Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Real Life Ads Are Taking Scary Inspiration From Social Media (medium.com)

Posted by msmash on from the watching-the-watchers dept.

Advertisements in the real world are becoming more technologically sophisticated, integrating facial recognition, location data, artificial intelligence, and other powerful tools that are more commonly associated with your mobile phone. Welcome to the new age of digital marketing. From a report: During this year's Fashion Week in New York, a digital billboard ad for New Balance used A.I. technology to detect and highlight pedestrians wearing "exceptional" outfits. A billboard advertisement for the Chevy Malibu recently targeted drivers on Interstate 88 in Chicago by identifying the brand of vehicle they were driving, then serving ads touting its own features in comparison. And Bidooh, a Manchester-based startup that admits it was inspired by Minority Report, is using facial recognition to serve ads through its billboards in the U.K. and other parts of Europe as well as South Korea. According to its website, Bidooh allows advertisers to target people based on criteria like age, gender, ethnicity, hair color, clothing color, height, body shape, perceived emotion, and the presence of glasses, sunglasses, beards, or mustaches.

We've been on the path here since at least a decade ago when the New York Times reported that some digital billboards were equipped with small cameras that could analyze a pedestrian's facial features to serve targeted ads based on gender and approximate age. Things have progressed as you'd expect: In 2016, another Times report described how Clear Channel Outdoor Americas had partnered with companies including AT&T to track people via their mobile phones. The ads could determine the gender and average age of people passing different billboards and determine whether they visited a store after seeing an ad.

73 comments

  1. Anyone have.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    ....a scramble suit handy?

    Any other way you can think of to block this?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Anyone have.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This could be what takes ad-blocking mainstream. Imagine driving down the road and the billboard suddenly changes to show you the new Ford SUX Rockhard, with the slogan "IS YOURS BIG ENOUGH?" and a young lady dressed in some very specific fetish gear draped over it. Then it photoshops your contorted face behind the wheel and you curse yourself for not unplugging your webcam before visiting xHamster.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Anyone have.... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      ....a scramble suit handy?

      Scramble suite wearers are 60% more likely to buy barbecue related products.

      Advertising gold!

    3. Re:Anyone have.... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      ....a scramble suit handy?

      Scramble suite wearers are 60% more likely to buy barbecue related products.

      Advertising gold!

      That would have been a lot funnier without the typo.

      Though now I have a new marketing idea, the Scramble Suite of anti-ad defenses ..

    4. Re:Anyone have.... by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I was going to make some joke about adopting burkhas, but I think I ready about gait recognition being pretty good now for IDing people in airports, so I think you'll have to go full on Predator-style active camo.

    5. Re:Anyone have.... by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Sure, don't ever buy from any company that uses advertising like this, and send them a nice letter explaining why they've lost your business.

    6. Re:Anyone have.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think I ready about gait recognition being pretty good now

      Yep, FB and Google are pushing that tech hard, so they can recognize people whose faces are not visible in photos and videos.

      This was 3 years ago. 83% accuracy based on secondary features like hair style, clothing, pose, limb lengths and ratios, etc. That was years ago: They are better now.

      There is no escape, except if people will smarten up and stop using Facebook, Google, or others which do the same things. They must be put out of business.

      Just say no.

    7. Re:Anyone have.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And more: The day when companies like Facebook and Google will be able to recognize you in pictures with 99% accuracy, even when your face doesn’t show, is fast approaching.

    8. Re:Anyone have.... by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is one of the more cyberpunk tidbits I've heard within the last 3 months, but some tattoos were really throwing off facial recognition. And they found that you could paint your face and effectively fool the system into no longer recognizing your face as a face. So all that really weird face makeup you see in Blade-runner, cyberpunk2020, and Shadowrun could retro-actively be argued as a means to avoid being tagged and identified.

    9. Re:Anyone have.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      ...but I think I ready about gait recognition being pretty good now for IDing people in airports, so I think you'll have to go full on Predator-style active camo.

      Hmm, perhaps I need to develop a Silly Walk to fool the cameras.

      Either that, or act like I"m trying to avoid rhythmic walking patterns that can attract sand worms.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Anyone have.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The recognition algorithms can already see through most silly walks, fake limps, etc.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:Anyone have.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The recognition algorithms can already see through most silly walks, fake limps, etc.

      This is true. They're based on biomechanical factors that are not subject to change by altering your gate.

      It's some scary tech.

    12. Re:Anyone have.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we need smart shoes which raise obstructions in the insole, leading to gait distortions (no one walks normally with a pebble in their shoe). Might not be comfortable, but you have to suffer to avoid detection, right?

    13. Re:Anyone have.... by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Bedazzle yourself!

    14. Re:Anyone have.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the arms race continues. It's simply the security/convenience curve again.

      Doesn't matter how biomechanical you get, something like a full-body costume (fursuit, kigurumi, mascots, etc) obviously defeats every biometric a camera is capable of. As a bonus, it hides weight.

      Yes, it's an absurd argument at an extreme escalation on the curve. But the individual will always be able to weasel beyond the nets sized to catch Joe Sixpack, able to outstep a uniform, automated machine. Happens every day when pirates pirate while the casuals are detected/stopped.

      Year by year, the cvdazzle stuff from 2010 looks a little less ridiculous...

    15. Re:Anyone have.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      IR LEDs might be a more practical option. They tend to blind most cameras but are invisible to the naked eye.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Anyone have.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, so if you're wanted, just slap on a burqa. Not only do you get to cry racism if the cops try to arrest you, you'll also defeat all the Big Brother cameras (for now).

    17. Re:Anyone have.... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Cough, cough, there are better ways. Cities are highly polluted locations and wearing one of these https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=d..., it will factually substantially reduce your risk of cancer, in fact those who patrol the streets could probably sue their agencies for failing to provide them. Hugely reduce the risk of infection by inhaled contagions, block toxic smoke particles and of course the constant effluvia of animal poop from farms and parks, that get blown into the atmosphere as dust, yeah, you routinely inhale particles of animal faeces, hmm, tasty.

      So everyone should wear them when they are outside to protect their lives, to factually reduce their risk of lung cancer, seriously can be proven. Wearing a facemask, which is legal, will help to save your life, especially if you dislike facial recognition systems, want to play, lets fucking play and they can not ban it, without taking full legal liability for lung cancer. Sure a police office can ask you to temporarily remove it so they can recognise your face but they can not stop you from immediately putting it back on, after all factually they should be wearing one because few people are more exposed to atmospheric pollutants then they are, by law of course they would be required to remove them when dealing directly with the public, just as you should in turn (heh, heh, heh).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Anyone have.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the more cyberpunk tidbits I've heard within the last 3 months, but [articles from 2010].

      Greetings from the year 2018! May I suggest you skip the pizza and hodl onto your bitcoin?

    19. Re:Anyone have.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wear some bright IR LEDs to blind the camera.

      Or a mirror suit to confuse it.

    20. Re:Anyone have.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      IR LEDs might be a more practical option. They tend to blind most cameras but are invisible to the naked eye.

      I've been wanting for years to be able to get a ring of those around my license plate, to help defeat the damed plate readers.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    21. Re:Anyone have.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wonder how legal they would be. Invisible to the naked eye so no issues there. Police would probably try to claim that they were to frustrate speed cameras, but you could argue they were for general privacy as every bugger has a camera these days.

      Could cause problems with car parks that use number plate scanning. Maybe have an off switch in the cabin.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Anyone have.... by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      Other people who liked Monty Python also bought Flamco's sand worm repellent.

    23. Re:Anyone have.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a myth, they aren't practical. It only takes a little color filtering to 'see through' the IR LEDs. You'd need to blind every frequency the camera can see and doing that means everyone around you will noticed your lights. But even still that doesn't matter too much. Cameras are used as much for tracking as they are for identification. Once you're identified at any point, such as in a checkout lane or being pinpointed by your cell, the software system will tag your identification on your path of your blob's travel and your privacy mods became useless. If you're never identified, you're still tracked. Chances are there aren't a lot of people with your same height using the same camo pattern/device. Thus even if the software doesn't know your real id, it'll still know that the you now is the same person from last week.

      We won't win a tech war. The only hope is society shifts enough that no one cares when you scratch your butt and wearing a shirt which says Zintles, whose meanings changes 10 years later into something unspeakable, won't get you fired because no one cares about the leaked, undated photo. No one was directly harmed in the picture, so it doesn't matter. But society won't change like that, so we're doomed. For some unknown level of doom.

    24. Re:Anyone have.... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      ....a scramble suit handy?

      Any other way you can think of to block this?

      Yes.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  2. Try it in the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Double daring you - and find a GDPR fine coming your way real soon !

    1. Re:Try it in the EU by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Would the GDPR actually help with most of those? If the billboard isn't sending anything back, but is instead simply processing your appearance locally and then acting locally on that information, is there any actual collection of data, so far as the GDPR is concerned? What about if the sensor that scans you is a black box that only outputs booleans corresponding to your traits (Beard: Yes. Long hair: No. Sunglasses: Yes.) and that even that data only ever stays on-device and never leaves to go to anyone's database? If those are considered a form of data collection that requires disclosure and consent, then how is taking any picture in public legal?

      Honest questions. I'm not in the EU and and don't do business there, so I don't know the ins-and-outs of the GDPR, but it seemed to me, based on my limited understanding, that none of these were necessarily running afoul of the GDPR.

    2. Re: Try it in the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been going on for a while and it is rather obvious. Interesting because in more than a few cases the ads were reported to be informative and relevant by consumers in focus groups. Some might say this is bad and some might say it is useful. A coin toss? Are regulations necessary? I think for TV and other mass media the answer is no because they were going to show an ad anyway. Invasive ads may be bad.

    3. Re: Try it in the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there is a cultural norm here that is by chance more restrictive than the GDPR. I see agencies taking liberties with campaign breadth but very little that most Europeans would find distasteful or objectionable. Time will tell

    4. Re: Try it in the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, people mean well and they are not out to get you. Anyway, most people have experienced this already and maybe just have not noticed?

    5. Re:Try it in the EU by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Biometric data can only be processed with explicit permission from the subject. It would have to be opt-in.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Try it in the EU by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      Google will make it "voluntary" in such a way that you have no other option.

      And they will get away with it because everyone thinks they are great.n Whilst at the same time their users are jailed in China.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    7. Re:Try it in the EU by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      So, I did a little sleuthing around to follow up on this. This writeup walks through several topics in more detail, but the most relevant thing on that page is this quote from EU regulations, which elaborates specifically on the processing of photos:

      The processing of photographs should not systematically be considered to be processing of special categories of personal data as they are covered by the definition of biometric data only when processed through a specific technical means allowing the unique identification or authentication of a natural person.

      I.e. Only when the processing of an image results in data that can be used to uniquely identify the individual is it considered sensitive data. Similarly, the official site would seem to indicate the same, since it says that biometric data is considered sensitive when it's "processed solely to identify a human being".

      A photo, obviously, could be used to do so in theory, but if the processing doesn't actually do so and they aren't passing it along to any other systems that might do so, then they wouldn't seem to be collecting "sensitive data". And if they aren't collecting sensitive data, they only need to meet a lower bar for lawful processing (e.g. only a legitimate interest would be necessary, rather than user consent, from what I understand).

      Also worth noting, even if it had been classified as sensitive data, explicit consent is NOT the only way to lawfully process it. There are four other ways to do so as well.

  3. Ban all ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Kill all capitalists

    1. Re:Ban all ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were still ads behind the Iron Curtain. Granted, they were a bit different in nature, but this technology would apply just as well to a non-capitalistic society.

  4. I don't see the problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if you don't want your brain pumped full of advertisements just don't walk into the advertising zones.

    Now if you'll excuse me it's time for a smoke and a shot of popsi. Ah, the circle of consumption...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  5. And the moment when the advertising system says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello Mr Yakamoto, I see you've had some plastic surgery.

    1. Re:And the moment when the advertising system says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had Mr Yakamoto's eyes.

  6. Scary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Self-driving cars and augmented reality should help quite a bit with ads and light pollution.

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

      Hyper-Reality

    2. Re:Scary? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Self-driving cars and augmented reality should help quite a bit with ads and light pollution

      I'm not sure what you mean. Self-driving cars and augmented reality are obviously going to add to the ads that exist, as you get driven to a location and beamed right into your eye.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  7. Game the system with your face... by zarmanto · · Score: 2

    If you don't like advertisements which track you, than fight back: just make horribly disgusted facial expressions every time you look at an ad! It's a totally brilliant tactic, because if enough people follow this advice, these horribly unethical and creepy companies will eventually just give up and stop advertising altogether!

    ....... Oh, and no, your mommy's scold about your face "sticking that way" is absolutely not true, I promise! The ugly expressions might eventually become a habit, and those expressions might cause permanent frown wrinkles over the course of time, which could ultimately make you look like a genuinely bitter old codger in your later years in life, thus entirely ruining the effect on those rare occasions when you actually try to smile... but trust me: that's totally not the same thing.

    /s

    1. Re:Game the system with your face... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      They'll get paid to show a rival's ad when people scowl at the billboard in some sort of false-flag operation.

    2. Re:Game the system with your face... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Disgust = engagement.

      Dark sunglasses might work better, at least that way they can't so easily tell if you are paying any attention to their ad. Maybe some IR LEDs to blind their cameras.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Psycho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of psycho watches Minority Report and says "let's make that a reality"?

    1. Re:Psycho by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Advertisers. Marketing. Sales.

    2. Re:Psycho by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 1

      Probably the same kind of people who read H.G. Wells's "The First Men in the Moon" as kids and then landed men on the moon.

    3. Re:Psycho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about Idiocrazy as well.
      Ok, to be fair that was probably not just a few people, but a joint effort of a larger group.

    4. Re:Psycho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the kind of people who read "The 400 pound virgin who sleeps on the street" as a kid.

    5. Re:Psycho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they land men on the moon too or just eat them?

  9. Obligatory Futurama by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if you don't want your brain pumped full of advertisements just don't walk into the advertising zones. Now if you'll excuse me it's time for a smoke and a shot of popsi. Ah, the circle of consumption...

    Leela: "Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"

    Fry: "Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree."

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  10. What about model releases? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    detect and highlight pedestrians wearing "exceptional" outfits

    If the 'highlighting' included displaying a photo or video of the person wearing that outfit, wouldn't that be unauthorized for-profit use of that person's image?

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:What about model releases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. You can trademark your own image and likeness, like Tura Satana did. Then they can't use your image for commercial purposes - and ad-serving is certainly commercial, so . . .

    2. Re: What about model releases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally, you cannot use a bystander image - you would need a licensing arrangement - unless it is the equivalent of a crowd shot or the focus is specifically not on that person, like a picture of a product with a person who happens to be walking in the background but is not easily identifiable. It is a pretty stable set of rules. If a social media site uses your picture with your permission to market to your friends I am not sure how that works

    3. Re:What about model releases? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      detect and highlight pedestrians wearing "exceptional" outfits

      If the 'highlighting' included displaying a photo or video of the person wearing that outfit, wouldn't that be unauthorized for-profit use of that person's image?

      Yeah, I was wondering that too.

      If you want to use my image to sell stuff, you can compensate me financially for that, thanks. And get my consent too.

  11. Won't last by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Just wait until someone tricks it into continually serving racist propaganda. If I've learned anything from the internet, this won't last.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Won't last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I felt the same way about organic food and the anti-vaccine movement. Despite numerous thorough debunkings they're still going strong, perhaps stronger than ever.

      You're underestimating the depth of advertisers' greed and the apathy of the willing masses.

  12. I don't deal with ads by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    I block them all. No exceptions.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:I don't deal with ads by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      How do you block billboards in the real world?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:I don't deal with ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paint?

    3. Re:I don't deal with ads by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Augmented reality. Now available in the The Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses!

    4. Re:I don't deal with ads by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Spray paint or Molotov cocktail ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    5. Re:I don't deal with ads by slinches · · Score: 1

      I hear Roddy Piper has some sunglasses that might do the trick.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    6. Re:I don't deal with ads by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Ignore them. Don't look. I never pay attention to that crap when I'm out and about. Easy to train yourself to do.

  13. Pffft!! BFD by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    To me, ads are still those times i go get a sandwich, soda or something.

  14. OK I'm sorry by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Informative

    " highlight pedestrians wearing "exceptional" outfits"

    I just went to the corner to get some beer, I thought the pajamas were good enough for that distance.

  15. Brave Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Brave browser has been the best solution to this problem. In addition to blocking advertisements and trackers, you can also get paid to watch ads (should you choose to view them) and pay other content providers directly through the browser (using BAT).

  16. Serve? Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Serve targeted ads. Sure, I get why they call it "serving", but I don't see that it "serves" -me-.
        It's shown to me, sure, "show targeted ads", but it simply does not "serve" me. I have a hard time seein' that it serves anyone.
            It's lipstick on a pig, IMNSHO.

  17. ban sci-fi by sad_ · · Score: 1

    we need to put a stop to all those sci-fi writers, clearly they have good intentions, but people reading the stuff all think those are great ideas we need to have in our lives and go out and invent a working model of it.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  18. Creepy as fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad we have no right to privacy anymore. Wait, why are we voting the way we do?

  19. I knew it! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    " highlight pedestrians wearing "exceptional" outfits"

    Real, actual Fashion-Police!