Slashdot Mirror


A Wanted Man in China Has Been Caught Because of Facial Recognition Software (fastcompany.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The man was reportedly caught after facial recognition software running on cameras at a concert identified him, reports AbacusNews. That's despite there being over 50,000 people attending the concert, which took place in Nanchang, China. Law enforcement in the country has increasingly been turning to facial recognition software to surveil the public for persons of interest.

146 comments

  1. Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought all Asians looked alike

    1. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded down as troll, I see.

      I guess Poe's Law is true.

    2. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rationalwiki? REALLY? The nameless blog on the corner of the Internet that is so irrelevant and biased that they use a brain as their logo to attempt to make themselves look smart?

    4. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rather suspect a different reason.

    5. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Metabolife · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came here, specifically, to find out how many comments deep this joke would appear. I was not disappointed!

    7. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      who knew?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay Hitler, whatever you say.

    9. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I thought all Asians looked alike

      Asians think caucasians all look alike. Your brain adjusts to the variation in the types of faces you see on a daily basis. If all your family, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances are white, you will have difficulty discriminating between Asian faces. And vice versa.

      I live in San Jose, California, which is about 35% Asian, so when I go to Asia I have no problem recognizing individual faces.

    10. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Asians think caucasians all look alike. Your brain adjusts to the variation in the types of faces you see on a daily basis.

      There is far less genetic variation among East Asians than there is among Caucasians.

    11. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that you are implying that Asians have more brainpower than Caucasians.

    12. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, RACIST NAZI. Now you must enjoy every SWASTIKA!

      Hey Hitler,

      While I'm not a fan of Nazis I've often wondered if swastikas make good fans.

      Have you done any CFD analysis of the Swastika vs more traditional designs?

    13. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There is far less genetic variation among East Asians than there is among Caucasians.
      And how exactly do you come to that absurd idea?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got a couple of CPU fans on my desk and the blades do curve forward a bit, so maybe you're onto something there.

    15. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because all rooky-rikey, dumbass.

    16. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Asians think caucasians all look alike.

      Quite some years ago, I saw Chinese-American actress Rosalind Chao on The Tonight Show. She shared an anecdote about a family reunion she attended back in China. She said she kept getting introduced to relatives she couldn't tell apart - she thought everyone there looked alike!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    17. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There is far less genetic variation among East Asians than there is among Caucasians.
      And how exactly do you come to that absurd idea?

      I can't find a clear citation that East Asians have less diversity than Caucasians, but they certainly have less diversity than Africans.

      Humanity's origin appears to be in the Rift Valley region of East Africa. There have been many migrations out of that region, each going through a genetic chokepoint that reduced diversity. The branches, from most genetic divergence from the core region (presumably because of an earlier departure) to the least:

      1. San people of the Kalahari.
      2. Pygmies of the Congo rainforest
      3. Melanesians, Negritos, native Australians, Ainu
      4. East Asians, Polynesians, and Native Americans
      5. Caucasians
      6. West Africans (Bantus)

      In East Asian, there is more genetic diversity in Southeast Asia than further north in China, Korea, Japan, and Mongolia. Presumably, this is because they migrated from South to North.

    18. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Reality is 'they all look alike', is inherently racist and prejudiced, full stop. They all look alike because you pay less attention to their appearance, they are not individuals, they are one of them, the them bit is what ever can be used to make them stand out to isolate them, to give you a competitive advantage over all of them. Guilt also plays a part, you no longer recognising them as individuals, just a lesser group, you don't want to recognise them individually and associate your poor behaviour with actual individual people, they are just a mass of undesirables, what you want to believe to exploit that competitive advantage of not being one of them.

      The lack of recognition is an active choice, you don't want to recognise them as individuals. You do recognise them because you see them as individuals, just like anyone else you look at.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans originated out of Asia going by the evidence we have found so far.

    20. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In East Asian, there is more genetic diversity in Southeast Asia than further north in China, Korea, Japan, and Mongolia. Presumably, this is because they migrated from South to North.

      It's because Chinese, Korean and Japanese people are very discriminating. They don't tend to breed with outsiders, including people who happen to be of their own national ethnicity but from a different region or different social group. East Asian people tend to be openly racist which, unlike in the west, is a completely accepted practice in their countries.

      I'm Chinese myself and have lived in Korea and Japan, so I know this firsthand.

    21. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Reality is 'they all look alike', is inherently racist and prejudiced, full stop.

      Bullcrap. Reality is that people have a hard time discriminating between faces when none of them are similar to what they are used to. That isn't "prejudice", it is just a fact.

      I grew up in Tennessee, and first went to Asia as an 18 year old Marine. I had met very few Asians while growing up, and I had difficulty telling them apart despite trying hard to do so. When I left a year later, I could recognize Asian individuals easily, and I was on a first name basis with several dozen locals (in Henoko, Okinawa if anyone cares). This has nothing to do with being "prejudiced" or not thinking of them as individuals. My brain just needed time to adjust to a change in my environment.

      Today, I have Asian neighbors, Asian coworkers, ... and an Asian wife. I can immediately recognize differences between Asians just as easily as Caucasians. Because that is what I am familiar with.

    22. Re:Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is... I know that. But it's also completely absurd, and when I made the remark, I was hopeful that people would see that it was intended to be a satire because of that absurdity, and not a genuine expression of ignorance or a condoning of racism.

      But, as Poe's Law so concisely says.... it can often be hard to tell the difference.

      I am relieved, based on how it has been modded so far, to see that at least some have perceived the remark in light of the humor that was intended. I know it easily could have gone the other way.

    23. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recent research points to a lunar origin. We need more money to follow up.

    24. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, just like all the white people are nazis

    25. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I read.

    26. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      So you haven't done any reading on the subject.

    27. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      Human migration (or lack thereof); it's really not complicated.

      And if you'd done any reading on the subject, you'd know that those with the least genetic variation of all are the Japanese, due to having little contact with the outside world for thousands of years.

    28. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      This is certainly true now but I suspect that historically, it's due to isolation more than anything else but it may very well have morphed into a cultural tendency...

    29. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well,
      the ideas who moved from where to where and what was settled when change every few years.
      E.g. that japan is to isolated can not really be hold up. They traveled to China and Korea since millennia.
      And they have a strong intermixing with the settler waves or invaders that reached them.
      That is probably true for every area of the world.

      Really isolated would probably be people like the Inuit, some in the high regions of the Himalaya or Aleuts etc.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    30. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's well known that Europeans have less genetic variation than Africans, possibly due to a population bottleneck during the ice age, so I don't see why the suggestion is absurd.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re: Are they sure that it's him? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It is actually not well known.
      And on the first glance, I have no idea on what base that would be possible. How would you even measure it?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. In soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You recognize facial software

    1. Re:In soviet Russia by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do wonder how many false alerts they got along the way.

    2. Re:In soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Amazon's "Rekognition" is a much-hyped service on AWS, which one would presume is the basis of the people recognition in their Amazon Prime Photos app. It's so bad that it thinks almost any random black woman is my wife, while at times misidentifying photos that actually are her. For some unfathomable reason, the app does not let the user correct any misidentifications.

      Perhaps the Chinese government does the same. If the system says you're the wanted person, you are.

    3. Re:In soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50.000 this article and others talking about facial rec in asia is pure joke.

    4. Re:In soviet Russia by nospam007 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "I do wonder how many false alerts they got along the way."

      False alerts? Everybody the machine recognizes goes to prison.
      There _are_ no false alerts.

  3. Just like all Americans have the same IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Low.

    1. Re:Just like all Americans have the same IQ by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's not true of all Americans; we have the same intelligence distribution as anyone else. Stupidity is an emergent behavior.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. Impossiblu! by Kenja · · Score: 2

    They told us time and again that the cameras they put everywhere were too high up to be used for facial recognition.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Impossiblu! by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      They told us time and again that the cameras they put everywhere were too high up to be used for facial recognition.

      The Chinese government told you that?

      Did they send you a certified letter, or just drop by your house to announce it over tea?

      Since when did the Chinese government care about your privacy concerns, one way or the other, even enough to lie about their intentions?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re: Impossiblu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most cameras are. Security camera placement is generally useless for identification. Facial recognition cameras use a much longer focal length and the field of view covers a specific entry or chokepoint only.

    3. Re:Impossiblu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Yes because the Chinese government would never lie to their citizens. Do me a favor the next time your in China and look up N, Tiananam square incident, or Falun Gong organ harvesting without a VPN. You will find out just how willing the Chinese government is to lie about obvious verifiable facts to their populous. In short you are so wrong.

      FYI the Chinese government didn't have to mail a certified letter they could have used their certified state sponsored media.

    4. Re:Impossiblu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that was probably before the newer Ultra High Definition cameras were available.

    5. Re:Impossiblu! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I thought the Chinese's explicitly said they were using face tracking on a massive scale. Perhaps you are thinking about other countries that lie about what they do with surveillance cameras.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re: Impossiblu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complete BULL!! The RESOLUTION in OLD security cameras is generally poor for facial recognition. Placement is usually not the reason why they are useless.

    7. Re:Impossiblu! by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      They told us time and again that the cameras they put everywhere were too high up to be used for facial recognition.

      Who said that and when? They just had a show on one of the magazine shows on TV about the latest gen cameras installed at our city football stadium. They are mounted on the flood-light poles and have enough resolution to do facial recognition of every person on the opposite grandstand (ie 20000+ people). They showed the demo on TV and said they're already using it to remove known hooligans who already have bans from previous offences. The surveillance state is already here.

  5. And? by Imazalil · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are things so bad that 'works as advertised' is worthy of a news story?

    If only those 50,000 people attending the concert would have to go through some kind of a gate system by which they would trickle through making it easy to identify then a handful at a time. I'm sure someone much smarter than me will figure out such a system, they might even realize they could use it to see if people should be allowed in at the same time. Maybe give out tokens or tickets or something. Or go all web 2.0 and use one of them new-fangled "app" things.

    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the news is that cheap chinese facial rec could distinguish one man picked from nearly 2 billion out of 50,000.. in china

    2. Re:And? by barc0001 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's worthy of a news story because the environment that this facial recognition did its job in and "worked as advertised" is a massively challenging problem for this type of system. It's also worthy of a news story because it is a harbinger of more to come like this, and not just in China. As this tech gets better, agencies will be able to track everyone's movements in public 24/7 and store all of it for unknown purposes. Today it's criminals, tomorrow it's people on no fly lists (rightly or wrongly) getting "randomly" stopped, the day after it's persons of interest, and so it goes. Eventually everyone will become used to having an invisible boot on their neck.

    3. Re:And? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      How is this a massively challenging problem? You are uploading pictures of faces and doing facial recognition matches against a database of faces? Do you think this is the first system?

    4. Re:And? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC facial recognition has always been that good and that fast.
      Big numbers of people in a database was never a problem for facial recognition.
      Searching a big database for a few sets of numbers is something computer designers got good at over time.
      The only thing that held facial recognition back for a while was camera quality and images from the side of a face, looking up and down.
      Once a nation invests in a good network camera system it can track all faces. The US uses such networks to look at all drivers and passengers along some main roads. Every face and licence plate is kept on a database. The difference is such data is never talked about in open court as parallel construction protects such methods all over the US.

      The news from China shows the system works. The news from the US is the system has been working well for many years.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re: And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wont, because killer drones.

  6. decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    riots are in part encouraged by the perceived lack of consequences to any individual in the riot due to there being too many people.

    camera shutter clicks...

    Face Rec scrubs image after image... wide angel shots...

    police marquee select clouds of names for people standing in the "wrong" area... names get court summons sent to their registered addresses.

    To this people say "masks"... sure masks... I'm sure the police have no solution for that idea.

    Given that the bike lock guy was found, I'd take that very lightly.

    We need more peaceful protests... sit ins... something you really can't get in trouble for... the violent aggressive stuff is toxic. And in the end, society at large won't be on your side when the hammer comes down.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're overlooking agent provocateurs and staged violence...a common tactic nowadays, used by governments to discredit and disrupt otherwise peaceful protests

    2. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure... Burn it down.

      Anarchy is self defeating.

      Anarchy leads to tyranny because in the anarchy you create an opportunity for an absolute ruler. We can see this pretty much any time anarchy has been tried. It leads almost immediately to a tyrant. It doesn't matter which ideology you follow... communist fascist whatever... you create anarchy and you're going to get a tyrant.

      If you want a tyrant, create anarchy.

      Once you understand that it isn't as easy as saying "its just the system, man"... you understand that the path to liberty requires maintaining these institutions and guarding them from corruption.

      Absent the institutions we have tyranny.
      Absent moderation of the institutions we have tyranny.

      You have to moderate them. Its not easy. Its really hard. And while you are doing it many players will whisper in your ear to pervert them to service one end or another. But those roads all lead to tyranny.

      I am increasingly of the opinion that there are a lot of people that deserve to live in oppression and possibly starve enough to eat their own cats.

      Why? Because there isn't enough respect for the consequences of fucking up the system.

      People want things for free. People want to eat the golden goose. People want the rules to only apply when they apply to someone else. People want democracy that only does what their dear leader says.

      These contradictions are death. Literal... death. And I'm tired of arguing with people about it. I think they should get the fruits of their ambitions. A whole lot of people should just be allowed to kill themselves with their own bad ideas.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Informative

      why did I reference sit ins if I am ignoring agent provocateurs?

      You do realize the entire point of a sit in is to prevent that sort of thing?

      If everyone is sitting down, how do you "agent provocateur"?

      Just schedule a protest, have everyone show up with water and food for themselves. And then sit down. Everyone sits down.

      The cops will generally leave you alone because you pose no particular threat and the optics of a police officer messing with peaceful people sitting down is terrible.

      Disruptors can't blend into the crowd or do violent stuff and then run away because the actual protestors are all sitting down. There is no crowd to blend into.

      This is not hard. But lets not pretend that these protests are only turning violent by accident. People are showing up to them with weapons, body armor, etc. They want a fight.

      Organize and then sit down. You'll have no trouble. Its really really easy. And the groups that don't do that and have problems are either too stupid to do something so easy or lying about wanting no violence. Because its that easy. Sit down.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      Sure, Martin Luther King's peaceful sitins were of no value. It was just the violence. /s

      The ends are the means, brah. If your means are violence then your ends will be violence. You can see the scars left on communities by people that didn't care what the consequences would be for those families and businesses.

      Your solution is "hellfire"... the fire that burns and leaves nothing but ash. You'll build nothing with that. You'll leave nothing but ruin in your wake which those that live in the ashes will have to deal with...

      What city do you live in? What neighborhood? Imagine it burned. Imagine the stores with the windows blow out and boarded up. Imagine there being no hope of it being rebuilt because the people that would do the rebuilding have left.

      Those are the fruits of your violence. Look at Detroit. Where is the inflection point that turned them from the most wealthy per capita city in the US to a wasteland of run down crack houses?

      Want to live in Ferguson?

      The world you are proposing to create is not worth living in. It is full of ruin, hopelessness, and decay.

      If you want to go somewhere positive then you need to create... not destroy. If you can't even contemplate how that would work then you're the last person to be advising anything.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure... Burn it down.

      Anarchy is self defeating.

      Anarchy leads to tyranny because in the anarchy you create an opportunity for an absolute ruler. We can see this pretty much any time anarchy has been tried. It leads almost immediately to a tyrant. It doesn't matter which ideology you follow... communist fascist whatever... you create anarchy and you're going to get a tyrant.

      If you want a tyrant, create anarchy.

      Once you understand that it isn't as easy as saying "its just the system, man"... you understand that the path to liberty requires maintaining these institutions and guarding them from corruption.

      Absent the institutions we have tyranny.
      Absent moderation of the institutions we have tyranny.

      You have to moderate them. Its not easy. Its really hard. And while you are doing it many players will whisper in your ear to pervert them to service one end or another. But those roads all lead to tyranny.

      I am increasingly of the opinion that there are a lot of people that deserve to live in oppression and possibly starve enough to eat their own cats.

      Why? Because there isn't enough respect for the consequences of fucking up the system.

      People want things for free. People want to eat the golden goose. People want the rules to only apply when they apply to someone else. People want democracy that only does what their dear leader says.

      These contradictions are death. Literal... death. And I'm tired of arguing with people about it. I think they should get the fruits of their ambitions. A whole lot of people should just be allowed to kill themselves with their own bad ideas.

      I find that every government system eventually leads to tyranny. Anarchy is just an interim period that exists between one tyranny and another. Eventually in every political system power gets consolidated and when it does, those that obtain it seek to preserve it by tyranny. This is why globalization scares me so much. Because when the entire world is governed by on entity, when that entity eventually becomes a tyranny then there is no where to escape. Yes, even republics and democracies eventually devolve into tyrannies, its just that they take much longer to do so than say fascism, communism, and socialism.

    6. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      Sure and so does anarchy.

      What we know is that some systems of government do not have tyranny.

      That is the only condition without tyranny.

      Anarchy creates chaos which creates a tyrant.

      A sloppily run institution leads to corrupt individuals having absolute power which is tyranny.

      So... the only way out is not to run your institutions sloppily.

      Are things inclined to be fucked up on occasion and thus lead to negative consequences? Sure.

      All machines break eventually. But that doesn't mean there was never a reason to have the machine in the first place or that it shouldn't be maintained for as long as is practical.

      Everyone eventually dies... no reason to bother living?

      The justification is not in its immortality but in its existence at all if only for a time.

      As to globalization, I agree it is a bad idea. No one is appreciating that creating too big to fail systems doesn't mean that the system is too big to fail but that it is merely too big for us to afford for it to fail.

      And yet everything does fail eventually. Which means making too big to fail systems is irrational. Systems should be made no larger than we can afford to lose at any given time. Any system that is too profound for us to suffer its loss is too large... because in time every system fails.

      You need redundancy.

      No question that everything fails in the end. We're all making sand castles before the surf here. But just as every man is born to die we can build institutions to survive if only through replication and propagation.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re: decent riot control too by TrumpThemAll · · Score: 0

      Malcom x was a shit bag and so are you.

    8. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire Occupy movement showed what peaceful protests were able to do, and that was zero. BLM changed history with just the mere threat of bad stuff happening.

      There are a ton of people who advocate against violence, and it is understandable, as violence is an ugly tool. However, it does work, and it does get attention... and it gets changes made. Peaceful protests just make Corrections Corporations of America have a nice stock bump.

    9. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flags and statues had been coming down long before BLM or the anarchists got involved. Those protests were instigated by Trump opponents for political gain.

    10. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Anarchy != Chaos

      Definitions and the meaning of them tend to get twisted for personal agendas.

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

      Your use of the word implies an agenda. Which is why it's not the primary meaning of the word.

      a : absence of government
      b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
      c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

      In face 2 out of the 3 definitions of the word imply personal freedom and sovereignty. You choose to use the one to push the false 'chaos' agenda.

    11. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you were not there for Occupy. In my neck of the woods, the protestors were scooped up in large quantities. Those who did the hand/foot chaining had a box dropped over them, so they could be cut away without the eye of a camera. It filled up four county's worth of jails, but accomplished absolutely zero.

    12. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't arguing for anarchism as a viable government system. One thing I believe is worth clearing up is that anarchy does not always lead immediately into tyranny. When I said it lead into tyranny eventually I was also including the possibility that it goes from anarchy to (any political system) to tyranny. Many democracies and republics were forged by an interim period of anarchy. My end point is that we shouldn't fear anarchy as a consequence if it is used to displace tyranny even if anarchy is not the end goal.

    13. Re: decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the threat of violence it's so effective that it is the method usually chosen by the police to disperse protests.

    14. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      occupy was asking for what?

      What would have been a win condition for occupy?

      What is more, the peacefulness of occupy is questionable.

      First they were camping there and making a mess. You don't need to do that. MLK Jr didn't do that. They had peaceful orderly civilized clean sit ins and then went home every day to their homes.

      Second, there was quite a lot of harassment in those camps and near them.

      Third, they attracted a lot of gross hippies that caused crime to jump up in the area. Drugs, prostitution, rape, etc.

      Look, if you want to solve your problems by being violent then you're basically betting you have more force on your side than all other factions combined. Because even if you think you outnumber some anti group to you. Do you ALSO outnumber the non-aligned people that want peace and order? Do you outnumber the people that just want to go to work every day and not get harassed by smelly hippies blocking the road?

      You don't.

      Which means if you actually escalate you'll get physically beaten until you submit or killed.

      If that is what you want to do, then do it, comrade.

      All your ideas accomplish if taken to their logical conclusion is install a tyrant that takes away everyone's rights, murders anyone that disagrees with him, and creates a class based power structure where people like you and me will just become peasants under a new nobility.

      And if and when you do that where I live... I will just leave you to starve in that shit. My family came from countries that had fallen to tyranny. We left. And I'll leave again. I will not suffer the consequences of your foolishness. I will leave you to starve in burned out cities surviving on people's skinned pets.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      In this case it does, captain autismo.

      Shall we go through examples? Nazi Germany, Facist Spain.. a fucking million examples in South America. Mao's China... Chavez's Venezuela has finally arrived at the prophesied end game.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    16. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      I saw it in wallstreet... which was where it was... everywhere else was a metoo movement.

      and in any case, what was your end game? What would have accomplishing something have meant?

      Define your objective. Because what I saw at occupy was a bunch of confused people all asking for either contradictory or impossible things.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    17. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      When has it not lead to tyranny?

      As to republics being forged in anarchy, give an example.

      I think I can clear up the misunderstanding if we go through the history of this shit show.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    18. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you say, where one doesn't protest and follow the law, no matter how brutal the government gets reminds me of history class where we were taught the apolitical Germans, and how being a good German meant you did not dip your toe in politics, where (as per Romans), the government is appointed by God, and doing anything to resist is resisting God's proxy.

      With this attitude, with people accepting what the government gives them, even staging protests to have rights taken away as we see in Florida, we are going to see tyranny on a scale undreamt of, even in WWII, with ethnic cleansings in the billions, and with globalism, there will not be a strong power that can fight back against that. We are already seeing eugenics rear its ugly head again.

      Why do you want to go back to those times, going quietly into the cold dark night?

    19. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off ivan

    20. Re:decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States was the first example I was thinking of. I guess it would also help to determine whether you would consider a revolution to be a form of interim anarchy. Though many examples of revolutions immediately end in tyranny like Cuba, South America, (most of the examples you give in another reply to someone else). Afghanistan is another example even though its not exactly an ideal republic (though in its case the fractial tribal rule which I would consider anarchy was replaced by outside forces and influences).

    21. Re: decent riot control too by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      "Causation vs correlation" but whatever; I'm glad things seem so simple to you.

    22. Re: decent riot control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're pretty spastic about this topic. Are you triggered by it? Do you need to go take your meds?

    23. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So... strawmen? I didn't say be apolitical.

      If you're going to be degenerate then the discussion is over.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    24. Re: decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If it correlates every time then in practice there's no difference. this is not to concede causation. Merely to point out that it doesn't matter if it is caused or correlated with if the correlation is 1:1.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    25. Re:decent riot control too by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Disruptors can't blend into the crowd or do violent stuff and then run away because the actual protestors are all sitting down. There is no crowd to blend into.

      One, "crowd" doesn't imply standing up. Two, what's to stop cops or their lackeys posing as protesters and start doing shit?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      US revolution naturally doesn't count because it was never anarchy.

      There were colonial governments which were never deposed, rather their association with the crown of England was cut. What is more, they immediately associated the given colonial governments with each other... the nature of which was formalized with the drafting of the US Constitution.

      What you see there is not anarchy but rather the exact opposite.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    27. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      implying I'm a Russian pawn or something.

      Consider the irony of your statement.

      You're accusing another citizen of your very same republic of being an agent of a repressive power as an ad hominem method of silencing your percieved opposition.

      Such respect for free speech.

      Such regard for the free market place of ideas.

      Why don't you follow that up with a straw man or something equally retarded.

      We're all members of the same big ass country, bub. You can't have big without having diverse. You like diversity don't you? Diversity is strength, right? Well... diversity doesn't mean just people identifying as animals or demanding to be referred to as Zur or whatever. It also and originally and most properly means people that simply have different opinions.

      If your response to different opinions is hostility, intolerance, and attempts to dehumanize those expressing them... Which of us is an agent of repression?

      Me... the guy with an opinion you don't like

      You... the guy that doesn't want dialog and wants to dehumanize those that think other than himself?

      I'd call you comrade but you're too chicken shit to login.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    28. Re:decent riot control too by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So in your scenario, the majority of real protesters are sitting down in a peaceful group...

      And then police disguised as protestors stand up and start attacking people or throwing bricks... whilst again the majority are sitting down not doing anything?

      Exactly how does that work out against the protesters?

      You can't attack the people sitting down because the ACTOR is running around doing whatever.

      You can ask them to leave or disperse... which you should do when instructed most of the time unless you have a permit or are otherwise within your rights to be there. Keep in mind, being contentious with the police is generally not in your interest.

      You will get the police to see you as hostile which is typically not required or desired by protests.

      And the second big problem is that why are you protesting in the first place? To get the PUBLIC on your side, right? Well, how likely is that going to happen if you're pissing everyone off with a big annoying shit show?

      What you want to do is not cause problems, not piss off the public, and keep your message out there.

      Here some asshat with no patience that is about 17 will say "we've tried all the peaceful options now its WAAAAR"... You're just going to get your ass beat and if anything the public will turn against you. You'll be unwittingly supporting your political opposition simply by making an ass of yourself.

      Be patient. Be peaceful. Show up to some place where you are allowed to show up. Sit down. Do not disrupt the movement of random people trying to go about their lives.

      Impatience is immaturity.

      To act violently is often to presume you can achieve your ends through violence... most groups are in minorities so this is actually a confession of stupidity.

      Protesting where you are not allowed to protest will lead to violence... and thus is generally stupid. The exception is if you have superior force which you won't so its stupid.

      Standing up when you protest is generally just harder to control and can be subverted. If that isn't a problem because you can control your group and won't be subverted then it doesn't matter. If that is an issue then sit down or don't cry when you get burned.

      Let people go about their business. If you piss people off by disrupting their behavior then you're basically protesting AGAINST yourself without realizing it.

      Generally, most bad protest movements are thrown together by immature people that aren't very bright... or they're put together by clever people with false pretenses that gather together a bunch of young idiots to act out a series of events that often isn't what the young people want.

      The world is very old and passion is not a substitute for wisdom. Just think it through a bit. Most of the big loud annoying protests of the last 20 years have been either idiotic or calculated manipulations of foolish idealistic people to serve other ends.

      Don't be a dupe. Think.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  7. How much longer, I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder: how much longer do you think it'll be, before China mandates everyone have cameras and microphones in every room of their homes, 'for security and safety purposes', of course? Will they then 'downvote' you because you take too long on the toilet or use too much toilet paper? Criticize you for your choice of breakfast foods or how you eat it? Listen in on your bedroom conversations, just in case you're saying something against The Party or their leader?

    1. Re: How much longer, I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you have finished your business, it's important not to flush toilet tissue at some toilets. Most squat toilets and plumbing in public places in China are not designed to handle paper waste. This may seem strange for some, but luckily, there are usually waste baskets to use nearby.
      How to Use a Squat Toilet in China, Tips for using Chinese-style Squat ...

    2. Re:How much longer, I wonder.. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That's already done pretty much everywhere in civilized world with reasonable amount of wealth. It's called "smartphones".

    3. Re:How much longer, I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone already has a smartphone.

    4. Re:How much longer, I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *I* don't have a smartphone, and I won't be getting one, ever, and I don't hang around people who are glued to their goddamned phones all the time. If you're going to troll me with "everyone else's phones are spying on you, LOL" then I say "Go fuck yourself, faggot".

    5. Re:How much longer, I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to troll me with "everyone else's phones are spying on you, LOL" then I say "Go fuck yourself, faggot"

      Your comment has been noted and added to your permanent record

  8. Wanted for what? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    Wanted for murder or a parking ticket?

    1. Re:Wanted for what? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Wanted for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For that, you not only have to RTFA, but then click on the links in TFA to where they get their info from to finally get an answer:

      He had been on a police watchlist for “economic crimes” -- a broad term that can include anything from tax evasion to the theft of public property.

    3. Re:Wanted for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe he is wanted for resisting arrest. You know, that kind of thing can get you arrested.

    4. Re:Wanted for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subversion: he took an umbrella to the concert after the state weather report called for clear skies.

    5. Re:Wanted for what? by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter. As a law abiding citizen if I break any laws it's by accident. If I knew with a 100% certainty that I'd get a speeding ticket if I exceeded the speed limit then I'd aim to go 10 under the speed limit instead of 10 over.

      I know it sounds draconian but right now there's a gamble with all crimes; there's a chance you'll get away with it. The chance of getting away with speeding is much higher then that of robbing a bank or murder. If facial recognition makes it much harder to get away with any crimes then it should have the effect of decreasing crimes overall. People who commit minor crimes will be more careful not to do so and those that commit major crimes are more likely to be caught and jailed.

      At least this is all in theory. A good hoodie makes the technology mostly useless. Plus it's not uncommon for two people to look alike: Case in point: http://www.nydailynews.com/ent...

    6. Re:Wanted for what? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      Setting an example. It's far more efficient scaring people into hiding because they think they might be wanted for something. Whether they are even wanted isn't important.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    7. Re:Wanted for what? by aberglas · · Score: 1

      +1

    8. Re:Wanted for what? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      For being rated too low on social media.

    9. Re:Wanted for what? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Plus it's not uncommon for two people to look alike

      No problem!
      Just arrest and torture both of them. Just to be safe.

  9. Good thing they didn't use fecial recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because then creimer would show up on every computer in China!

    "you here four hour! you scare my wife!"

  10. The Future is Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice little totalitarian nightmare hellhole you've got brewing there, China.

    1. Re:The Future is Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're selling the system to N. Korea & Iran. Others are interested.

    2. Re: The Future is Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be sure people in charge in the US are sallivating right now. They just have to think an excuse to sell it to the population so it does not look so totalitarian.

  11. Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Very impressive that the software is able to distinguish one Chinese person from another. This ability has eluded humans for eons.

    1. Re:Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ability has eluded white people for eons.

      fixt

    2. Re: Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has only eluded Apple for years.

  12. World first for mass surveilance? by gumpish · · Score: 2

    Setting aside the facial recognition component of the story, is the the first time mass surveillance has actually resulted in the apprehension of a fugitive? England is covered with cameras but you never hear stories about them doing any good.

    1. Re:World first for mass surveilance? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      England is covered with cameras but you never hear stories about them doing any good.

      Are you sure? Even for those terrorists planting bombs?

    2. Re:World first for mass surveilance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mass database of DNA in the UK (~6 million samples: 6% of all white men, 40% of all black men) led to the arrest of men (Jeffrey Gafoor/Christopher Hampton) for rape/murder when their nephew/daughter got sampled for an unrelated matter 15/32 years afterwards.
      Let alone the ones where it was their own DNA in the database.

    3. Re:World first for mass surveilance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good is determined by the person who sets up the cameras.
      Try running for public office and suddenly you'll see pictures of you entering every strip club and adult store you may have ever been to.
      Democracy must be protected from your ideas after all, so leave it in the hands of the ruling class - they know what's best for you. You don't. It's for the greater good.

    4. Re:World first for mass surveilance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read local (town/city) papers you will see the cameras being used all the time when it comes to high profile cases (riots, murders, terrorism). For riots that happened after a soccer game, the people pictured were eventually charged 2 years later when the cops got through their backlog... that was manual face recognition though. Automatic recognition sometimes has problems with a bloody bar code on a sandwich which should be easy (self-service supermarket tills).

    5. Re:World first for mass surveilance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not the first time.

      Most CCTVs in the UK are still watched by some grubby guy somewhere who may prefer to turn the camera to some young lady's shower instead of the streets. There are reports about how well they're being used, which usually turns out to be tickets for dog poop or littering. In the UK so far the CCTV thing really doesn't make the streets much safer at all. But of course since they're already there it's easy to "upgrade" them with facial recognition and cross-camera person tracking software, link to the national person database, and keep the records just like they're already keeping the nation-wide ANPR network records... indefinitely.

      It'll come soon enough, and probably the world over.

      At any rate, this is not a world I want to live in.

    6. Re:World first for mass surveilance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, despite all the hysteria surrounding them, the British cameras aren't used for mass surveillance.

      The British approach was always - when a crime is reported, then find the appropriate surveillance tape and replay it. But until then, nobody ever watches it, and if no crime is reported the whole thing gets scrubbed after a couple of weeks anyway. It's a system designed in the days of videotape.

      When there's a high-profile crime, surveillance photos and footage routinely get released to the media to enlist public help in identifying the perp. The most recent example I can think of where that happened was the Manchester bombing. This alone is proof, I think, that the British cameras aren't being routinely used for surveillance. Not yet, anyway.

    7. Re:World first for mass surveilance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last UK mass school shooting?

    8. Re:World first for mass surveilance? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      England is covered with cameras but you never hear stories about them doing any good.

      That's what you call observer bias. There are plenty of stories of them doing good. Hell nearly 10 years ago they were arresting and charging upwards of 2000 people a year based on CCTV footage alone.

      Now whether you believe the stories or not is a different question. And that may be called conspiracy theories.

    9. Re:World first for mass surveilance? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Setting aside the facial recognition component of the story, is the the first time mass surveillance has actually resulted in the apprehension of a fugitive? England is covered with cameras but you never hear stories about them doing any good.

      "Surveillance" catches criminals all the time. However a lot of surveillance is from private cameras, I.E. the murder of Jill Meagher in Australia was caught due to a CCTV camera pointing our of a shop window. The item of note here is the use of face recognition software.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  13. This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be news if China had not done something like this by now.

  14. In China it is 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In truth it was detecting his wrong thinking and they got him for it.

  15. The end of petty crime by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    between cash going away and this kind of tracking petty crime is more or less going to become impossible. I suppose you could mug me for my shoes (my cell phone gets shut off if you steal it). But unless I'm wearing $300 Nikes what's the point?

    What's funny is that even as crime rates plummet the "Tough on Crime" politics don't go away. Not sure about China, but a recent poll showed Crime was the #2 concern for Americans, only topped by health care.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The end of petty crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      between cash going away and this kind of tracking petty crime is more or less going to become impossible.

      Will the true criminals please stand up? /sarcasm

      The real problem is what happens when petty crime is impossible. Lower grievances will just escalate to bigger ones. Now that need to steal food becomes a criminal enterprise just so they can eat without constantly moving to avoid capture. Or it turns into kill my pursuers so I can have a moment's peace or die trying. If there was one thing that you should have learned from Person of Interest it was that there was never anywhere to hide once you were marked. Some people view this as a good thing. They'll keep thinking that until said surveillance system marks them for being enemies of the Inner Party.

    2. Re:The end of petty crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as the distance between rich and poor grows thus does the value of what you own. So your nike's might not be $300 but they are definitively worth a couple meals, and for a starving person that may just be worth it. The problem with such advances is that they only eliminate petty crime by turning it into major crime. Now instead of people trying to mug you, they are just going to steal your identity and get your money that way thus getting more than just the contents of your wallet.

      By the way, the only reason that crime is #2 on the minds of Americans is because that is what they are told to think about. Remember if it bleeds, it leads. even if the crime stats are going down it doesn't seem like it because no one ever mentions the stats, they just mention the details of the most recent grizzly action. Its not funny, its intentional and done with the end purpose of having people vote in their own police state such that they are becoming willing slaves to the governing.

    3. Re: The end of petty crime by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      petty crime is more or less going to become impossible

      And... I predict the opposite effect.

  16. How about the Unwanted? by deesine · · Score: 1

    I'm more concerned when unwanted men get caught.

    --
    damaged by dogma
    1. Re:How about the Unwanted? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      That's okay. We can change their names to those of the accused, and presto!

  17. How do we know it really worked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese government is a totalitarian Communist regime. There is no way we can reliably verify their claims. For all we know, they have no facial recognition software and the guy they apprehended is a political dissident and used facial recognition as a cover story and to scare their population.

  18. Just a change in technique and cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a number of years you would distribute a photo of the wanted person and have a number of
    agents at entrances to various venues to catch them. All this does is to reduce the cost of doing
    this, Just like surveillance cameras could be said to provide in big cities what folks sitting on
    the porch did in villages in the past where everyone knows everyone. It just the old 1990s line
    of making the world a village come true. (As indeed other news this week emphasizes, more
    and more just like in a village where the busybodies know everones business it is now spreading
    to the formerly anonymous big cities.

  19. Do we know it was really facial recognition? by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1

    Could just be a scare tactic by the government. Otherwise why show your hand? Use it to your advantage as long as possible before people find a way to hide from it.

  20. Bad.. Scary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because anything and everything that the Chinese government does must be bad and scary. :)

  21. Nice. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Joseph Goebbels is dancing in his grave. But who am I to complain. After all, just like everyone else I'm carrying a Televisor around with me. The upgraded version.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  22. Mistaken Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how many people were jailed for mistaken identity? 50,000 minus 1? Facial recognition for mass population is B.S.

  23. Some impressively scarey shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can make anyone they want disappear just for saying the wrong thing. They have a social "Rating system" - Don't have a good score? You can travel, fly etc.

    Oh Facial recognition now sends you a text and puts your image up on a giant screen if you cross against a cross walk light.

    that kind of power will ALWAYS be abused and innocent people WILL get caught up in it.

    This system will generate a report to get a cop to ask you why you went to a different neighborhood when you stray from your normal routine.

    Pretty scary and F'd up.

  24. Re:An obvious idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51rHWly7sHA

  25. Tiananmen Square Tank Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat a dick you fascist chink cocksuckers.

  26. how many? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many innocent people get caught up in this bullshit?

  27. At least they didn't execute him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike the unsolved deaths of the long list of people connected to the Clintons, the Chinese did not execute the suspect they caught, on sight

    1. Re: At least they didn't execute him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With each cadaver, Hillary with Huma cadaver did for. Clear to unnatural. Reality before it Carlington. Whitewater. Have photos.

  28. Difficult problem by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Because faces do not contain serial numbers. Instead, many different features that change subtly over time, and look different from different angles and lighting. Matching all those fuzzy stats to a large database is not at all trivial. For every face there will be thousands that look almost identical in a database containing millions.

    And I suspect not really possible. I suspect that they used other things like cell phones to reduce the set of possibilities, and then use the facial recognition as the last step.

  29. propoganda by sad_ · · Score: 1

    we'll be hearing a lot of 'good' news from these facial recognition camera's in china in the next few months.
    just to prove how good they are making the world a safer, nicer place to live in.
    don't expect them to tell you what other privacy invading things they are doing with it.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  30. Expected this claim even if untrue ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    Let's say the system didn't work ie. doesn't recognize faces in _real_ time.
    Would they admit that?
    Nope. Fake it with an actor. Put the fear of god (or cameras) in to people.
    And in future when someone gets caught, comb the video records for pictures of the person and claim they were caught _because_ of the video.
    Ultimately the system might be useful for retroactive evidence just as those systems are now but instilling a belief that they are 'real time' is a good way to prevent crime in the first place.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.