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!

US Military Seeks Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the i'm-watching-all-the-time dept.

The Military 98

An anonymous reader writes "Interesting article on the upcoming efforts of the Department of Defense biometric capabilities and the ability to non-cooperatively tag, track, and locate individuals from a variety of military UAV platforms. Quoting Wired: "[The] Army just handed out a half-dozen contracts to firms to find faces from above, track targets, and even spot 'adversarial intent.' 'If this works out, we'll have the ability to track people persistently across wide areas', says Dr. Tim Faltemier, the lead biometrics researcher at Progeny Systems Corporation, which recently won one of the Army contracts. 'A guy can go under a bridge or inside a house. But when he comes out, we'll know it was the same guy that went in.'"

cancel ×

98 comments

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

Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37541800)

It's really scary!
Sounds like tortures or unlawful inspection.

Re:Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology (1)

codeAlDente (1643257) | more than 2 years ago | (#37544856)

Don't worry, they'll probably only use it to track people on the terrorist watch list.

Re:Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology (2)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37545128)

INSERT INTO terror_watch_list (select * from all_people);

Re:Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37545766)

You mean INSERT IGNORE or else you are going to end up with duplicates.

Re:Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37550524)

Having duplicates is not an issue here.
Checking twice is better that checking once.

Interesting (2)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37541802)

I worked on a facial recognition biometrics project in grad school as a research assistant, the leading platform we found to compete against was Pitt-patt and even it wasn't suitable for this application. This research area is flooded with research, and most people are not taking ground-breaking steps.

Re:Interesting (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542754)

Facial recognition is a difficult problem. Not just technically either. Too many people want this too much. They also don't appreciate all the difficulties. They're plums ripe for being taken in by scams.

Something I've come to appreciate is that comparisons are relatively easy. It's the representation that's the killer. Pixels are a completely brain dead way to represent an image. Very easy to do, but not useful for the kinds of comparisons needed for facial recognition.

Then there's the matter of scale. Can any facial recognition system handle millions of faces? Cops want to throw their entire photo collection of suspects into the system, so it can check anyone it sees against every suspect they have on file. Even if the system made an incorrect match in only 0.1% of the comparisons, that's still a match to a thousand of every million people in the database.

Re:Interesting (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543154)

I attended an interesting seminar about this, but I can't for the life of me remember who presented the material. It was essentially outlining the problem with "pixel-based" methods, since human beings and other animals don't even do this. It just happens to be the easiest way to get a machine to do things. The individual argued that pixel-based methods essentially have reached their limitations, and was instead arguing on more of an approach based on human perception through neurological research that I did not fully understand. He wrote some paper with another medical paper as reference about how the human brain actually decomposes faces into some "face space". They did actual experiments using human beings and modified pictures of people's faces to verify their theory that this "face-space" is how humans actually recognize faces.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37546498)

Pixel based methods don't work due to variances in light, shadowing, angles, etc. What you really need is a method that scans and build a 3 dimensional surface in realtime and is smart enough to deal with environmental variance.

The problem is comparing millions of scans to millions of other scans in a split second. I'm sure you can use databasing methods to narrow down the search considerably (Skin color, hair color, eye color, etc) but comparing multiple normals from multiple sources at once is a major PITB.

There are camera's that do a million frames a second; attaching that to a pole that moves back and forth and then to a 10 dozen racks of equipment to process the data is possible but you're talking a massive amount of datawork and some of it is going to be buggy. IMO it's a better idea to wait until the tech gets better then try; really there aren't enough flops to do this well.

Queue the posts... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37541828)

About privacy, blah, blah. And throw in something about patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Make sure to confuse the three.

And bonus points for a joke about the software involving Microsoft and other stupid diatribe.

Fucking fags.

Wow, really? (4, Funny)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 2 years ago | (#37541842)

'A guy can go under a bridge or inside a house. But when he comes out, we'll know it was the same guy that went in.'

I guess until they all just wear mask... Got to love multi-billion dollar systems that get defeated by a $3 piece of clothing.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

DrData99 (916924) | more than 2 years ago | (#37541884)

All wearing the same mask? That sure would be stealthy and make it easy to blend into a crowd!

My suggestion for a mask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542110)

All wearing the same mask? That sure would be stealthy and make it easy to blend into a crowd!

Shop here for that mask! [bing.com]

Re:My suggestion for a mask (1)

aenigmainc (739876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542346)

my burkha trumps your mask

Re:Wow, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542344)

You're right, they should go with bowler hats.

Re:Wow, really? (3, Funny)

Commontwist (2452418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543562)

Suddenly the market for my Darth Vader costume/portable air conditioning system hybrid opens up!

"This isn't the suspect you're looking for."

Re:Wow, really? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#37541924)

Yeah.... having a bunch of people wearing the same mask would be a wonderful way to blend in with the natives and make it difficult to figure out who you are and who you are associated with....

Re:Wow, really? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543368)

Depends on the mask. Pick the right one, and they'll just think you're from 4chan.

Re:Wow, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37549242)

the parrent never claimed they were wearing all the same mask, besides you can get quite realistic masks now.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37585366)

Oh my god, it's Nixon everywhere!

Re:Wow, really? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37541952)

A face is only one way to identify someone- one which humans use extensively. But not the only one. The way you walk, the way you hold yourself, your body size and shape, your voice, and a host of other attributes are all fairly unique, when you look closely enough. Combining a group of them makes it even more powerful.

Re:Wow, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37546228)

Rock in your shoe, rock in your shoe, pillows, head cold.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542008)

Although TFS specifically mentions faces, they could get trickier than just face recognition, e.g. gait analysis, etc. But those are easy to defeat too, possibly as simply as putting a rock in your shoe. (See Cory Doctorow's Little Brother.)

But if the thing's in an overhead UAV, a hat with a big floppy brim might work just as well as a mask. Or they could wear burkas.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

vuo (156163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543542)

Thinking of gait analysis, I couldn't not imagine future spy training being like this [youtube.com] , except in a burqa.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542014)

I guess until they all just wear mask...

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/259/1202666100024xy5.jpg [imageshack.us]

Re:Wow, really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542140)

http://www.google.com/search?q=burqa

Re:Wow, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542306)

Unless you were born wearing the mask, they can track when you put it on. Also the masks have RFID in them. That makes the job even easier. You'll have to make your own mask. Of course, they tracked the lot numbers on the yarn you purchased. You'll have to grown your own cotton. Ooops. They tracked the seed and fertilizer purchase too. In other words, massive surveillance and integration of data. Looking at your face as you walk around the city is just a small part of it. And yes, a bunch of guys wearing masks is attention getting. It's like the masks that Anonymous wear, and though the individuals are apparently anonymous (are they already being tracked with this kind of tech?) they certainly are drawing a lot of attention to themselves. That's exactly the opposite of what a group like Al Qaeda would want.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542604)

There are legitimate reasons for wearing ski masks in cold environments. I doubt it would attract suspicion there. Also, men disguised as women wearing Burqa would be hard to spot.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37585396)

You could, of course, just not rob banks.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542396)

Didn't you read Sherlock Holmes ?

It is not to track the face... it is to track the hands! They never change the hands....

Re:Wow, really? (2)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542904)

That also assumes other bio-metrics such as height, build, gait, etc are not analyzed to determine if the person is the same. There are more to biometrics than simply recognizing a face.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

radtea (464814) | more than 2 years ago | (#37545484)

That also assumes other bio-metrics such as height, build, gait, etc are not analyzed to determine if the person is the same.

None of which can be defeated by anything as simple as a mask, like wearing a fat suit and/or platform shoes...

That said, I've done a lot of work in various pattern analysis applications and have to wonder if it isn't my moral duty to separate the security-industrial complex from some of the American taxpayer's money...

Re:Wow, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37546058)

Got to love multi-billion dollar systems that get defeated by a $3 piece of clothing and a free rock in his shoe.

Updated that for you.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555838)

And if you can follow multiple people, how many people will be walking around with a mask, a rock in their shoe, a body suit and high heels? It could perhaps make it harder to do, but it isn't exactly practical to do that all the time and that assumes that the target knows what measures are being used and can adequately compensate for all of them. Also, once the system is built, it requires many $3 masks and rocks and body suits and heels, etc and adds considerable extra time costs to evade. It makes life more difficult and raises the possible results of failing.

You also assume that there couldn't be other possible benefits to the imaging and analysis capabilities that are developed. Military tech has a way of having real world benefits in the civilian world, and better, faster image processing will have many positive (and yes, some negative) benefits. Is it in and of itself a compelling technology to try to drive terrorists broke? No, but that doesn't make it a technology that isn't worth pursuing to advance the state of the art and give some military benefits along the way.

Re:Wow, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37543098)

Keep in mind that you can't wear masks in groups of 2 or more in New York.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37546514)

I'll bet you that there are hundreds of people -- if not thousands -- breaking that law every day in NYC [googleusercontent.com] (although this picture was not taken in NYC, the principle still applies). While the primary intention of this "mask" is not to hide your identity, it does -- or at least, can -- serve that purpose as well.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543384)

This is a line of thinking that would declare bullets to be useless in modern combat because they could be defeated by a scrap of metal.

Re:Wow, really? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543426)

Unless they do skeletal tracking and can tell by your gait who you are.

And at least criminals would have to change clothing every 10 minutes to evade detection. And if you see someone walking down the street with a mask on... time for a friendly close inspection on foot.

Expect a lot of soldiers to pay double attention to anyone wearing a mask.

Re:Wow, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37543656)

I'm guessing it's not based on face but rather on height, weight, walking gait, etc. But who knows, I certainly didn't RTFM.

Re:Wow, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37544780)

It really is as bad as it sounds. They are talking about causal relationships between events. Soon to be read in a Al Jazeera: "Drones killing our families. Accident or mischief? Can the Republic help ordinary Muhammad?"

Re:Wow, really? (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 2 years ago | (#37546104)

In other news, sales of wigs, false beards, hats, and makeup soared for completely unknown reasons. Not to mention sales of pirate outfits and stuffed parrots,

Re:Wow, really? (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | more than 2 years ago | (#37549644)

Problem: it is now illegal to wear a mask in public in some durisdictions. So it is either pay now, or pay later.

Re:Wow, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37567066)

Yep, as long as you change your iris, gate, and ears at the same time.

Margin of error... (1)

I Read Good (2348294) | more than 2 years ago | (#37541958)

Scary question: at what level of certainty do they let the guy piloting the UAV push hellfire missile button based on this platform's "identification" of an enemy?

Re:Margin of error... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542036)

Remember, they're working on UAVs that don't need a guy piloting it or pushing fire buttons. Hope that reassures you.

Re:Margin of error... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542068)

"at what level of certainty do they let the guy piloting the UAV push hellfire missile button based on this platform's "identification" of an enemy?"

The usual. If it's a wedding, there must be one or two terrorists among the guests, so it's OK to fire away.

Re:Margin of error... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542372)

Heck, just carrying a camera seems to be cause enough.
http://www.collateralmurder.com/

I'm going to assume that in the future, wedding photographers will have a life expectancy less than a Viet Nam Era Second Lieutenant.

Re:Margin of error... (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542988)

Scary question: at what level of certainty do they let the guy piloting the UAV push hellfire missile button based on this platform's "identification" of an enemy?

I think the idea of this is "higher then currently employed". For example, an analyst tracking a target that walks under a bridge and out the other side might be confident enough to give the go-ahead but assisted by a software bio-metrics package the analyst can be warned that based on height calculations the guy that just came out on the other side of the bridge isn't the target being tracked unless he just grew 3 inches.

Re:Margin of error... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37547208)

At this point in time, biometric data alone is not sufficient for targetting. There needs to be additional intel.

Re:Margin of error... (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37585418)

I use Cyrix, you insensitive clod!

Trust us (4, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37541978)

It's for military combat only. We'd never use it on our own people*

* unless those people are assembled in mass numbers representing a potential for threatening movement or when regarded by law enforcement as a public safety concern or causing a public disturbance.

Re:Trust us (4, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542150)

No special clause, the military will use it only for military purpose, but given that police are already begging for(and getting) UAVs of their own and the contractors that develop the tech are profit driven it will take approximately 20 minutes before you find it in use against the local populance everywhere.

Re:Trust us (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542954)

Wall Street Protests?

Re:Trust us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37547898)

What Wall Street protests?
I've seen nothing on the TV about this. Surely it must be on one of Murdoch's channels. After all, they are totally unbiased and represent the people.

Re:Trust us (2)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543088)

but given that police are already begging for(and getting) UAVs of their own.

We don't need any exotic new scenarios to be sure it will be used against us; a hundred years ago the National Guard made it clear by turning machine guns on striking workers. They'll never shy away from violence, whether it's overseas or right here at home. Anything to keep the profits coming and above all, the system intact.
Once they feel threatened, it only takes a minute for them to show their true face.

Re:Trust us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37543932)

Who's "they" exactly? I kind of get you're point but, for all its problems, I'm not nearly as afraid of the National Guard/etc as I would have been back then. If feeling threatened was all it took, than I can think of some crime bosses who should have been sniped a long time ago. Heck, a lot of people should be dead. Assange is still alive, isn't he? Maybe part of it is a) it'd be REALLY obvious who did it and b) the US government isn't so ballsy as to embarrass the UK by assassinating someone on their soil but still...

Yeah, the military has done questionable things. Individual members, in particular, have done some pretty screwed up stuff (anyone else remember that soldier throwing the puppy off the cliff?) but I think I have a better chance of being shot because the drug dealers in my city couldn't hit the broad side of a barn than because the gov was annoyed that I went on strike.

Having said that, all of this new tracking stuff is creepy. Hell, it even makes the Unabomber sound a little less crazy. Not by much, and he was/is still an evil SOB, but maybe not as paranoid as originally thought.

Re:Trust us (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37544336)

a hundred years ago the National Guard made it clear by turning machine guns on striking workers

And 41 years ago, they turned the guns on unarmed students.

If you consider non-lethal weapons, then you can look at the videos earlier this week of police pepper-spraying people for the crime of standing on the sidewalk looking like a protester.

Re:Trust us (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | more than 2 years ago | (#37550490)

My other post got deleted...but I will continue in my same "negative" stance. This is a technology that treats humans as targets, and some regimes around the world, every citizen is a potential target. Target for what? Here in Canada or the US it might be a day in prison but in other countries where US military technology has been exported it will be used for nefarious purposes. In other countries, and there are lots of them, the technology will be used for other purposes. And I am including cell-phone monitoring and electronic eavesdropping as "military technology". We only have to look to Tunisia or Egypt where the governments spied using technology which the US invented. This is why I have a huge problem with massive spending on military technology which in order to be profitable, must be profitable, as opposed to massive government spending on green technology or other technology that can be exported as well, with a far better human outcome.

Re:Trust us (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543758)

The British police are already using photographs and videos taken during the 2011 London riots to identify suspects. I don't really have a problem with that in this particular case; it seems to me that you don't have any sort of right to anonymity if you're in a public place, rioting and looting.

But the potential for abuse of this technology is just chilling. It can be used to identify rioters... but to a repressive regime, people assembling in public to protest the regime would be classified as "rioters". What would happen if, say, Iran were to buy this software and then install cameras by the thousands across Tehran and other major cities? Iran already has a national identity card system, so they would just have to digitize those photos and then they could create a database that would allow them to identify political protestors. Any time people assembled, the regime could run the faces against the database, and then show up at your door and arrest you afterwards. The next day, the next week, the next year... it would have a tremendous chilling effect on protests. For that matter, there's no reason they couldn't now go back and search through TV footage and photographs of the 2009-2010 protests and identify people from those images. It makes you wonder- would people have been as willing to turn out and demonstrate in Egypt and Tunisia if there had been cameras and a system to identify protestors? You have some protection when you're in a large group of protestors, but this technology would mean that the government could simply come and get you later, at their leisure, late at night at your house.

Re:Trust us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37545976)

Meanwhile American law prohibits protesters from wearing masks, I didn't know that one until the Wall St protests.

They are also confiscating loudspeakers and arresting people for occupying the street. Essentially if you don't like that your taxes, which should have gone to serve you in the form of public services, are used to bail billionaires out of their own schemes, what are your options?

Well you can protest, as long as you remain non violent, even while you are being brutalised, as long as you don't make much noise, don't disrupt traffic, hurt sales of local business or hide your identity. Geez who comes up with these rules? The rules are stacked against you America.

Re:Trust us (1)

travbrad (622986) | more than 2 years ago | (#37549642)

Yep, and the whole concept of a "free speech zone" is just insane. We won't restrict your free speech...unless it's here, here, or here. Hiding protesters in places where almost no one sees them isn't how the TPM restrictions are supposed to work, but it's often the case.

Re:Trust us (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37585444)

Rules are stacked against you? Seriously? All you have to do is stay the fuck out of other people's way. The US guarantees the freedom of speech, not the freedom of fucking up traffic or getting in other people's way, nor does it guarantee you the platform of your choosing.

As for this BS of bailing out billionaires, name one.

Re:Trust us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37544608)

If there's someone evil in charge, it doesn't matter whether or not they can recognize you. They can just shoot you. And if it turns out it was actually someone else, well, that's unfortunate, but everyone makes mistakes, and these measures have made us safer, and so on, dont'cha know.

Re:Trust us (1)

0xG (712423) | more than 2 years ago | (#37544656)

SSDD.
First it will be used on "the enemy".
Then on "dangerous criminals".
Then on "senior citizens, children, and others at risk". For their own good, of course.
Then...

Re:Trust us (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37585454)

To what end?

Faceless men (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542012)

Fun times ahead for the Faceless Men!

Valar Morghulis.

Asymmetric make-up will finally take off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542058)

The only difficulty is that you are limited to Black& (titanium) white for optimum effectiveness.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/04/makeup_to_fool.html [schneier.com]

Never enough. (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542102)

When it comes to the military industrial complex, there is never enough money that can be dumped down the hole.

And from the right-wing lovers of the constitution, and haters of government spending: Complete silent obedience.

Re:Never enough. (2, Insightful)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542296)

When it comes to the military industrial complex, there is never enough money that can be dumped down the hole. And from the right-wing lovers of the constitution, and haters of government spending: Complete silent obedience.

Sad but true. "Keep the government out of our medicare." "Don't tax the job creators."

But any time something is spun towards the big bad terrorists, they'll be silent when we dump billions to accomplish nothing and even bend over and spread them (literally).

Re:Never enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37546540)

When it comes to the military industrial complex, there is never enough money that can be dumped down the hole.
And from the right-wing lovers of the constitution, and haters of government spending: Complete silent obedience.

When it comes to the military industrial complex, there is never enough money that can be dumped down the hole.
And from the right-wing / left-wing status quo : Complete silent obedience.

Fixed that for you. If you want real change, you are going to have to vote for a different political party. I would suggest Libertarian.

Re:Never enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37548796)

As one of those "lovers of the constitution and hater of government spending" I assure you I am neither happy with the financial implications nor the oppresive ones either.

Pick up the Can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37542262)

Now put it in the trash.

Anyone reminded of the little flying robots in HL2?

Live Underground (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542332)

I guess we will all have to live underground to avoid detection from Big Brother! I believe North Korea already have underground cities.

Re:Live Underground (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37585462)

"North Korea have"? How many North Koreas are there?

walk without rhythm it won't attract the worm (1)

cs668 (89484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542548)

see subject!

I think I know where this is going (2)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 2 years ago | (#37542932)

They use a pagerank like algorithm to analyze the person's social network (links in an out) and the person's actions (page content) and then compute a "TerrorScore" much like a google "Page Rank". They then knock these guys off one by one with UAVs. The whole thing runs unattended. Nobody knows exactly why people get killed, that's just the algorithm. They can't turn it off either unfortunately, because then the terrorists would win! Quick, somebody write a screenplay :).

Black Helecopters (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543008)

Tie this story in with the faster than light story, and you get alien anal probes!

You have to be happy that the probes don't use lasers (remember, sharks).

Re:Black Helecopters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37543160)

You have to be happy that the probes don't use lasers (remember, sharks).

that would be one way to deal with lost hampsters.

I miss the good-ole days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37543224)

when the commies were interested in tracking their citizens, and they were evil because of it. Today it is my country that wants to track me, and make sure I have my papers (real-id) on me at all times. The innocent get rounded up first (because they are docile and easy to tax and catch). The real criminals are the last to go, as they are dangerous and powerful.

-Help fight homelessness, Send everyone to prison 2012. Just because the guy next to you looks innocent, doesn't mean he is. He could be a pedophile, a terrorist, or a thought criminal (probably a thought criminal). He deserves incarceration. The only way to keep society safe, and protect the children is to send everyone to prison. There they can be monitored, and protected.

Re:I miss the good-ole days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37545794)

Criticizing the government distracts the government from doing it's job! It compromises national security! It helps terrorists!
If you criticize the government, you're a terrorist! Report your neighbors if they display signs or bumper stickers in support of political parties other than the president's!

Re:I miss the good-ole days (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37585476)

They tracked their citizens to keep bomb-throwing dissidents down, not for the lulz.

A terrorists wet dream. (1)

Commontwist (2452418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543488)

A programming glitch swaps the 'Dangerous/Auto Kill' tags in the hunter/killer drone targeting databases using these technologies with the 'Officers/Senators' ones.

Technology, making more high tech ways for idiots on your side to kill you.

The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37543702)

Has anybody asked WHY the USA need this technology?

Re:The real question (1)

PoopCat (2218334) | more than 2 years ago | (#37546538)

Because USA!! USA!! USA!! That's why.

Lame text to defeat the lameness filter. Slashdot, make friends with acronyms wouldaplzjusthisoncekthxbai?

I'd love to see this go FOSS (3, Interesting)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543778)

I've been thinking about just sticking some cameras on my property and creating a database of every face they see and when, and every license plate that drives by.

I figure everybody else is doing it, so why not private individuals.

Post it all in one big free database online, and now everybody knows where everybody lives and works and what they're doing. Maybe the solution to privacy is for nobody to have it. Since, right now the only thing I can be sure of is that ordinary people don't have it. Equality would keep everybody more honest. Social norms/etc would just have to change.

Re:I'd love to see this go FOSS (1)

mr.mctibbs (1546773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37553182)

This is actually the plot behind the pilot of Aeon Flux. The story takes place in Bregna, a country recently taken over in a coup and turned into an authoritarian society where everyone is under constant observation, including the power elites. Of course, the leaders and the resistance both find ways of avoiding the monitoring to advance their agendas.

Hey Dr. Tim Faltemier, (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543838)

Can we start with tracking you and your family first? If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, right?

Adversarial Intent, really? (1)

vawarayer (1035638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37545732)

....and even spot 'adversarial intent....

Two Iraqi farmers minding their own business :

  • - Abdul, Abdul, look there's a f*ing drone up there again, watching us.
  • - Damm drones... they have no right to be here.

KABBOOOOM! Flying crops, cows, and Iraqi farmers' body parts.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37546326)

Sounds like another case where we want machines to do what we don't trust ourselves to do (or more likely, don't want to pay someone to do). Why is this a problem? I refer you to Bostwick's Law (which I just made up). Intelligence cannot create intelligence equal to or greater than itself.

And no, procreation doesn't count. Hey! Is this why gods always create lesser beings for company instead of creating other gods?

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong... (1)

kcitren (72383) | more than 2 years ago | (#37547298)

Intelligence cannot create intelligence equal to or greater than itself.

Have you never heard of intelligence fusion? Or even basic probability, statistics, and confidence modeling? There's a whole science based around enhancing the confidence of uncertain information.

Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37546720)

I just feel scared. Real scared. Times of free movement (who gives a fuck about suspicion anyway) are coming to an end.

There Are A Few Small Difficulties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37547304)

There Are A Few Small Difficulties to be overcome. But if we uniformify clothing, as was done in the Middle Ages, ban bhurkas, head-scarves, turbans and hats, maybe ban clothing altogether, and pass laws requiring each individual to look up every 500 steps, failing to do so being grounds to presume the person a terrorist, we should be able to bring overhead-view feature recognition up to at least 20% accurate.

Accuracy above that will require ordering individuals to adopt and maintain an individual and characteristic locomotion, a uniform individual stride and swing. We'll have to banish actors and make acting schools and training programs "terrorist training" programs...

Wigs and toupés will have to go. We can ban them for security. After all, what is a wig but another form of head-scarf?

How about a security directive requiring everyone shave their heads? We can require tattoos on the shaved heads, different patterns for different cultures, nationalities, affiliations... Maybe country-codes and numbers... Have everyone looking like California Highway Patrol cars, their numbers readable by sat-cams or dronecams...

We will have to deal with college pranksters who will laundry-marker alter the head-tattoos on their drunk friends' heads, so the friend will wake up to find himself being buzzed by confused drones trying to make out if he's wanted. A couple of strikes taking out the kegs at their parties will knock the fun out of that prank...

Whatever, with big enough DoD contracts we can work out any detail.

peace (1)

crowlogic.net (1392587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37549058)

This is actually quite disturbing, I hope it is used for good only but we need to rid the wielders of power of the propensity to commit violence. Come to think of it, I take great offense to Obama's comment "we will not eliminate violence in our lifetimes". I think he may have shot himself in the foot with that one.. words have power, if you are not bright enough to see how the world could become non-violent then get out of the way for people who can.

Troll Detection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37549118)

A guy can go under a bridge...

If only they could deploy their troll detection technology to the internet...

So If You Remove Your Brain Implant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37549132)

an embedded IED will blow your face off?

Sounds reasonable to me. Can't imagine why anyone would object.

I work in this field, for a contract holder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37557770)

I work for one of the contract holders developing these biometric surveillance systems. Basically, everything and anything that can be done today is being done today by someone or some group - including all the terrorist scare-the-people crap, plain old dumb spying on innocents by people who shouldn't, as well as the development of every technology that shows any promise at all for pretty much anything. Technology is crazy cheap to develop. The only thing one can do is be knowledgeable about technology, and if possible pursue the areas that trouble you in the hopes of having some, any, influence on such technology's use. I participate by developing biometric surveillance technology personally. We, as a species, are out of control and I have no idea where this is going to end. I suspect it not going to be pretty...

Check for New 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>