Face Recognition Is Now Being Used In Schools (theintercept.com)

Presto Vivace shares a report from The Intercept: Officials at the Lockport, New York, school district have purchased face recognition technology as part of a purported effort to prevent school shootings. Starting in September, all 10 of Lockport District's school buildings, just north of Buffalo, will be outfitted with a surveillance system that can identify faces and objects. The software, known as Aegis, was developed by SN Technologies Corp., a Canadian biometrics firm that specifically advertises to schools. It can be used to alert officials to whenever sex offenders, suspended students, fired employees, suspected gang members, or anyone else placed on a school's "blacklist" enters the premises. Aegis also sends alerts any time one of the "top 10" most popular guns used in school shootings appears in view of a camera. The district is spending most of its recent $4 million state "Smart School" grant on these and other enhancements to its security systems, including bullet-proof greeter windows and a mass notification system, according to the Niagra Gazette. Slashdot reader Presto Vivace adds: "This is why municipal elections are so important. Just because this stuff is on the market, does not mean your local school system has to buy it."

The report notes that "all the major school shootings in the last five years in the U.S. have been carried out by current students or alumnae of the school in question." These students wouldn't have their face entered into the face recognition system's blacklist. Furthermore, "Most shooters don't brandish their guns before opening fire; and by the time they do, an object-detection algorithm that could specify the exact type of weapon they're firing would not be of much use," reports The Intercept. "... the technology would give a school, at best, only a few extra seconds in response time to a shooting."

Comments

Race to the bottom

[Tablizer]

So we have to compete with China in creepiness?

Re:Race to the bottom

[b0s0z0ku]

I'd rather accept some safety risks than have kids learn that total surveillance is acceptable.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Actually, I do RTFA]

There are known costs of acclimating children to surveillance, and there is the very real possibility that the data will be used against them in the future vs a very small chance that a shooter will ever be in their school.

Re:Race to the bottom

[b0s0z0ku]

... or we could just make guns harder to buy. And stop encouraging copycats by not making mass shooters and their deeds part of the 24 hour news cycle. Also offer psych treatment for free and have employment policies that don't destroy families.

You know, the way most civilised countries handle it. But, nooooo, we need our guns and our crappy private insurance system... because freedom.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Presto Vivace]

What they are proposing won't prevent rage shootings. We have massive pervasive surveillance in our country, it does not protect us from violence.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Brett Buck]

More than that, the bastard at Parkland had raised *every possible red flag* and had been reported to the responsible authorities multiple times by multimple people - and they still did nothing. Now, you see an alumnus on a camera, and you are going to rush in with the SWAT team in a few tens of seconds? When you have no idea why he is there or what he plans?

Re: Race to the bottom

[serviscope_minor]

Simply look at the UK. Now they're talking about knife bans and one judge in the UK even suggesting people deliberately dull their kitchen knives(!). That's stupid in the extreme.

and who is "they"? A retired judge and an activist organisation. Yeah the UK is totally going to hell in a handbasket because out of the 60 million inhabitants you managed to find a few who publicly said something stupid. Good job no one ever says anything stupid in your country.

You're an ex-pat, right?

Re:Race to the bottom

[AlwinBarni]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Does "a well regulated militia" mean every drunk, having mental or anger issues person? Maybe it would be good to actually follow the intentions not literally take a word, the intention is liberty and self governance.

How face recognition AI following (first) kids at schools then every person everywhere, in the name of safety, because we need every crazy have a gun but still we need some decent safety - how is it liberty?

Re:Race to the bottom

[torkus]

I'd rather they spent $4m on teacher salaries, improved equipment for the students, and school supplies...or things like bullying and assault and quality food for the children to eat.

But nah...one politician is in bed with another and their buddy sells these systems so free government money 'for schools' is just lining their pockets as usual.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Archangel Michael]

The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" is such that the 2nd Amendment only ENSURES that right, not grant it. And since you asked, it is well established case law that "Well Regulated Militia" means every able bodied adult, capable of wielding a weapon, but isn't limited to those people.

And for the record, we allow stupid, drunk, angry persons to vote, and I actually count that as a greater threat than my guns, simply because they are capable of making repeated bad decisions, over and over again.

Re:Race to the bottom

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not an individual right - otherwise it would have used the word Persons

So, which part of "the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" implies that it's not an individual Right?

Note, by the by, that the First Amendment doesn't use the word "Persons", either. In fact, taken literally, the First could be abrogated by Executive Order - the First specifically says that Congress can't mess with Free Speech, and sets no such limits on either the President or the Judiciary.

Likewise, the Fourth doesn't use the word "persons", so it shouldn't actually be taken to be an individual Right, right?

Re:Race to the bottom

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

But this isn't about total surveillance, it's about monitoring a public institution. You don't think there are cameras with facial recognition software in use at other government buildings like courthouses, police stations, the DMV, etc? How about in the private workplace?

Schools and classrooms should have video surveillance. It protects people from false allegations and it provides proof that events did happen.

This sort of technology would be great for things like automatic roll calls, clocking workers in/out, loss prevention and front desk security. I'm not going to argue it's a good use of school resources, but it will definitely improve the ability to monitor a location. As for securing a school, locked doors and security staff would probably be more effective.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Dare nMc]

The NRA used to support responsible gun ownership, and I am sure occasionally it is still taught in some NRA settings, but it is far from a priority today.

They went to the Supreme court to stop a national law to prevent the mentally ill from being reported to a national registry to prevent them from buying guns.

They prevented laws that would stop bump stocks from being sold.

They spent 8 years convincing people that Obama wanted to take away guns and ammo, despite the only gun law changes proposed or passed by Obama were to allow carry in national parks and on Amtrak. This hurt gun owners, as people stocked up on ammo making it very difficult for sports shooters to purchase.

They primarily are now a political organization, they raise money for republicans, they promote only republicans to their members. They help set the republican agenda to align with the gun manufactures, in return for exclusively supporting republicans to their members. It doesn't matter that 90%+ of democratic lawmakers have the same goals for gun law changes as the majority of gun owners, safety related changes, and better background checks. The NRA doesn't care because they are a Republican organization.

Incredible Pranking Opportunity

[Bing Tsher E]

any time one of the "top 10" most popular guns

That is going to be a lot of fun for the kids. Better than eating tide pods. "Trigger the cams!"

The coolest kids will be the ones who figure out the most clever ways of triggering the system.

Re:Incredible Pranking Opportunity

[fafalone]

Since a school suspended a 2nd grader just for chewing his poptart into the shape of a gun, an absurd decision upheld in court, I can't imagine anything that would confuse the recognition would end up well for the student. It's the world of Zero Tolerance [for common sense].

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[markdavis]

>"If we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as they have done in Australia, we could protect school children and the rest of us."

You are 100% wrong. The last school murdering, in Texas was done with a revolver, a shotgun, and [not deployed] bombs.

1) Was it an "assault revolver"? No. Revolvers typically hold ONLY 6 rounds and have been around for hundreds of years. They have ZERO magazines.

2) Was it an "assault shotgun"? No. Again, been around forever, typically hold only 2 to 5 rounds, and have ZERO magazines.

3) Bombs are not guns. By the way, "assault cars" and vans are not guns. Knives are not guns. Gasoline, axes, bowes, pressure cookers, etc are all not guns.

The problem is not simple. It isn't guns in the hands of good people, which is often the only thing that keeps things in check AND it is the only real thing that additional gun control affects the most. The problems are:

1) Untreated mental health problems

2) Way too much media coverage and sensationalism that causes copy-cating.

3) Unarmed trained guards and unarmed trained staff that can't do anything about murder sprees until it is too late. There is often to the point of almost always zero armed resistance. And there is zero deterrence, due to the same reason.

4) Insecure facilities with too many uncontrolled entrances and lack of defenses.

5) Underenforced EXISTING laws. It is already illegal to sell guns of any type or capacity to the mentally ill or felons. It is already illegal to buy or possess guns of any type or capacity by the mentally ill or felons.

6) This one is controversial and not proven yet, but possibly putting way too many children/teens on psychotropic drugs and without enough careful monitoring of their use.

7) Lack of child supervision, teaching morality (in whatever form that takes), involvement in their lives, and true caring by their parent(s). Lack of holding children responsible for what they do (with real consequences) and preparing them to be adults.

There are probably some others, but I think those are the main factors. Despite the sensationalism, school murders are still very, very rare when you look at all the data. Kids are far, far, far more likely to die of dozens of other things than a "mass shooting". And there is no way to have a free society without some amount of risk.

Re: this is another example of why we don't have

[bestweasel]

You forgot
8) A society awash with guns and too many people who value them above others' lives.

Funny how it's only the US which specializes in gun massacres. Must be more of that American exceptionalism.