Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Istanbul, Cameras To Recognize 15,000 Faces/sec.

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the for-your-own-good dept.

Privacy 221

An anonymous reader writes "Istanbul's popular (and crowded) Istiklal shopping, cafe, and restaurant street is being outfitted with 64 wirelessly controlled, tamper-proof face-recognition cameras attached to a computer system capable of scanning 15,000 faces per second in a moving crowd for a positive match. The link from Samanyolu, badly translated by Google, states that 3 cameras are in place so far and that if trials are successful, this will mark the first time such a system, previously used by Scotland Yard and normally reserved for indoor security use, will be put to use in a public outdoor setting. It also notes that each camera controlled by the system is capable of 'locking onto' the faces of known criminals and pickpockets detected in the crowd and 'tracking' their movements for up to 300 meters before the next, closer placed camera takes over." Hit the link for more of this reader's background on the growing electronic encroachment on privacy in this city, which will be the European Capital of Culture in 2010, causing him to ask, "Is the historic city of Istanbul turning into the new London?"
While the article doesn't state it outright, it would appear likely that the outdoor face recognition system, if "successful," will be expanded to other crowded areas of Istanbul as well, which has already seen a dazzling increase in the number of installed plain-vanilla (non face-recognizing) CCTV cameras in recent years. This comes after Istanbul's two signature Bosphorus bridges have become passable only by vehicles with a mandatory vehicle windscreen-mounted electronic pass, subway and bus tickets in the city have gone electronic, vote tallying in municipal and national elections has become fully computerized, and future plans for mandatory biometric ID cards for all Turkish citizens have been announced by the government.

The ruling "moderate Islamist" AKP party appears to frame these and other e-government initiatives as "keeping step with the times," "keeping step with other major world cities," and "making living safer, easier and more efficient through the targeted use of electronic technology." Its secular critics, on the other hand, argue that everything and everyone under the sun is rapidly becoming electronically trackable thanks to the omnipresence of mobile phones and gratuitous overuse of these installed electronic systems, and that these systems will, eventually, form a dense surveillance grid that could turn daily life for Turks (and secular Turks critical of the current government in particular) into living in a veritable Big Brother House.

cancel ×

221 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh really? (3, Insightful)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#28078981)

But can there be 15000 people in it's view within each second?

Re:Oh really? (5, Funny)

neovoxx (818095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28078997)

In Istanbul but not Constantinople?

Re:Oh really? (1)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079061)

What about byzantine?

Re:Oh really? (2, Informative)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079203)

Byzantium. Byzantine is an adjective.

Re:Oh really? (2, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079783)

Byzantium. Byzantine is an adjective.

*sigh* regardless, you can't fly like an eagle if you're hanging around in Turkey.

Re:Oh really? (4, Funny)

Wingman 5 (551897) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079135)

More importantly does it work on a moonlit night?

Re:Oh really? (1, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079139)

In Istanbul but not Constantinople?

Been a long time gone, Constantinople - now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night.

Re:Oh really? (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079217)

It's nobody's business but the Turks'.

Re:Oh really? (3, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079431)

Like the armenian genocide?

Re:Oh really? (3, Funny)

grcumb (781340) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079443)

It's nobody's business but the Turks'.

I dunno about that. if you have a date in Constantinople, you'll be instantaneously, electronically identified in Istanbul.

Re:Oh really? (3, Informative)

tnnn (1035022) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079041)

I believe that those 64 cameras are connected to a system capable of scanning 15000 faces total - not 15000 from each camera. 15000/64 gives us about 235 faces per camera which is quite possible when using high resolution wide-angle cameras. Besides think about the future - you can easily double the amount of cameras and the system will still work without any upgrades.

Re:Oh really? (4, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079337)

What's scary is that even with excellent success rates, that's going to be a lot of misfires. 15,000 faces/sec is 54 million faces an hour. At 'five nines' accuracy (which is far beyond what facial recognition can do as yet) that's still 540 false IDs per hour. It'd really suck to be one of those 540.

Re:Oh really? (4, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079393)

You're assuming every second that it rescans the crowd and does 15,000 new recognitions. More likely it scans the crowd constantly, and adds new faces to its database and continues to refine images on existing faces, tracking their movements to handle the interface between one camera and another.

Re:Oh really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079081)

Population density factors very well into this problem. Consider that 15000 people / per second must be in the vicinity of the camera. If each of the cameras is located in such a way that 180 degree view with a depth perceptional value, alpha, is roughly 20 square meridians plus 5 hebrew niggers, you have one stupid motherfucker who read a witty troll.

Re:Oh really? (0, Troll)

kkandnathan (1560885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079987)

I dont think so!! there is no privacy by electronic information in our life http://www.nowgoal.com/17.shtml [nowgoal.com]

Get-rich-quick (and then go to a Turkish prison) (4, Funny)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079007)

So I'm guessing that setting up a stand selling fake mustaches, Guy Fawkes masks, and Groucho Marx glasses on a busy corner in Consta... er.. Istanbul would get me a lot of money and a lot of police attention quickly.

Re:Get-rich-quick (and then go to a Turkish prison (3, Funny)

neovoxx (818095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079035)

Nah, that's no one's business but the Turks.

Watch out for Turkish prisons!!! (-1, Troll)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079163)

If there's one place where "pound in the ass" is what you get in prisons, it's Turkey [imdb.com]

Re:Watch out for Turkish prisons!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079189)

If there's one place where "pound in the ass" is what you get in prisons, it's Turkey [imdb.com]

Boy, good thing you were here to fill us in on that one.

Re:Watch out for Turkish prisons!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079281)

Of course, Turks have been known to pound the ass of their prisoners in other sources [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Watch out for Turkish prisons!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079351)

Wow! I am amazed at the level of your intellectual capacity. Let me see, it goes like this: you saw it in a movie, so it must be true. How about doing some fact checking before spewing venom at people? Start with this:

http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/bsst/midnight_express.html

And then take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Express_(film)

At that time, this cheapshot movie was just what the powers that be needed to blame the loss of their "war on drugs" on another country that had very little to do with it (except being in a bad neighborhood) instead of admitting that it was a very bad idea right from the beginning.

MOD DOWN, FLAMEBAIT! (2, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079627)

Wow! I am amazed at the level of your intellectual capacity.

Well, at least I know how to put proper quotes in my post, so people won't have to copy and paste the address in the browser.

I recommend you start some research in a field where you seem to be sorely lacking [google.com]

As for the "venom at people" thing, sorry if I hurt your Turkish sensibilities, but all citizens of an empire [wikipedia.org] must learn to cope with that [wikipedia.org] , even if the empire hasn't existed for nearly a century.

Re:Watch out for Turkish prisons!!! (0, Troll)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079637)

LMFAO Peep the plot keywords from Midnight Express on IMDB.

My Favourite: Male Rear Nudity

Re:Watch out for Turkish prisons!!! (1)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079647)

Plot Keyword: Turcophobia

Definition: a person who has a morbid fear of Turks.

Classic.

Re:Get-rich-quick (and then go to a Turkish prison (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079215)

Just normal sunglasses would do the trick nicely, not to mention traditional Muslim head wear.

Re:Get-rich-quick (and then go to a Turkish prison (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079291)

Which is officially illegal in the Turkey.

You know... They reformed...

At least before the fundamentalist retards got strong again.

Compare this to your own history. ^^

Re:Get-rich-quick (and then go to a Turkish prison (2, Interesting)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079659)

The infrared option will allow it to see right through the beard and glasses. Not to mention the X ray option which will allow to scan through just about everything and match teeth to dental records.

If Hubble can detect what some million-light years away sun is made of, I'm pretty sure a face within a kilometre should be no problem.

Too bad prisons are so full already. Otherwise we could use such a system.

Re:Get-rich-quick (and then go to a Turkish prison (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079849)

Hubble uses spectroscopy to do that. I don't think you can use that method to pick one person out of a crowd.

Re:Get-rich-quick (and then go to a Turkish prison (1, Informative)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#28080017)

Just wear a traditional burqa [wikipedia.org] . Problem solved.

afaik (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079009)

CCTV
  - less effective than promised
  - doesn't reduce serious crimes like assault
  - doesn't reduce, but shift crime scenes to other areas
  - less effective than more light, more policemen, ...
  - more expensive than more light, more policemen, ...
  - often not working, tech staff admits ...

Re:afaik (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079127)

CCTV
  - not as closed curcuit as it says...
  - subject to misuse for entirely different matters

Re:afaik (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079373)

- more expensive than more light, more policemen, ...

How's that? Do you mean that the cost of a camera, spread out over its useful life, plus the cost of a monitoring center where hundreds of cameras are watched is higher than paying a crew of officers to have someone stand 24/7 where every camera is located?

Re:afaik (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079571)

- doesn't reduce serious crimes like assault
    - doesn't reduce, but shift crime scenes to other areas

The point of automated face scanning and license plate scanning technologies is not to reduce crime.
The point is to catch criminals.

It means the police no longer have to hope that they randomly pull over [criminal] or that someone calls a tip line.
You put these cameras in high traffice areas and criminals will walk past them and get flagged.
Or at least that's how it works in ideal situations.

Re:afaik (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079615)

The point is to catch criminals.

What good is catching them if your penal system releases them back into society without reforming them? Most developed countries don't seem to have a problem catching criminals. The problem seems to be keeping them behind bars and/or showing them the error of their ways so that they don't commit more crimes upon their release.

I'm skeptical that a fancy camera system is going to change this underlying problem.

Re:afaik (1)

FiveDozenWhales (1360717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079963)

The problem seems to be keeping them behind bars and/or showing them the error of their ways so that they don't commit more crimes upon their release.

Or solving the cultural/social problems that cause there to be so many criminals in the first place, though obviously that's a harder nut to crack.

Cue the /. Paranoia (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079025)

OMFG, THERES LIKE COMPUTERS WHICH CAN BE USED TO HELP CATCH CRIMINALS! OMFG!

Here's an idea: instead of being scared of the cameras, be afraid of the people abusing them. DONT BE ANGRY AT THE TECHNOLOGY.

Re:Cue the /. Paranoia (4, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079077)

Sometimes technologies inevitably, if deployed, will be abused. Some technologies are too powerful to be in anybody's hands. Power corrupts, and all that.

I could see google integrating into this... (1)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079039)

...to add to their massive data mining efforts. I can't even imagine the possibilities...

Re:I could see google integrating into this... (5, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079161)

...to add to their massive data mining efforts. I can't even imagine the possibilities.

If they do, I hope for our sake it turns out better than their translations.

the competent authorities will be transferred to safety in the system

Somebody set us up the bomb.

the street that 15 thousand people in the face of a second degree in the search by scanning the person is detected and the system of the images with image is brought to the screen.

Main screen turn on.

That the people at the top to lock the camera by a third during the 300 meters, is to follow.

You have no chance to survive make your time.

To all corners of the country should not be.

For great justice.

Say what again? (5, Insightful)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079043)

...64 wirelessly controlled, tamper-proof face-recognition cameras...

Sorry, but that's an oxymoron. It may be tamper-resistant (and some wireless devices have pretty good tamper resistance), but nothing that can be controlled wirelessly is tamper proof. Especially not when even the entity that has legitimate access (presumably the Turkish government) is entirely trustworthy to begin with.

Nothing (period) is truly tamper-proof (3, Interesting)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079091)

Sorry, but that's an oxymoron. It may be tamper-resistant (and some wireless devices have pretty good tamper resistance), but nothing that can be controlled wirelessly is tamper proof.

Any time you see 'X'-proof in a description, you know they're bullshitting you. There's never been a lock made that couldn't be picked or bypassed in some way.

The real question is whether it's worth the hassle - hasn't London's experiences shown that CCTV cameras either get broken or people just move into the blind spot to do something they don't want seen?

Re:Nothing (period) is truly tamper-proof (3, Informative)

yog (19073) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079757)

Well, the London underground CCTV cameras helped them identify [wikipedia.org] the subway bombers and locate their helpers and arms stashes. I don't know if even this heinous a crime merits losing one's anonymity, but it proves that such technology can help the good guys when applied correctly.

As someone above pointed out, however, it's questionable that the Turkish government is benevolent enough to use this technology wisely and correctly. It's doubtful that any government can, actually.

But, if you were to ask me whether I would sacrifice my life and/or my loved ones in the name of freedom, I would probably say no, go ahead and mount the cameras. I'd rather live.

Re:Say what again? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079095)

It's not an oxymoron, moron.

Re:Say what again? (2, Interesting)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079149)

It's not an oxymoron, moron.

Hrm, I've heard that before. Let's go look it up. Hey, look!

1657, from Gk. oxymoron, noun use of neut. of oxymoros (adj.) "pointedly foolish," from oxys "sharp" (see acrid) + moros "stupid." Rhetorical figure by which contradictory terms are conjoined so as to give point to the statement or expression; the word itself is an illustration of the thing. Now often used loosely to mean "contradiction in terms." (emphasis added)

So, yes, it is an oxymoron, moron. Even if it is used as a rhetorical device (which is, after all, what it is to start with).

Re:Say what again? (1, Offtopic)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079359)

Tamper and proof are not contradictory terms. It's not an oxymoron. A grade schooler could tell you that.

Re:Say what again? (4, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079469)

Sorry, but that's an oxymoron. It may be tamper-resistant (and some wireless devices have pretty good tamper resistance), but nothing that can be controlled wirelessly is tamper proof.

I think the day they invent a wireless camera that is tamper resistant to a can of spray paint is quite impressive, too.

Re:Say what again? (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079721)

My vision is NOT impaired!

Re:Say what again? (1)

Anakron (899671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079953)

IR cameras?

Re:Say what again? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079473)

"idiot proof" doesn't mean what you think it does either. That's the thing about words.. they have meanings that are assigned by people who use them and cannot be deciphered by those "not in the know". The term tamper-proof is thrown around a lot but it has a meaning.. specifically that if you tamper with it, it'll stop working, so you can't tamper with it anymore, or even cause guys with guns to come stop you from tampering with it.

Of course, some people are of the belief that if you can't make something 100% secure that you shouldn't even try. I think that's retarded. If you can make it difficult to attack or make it obvious that someone has attacked it, you should.

Re:Say what again? (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 5 years ago | (#28080065)

The trouble is when you make something idiot proof, nature instantly evolves a bigger idiot!

Re:Say what again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079557)

Even if it is "tamper proof", they'll figure out other limitations once the system starts identifying people as Richard Nixon [wikipedia.org] .

Get your heads out of the sand! (3, Insightful)

aunt_jamima_sr (668433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079045)

It's inevitable that face-recognition technology, combined with the myriad of other technologies that already allow individuals to be tracked in their daily lives, will become pervasive enough to provide a "dense surveillance grid" to anybody with access to a big enough dataset. The era of anonymous living is quickly coming to an end. We'd be better off devising technological counter-measures than trying to hold back this tide with laws.

Re:Get your heads out of the sand! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079093)

I'd like to see a system that would work in the winter in Canada. Hard to track faces when they are all covered with scarves. If this became a big problem, I imagine a lot of people would simple cover their faces.

Re:Get your heads out of the sand! (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079273)

Then they simply outlaw covering your face.

Re:Get your heads out of the sand! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079581)

Well at that point you've got the perfect excuse to pull out the tried and true 'Won't someone think of the children?'. Sure it wouldn't give you much traction during the warm season but otherwise...

Re:Get your heads out of the sand! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079565)

I'd like to see a system that would work in the winter in Canada. Hard to track faces when they are all covered with scarves. If this became a big problem, I imagine a lot of people would simple cover their faces.

RFID national IDs and require everyone to carry them.

Technopression (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079051)

Wow- Every day we are making leaps and bounds in the fields of political oppression! It truly is a bright*I MEAN GRAY* future. Lets all get together and have a party! It would be )@(dwCARRIER LOST

Big Brother (1)

acrobg (1175095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079071)

Gives new meaning to the phrase "Big Brother is watching you."

Re:Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079143)

No it doesn't. It just has the same meaning x 15,000.

Re:Big Brother (2, Insightful)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079239)

Actually, this is exactly what "Big Brother" is all about... just one of the many rungs in the ladder.

Funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079083)

Who's funding this? Whose interest is this in? Will trials in this area go on to "benefit" other areas of the world?

Jeez... (3, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079109)

First Constantinople, then this. And I still want to know- why did Constantinople get the works?

Re:Jeez... (3, Funny)

mahsah (1340539) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079187)

That's nobody's business but the Turk's.

Re:Jeez... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079251)

That's nobody's business but the Turk's.

But they kept Salvation, not TSCC.
(Been a long time gone, TSCC...)

Re:Jeez... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079543)

They might be giants. But probably not.

Re:Jeez... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079405)

First Constantinople, then this. And I still want to know- why did Constantinople get the works?

It's nobody's business but the Turk's.

Take me back to Constantinople (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079641)

I don't know the specifics, but since the official name change came shortly after the collapse of the Turkish Empire, I'd guess that it had a lot to do with the ethnic cleansing that occurred at the time, which resulted in most of Turkey's Greek-speaking minority being forced to leave the country. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising that the city's Greek name got dropped from official usage, and replaced by a Turkish colloquialism ("Istanbul" is a Turkish corruption of a Greek phrase that could be roughly translated as "The city's that way") that had been widely used for centuries but previously had been unofficial.

Now, if I could just get that stupid song out of my head...

I am familiar with the software in question and... (5, Informative)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079125)

...the phrase 15,000 faces per second is just an example of sensationalistic journalism.

There is a minimum input size for the identification of a 'face' dependent upon aspect and the focal length of the camera in question (amongst many other factors such as radial distortion due to the lens, whether the lens is shielded, lighting, et cetera); ergo, the camera in question, at a given focal length, could contain a field of view large enough and the resolution is high enough to meet 15,000 x the absolute mimimal pixel input for a 'face.' The processing for systems of this type (although I don't recall if it applies to this particular system) is tileable and accounts for boundary conditions (a 'face' falls on up to 4 tiles); therefore, the processing is highly parallel in nature. Most likely they meant that with the maximum cameras in place, given their proposed resolutions and fields of view, if they had unlimited computing power they'd theoretically be able to process 15,000 faces each second.

Solving a computer vision problem like this turns out to be highly hierarchical; i.e. a large number of computers process the incoming camera frames for optical flow, multigaussian motion detecxtion, edge detection, --insert motion map generating algorithm here--, these motion maps are shuttled to a second tier of systems who perform basic pattern recognition in order to discern probable aspect, reference points, and other forms of meta data. This tier can, if given a profile, apply discriminatory filters to sort the wehat from the 'chaff.' These 'probables' are then passed to the highest tier of systems who process this (hopefully) much smaller number of 'faces' using things such as color-space normalization from the original image, the motion map, and all the associated method data that has been generated along the way.

Luckily, most of the large companies working in these sorts of field are capable of producing crude prototypes; but, oddly enough, quality software engineers tend to be scarce amongst security companies. It is the startups and smaller companies (such as those found in Israel) that approach these types of problems with the flexibility to lead to some seriously scary big brother stuff.

Re:I am familiar with the software in question and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079477)

Leaking confidential information, eh? Looks like you are unaware of our sister project which can identify 15,000 persons per second based on what they write. You are fired!

Re:I am familiar with the software in question and (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079531)

you have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:I am familiar with the software in question and (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079989)

I love comments like this. An AC who can't even bother to use capitals or punctuation states the post is rubbish with no justification or explanation as to why.

Re:I am familiar with the software in question and (1)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079785)

Just from the summary, it's 64 cameras which "report" (ie dump images) to a computing cluster which can process the 15,000 faces/second. I would agree that it's sensationalistic journalism, hell it got me to read the article, but I don't think it's merely a theoretical possibility. I would argue that the person with the first post had a more intelligent comment and with much less text.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079169)

Does it also have some high quality see-through-the-burkha scan tech?

Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079279)

"...growing electronic encroachment on privacy..."

There might be by other means, but this isn't one of them...It can't be a privacy issue if it's in a public place because IT'S PUBLIC.

Sunnah says: (5, Interesting)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079329)

Hadith - Sahih Bukhari 9:38.2, Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd As-Sa'idi

A man peeped through a hole in the door of Allah's Apostle's house and at that time, Allah's Apostle had a Midri (an iron comb or bar) with which he was rubbing his head. So when Allah's Apostle saw him, he said (to him), "If I had been sure that you were looking at me (through the door), I would have poked your eye with this (sharp iron bar)." Allah's Apostle added, "The asking for permission to enter has been enjoined so that one may not look unlawfully (at what there is in the house without the permission of its people)."

Hadith - Mishkat, Narrated AbuDharr Tirmidhi transmitted it, saying this is a gharib (weak chain of narration) tradition

Allah's Messenger said, "If anyone removes a curtain and looks into a house before receiving permission and sees anything in these which should not be seen, he has committed an offence which it is not lawful for him to commit. If a man confronted him when he looked in and put out his eye, I should not blame him. But if a man passes a door which has no curtain and is not shut and looks in, he has committed no sin, for the sin pertains only to the people inside."

Though those stories clearly refer to invading the privacy of one house, scholars universally extend to any prying.

Re:Sunnah says: (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079589)

I see your Sahih Bukhari and raise you Herodotos. The following is my paraphrase of the story of a man who peeped and ... became king [livius.org] . I reckon Herodotos trumps the Sahih al-Bukhari -- Turkey is a secular state, after all, while Herodotos was Anatolian, and writing about an episode in Anatolian history!

King Kandaules of Lydia had a particular favourite, a man named Gyges, and boasted to him of his wife's beauty. "You don't believe me?" said the king. "Well, here's a royal command: hide in my wife's bedroom behind the door and watch her as she undresses. Then you'll see her naked, and then you'll have to believe me."

Gyges was unwilling, but had to do as the king commanded. He hid as ordered and saw the queen naked. Then he tried to sneak out quietly without being seen. Unfortunately the queen noticed him departing, and began to make plans of her own.

The next morning Gyges was summoned to attend on the queen. "I saw you last night, Gyges," she said, "and you have two choices before you. Either die for having committed the crime of spying on me; or join with me, slay the king, and seize the throne yourself." So Gyges made his choice. At night he followed the queen into the king's bedroom, took the knife she gave him, and murdered the king.

In this way Gyges usurped the throne and married the queen.

Re:Sunnah says: (-1, Troll)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079631)

Turkey is a secular government with a religious population. This unnatural situation is mainly based on the influence of military whose leadership is dominated by local Jews (starting with the devil incarnate "Ataturk")

In shaa'a Allah, this situation won't last and an Islamic revolution will dump the last of Ataturkists into the trashbin of history.

These cameras won't be here long (-1, Troll)

Khyber (864651) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079331)

If my experience with Turkish people on Camfrog is any indicator, their computer software would be better tuned to try recognizing 15,000 penises per second. It seems like every time those people get in front of a camera pants come off and cocks come out.

Don't believe me go download Camfrog and enter most any room with a user count higher than 50.

This explains it! (3, Informative)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079341)

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night

Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way

So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks

Istanbul (Istanbul)
Istanbul (Istanbul)

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks

So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks

Istanbul

15000 faces/sec * 0.6% false positives... (4, Insightful)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079347)

0.6% seems like a good ballpark figure for false positives.This research paper [sciencedirect.com] claims 0.6%. This article [nytimes.com] says "Commercial facial recognition technology ... had a 1 percent false positive rate."

15000 faces/sec * 0.6% false positives = 90 false positives per second.

How many cops does it take to ask 90 people per second to come to the police station to answer a few questions? How many busses does it take to take 90 people per second to the police station?

Once they get there, if it takes five minutes to look at each suspect's papers, run them through the computer, and clear them, that police station waiting room will need to be big enough to hold 27,000 people.

Re:15000 faces/sec * 0.6% false positives... (1)

TechHSV (864317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079415)

I wouldn't think that they need to identify everyone in the crowd. But if 1 or 2 faces appear to be someone the might blow up the place, I'm pretty sure the police can make time to talk to them.

Re:15000 faces/sec * 0.6% false positives... (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079813)

Okay, so you're point was that commercial facial recognition technology has a high failure rate. That would have done without the crappy cops, buses and waiting room analogy. One can simply imagine a cop looking trough the false positives and discarding most of them.

Re:15000 faces/sec * 0.6% false positives... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079845)

Assuming there is actually 15000 people in front of the camera every sec, the people won't be on camera for a second and then suddenly 15000 new people appear... So it may take 20 seconds for you to walk on and then off camera, this is more than 20 times the system can check your face, probably from multiple angles. Both of your sources were comparing single images and came up with an 0.6%-1% false positive. Now run that 20 times and the chance lowers.

If the system did happen to get some false positives, why not use a slower and more accurate method to check again? If it still gives a false positive pass it on to a few monitors with people manually comparing the images.

Now, I wonder how it responds to people wearing hockey/ski masks...

Re:15000 faces/sec * 0.6% false positives... (1)

pgbrandao (1499895) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079893)

15000 faces recognised per second does not mean that's the figure upon which false positives are calculated.

Assume 10% are flagged as positive. (A staggering amount nonetheless.) Given 0.6% false positive rate, it would account for roughly 9 false positives per second.

Having said that, false positives are certainly a serious problem, causing hassle to innocent people.

Re:15000 faces/sec * 0.6% false positives... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079955)

It looks like the research paper actually had a 0.6% chance of indicating that an image without a face in had a face in it. Of course that's a fairly old piece of technology. OTOH, it also had a sample set of 1000 images. If you have a million possible faces it's much more likely that you'll get a false match.

Can't pull that many faces per second (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079355)

Anyone else think this is overkill? I can't pull 15,000 faces a second. Hell I don't think I know how to pull more than about 50 faces. Maybe 100 with variations. I can pull maybe 2 a second. Does this technology recognise middle fingers too?

I see the future . . . (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079369)

. . . and it is looking back at me.

15,000 face transplants. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079409)

So when this becomes ubiquitous will face transplants become more common?

Re:15,000 face transplants. (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079723)

Fashion Trends (1)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079459)

The Amazing Kreskin predicts a new fashion trend in headscarves and veils.

And yes, the Amazing Kreskin is well aware of the political climate in Turkey regarding scarves.

Real experiment (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079507)

I, for one, think that this actually will be rather intressting as an experiment. Imagine a city that implemented all of the new and integrity violating security technology. Well now we have a city that does it, and it will be intressting to see if it really leads to an 1984 big brother state, or will actually lead to superiour crime fighting. But at the same time, I, of course, feel sorry for the inhabitants of Istanbul. If this was to be implemented in my own town, I would fight it becouse it violates the right to not be investigated if you aren't a suspect, which, it automatically makes all citizens.

Re:Real experiment (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079559)

it will be intressting to see if it really leads to an 1984 big brother state, or will actually lead to superiour crime fighting.

The problem is, most real crimes are rare and occur mostly in uninhabited or lower-class areas. This isn't going to stop murders, rape, major theft, etc. all the while eroding privacy. The summary mentions pickpocketing, pickpocketing is hardly observable in a crowd of people, I doubt these cameras would be able to track down the crime itself. Then there is the problem of false matches. A lot of people look remarkably alike in facial structure but look different in other areas that may or may not be tracked by this camera. For example, skin, eye, hair, etc. can often be the difference between a false match or a correct one. Machines though either rely on this too much (hair can easily be changed making it useless) or not enough (two people looking totally different with side-by-side comparisons but may have same facial structure), then some things can change in different lighting environments, etc.

Re:Real experiment (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079697)

Pickpocketting may be hardly observeable, but the face of a known pickpocket working the area is a completely different story.

Re:Real experiment (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079743)

Despite theese drawbacks you mention, false matches aren't a problem as any match can be manually verified by a real human later, correct or not. That integrity-violating techonology can help tracking down known criminals and providing evidence for previous crimes, is very real. CCTV cameras aren't intended to stop crimes from happening, altrough the psycological effect of "maybe im surveilenced" could potentially lead to a reduction in crimes. It would be intresting to observe how the positive effects compare to the other risks, drawbacks and integrity violations.

It is normal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079551)

... in a country that tapped 70 thousand people in last 3 years: [link]http://euranet.eu/index.php/eng/Today/News/English-News/Turkey-taps-70-000-telephones[/link]

Great Sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28079567)

All links are pointing towards asspull journalism of pants on head retard propaganda sites.

Tinfoil face mask (1)

denshao2 (1515775) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079797)

A tinfoil face mask is the best protection.

1984 (3, Insightful)

wlt (1367531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079931)

paired together with computer-based/automated facial recognition, all this monitoring is going to make life really hard for dissidents eventually. at some point they're really going to be forced to live/hide out in the sewers, if they're going to remain in built-up areas.

considering Orwell was British (and the widespread deployment of CCTVs seems to have begun there), it makes sense that resistance to this pervasive monitoring began there, but even with these (generally fringe) groups, it's still happening. You've got to wonder if the reason the totalitarian regimes we've had crumble, is because the technology wasn't available yet. What happens when it IS available?

The main thing we learn from this article... (1)

stikves (127823) | more than 5 years ago | (#28079999)

The main point is, automated Google translation from Turkish is nowhere is good, and any respectable news source (i.e: slashdot) should not refer to it, unless they want to look funny.

As someone mentioned above: "they set us the bomb". But given the context of the article, probably "all your base are belong to us".

False Positives should be zero (1)

networkzombie (921324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28080019)

False Positives must be zero for this to be effective. If they could get a (very) high resolution system to do retina recognition rather than facial recognition the false positives would decrease as would the ability to fool the cameras with prosetics (groucho eyebrow implants and angelina jolie lips). You easily could get 15,000 people to look straight at a camera with a photo of tub girl or goatse. Just think of John Anderton walking into the Gap being greeted by an advert. Hello Mr. Yukkamoto.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>