Slashdot Mirror
Taylor Swift Used Facial Recognition Tech At Concerts To Spy On Stalkers (boingboing.net)
AmiMoJo shares a report: Taylor Swift used facial recognition technology at her live performances so that technicians running the system could then check those face scans against a private database of her stalkers. There is now big demand for serious security at live events the size of a Taylor Swift concert. There have been so many bombings and mass shootings at music concerts over the past year to even remember without Googling. Fear of being killed at a music concert is something people factor in to the decision to buy tickets and go to live events. The demand for security is real.
This is an outrage!
Taylor Swift used facial recognition technology at her live performances so that technicians running the system could then check those face scans against a private database of her stalkers.
Umm, pretty much anyone who is a Taylor Swift fan willing to actually pay to see her concert would qualify as a stalker - including teenage girls. They bulk of her fan base has an unhealthy obsession with her and her rather uninteresting music. They don't need facial recognition, just a camera or ask for ID at the door. The only question is how creepy are they.
Seriously, if true this is either a star taking herself WAY too seriously or some security asshat who got a new shiny toy to pay with and convinced an overpayed prima-donna to pay for it.
To get into a concert you have to agree to their ToS, which explicitly allows them to record/capture images and likenesses.
It's not spying if you consent.
At what point does a fan become a stalker.
Because otherwise ami is slipping hard. Reads like a Google translation from golgafrinchian.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Anyone knows the details on how it works? I'd also be curious on the estimated number of stalkers that someone like Taylor Swift has.
There have been so many bombings and mass shootings at music concerts over the past year to even remember without Googling
Uh, what? There's only one I could find record of, unless you're going to include gang members shooting each other at nightclubs but that's not really a music concert. And I couldn't find even a single Bombing.
These days the AI may have problem figuring out the 'sex == "male"' part. Trying to use some of today's teens to train an AI would only confuse it.
d00d u l337
to avoid being caught up in the surveillance of 'suspicious activity' hoopla? cease fire stand down, taking our picture etc.. every few minutes is a not kosher sign of greed fear ego based unsecurity? scorched population policy? bring us the clowns..
To be fair to Swift, she really does have some crazy stalkers, including people who break into her home and take naps in her living room, harass her family, and legal restraining order type of crazy. Concerts are one of the few openings they have where they can try to get close, so these systems are probably being used for that specific slice of risk. Yes, they can check at the door, but given that many have resorted to criminal actions to try and get close, it wouldn't be surprising if some tried to sneak in through other means. It is after all a private event, private venue, with video consent already given.
That said, it's still creepy, and given how the Chinese have used the system to sweep up enemies of the state, I'm not sure I feel comfortable with this.
And I couldn't find even a single Bombing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This wasn't very long ago and was big news. Might not rise up enough in american news though over the deluge of daily violence and shootings.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Bitch.
Where the hell was thia? Caesars Palace?
Yes, plus I guess it would have to know which gender that teen is identifying as at that particular moment. Programming is hard in 2018.
Exactly. All this will lead to is bad blood that will be hard to just shake off.
Fear of being killed at a music concert is something people factor in to the decision to buy tickets and go to live events
Is this actually true? I can only speak for myself, but I can say that it is absolutely not something I factor in. The odds are so astronomically low it's not worth worrying about. I'm far more likely to be killed in a car accident on my way to the concert than at the concert, so if I drive there without a second of hesitation, why would I worry about getting killed there?
That was well over a year ago, which simply reinforces the GP's point.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
There have been so many bombings and mass shootings at music concerts over the past year to even remember without Googling. Fear of being killed at a music concert is something people factor in to the decision to buy tickets and go to live events. The demand for security is real.
While I agree that even one shooting is too many... I look at this and feel like the wording makes it sound like a bombing or shooting at a concert takes place very 2-3 days. I doubt very many people think that if they go to a concert that they are likely be part of a mass murder.
That's an interesting take on how this tech was being used. How about "monitor individuals that might pose a danger to her" eh? We're talking about delusional individuals who have no boundaries, are fixated on her and probably keep diaries of how often she poops. Why try to make Taylor seem like the nefarious one here subbie?
Seems like a soft launch for using facial recognition as "security" in other venues
Stalk the stalkers? Is this really how people think this works?
So she has their faces, but not their personal information to ban them fom buying tickets?
Suspicious
Guess you missed the "over the past year" part.
A young attractive woman, who is popular, rich... Who also will play at concerts that is a short drive from where you live, where you can meet in person...
While not my type of music, she is a talented singer, and performer. I can see a lot of people who are stupid enough to think a friendly smile or point at in a concert actually meant something, vs just playing to the audience and being friendly to her fan/revenue base.
There are a lot of stupid guys who misinterpret flirting or just friendliness as opening the door for further relations.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Just pass a law that outlaws stalking and the problem should disappear. If that doesn't work, simply outlaw concerts. Problem solved! Oh yeah, and outlaw explosives too. Once you pass a law, the problem immediately goes away.
probably the same way as Face ID and the one at Universal theme parks. At universal if you have the rich people express cut the line pass they scan the ticket and then your face to make sure you don't share the tickets with a friend.
It mathematically measures your face and allows some amount of error
There have been so many bombings and mass shootings at music concerts over the past year to even remember without Googling.
Aside from the incident in Las Vegas I can't remember hearing about any others.
The more ugly she seems.
besides, can it see through my neck beard?
L'Idiot
Another example of a liberal violating the basic rights of incels. And then they wonder why we hate-stalk them so much.
True. Normal guys don't go to Taylor Swift concerts.
Who's the stalker now? Using face recognition people who attend to the concerts makes the organization the new stalker.
These days the AI may have problem figuring out the 'sex == "male"' part. Trying to use some of today's teens to train an AI would only confuse it.
The oldest joke about today's boys and girls looking the same that I've seen with my own eyes was in the Punch magazine. I can't remember the exact issue, but it was published sometime in the 1880s.
I've been told by a generally reliable source that there is a similar complaint from the time of Shakespeare. I wouldn't be surprised if the clay tablets of Ashurbanipal's library contained one, too.
I wonder if Kanye is on the list.
To be fair to Swift, she really does have some crazy stalkers
So does pretty much every other celebrity of her stature and that is nothing new.
Concerts are one of the few openings they have where they can try to get close
Are you kidding me? If they want to get close there are far better ways to do it than at a concert though I understand some may try. The only difference is that they know her location at least for the duration of the concert but that's not really a novel problem. Big venues like the one's she plays are used to keeping things secure for popular musicians as well as people who are actually important like world leaders. If they do things right there really should be no way for anyone to get close enough to be a real problem.
That said, it's still creepy, and given how the Chinese have used the system to sweep up enemies of the state, I'm not sure I feel comfortable with this.
You should be VERY uncomfortable with this. It will be exceptionally easy for even well intentioned governments and private enterprises to abuse. We have technology and tools that the worst dictators in years gone by could only have dreamed of having and it absolutely will get abused unless we are very careful
I've never thought about "could I be killed at this concert" when buying tickets. And still don't.
Is it actually something factor into a ticket purchase?
The trouble is a lot of her fans are minors. So many of them actually are not going to have any sort of reasonably tamper/forgery resistant identification.
I was joking about the ID at the door. Joke is that anyone willing to pay to see her performance already has an unhealthy obsession with her so basically it's an audience of 100% stalkers. The only real question is how crazy are they?
The question is the data being correlated and stored or not.
When it comes to facial recognition and it's abuses that is among the least of my concerns.
Did you even read the summary?
Do you understand sarcasm or jokes?
The face scans are compared to a database of her stalkers.
Duh. It wouldn't be a very useful technology if it didn't. You can't recognize someone you haven't previously seen.
I would imagine many famous people have stalkers.
Of course they do. It's not a new problem. It's also not clear that this technology provides any meaningful additional safety to the performer. It's not as if you hear about performers getting assaulted by their fans at concerts very often. Big venues tend to do security very well and they did so long before automated facial recognition was even a possibility.
Always look for the political agenda in a /. article/summary.
Well to be fair the Vegas guy, though technically not a fan viewing the concert, was shooting AT the concert...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There are other bands out there that have a different message. Swift is a pawn providing the justification to use this technology on the people who attend concerts. Association with a particular type of pattern of thought from a group of individuals is great marketing information. Besides that, why just spy on people when you can change the way they think?
This is the beginning of the tiresome patterns of events that continually attack our rights, in western countries, of free speech and free association. At the same time in this case. For us all, technology is either a gift that can greatly enhance our lives or used to enslave us.
There seems little respect for either the free speech or the technology that enabled the net, if I may use that archaic reference to the intertubes, which has been taken over by empty minded narcissistic assholes. I mean that the net has been taken over by people who demonstrate some of the traits of that personality disorder, like attention seeking and false personas, that has allowed this memetic (I do mean meme grammar nazis) mind virus the appurtenances to spread like wildfire throughout our world.
The interwebs give us a good idea of the mental health of our world and Swift is playing that game that of being special enough to have to impose her reality on everyone who comes to her concerts, who are too shallow to care about their rights that were hard won. This is the cost of apathy, it puts more power in the hands of sociopaths who think that freedom is the dangerous idea that it is for them because it shines a light on their atrocities.
I'd rather walk around in the city as a free human Ms Swift, may I simply suggest you hire adequate security as opposed to undermining your fan's rights to free association and your colleagues right to free speech.
I hope that there are enough conscious human beings who can see through the barrage of bullshit used to justify the constant condescending vomitous "concern" for our welfare in a first world democracy where fighting for freedom was upheld and respected as the very reason our democracies exist.
It seems some don't believe the populous deserves the freedom and free will music produces in our culture.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Against the men she stalks in her endless campaign of serial dating.
Seriously, Taylor would be hot. Except that she rates herself several points above her own looks. Thus rating a -5.
Corporatism != Free Market
And I couldn't find even a single Bombing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... This wasn't very long ago and was big news. Might not rise up enough in american news though over the deluge of daily violence and shootings.
Irony that you use a terrorist bombing in Manchester England to get a dig in at the USA. But the point remains that for the fearmongering sentence of "There have been so many bombings and mass shootings at music concerts over the past year to even remember without Googling" is hyperbole at the very core.
Yup, we remember even here. But those of us who were expecting to find "so many" acts mainly found that different people apparently have different definitions of the term.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Why is it ironic? Does it have to be an American incident to count? Yeah it's quite an exaggerated line but AC said he couldn't find a single one and there's one. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other recent music venue bombings but you have the shootings in Vegas and Paris so there's three (for me) without googling so it is somewhat accurate.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
That shooting occurred October 2017. Doesn't meet the past year criteria from the AC. It's kind of significant because if you talk about concert killings the two big significant ones are the Vegas shooting and the Manchester bombing which happened in May 2017. The article starts by talking about Swift using the technology for stalkers then pivots to talking about the technology being used because of shooting incidents. It's a pretty dumb pivot and a bit of a stretch because it's making the implication that facial recognition is going to be what stops another incident but why would it? If there's enough social media presence to suggest that the individual would be conducting such an attack then there's sufficient evidence and probable for police to obtain a search warrant.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
So... one? I mean, I can only remember one shooting and zero bombings without googling and I'm not even sure if that one was within the past year. We have a lot of mass shootings and I can't be expected to remember them all. Or, was that your point?
It isn't about "looking the same", it is about how they identify. You can "look" male but identify as a fire hydrant. You are so insensitive.
"Might not rise up enough in american news though over the deluge of daily violence and shootings."
And non-americans seem so convinced we have a deluge of daily violence and shooting. What about where you live? There are not many shootings in many countries, true, but what about stabbings or beatings? How does the OVERALL violent crime atmosphere fare? Eliminate the tools, focus on the actual number of people injured or killed, then see where the different places stand.
Besides, not all shooting deaths are bad (which is what most people imply). If a violent criminal is shot to death while committing a violent crime, I think a service has actually been done for the good of society. Don't want to get shot to death? Don't commit crimes. Pretty simple concept, really.
It did seem like they were looking for idiots who might rush the state, not mass killers.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Why is it ironic? Does it have to be an American incident to count?
You aren't grokking my objection. The objection is taking an incident of bombing in Manchester, and insinuating that it is somehow not noteworthy to people in the USA.
Yeah - it is noteworthy. Much better to discuss without bringing up pointless jabs like that. I could express some very interesting things to point out about Europeans, but that would only be inflammatory and piss off Europeans.
Just me writing that last sentence will likely get me modded down - In a further irony, proving my point.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Dear general population, we are moving into a society where your entire life will be monitored and profiled. Here is another reason we've come up with for you to just accept it.
Flirting and friendliness IS an opening, unless it's not.
Wait, an AI can, in this day and age, clearly identify a male by looking at it? Could it teach me? Last time I did that I was yelled at for assuming its gender.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Flirting and friendliness IS an opening, unless it's not.
Exactly.
"Might not rise up enough in american news though over the deluge of daily violence and shootings."
And non-americans seem so convinced we have a deluge of daily violence and shooting. What about where you live?
And yet - the insinuation is that somehow Americans are so insular that we don't even know about the case in point.
Somply googling shows some coverage:
NBC, CBS, New York Times, NPR, USA Today, Washington Post, TMZ, Time, CNN, Rolling Stone, Market Watch, Fortune, USMAgazine, CNBC, New York Daily News, ABC, AOL, ETonline, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, LA Times, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, The Wrap.
I gave up after the third page. There are hundreds more. Over the spectrum from Fox News to HuffPost. From New York Times to Entertainment Tonight. Yes - we know all about it here in the USA. We care too.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You aren't understanding mine. I'm not suggesting it wasn't noteworthy as such. I'm sure it got it's time in US news cycles, what I was insinuating was with the much higher levels of gun violence and mass killings that America suffers it might not have been as memorable, especially amongst those that probably don't pay too much attention to the news and apparently can't work google well enough to type music bombing like the AC I responded to because it's right there.
It was a pointless jab though and I should've just stopped after the first sentence, you're right about that.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The story feels a bit like fear mongering with its reference to "spying on stalkers", as if their privacy is somehow being infringed upon. A better phrasing would be something like "this tech is being used to protect the artist from potential harm by over zealous fans". But I guess that doesn't have quite the same "click-baity" feel.
Loading...
Ah yes, the Internet. Where all you have to do is type "It was a joke" to remove any culpability for a lack of clear writing or to even reverse the point of a comment.
Ahh the internet where people will continue to get their underwear in a bunch about a joke they didn't get even after it is pointed out to them that they didn't get it.
If you don't have something better to do than argue about this then you need to get yourself a hobby or better yet a date.
Except it wasnt at a concert. By an angry fired employee.
This is how facial recognition SHOULD be used. Looking through a huge group of people for a handful of specific, known bad/banned individuals. It's when they start tracking/identifying EVERYONE that things get out of hand. (I'm assuming they weren't doing that, but you get the idea.)
how many times does someone have to tell you that may 17, 2017 is not "within the past year?"
so, again, name one that happened in the past year.
Concerts with stars often making very explicit moves towards audience is something significantly different from what normal people do but I have a general q. to you: how is one landing at what you describe as 'further relations' w/o any preparatory work called flirt? How does that work?
You can try being a bro and make the first move, or you can try frustrating her attempts at flirting until she throws herself on you. The latter won't get you laid as often, but when it does you have a lot less chance of her labelling you a stalker and a lot more chance of her being into you. Even in that situation, unless you enjoy being subservient, keep your woman in check. Most women expect you to establish and keep boundaries, but will at the same time try and push or break those boundaries (only some girls who enjoy being naturally obedient won't.) If you let them break those boundaries they will lose respect for you, and it will be difficult to gain it back. There is a reason not to rekindle things if your partner or yourself breaks it off. Unlike the movies, love isn't better the second time around, unless you really lacked experience the first time around.
Because it was stapled to the fucking chicken.
Turnabout is fair play.
I mean yeah Rammstein put on a lot of pyrotechnics displays at their concerts, but I don't think a single Taylor Swift fan has ever even remotely taking the possibility of death into consideration for any concert they have ever booked.
Seriously who comes up with this? The Ministry for Keeping People Perpetually Afraid (a subsidiary of FoxNews) ?
celery or bean?
" Fear of being killed at a music concert is something people factor in to the decision to buy tickets and go to live events. "
Contrary to the hysteria the media likes to cause when such things happen, I don't typically factor in the " am I going to die "
variable when I go somewhere or do something. The media makes it sound like folks are squaring off in the streets daily like
something out of an old Western movie or something.
Truth is, the odds of being involved in a mass shooting are right up there with getting hit by lightning. . . . twice.
( Unless you're a gang-banger in Chicago, then the odds go up a bit )
However, back to the main topic:
I don't really have any issues with her using facial recognition tech as long as that is disclosed at the time you purchase your tickets.
She might find that folks may have enough of an issue with it that they may simply pass on her concert.
Enough folks start passing and she may rethink how she does security.
Either you get killed, or you get treated like a criminal.
A concert is supposed to be a safe place. A place to relax.
Both the bombings and this new security apparatus defeats the purpose of going to one in the first place.
did you mean stage?
You know, the same was said of the hippies of the late 60's, many /..
who have become parents of the esteemed basement dwelling
posters here on
So, no, today's "youth" is nothing special...
CAP === 'aphasia'
"The bitches, they overestimate their value proposition."
Facial recognition is illegal
I totally understand it in these circumstances.
Any big star will get a certain percentage of crazy stalker types and regardless of whether you like TS or not you can't argue she's a really big star.
So while it sucks that it's necessary it is also understandable.
Its funny watching how children disobey their parents. Its the same way governments/corps use to force unwanted crap on the populous. They slowly escalate their unwanted actions until the new norm is the old wrong. In the case using tech to stalk people (ironically Taylor Swift is being the creepy stalker here). They will start with some voluntary service where "you agree to it in the TOS so its your fault". Once enough people are doing it they will use the logic " well they already have it, everyone is doing it." to make those who have a problem against it seem weird or conspiracy but jobs. Then the final part of the plan is slightly different between government and corporations. If its the government they will make it illegal to try and avoid it "because you shouldn't have something to hide and the children." If its the corporations pushing it they will just make it financially impossible to avoid it. Either way all shitty and creepy techno stalking starts this way. So brave Taylor.
THis. Mod up.
If you're ugly, it's not and you're creepy.
They are not stupid. What other signals do women present? If eye contact and a smile isn't enough then guys would be even less selective than they already are.