to mention the Scandinavian countries - and in fact was transported to the US as well. I seem to recall that there was some point where the States weren't quite sure whether to choose German or English as the national language, or is that an urban myth?

      The point is that making sweeping statements about this or that culture is most of the time meaningless. For every reactionary German, like Otto von Bismarck, you will find one or two of the most brilliant free-thinkers, who were Germans. The (currently) popular, national stereotypes are at best ephemeral; just take the so-called, English stiff upper lip. Not many centuries ago (in the 17th century, I think), the English were apparently known for their tendency to burst into tears at every occasion - for some reason that was fashionable. I don't have the time to look it up atm, but there was a program on the BBC about it a while ago (last year).

      As for the using image recognition in public spaces, I think the sensible view would be that it doesn't really have much to do with privacy. Public spaces are simply not private, for one thing; and however much conspiracy theorists like to imagine some sort of almighty computer that can keep tabs on where everybody is at all times, the fact is that no such technology is likely to be even possible any time soon, and there is not going be much of an incentive for it either. People have been imagining these things for a very long time - 1984 was written in 1949, I think, and Brave New World in the 30es - and it is perhaps not surprising that powerful new technology and science can seem worrying to people, but I think it is simply because they don't understand the subject very well, especially when it comes to the limitations of a new technology.

      Of course, I don't know what "They" are thinking any more than everybody else - "They" presumably being some murky people somewhere in government or the secret services. But if I were to hazard a guess, it would be that they have a database of pictures of terror suspects, which they will use to try to automatically match up with people passing through airports and other likely terror targets. If they get a potential match, they will investigate further, just to make sure. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I can't for my life imagine what anybody in government would want to check the whereabouts of every single person on the planets for - 99.999% of us live very plain and un-interesing lives, at least in terms of national security.

    10. Re:And so it begins. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Yes West Germany had interesting laws to ensure no cult, far left or right political party could ever endanger democracy again put in place after ww2.

      Except Islam, of course.

    11. Re:And so it begins. by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Because they frequently tell us. That's the entire point of terrorism - to have goals, and to use force or the threat of force to politically coerce people into achieving those goals. You being ignorant of this doesn't change anything.

    12. Re:And so it begins. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      As that is not a political party, I'd say you need to revisit your argument.

    13. Re:And so it begins. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      These German laws aren't necessarily restricted to political parties. For example, art 9 allows for social groups to be declared hostile to the constitution and allows them to be prohibited by the federal government. Also, holocaust denial and antisemitism (very common among muslim immigrants) are punishable crimes.

    14. Re:And so it begins. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Where exactly have they told us they want Germany to become a police state ?

  2. At least they'll announce it in public... by guevera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ....these systems are probably already deployed in American train stations and airports, and they won't bother telling us about it. It'll take years just to get details about it through FOIA.

    1. Re:At least they'll announce it in public... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You have no reasonable -- or legal -- expectation of privacy *in public* in the US. And I have no problem with that. G'head, catch a bunch of bad guys, knock yourself out. Just don't tap my phone or hack into my e-mail/messaging without a warrant and we're all good.

    2. Re:At least they'll announce it in public... by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

      What if your service provider, out of their good will, provides the TLAs with all your communications data? Because you, after all, agreed to that when you voluntarily signed the contract. And before you say you'd switch the operator/provider, they all do the same. Will you start your own telco?

      --
      -SR
    3. Re:At least they'll announce it in public... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's why encryption and peer-to-peer architecture of the Internet are a thing.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:At least they'll announce it in public... by guevera · · Score: 1

      Courts have acknowledged that the bulk collection and instant availability of data can lead to not just a qualitative but an actual quantitative difference in what that collection means. More important, I don't care what the law says, I don't think it's a good thing for the state's security agencies to be that efficient or that powerful. Whether or not this falls within the current legal definition of what's legal in the current regime is irrelevant.

    5. Re:At least they'll announce it in public... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ....these systems are probably already deployed in American train stations and airports, and they won't bother telling us about it. It'll take years just to get details about it through FOIA.

      What you've got to remember is that those cameras are owned by private organisations (same as every nightclub, shopping centre, car dealer, so on and so forth) and not subject to FOIA for the most part. Also remember the mantra Private == Good, Government == Baaaad.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:At least they'll announce it in public... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      What if your service provider, out of their good will, provides the TLAs with all your communications data?

      What the fuck does that have to do with 'privacy *in public*'?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    7. Re:At least they'll announce it in public... by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

      I don't think you read his post. He said:

      Just don't tap my phone or hack into my e-mail/messaging without a warrant and we're all good.

      I'm sure you can piece the puzzle together with that in mind and in relation to his privacy-in-public statement.

      --
      -SR
  3. All Your Expression Are Mine. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Nein.

  4. Not a good idea by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Security camera resolution is always horrible, so I LOL at who thinks this is even possible. Either it won't work or they will waste money and time tracking false positives. Hey at least the minister's proxy shares in the facial recognition software company will pay off. That oughta count for something.

    1. Re:Not a good idea by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

      Scotland Yard, for one, has a bunch of specialists with a talent for grainy security footage. It's taken a while, but now that super-recognizers are actually looking through all that footage, it looks like the cameras in London are starting to put people in jail.

      Where I live, it seems cameras have at least convinced crooks to put on ski-masks before they rob a bank teller or a convenience store. I've got mixed feelings about a world gone all Minority Report, but if you live in a neighborhood where this kind of shit-crime is common, you start to get frustrated at the grainy blob on the 11 o'clock news carjacking a lady at a gas station. It's these assholes who'll make it easy for toothy salesmen to sell politicians on armed security drones, DNA sniffers, cyborg security-dogs, and whatever else crazy shit the future has in store for us.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    2. Re:Not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First they import foreigners to commit crime, then they implement the surveillance society to prevent crime and lock in their power.

      Smooth.

    3. Re:Not a good idea by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is not actually a problem. Because if they actually knew what terror-suspects look like, they could get them by other means. Fact is, this is not about terrorism at all, this is about getting the public used to Big Brother.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Not a good idea by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re they will waste money
      Think of the contractors hardware, over time, undercover security teams of 6-10 people in shifts needed to follow up on every interesting person.
      Its win win win. From the software upgrades, networks needed to work on every frame, trying to get a face from the side, top.
      Sharing the faces with the wider EU, other nations.
      As a second and third generation grows up in a host nation they are undetectable as they are on all databases by default and will pass freely.
      If people are wondering around a nation without passing passport controls its not the best idea to try and make up for that total lack of passport control at that very local level.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Not a good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You are kidding, right? You don't realize these systems already exist? This isn't the security cameras you see at 7/11s. You can do this with a $200 camera system.

    6. Re:Not a good idea by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It is more about spotting people of interest acting in very interesting ways. Yes, they know who the terror suspects are (hence them being terror suspects), but they need to be able to build up cases to charge these people. Collection of evidence is a large step in this direction. Don't be so quick to dismiss evidence and substitute your own explanation - it only serves to show us how little you value truth in your arguments.

    7. Re:Not a good idea by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Where I live, it seems cameras have at least convinced crooks to put on ski-masks before they rob a bank teller or a convenience store.

      Are you implying that where you lived, before there were security cameras people didn't put on a mask before they robbed a bank? What did they do, shoot all the witnesses? Was it better back then?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    8. Re:Not a good idea by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      A type is of facial recognition system is already deployed in quite few major airports in the uk, but for the most part it used by the airports themselves and not tied into a government database:

      Heck, they've been doing that in casinos for a decade now - to catch card counters and other dangerous criminals. We can't have governments actually preventing harmless terrorist attacks that way - that goes too far.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    9. Re:Not a good idea by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      That is not actually a problem. Because if they actually knew what terror-suspects look like, they could get them by other means.

      Yeah, when I was young, these things were hanging in most public places - facial recognizing terrorists was everybody's duty back then. Hey, they even caught a few.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    10. Re:Not a good idea by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, bullshit and an unsophisticated insult. You must _want_ a surveillance state. Probably also some concentration and extermination camps as long-term plans?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. Bild is not a newspaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Disregard anything they publish and find a reliable source that isn't citing them.

  6. Create Facebook accounts for all of them by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hack into the system, download the images, and create Facebook accounts for all of them. Facebook is way better at facial recognition. All their friends will help identify them and add even more images.

    1. Re:Create Facebook accounts for all of them by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Facebook is way better at facial recognition.

      It sure seems good a finding faces in Mariposa lilies

      --
      Time to offend someone
  7. Excellent Idea, good first step towards ... by GrokvL · · Score: 2

    making Germany great again! With assurances it will only look at terrorist suspects?

    1. Re:Excellent Idea, good first step towards ... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As everybody is a terror suspect these days, your condition is acceptable.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  8. Need Even more by JimSadler · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think facial recognition systems should be deployed all over every town and city as well as roads. People simply have no need to hide where they are or where they are going. And yes there are stalkers in this world but it would also enable stalkers to be swept up rather easily. I do know that many people really want to hide their actions and activities. The problem is that also allows really bad people to get away with all kinds of crimes.

    1. Re:Need Even more by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The problem is that also allows really bad people to get away with all kinds of crimes.

      When a powerful entity has the ability to track everyone everywhere they go the above statement literally also applies.

    2. Re:Need Even more by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      So, make it all public. Then, the only people with a problem will be criminals. And people cheating on their spouses. And your boss might see you interviewing for a better job. And your GF may catch you sneaking into a movie you swore you hadn't seen, just as you watch your GF getting into a car with your best friend. And your boss spending a really long time at the massage parlor, your mom heading to the casino (that ain't no bingo parlor), the minister with the politician at the roach motel, and your kid sister going through the back door of a strip club. All lies exposed, a world gone insane. I can't wait.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    3. Re:Need Even more by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Isaac Asimov: The Dead Past...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Need Even more by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Asimov ended the story just before everything was going to be made public. He never explored the consequences.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:Need Even more by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I have no way to judge what would happen in a world where everything that happened in public was public knowledge. It actually wouldn't do much to me, since all my iniquities are conducted in private (further details not available on request), unless you count minor traffic violations. People with less savory public habits would have problems. The husband that hits the strip club one night a week. The guy that makes an illicit drug purchase. The woman that meets a male friend at "that" motel. Many people will be judgmental, and people will find excuses for their practices and blame other for theirs.

      A lot of these things work like pressure valves, allowing people to keep functioning under stressful circumstances. They give a person the sense of getting away and doing something for themselves. Cut all of those off, and that's going to raise tensions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. How well will it recognize faces under a Burqa? by ffkom · · Score: 1

    So all a travelling "terror suspect" needs to do is wearing a Burqa. (For those who didn't follow the news in Germany: The same people proposing the facial recognition very recently rejected proposals to ban Burqas.) But that doesn't matter, anywhere, since all this surveillance crap was never about "fighting terrorism" from the start.If they wanted to "trade in freedom for security", they could make certain vaccinations mandatory and thus rescue magnitudes of lifes more than are taken by "terrorists". In reality, "freedom" is just an annoyance to the government, as much as "opposition" is.

    1. Re:How well will it recognize faces under a Burqa? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      For real fun, wear a burqa while male. After all, gender equality and religious freedom must support this.

    2. Re:How well will it recognize faces under a Burqa? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      The same people proposing the facial recognition very recently rejected proposals to ban Burqas.

      Actually De Maizière was the one speaking out for the ban the loudest.

      But please don't let facts get in the way of your "Lügenpresse" rants.Are you on that picture by chance?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    3. Re:How well will it recognize faces under a Burqa? by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Actually De Maizière was the one speaking out for the ban the loudest.

      But please don't let facts get in the way of your "Lügenpresse" rants.

      Your so called "facts" are just the opposite of the truth - it was indeed Thomas "Die Misere", Germany's minister of interior, who spoke out against the Burqa ban.

      So I guess as you chide others for blaming the press, you're part of the "Lügenpresse", right?

  10. Re:Germany, authoritarian and Hobbes. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Well, world political theory is centered around Thomas Hobbes crackpot authoritarian theories, so it was only a matter of time.
    We live under a government created under principles that Hobbes came up with and while others views of man were too optimistic, Hobbes view of Man in nature reflected his poor home life growing up and he had no sense of how families actually work. I have said that I will be family for anyone who will be family for me, and that simply does not fit into Hobbes' philosophy. The Hamiltonians played dirty when pushing for passage of the Constitution. The Federalist papers were filled with bully and con language. The Hamiltonians broke with tradition and made it so that passage was not of unanimous State decision. Hobbes had a radical hatred of violence. I feel that violence is a natural part of the human experience. The reservation of violence to the State interferes with the natural experience of violence by man. It should be tempered, but not removed entirely. Hobbes decision to make the Sovereign and not the Pope the decider of religion was not particularly novel and merely created many smaller Holy Roman Empires, when it came to religion. Religion should be the decision of individuals only. His ideas hampered discourse and the free flow of ideas by Balkanizing the world when it came to individuals. Hobbes was a Dr. Frankenstein, but worse, he had no idea what parts of Man he was even using to construct his so-called Artificial Man. He had little indication that the parts that make up Man were represented in whole in his Artificial Man. And in fact it is not. Hobbes had no sense of personal preference, When he said Man was the same, he meant that Man was the same in the same sense the Cybermen from Doctor Who were all the same.

  11. These systems do not work and never will by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 2

    Due to the base rate fallacy, systems like this don't work, and never will.

    There just aren't enough terrorists to make this worthwhile. Let's assume that one person in a million is a terrorist (probably a high number), and let's furthermore assume that the system get's it right every time it actually sees a terrorist. Let's also assume that it only get it wrong once in a thousand when it sees a non-terrorist, i.e. once in a thousand the system will say "terrorist" when it's not.

    With these figures, you will have one thousand false alarms for every one terrorist you catch! I.e. a completely unusable system, that will drown their users in false alarms.

    Note that these figures are also completely unrealistically good. Real facial recognition systems that work with willing subjects, are in the high nineties when it comes to true positives, and in the single digit (or low double digit) percent when it comes to false positives. Not 1/1000 that we assumed above.

    Now, in relative terms of course a system like this helps. We've increased our certainty from 1 per million to 1 per thousand. That's a thousand fold increase. But in absolute terms it's still unusably bad.

    And this is incidentally why we don't screen for most/many diseases in the population. Even with a good test we'll drown in false positives. And the math works the same way for many other situations as well.

    --
    Stefan Axelsson
    1. Re:These systems do not work and never will by Agripa · · Score: 1

      With these figures, you will have one thousand false alarms for every one terrorist you catch! I.e. a completely unusable system, that will drown their users in false alarms.

      If they did this in the US, there would be no false alarms because all of the suspect would resist arrest and most would be killed while resisting arrest.

    2. Re:These systems do not work and never will by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Nah, just see the headlines when TSA gropes grandmas and small kids today. Many of these false alarms will be in the same categories, so I'm betting the system will take the fall.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  12. No islamist attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Those were neither islamist attacks nor terrorist attacks, but rampages of two indiduals.
    The proposed technique won't help with that.

  13. My car window was smashed yesterday at by Max_W · · Score: 1

    a parking lot near seaside, so I am not in a forgiving mode. I approve minister's proposal. Face recognize all the outlaws, round them up, and judge according to the laws.

    If necessary make an agreement with Russian Federation to un-mothball detention camps beyond the Arctic Circle and send the unrepentant recidivists up there.

  14. nope by Torvac · · Score: 3, Informative

    a) bild am sonntag is not a newspaper for the 1000000th time, its yellow press
    b) in the past there have been tests in germany with systems like this, can be fooled easily without much technical effort
    c) that guy is a complete tool, he has no cluen what to do. all he suggests is shit others allready failed with (good thing he hasnt heard about rfid yet)
    d) there is no way any government agency in germany could impletement and run a system like this (not even with private companies as partner)

  15. What comes after tricking this system by masking? by master_p · · Score: 1

    After a few years of terrorists tricking the system with their face alterations, what is it that will come? Can you guess?

    Can you say 'chip'?

    Chipping will be mandatory then, and everyone not accepting it will be labelled as a terrorist.

  16. What's the point ? by zapadnik · · Score: 1

    What's the point? The Germans invited the jihadis into their country. When jihadis attack in Europe they are always "known to the police", but the Europeans lack the sanity required to either prevent them from entering Europe in the first place or to kick them out once they show signs of following Mohammed's call to wage war on the hated unbelievers (Koran 9:5, Koran 9:29 and about a hundred other verses that abrogate all other verses based on the doctrine of abrogation).

    The State already knows who are bad guys are, where they live, and where they pray - going all Big Brother is only going to allow the State to persecute political opponents and dissidents and will make zero difference to stopping the jihadis - because they could stop them already using information the State already possesses. If one was sufficiently conspiratorially minded one would conclude that jihadi terror formed an excuse for the elites to install such surveillance so they could keep tabs on political opponents and dissidents. Of course, Big Brother is our friend and we must never commit ThoughtCrime and the self-selecting sociopathic 'elites' always put our interests over theirs. Right ?

    1. Re:What's the point ? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Agree that the should close the borders, but recent attacks in Belgium and France have shown that plenty of jihadis are home grown in the West, coming from 2nd/3rd generation immigrants.

    2. Re:What's the point ? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      And people who have lived in Europe for centuries. Terrorism happens where people are. There is no singular cause or common trait.

    3. Re:What's the point ? by zapadnik · · Score: 1

      There is no singular cause or common trait.

      ARE YOU FSCKING BLIND ? there is a common trait that you are specifically indoctrinated not to see. The media try and hide it. As to the Soros-paid elites. There is a totalitarian ideology that is tearing up the World. In EVERY country where this ideology either is or neighbors there is violence - following the example of Mohammed (even if he was mythological) exactly. ISIS is following Sharia EXACTLY as it is supposed to be followed. Stop lying to us, and worst of all, stop lying to yourself. There are zero dirt poor Buddhists waging terrorism against non-believers. There are zero Amish. There are zero animists. Every attack is simply following the example of Mohammed: warfare, terrorism, crucifictions, murder of apostates, sex slavery, pedophilia against infidel children. Stop consenting to this evil with your silence - your dismissal of this evil makes you evil in your complicity of silence. Don't be evil ! You are completely on the wrong side of history on this one.

    4. Re:What's the point ? by zapadnik · · Score: 1

      Which means the root of the problem is not ethnicity, nor poverty, nor 'culture'. The root of the problem is the example of Mohammed (a mythological figure designed by Caliph Abd al-Malik to advance Arab Imperialism) and the specific doctrines of the totalitarian political ideology called "Sharia" (Sharia is NOT simply a religious law, it asserts it applies to all people for all times, which makes it a POLITICAL system).

  17. Re:What comes after tricking this system by maskin by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    After a few years of terrorists tricking the system with their face alterations, what is it that will come?

    I'm thinking that we should all start walking around in public wearing Groucho Goggles: https://www.google.com/search?...

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  18. Nothing new here by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

    Face recognition in train stations has been in evaluation ~10 years ago.

    And even if we assume that 10 years later they may even be able to find terror suspects in a crowd there, there is still the elephant in the room that they need to be KNOWN terror suspects to begin with!

    And whoever touts this as an effective measure against "terrorist attacks" as the ones we had lately, has to completly and willingly ignore that these haven't been carried out by any known "suspects" but some random gullible teenagers have been talked into bringing a knive and stab a few random people. None of these attackers have been connected to islamist/terrorist organisations before their attack, so even working face recognition systems would be useless here.

    --
    bickerdyke
  19. The German security service tried this years ago by davecb · · Score: 3, Informative

    The size of the problem space made it impossible. Any margin of error whatsoever, multiplied by the (number of people you're looking for + the number of people passing through the airport) leads to insane number of false positives. The German Federal Security Service did a trial with Siemens' recognizer many moons back, loved the technology, hoped the number of false positives would be small... and were disappointed. Even with an unreachably high efficiency, it kept tagging grandma as a terrorist.

    It's like the birthday paradox: with only one chance in 365 of two people having the same birthday, it turns out that with 23 people in a room, you have a 50% chance of two birthdays matching. A 99% chance if there are 75 people. See http://danteslab-eng.blogspot.... As he notes, if you have a system that is 0.999999 accurate (one in a million), we have a 50% chance of a false positive or false negative as soon as we have scanned 1178 people... meaning for about each 1000 people we either arrest grandma or let Osaman Bin Laden stroll through.

    They've probably reported that already, and been told "don't worry about mere mathematics, this is politics" (;-))

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  20. Re:Being used already by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    That's why I wear a hoodie everywhere I go.

    Watch out to not look black, or nobody will recognize your face after you've been shot into it in self defence.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  21. the movie was: by psevetson · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who saw this headline and immediately flashed on Tom Cruise getting on the subway in "Minority Report", and the retinal scanner software reporting his location to the police?