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!

Tampa's Cameras Not Just For The Superbowl

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the invasive-technology dept.

Privacy 195

kcurtis points to this CNN story about using cameras to scan people walking in the streets and matching them to mug shots. I'm no privacy freak, but this would be a bit unnerving. What if I happen to look like some murderer or DMCA offender?" This is the same technology that Superbowl attendees were unknowingly subjected to as well. Not to worry -- you're considered innocent until matched by face-recognition software. Yep, this is a duplicate story - naughty Tim!

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

Why is this a big deal? (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 13 years ago | (#114371)

Posted by polar_bear:

Frankly, I don't see the big problem here. Video cameras in public places - emphasis on *public* - where you have no expectation of privacy in the first place.

A worst-case scenario is that they'd have a false positive and stop someone, then let them go.

Hell, they ought to put cameras in a lot more public places - think how hesitant muggers, rapists or other criminals would be if there was a decent chance that they'd be videotaped in the act. It's kind of hard to beat a conviction if you have video-taped evidence.

I'd be a lot more concerned if they were using audio snooping devices instead of video. If you're walking down the street with a collegue you have no reasonable expectation that you won't be seen and possibly photographed or videotaped - which is only useful to apprehend wanted criminals or to capture evidence of a crime in progress. On the other hand, audio surveilence would gather data that could be used to gather other kinds of evidence and I would think it would violate someone's 5th amendment rights.

As long as video surveilence doesn't intrude into areas where you'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy - a hotel room, dressing rooms, bathrooms, your residence, your vehicle - I don't see the issue.

While we're at it, I think we should require elected officials to wear a wire and video camera 24/7 while they're in office... maybe this would get rid of some of the corruption in office.

It's very simple... (1)

volkris (694) | more than 13 years ago | (#114376)

If you are mistaken for someone else and detained, you go and sue for wrongful arrest. It's not like you're filing a frivilous lawsuit, you're charging them for your time.

If you have to spend a night in a holding cell, you sue them for a couple of thousand. Not bad for a night's work, eh?

I'm in favor of all these cameras. Go look back to the slashdot story from long ago titled "Good riddance privacy" or somehting like that.

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 13 years ago | (#114379)

stop being the person the cops are looking for, and it'll all work out.

Unless the cops in question are corrupt, and they're looking for me because I have the evidence to prove it. Or perhaps just because I have said they MIGHT be corrupt, or that I don't like the cameras.

That's the problem with systems like that. One day they are looking for violent criminals, the next they're everywhere. The day after that, they're looking for people who actually think the constitution is a good idea and that it should be strictly upheld.

By then, it's too late. It's all part of checks and balances. It seems that for some reason, law enforcement is increasingly hostile to those checks and balances.

The Eye.. (2)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 13 years ago | (#114384)

Big Brother is definatly here. Man, this starts to get scary. They take pictures of your licence plate if your speeding. They watch you in malls in case your shoplifting. Now, they're scanning your face, 'in case your an escaped mass murderer'.

All of this stuff with the best of intentions, 'just in case'.

So much for a free country.
From
Live free or die
To
Live Recorded or be Deported

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (2)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 13 years ago | (#114387)

Hmmm... If I'm doing nothing wrong, why do I care?

If I am doing nothing wrong, then I am a law-abiding citizen and I fully object to the cameras just watching me to make sure. As a law-abiding citizen, they have no ethical right to follow me around just because it's possible that I may do something illegal. There's a big difference between being seen while walking down the street and having yourself recorded for later review.

If you are a good citizen, then it is defying one of the basic concepts our nation was founded upon - You are to be considered innocent, unless proven guilty. If I am being tracked by a camera, I am NOT being considered innocent.

Tell ya what, these days, the average politicians and the average cops scare me more than the average criminals.

Why the government needs to violate our rights. (1)

alpha (8839) | more than 13 years ago | (#114389)


Because of the immensly successful recycling of stories, why not recycle comments [slashdot.org] from past stories as well?

As we move closer to the world of Orwell's 1984, remember why this country is failing (and sadly the story is the same around the world). Japan is a rare example of a successful, non-violent, low-crime nation, but more on that later.

The US has one of the highest crime rates in the world (except for some African and South American countries.) The reason for this is simple, but not exactly "politically correct". If you weigh the crime rate averages together for the population groups in the US, it makes perfect sense.

  • The low crime rate of the Asian/Japanese-Americans make up a small percent of the population.
  • The low European-American crime rate is about the same as that of the native people in most countries in Europe.
  • The African-American crime-rate(1) is orders of magnitude higher, consistent with the extreme crime rate the sub-Saharan African countries.
  • The same is true for the Hispanic crime rate, which mirrors that seen in Mexico and the other South American countries of origin.
Instead of facing these simple facts, the liberals go to great lengths trying to disarm honest citizens whose families have been law abiding for hundreds of years in this country. Since gun ownership is already illegal for criminals, there is no reason to expect felons will obey new laws if guns are outlawed for everybody.

Politicians continue promoting the flooding of America with 3rd world immigration that compound the problem further.

The final result of this is still years off, but the US will be no different from The Roman Empire, Egypt, India, Bosnia, South Africa, Israel, Zimbabwe, The English Empire, The Soviet Union or anywhere else where multi-cultural empires have existed. The end result is always the same: The empire's government disintegrates when the "ruling" class becomes too heavily outnumbered, and tribal warfare breaks out.

We're already seeing the beginnings of this in Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Seattle and Washington and other cities around the country.

Measures such as the government cameras (and electronic passports you must carry on your person, and other future protocols) are becoming increasingly necessary while politicians and police scramble to hold the scattering pieces of America together.

The constitution was intended to govern a country populated by the people who founded the nation. Jefferson and the others did not predict that America would turn into a multi-cultural empire (like the British one they has just left), where a legal system based on freedom and liberty cannot work.

So back to where i started, why is Japan so much more successful than us? Because they are not a multi-cultural empire. Japan is a homogeneous nation, made up of 99.8% native Japanese, basically an extended family, with a high average intelligence, and very similar to each other. They do not allow any significant immigration, and as a result, they will continue to prosper while America and Europe deteriorate into tribal civil wars sometime later in the 21st century.

(1) The rate at which Blacks commit murder is thirteen times that of Whites; Rape and assault, ten times. These figures, as given by the F.B.I. reports, vary somewhat from year to year but fairly represent the trend for the past decade. [Source: the FBI uniform crime statistics reports, and Harris, Marvin, Why Nothing Works. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY]

If you are going to flame me, do not use words such as "racist", "bigot" and "hater" that you have learned to repeat after the TV. Reply with your own opinions that you can back-up in a debate, not immature name-calling.

What if? (2)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 13 years ago | (#114391)

What if I happen to look like some murderer or DMCA offender?

The exact same thing happens to you that would happen to you now if a cop walking by thought you looked like some murderer.

Only, less often, since the software is more accurate.

A human being would be told you were a possible match, and would then look at the picture and see for himself if he though you were a match. If he did, a cop (or more than one) would stop you and ask you to produce ID. If your ID were convincing, they'd send you on your way with a brief apology. Exactly like happens now.

If you couldn't produce ID, or they thought it was fake, you'd be arrested, exactly like happens now.

Like it or not, under the law as it stands now, looking like somebody who committed a crime IS legally probable cause for being detained.

Standing in public is probable cause for being looked at, too. How could it be otherwise?

You know, we occasionally have glowing articles about cool technology that will allow us to have "mediated reality" where everybody who wants one can see the world through a camera, processing and editting it to your tastes.

I guess we're all OK with that as long as cops aren't allowed to use it, right?

Got a webcam? Are you getting everybody who passes by to sign a waiver, allowing you to put their image on the Internet? Do you require a statement from anybody who logs on to view it, certifiying that they're not a law enforcement officer?

Privacy is something very important, that you have when you're in private. When you're in public, you give up quite a bit of your privacy, necessarily. The right not to be seen is among those small sacrifices.

-

saw this a couple days ago... (1)

geojaz (11691) | more than 13 years ago | (#114394)

hmm

Re:saw this a couple days ago... (1)

geojaz (11691) | more than 13 years ago | (#114395)

Ah - links to the previous story which links to the LA Times article... at least they know they are reposting this time...

Re:This is going too far. (2)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 13 years ago | (#114396)

When did "ACLU" become a dirty word?

When the conservative right realized they couldn't burn blasphemous books. When the liberal left realized they couldn't ban speech.

That's when ACLU became a dirty word.

What do you guys do over there anyway? (2)

The Dev (19322) | more than 13 years ago | (#114399)

First none of the sysadmins read /. at 2am, now the editors don't read it either. If you guys don't read your own shit, why should we?

Re:Camera vs. Cop (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 13 years ago | (#114400)

If you look like the guy on the wanted poster (actually look like him, not just the same race), then the cop has probable cause to check your ID. Walking down a street is not probable cause.

-B

Isn't it ironic... (1)

Mdog (25508) | more than 13 years ago | (#114401)

I find it very ironic that geeks are among the most afraid of the implications of technology. We made the recognition software, yet we hate it the most and believe in it the least.

...dontchathink?

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

chill (34294) | more than 13 years ago | (#114403)

I think this is lost by most slashdotters. If you're doing nothing wrong, why do you care! These are on the streets, there could easily be undercover cops wandering around looking for evil doers, why is a camera that much different? It's not like they're in your house.

Why? Because gov't (and people in general) have a history of abusing this sort of thing. How long before you read a story about a cop using it to track his girlfriend/wife?

How about the one where a cop tells her friend she saw the friend's husband with another woman and they went into a condo together? He wasn't doing anything illegal. Maybe he was just walking and bumped into a timeshare salesman? He wanted the free cruise you get just for listening to the pitch. Gonna surprise his wife. (It happens in all over Florida's coast.) In a jealous rage, she blows him away.

Finally, consider that Florida has a "Government In The Sunshine" law. This means that most likely the video footage can be deemed public record and should be available to anyone who wants it. (Hmmm, where was my daughter last night at midnight.)

The potential for abuse outweighs the potential benefits.

Oh, yeah. The "Right To Privacy" is enshrined in the Florida Constitution (Article I, Section 23). You can't "give it up".


--
Charles E. Hill

This is going too far. (2)

ff (35380) | more than 13 years ago | (#114404)

When did "ACLU" become a dirty word? How did defending the bill of rights come to be out of fashion? Did I miss the spaceship that took all the rational people away?

Seriously -- practices like this are becoming far too acceptable by the general public. Why? Does it start at home? Are we as a society raising drones who refuse to question authority or take an active role in something as running this city/county/country (i.e. voting)?

Ok. Stop the ride. I want to get off. It's finally starting to make me sick.

Why do I get a feeling of deja-vu... (2)

cyberdonny (46462) | more than 13 years ago | (#114409)

Yeah, that's right [slashdot.org] . The story has been posted less than 30 hours ago...

Time to get your face tatooed... (2)

interiot (50685) | more than 13 years ago | (#114410)

so you're not mistaken for a similar looking criminal.
--

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 13 years ago | (#114412)

> But as soon as you decide to live in a society that needs [emphasis poster's] these sorts of measures in order to keep track of the criminals you should realise that this is not a bad thing.

(Nice troll, ya hooked me ;)

But are we a society that "needs" such measures?

You've failed to establish that. So have, IMHO, the politicians. "It's for the chillllldrun" and "if it saves one chyyyuld" does not constitute logical argument.

Re:My mistaken identity nightmare (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 13 years ago | (#114413)

> [...the cameras mistook me for Antonio Banderas, who had an outstanding warrant...] "Yeah, yeah. Your perfectly formed abdominal muscles won't save you now, Antonio."
> It took two weeks to straighten it out. Ladies and gentlemen, Big Brother is here.

I had perfectly-formed abs once, too. You wouldn't believe the amount of beer and chicken wings it took to get rid of 'em.

(I got this body lifting weights, 12 ounces at a time...)

Re:Prior story and Legitimate Applications (2)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 13 years ago | (#114414)

(What the hell, Slashdot's reposting stories, I'll repost replies... this one to a poster who tried to consolidate all the "great works" in one thread)...

> These are the books I've seen listed on privacy violations so far on the discussions here. I figured I'd put em all in one place so their easier to find. George Orwell, "1984." Franz Kafka, "The Trial." William G. Staples, "The Culture of Surveillance: Discipline and Social Control in the United States." David Brin, "The Transparent Society." If there are any other ones, feel free to add.

Are you nuts? Do you have any idea what our politicians will do if they read all those books at once? Any idea how many ideas it'll give 'em? (Don't fall back on the fact that most of 'em are sub-literate, they got aides and interns to read the books for them.)

Shit, man, we had to pass antiterrorism laws to keep "The Anarchist's Cookbook" out of the hands of kids, and we had to pass that antidrug law to keep textfiles on methamphetamine manufacturing out of the hands of would-be-crankheads...

Now, thanks to this guy who posted a list of all those books in the last Slashdot article, I gotta get off my ass and lobby for a new law - this time to keep books like "1984" out of the hands of politicians. They use these works of fiction are like .HOWTO files, damnit!

You think I'm gonna trust a politician or a lawyer with a copy of Fahrenheit 451? (I'll see every copy of that book incinerated before I ever let a Congresscritter get his slimy little tentacles on it! :-)

Instant Karma! (1)

corby (56462) | more than 13 years ago | (#114415)

Just have to copy-and-paste all the smart [slashdot.org] comments from the previous story, and I'll have my +1 mod bonus in no time!

Thanks, Michael!

Re:Time to get your face tatooed... (2)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 13 years ago | (#114416)

Yeah, I was thinking that tatooing something like "Poor Impulse Control" across my forhead might make me look more like a non-criminal...

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 13 years ago | (#114419)

The same way the adding of cameras to convenience stores meant that their clerks now feel safe, right? Or that cameras in banks and supermarkets mean that those don't get robbed, either? Or, for another astonishingly successful bit of legislation, how there are not shootings in D.C. thanks to the complete prohibition on handguns?

Naah. It *may* help nail the perps long after they pick up what's left of you, but that's about it.

Re:Privacy in the public ? HELLO?!? (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 13 years ago | (#114420)

Camera footage can be recorded -- or forge in a way that still makes it look reliable. Memories aren't nearly as good in that respect, and are far harder to abuse.

get out the trusty ol "daisy" (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 13 years ago | (#114422)

don't bitch about it or worry.take matters into your own hands as a free people.get out that old pellet gun,drop some oil in the appropriate places,pump it up,load it and take out big brothers eyes.hey they got only so much money to spend on this crap.embarrass them,keep yourselves free cause the government sure as hell isnt.
***********

Human recognition misfires too... (1)

Paul Neubauer (86753) | more than 13 years ago | (#114424)

...but cameras can't ask.

I happened to be shopping last night and the girl at the checkout couldn't get over that I had purchased a comic book. After a bit it came clear, she mistook me for a minister that has the misfortune of looking like me.

This was just a harmless incident and cleared up quickly. Now, imagine I knew of this situation and set out to cause confusion. (No, I don't plan on it. I have better things to do with my time). It could take a while to get it sorted out.

Poor defendants in US get free (but busy) lawyer (2)

vaxer (91962) | more than 13 years ago | (#114428)

Yes, a defendant in a US criminal case has the right to legal representation regardless of money. If you can't afford to hire a lawyer, the court will appoint a Public Defender.

The down side is that Public Defenders' offices are almost always overburdened. Accused poor people get some semblance of legal help, and it can be quite useful, but it's nothing like what a rich defendant can pay for.

It Can't Happen Here (2)

bill.sheehan (93856) | more than 13 years ago | (#114429)

I've seen several slashdotters insist that this technology only invades the privacy of criminals and sex offenders. The innocent have nothing to fear.

Two things bother me about this stance. The first is that, while the apparatus of the state is currently aimed towards criminals, there's nothing to prevent it from being aimed at other "undesirables." It would take no time at all. The second is that while solid citizens may have nothing to fear, what about all us hollow citizens? Are any of us so scrupulously observant of the law? Or does the sight of flashing blue in the rear view mirror or the sound of the word "audit" give you a chill?

I received a traffic ticket in the mail once. I felt as though I'd been anonymously denounced to the authorities. It's one thing when the cop pulls you over; it's something much more disturbing when you're told that you were observed violating the law by persons or machines unknown.

Are you paranoid if they're really out to get you?

FaceIt press releases (2)

Argy (95352) | more than 13 years ago | (#114430)

I just read through some of Visionics' press releases [shareholder.com] . They had gross revenues of $7 million last quarter, though that includes their more established business of fingerprint and other identification products.

In addition to Tampa's installation and the oft-cited London setup, Mexico is using the FaceIt software to prevent duplicate voter registrations (wonder how they handle identical twins), and Iceland's Keflavik Airport is installing it to nab crooks and false asylum seekers. A number of law enforcement agencies are also using the software to analyze/compare still images rather than live video.

Analyzing still images of known and suspected criminals sounds less controversial. But once agencies start comparing victim-description sketches to government photo databases of non-criminals (drivers licenses, passport photos, university IDs, etc.), many of the same issues will arise.

My guess is that the American public will ultimately value the benefits of real-time public face analysis more than the costs and risks. It will always have detractors, and there will be false arrests and discrimination cases. (E.g., higher rates of false IDs of certain minority groups seem likely if the groups have higher-than-average proportions of convicts. Or some poor criminal-look-alike will be questioned by police every time he tries to fill his gas tank, buy a Big Mac, or get money from the ATM.). But after a couple fugitive child molestors are picked up scouting the local mall or subway, I bet supporters will outnumber opponents.

Want to test your first amendment rights? (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 13 years ago | (#114432)

Go to Ybor City and flip off one of the surveillence cameras. Trigger your stopwatch and see how short of a time it takes Tampa's cops to swarm in on you when you suddenly "resemble" someone they're looking for.

-Legion

Re:If you're jumped by the cops... (1)

CombatWombat (98078) | more than 13 years ago | (#114433)

Maybe. According to this site [lawinfo.com] the arrest must be in 'bad faith' (i.e. they arrest you without any probable cause that you have commited, or are in the process of commiting,a crime).

Some additional interesting (and slightly depressing) reading can be found here [libertarianrock.com] .

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

drnomad (99183) | more than 13 years ago | (#114434)

I think I'll go for camera bashing...

You know what, I /do/ have something to hide, that all those little embarrasing secrets everybody has.
--

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 13 years ago | (#114436)

"If you have nothing to hide then hide nothing. If it weren't for a criminal minority then this sort of thing would never arise. Target those who this is aimed at, not the people who are actually trying to work at making the streets a little safer."

I think this is lost by most slashdotters. If you're doing nothing wrong, why do you care! These are on the streets, there could easily be undercover cops wandering around looking for evil doers, why is a camera that much different? It's not like they're in your house.


--

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 13 years ago | (#114437)

I knew this would come up...

These cameras are out in the public, not in my house.. If you're out and about wandering down the road ANYBODY can see what you're doing from their windows, cars driving by, people walking buy. They could be snapping pictures.. Hell, I'd rather KNOW that they have cameras then have a cop up in a window taking snapshots and not telling anybody...

What you describe is them coming into my HOME, that is a TOTALLY different ballgame.


--

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 13 years ago | (#114438)

Here's basically what it comes down to:

Do you have a right to privacy in a public place?


--

Re:Privacy (1)

rprycem (113790) | more than 13 years ago | (#114440)

So cameras if there are on every street corner how is this not "folowing me around?" Sounds like harassment to me. I would hate to look like a some bad dude and get stopped twice a day.

Big Brother is Watching You

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

rprycem (113790) | more than 13 years ago | (#114441)

While you may give you your right, I hereby retain my right to privacy. There are a million reasons I would like to keep it.

one is that I wouldn't want to have the MPAA ask for a public record to be destoryed (the police video) after I walk about town with my "Got DeCSS" shirt on. I mean someone might just use the FoIA and request that video and use the code on my back to make a player so that they could watch DVD's on their Commodore PET and then the MPAA would be out big $$$ from this unlicensed player. Then the MPAA would obviously go out of business from this loss of revenue. Then how would AWESOME movies like the Mummy retures ever come to a "theater near you"

Haiku for a duplicate article (3)

bons (119581) | more than 13 years ago | (#114446)

Slashdot Deja Vu
Back by popular demand
Play it again Sam [slashdot.org]

Re:The Public should have access (1)

ibpooks (127372) | more than 13 years ago | (#114450)

Oh yeah, great idea.

How about we start a fire-engine mud bog circuit next.

Re:Face recognition software... (1)

ibpooks (127372) | more than 13 years ago | (#114451)

What do you suppose the error rate of eye witness identification is? Of police line ups? Of wanted posters? Of mugshots on COPS or America's Most Wanted?

I can't imagine that face recognition software does any worse of a job than some person calling the police saying they saw that axe-murder from America's Most Wanted jogging down Main St.

Furthermore this is simply a data gathering tool, not an automatic prison sentence. So you might look like a known felon, and you get spotted on a camera. A police officer walks up to you and asks for some identification. If you aren't the felon, end of story. If you are, then you're going back to jail where you belong.

Re:How did we let this happen? (1)

Ksop (132400) | more than 13 years ago | (#114453)

Maybe we didnt fight back because some of us would like to have the serial killer sitting next to us at the super bowl or at the park arrested.
What are you afraid of? Its not like you own the stadium, or maybe you do? If you dont want your picture taken that badly stay at home, or move to Canada, or wear a bag over your head.
If by some miricle if you match the face of a serial killer and the software flags you, its not like your going to jail for 5 years before they figure it out. It will take a minute or less to show your id and be on your way. The cops will report it as a false alarm and the system will learn that you are not a serial killer. Isnt that a good thing?
Smile!

I didn't reply to yesterday's version of this... (2)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 13 years ago | (#114454)

I wonder if Florida, or perhaps the county surrounding Tampa, is one of those jurisdictions where the correctioal system has been privatized. This technology is an excellent marketing tool for a privately owned prison system.

In an unrelated event... (1)

Saint Mitchell (144618) | more than 13 years ago | (#114456)

Stores are selling out of Richard Nixon masks.

Privacy in the public ? HELLO?!? (1)

cmilkosky (145648) | more than 13 years ago | (#114457)

Look everyone - by definition - you're not going to get privacy in the public. It's no different than police officers walking around public places - scanning for criminals. What's the difference?

Of course, this would be a privacy issue if people were using cameras to look at my home. But public places - I think you're stretching it a bit when you say its a privacy issue.

Personally, I'd be glad if the cameras were up on say the boardwalk in my area or the street corners. If they help law enforcement agencies protect my family from criminals, then that's fine with me.

A tale of two cities (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 13 years ago | (#114458)

It's not a questions of WHETHER the cameras come, it's a question of WHEN.

What we need to do is asses and understand what the implications of this advance are, and deal with it INTELLIGENTLY. [wired.com]

This does NOT spell the end of the world.

But it IS the end of an era.

Putting it together (1)

coulbc (149394) | more than 13 years ago | (#114459)

The real problems start when they start putting this with other information they have gathered. Suppose camera1 and location "X" records you at 10:354am. At 11:15am you are recorded by Camera9 at location "Y". A quick check of the system reveals that it is 27 miles from "X" to "Y". However, following the speed limit means you should arrive no earlier than 11:28am. Automatic sppeding ticket! OR your drivers license say you way 130 pds. The software syas you weigh 180 pds. Sell that info to a weight loss center to defray the surveillance cost. Automatic SPAM.

Don't be a criminal. (1)

simetra (155655) | more than 13 years ago | (#114460)

Problem solved. If you're out in public, you're putting yourself out there anyway, you're up for grabs. Should we tell police not to look at your face as you walk down the street, lest your rights be violated? This is dumb. Like the Barretta theme song says, If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime, yeah, don't do it.

Face recognition software... (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 13 years ago | (#114468)

What's the chance of error for this face-recognition software? That's what I wanna know. If its very minimal, then I don't care...

--
"That's one small step for man..." "STOP POKING ME!!!!"

Masked Avengers everywhere (1)

rEWDBOi (169608) | more than 13 years ago | (#114469)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Get pictures of the most sought-for criminals, have masks cut out of them and have a big party in the streets of Tampa Bay. Wonder if you could fool the cameras that way. Believe me, I'd be glad to join you guys, but living in Germoney, I probabely wouldn't get there in time. "Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things" - D. N. Adams

All it Takes (1)

Ho-Lee-Cow! (173978) | more than 13 years ago | (#114471)

All it really takes to stop/slow this is for a few high profile cases and lawsuits to come of it. I mean, until we get real tort reform in the US, you'll be able sue anyone for anything at anytime, and police departments aren't immune to high damages civil suits and class actions by people who get wrongly hauled in because of this technology. The Supreme Court is also coming down on the side of the Constitution in a number of important instances, so law enforcement generally doesn't have a free hand for longer than it takes a court to rule on it.

Re:Why the government needs to violate our rights. (2)

firewort (180062) | more than 13 years ago | (#114478)

You may or may not be any of the names you've asked people to avoid calling you, but one thing you are, in my opinion, is a revisionist historian.

America as a nation has always consisted on immigrants, be they from Germany, England, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, France, and lands further out.

To suggest that America was not intended to be a multi-cultural empire like the British Empire is to ignore where the first citizens of the colonies immigrated from. New Amsterdam, the Pennsylvania Dutch, German farmers in the south, and later, the French fur traders all mean nothing to you? Or they're all "okay" because at least they're European?

It's interesting that you mention Israel- I know you mention it in the supposition that America will fall siege to a conflict similar to the one that nation suffers. More interesting is that many Israelis jokingly consider their nation to be the 51st state. Many Israelis were Germans, Britons, and Americans who emigrated to Israel. Many Americans who emigrate to Israel return home to America frequently. They don't bring conflict with them, they bring economic prosperity... and isn't that what the current bent of our government seems to be? Bowing to every corporate desire in the name of economic prosperity?

The reason why there's such internal strife in America can be boiled down and over-simplified.
Over-simplification says, "Immigrants, as late as the turn of the century, felt a need to belong to America, and not preserve and cherish the old ways with a staunch refusal to integrate the American way into their life. Yes, the traditions were kept and revered, but not at the expense of refusing to participate in the American way of life. Now, we have people worshipping at the altar of multi-culturalism, rejecting America."

the second thing is, "We have lost our innocence as a people. JFK was the first president to make an effort to stop the spread of arms and give the impression of making an effort for the civil rights movement. His death, MLK's death, Malcolm X's death, RFK's death, are all big question marks that have taken innocence and faith in the government, from the people. With no faith, there is no trust. With no trust, there is no respect for authority. With no respect for authority, there is no way for authority to lead other than by force. Use of force proves the conclusions that lead to the loss of faith."

Thanks for citing the source you used for the FBI statistics. However, those who have lost all faith in the government would say that those statistics are as hokey as the institution that published them, the same institution that killed Randy Weaver's family and the branch dividians. Whatever their crimes were, I don't believe they needed killin'.

A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close

Re:Why is this a big deal? (2)

firewort (180062) | more than 13 years ago | (#114479)

Expectation of privacy is a funny amorphous thing-

I may not have an expectation of privacy in a public place, but I also don't expect that my actions or presence will be recorded in near-irrefutable evidence to be used against me at some later time. How long will these records be stored? What's to prevent a compilation tape from surfacing that's been edited creatively to show me in my worst light?

And knowing that video can be altered (see substitution of ads in ballparks and times square, in place of competitor's ads..) why is it that my video footage will not be admitted as credible evidence, but the government's will?

A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close

that's news (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 13 years ago | (#114483)

they've been doing that here in big brother(the UK) land for ages, there also thinking about putting speed cameras in cats eyes. for those of you who dont live in the most cctv populated country. Speed cameras are devices beside the road that use radar to find out how fast you are going, and take a picture of licence plate if your going faster than the speed limit, there quite often hidden in bushes and placed around bends or places where people are lightly to be going fast or overtaking. there thinking of miniturising them and placing then in the cats eyes in the middle of the road. i don't know anyone (except me of course) that hasn't been caught by a speed camera at some time.

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 13 years ago | (#114484)

why not let the FBI look though your wifes underwear drawer?

Well, I do, for a decent fee. For my better customers (no drooling over the items therein, no sticky fingers), I try to ensure there's an occasional racy lace item or two.

Tom.

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

ThomK (194273) | more than 13 years ago | (#114485)

By that rationale, If you have nothing to hide in your house why not let the FBI look though your wifes underwear drawer?

accurate (1)

KeyShark (195825) | more than 13 years ago | (#114487)

Does anyone know about how accurate this system really is?

My mistaken identity nightmare (3)

David Wong (199703) | more than 13 years ago | (#114490)

I was at the super bowl, and passed by their face-scanning cameras. Unfortunately for me, there was an arrest warrant out at the time for Antonio Banderas. And sure enough, when the system scanned my mug, a red flag popped up.

"Come with us, Antonio," said the security guys as they hustled me away, my shirt falling open to reveal my sweatily perfect pectoral muscles.

"You've got the wrong guy!" I pleaded, helplessly.

"Yeah, yeah. Your perfectly formed abdominal muscles won't save you now, Antonio."

It took two weeks to straighten it out. Ladies and gentlemen, Big Brother is here.


I give up my 'right' to privacy (2)

onion2k (203094) | more than 13 years ago | (#114491)

I hereby give up my right to privacy. I don't want to be a 'private' citizen anymore. I want the police to follow my face about the town. I want cameras on every corner, and clipper chips in everything.

A little harsh, perhaps. Extreme? Certainly. Safer to go out on to the streets and have fun with my friends in a stressfree and easy atompshere without having to worry about being mugged/murdered/beaten up/terrorised? Definately.

Yes, you have a right to be a private person. yes, you have a right to do what you want. But as soon as you decide to live in a society that needs these sorts of measures in order to keep track of the criminals you should realise that this is not a bad thing. If you have nothing to hide then hide nothing. If it weren't for a criminal minority then this sort of thing would never arise. Target those who this is aimed at, not the people who are actually trying to work at making the streets a little safer.

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (2)

onion2k (203094) | more than 13 years ago | (#114492)

The fact the camera techology has been developed and deployed is a fairly good indicator of our need. Necessity is still the mother of invention. And while there is a small criminal element aiming to reduce my quality of life I will always be willing to do what I can to help catch the nasty b******ds. My face going through some pattern matching software is a small price to pay if it catches a someone who I might be the next victim of.

The Public should have access (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 13 years ago | (#114493)

Everyone should have access to these cameras (public bought, used in public areas), to keep the cops honest....

Jaysyn

*laugh* (1)

Starbreeze (209787) | more than 13 years ago | (#114494)

What's funny is this isn't the first time they've reposted... there was a Science article not too far back that was also posted twice by two different editors. Pay attention guys :P

Yes, we do. (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 13 years ago | (#114495)

In the US, there are publicly funded systems for those in criminal or civil court who can't afford a lawyer. You are *given* a lawyer, abiet a stressed one, if you are charged with a crime. The gov't also has money earmarked for other types of layers.

And adding on to that, lawyers are required to have a certain number of hours per year "pro bono."

And on top of THAT, there are non-governmental nonprofits (UCLA) that will take up legal cases.

Camera vs. Cop (2)

Dievs (218528) | more than 13 years ago | (#114497)

How is such scanning different from cops checking ID's of people who look like the 'wanted' posters the cops have seen ?

What if... (1)

zerosignal (222614) | more than 13 years ago | (#114498)

...we all wore t-shirts with pictures of the FBI's most wanted [fbi.gov] - could it tell the difference between a face and a picture of a face?

umm (1)

panic911 (224370) | more than 13 years ago | (#114499)

this story was posted already, yesterday.

Anyways, I think this is f'ed up. Seems like a huge violation of our privacy.

Already posted (1)

Traicovn (226034) | more than 13 years ago | (#114500)

Yo, you guys reposted this story you know!
Anyway, here's my two cents. I'm not sure I like this. I don't mind the police checking me against there memory, but the camera is out of line. I read an article where they had cameras all over the UK and had some sort of software that could trace you and tell you who everybody was in a crowd. While I don't like being tracked by companies, I don't like the government constantly checking me as I walk down the street.

If my employer uses cameras I don't have a problem, they own the country and stuff like that. In the US I own the country as a citizen, so unless I can view the camera images at the same time in live feed as the government and know exactly what they are doing I don't think it should be allowed. There should be some website where I can look at the cameras for entertainment.

And what about a kinda weird cop getting into this. You could conceivably be 'stalked' or 'profiled' by a bad police officer. Anyway.
Just my two cents.

[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]

How did we let this happen? (2)

hillct (230132) | more than 13 years ago | (#114501)

OK, so I can understand trafic monitoring cameras, and such things; I'm actually quite impressed with the trafic monitoring systems around New York City that flash trafic information about congenstion around upcoming exits, on bilboards for motorists.

The problem with that technology, of course, is it was the slippery slope that paved the way for this garbage. Here's the next great idea in internet Kiosks:

See if you look like a criminal... Only $2
With a little camera and some facial recognition software, you could make a fortune. Find out if it's safe to walk the streets without risk of being picked up for looking like a criminal, and at a vary affordable price too...

Now, in all seriousness: The question becomes, how did we ever let it get to this point? You can't blame politions for this. Blame the public. There clearly wasn't enough of a public outcry to force the removal of cameras after the superbowl story came to light. By-the-way, were there ever numbers released as to the arrests made as a result of video footage made at the superbowl?

Realistically, if you're a anted criminal you probably don't ant to go to such a high profile event regardless of weather there are caeras there snapping pictures of everyone. This is of course the justification that such video comperisons are acceptable.

When arguing against such invasions of provacy, and other issues such as the right to free speech (semi-unrelated) organizations who are politically active in this way, can't draw a line. They have to argue in favor of all degrees of privacy, and all forms of speech. This is where opposing lobyists get their fodder for retaliation, saying such chings as 'The Electronic Frontiers Foundation supports pornography' and thinds of this nature. The claim on it's face may be true, but it's only because if you get in the business of drawing lines in the sand (especially in this area where the terrain changes so rapidly) you will spend all your time re-drawing these lines - time we can't afford to waste on things other than the central issue.

This is our own fault, for not fighting back more vigorously when we started down this slippery slope.

--CTH


--

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

JumpyMonkey (235723) | more than 13 years ago | (#114503)

Actually, I have lots of things to hide - and none of it is criminal behavior. Don't I have the right to simple anonymity in my daily life? Why must all my transactions and interactions be scrutinized and dissected by the government so that urban paranoids can sleep at night?

Why don't you write up a list of where you are going to be every day and deliver it to the police so that they will know you are not out commiting crimes? Oh, thats right. It's ME you want them to watch, isn't it?

It's not your privacy you're giving up - it's mine.

There is a reason (1)

thelexx (237096) | more than 13 years ago | (#114504)

why most /.'ers will appear to have this point 'lost' on them, and it is because we were taught in high-school civics that "I'm not guilty, so why should I worry?" is a position of ignorance that lead down a path of erosion of rights for everyone in the name of /insert cause here/.

LEXX

Re:Camera vs. Cop (1)

URSpider (242674) | more than 13 years ago | (#114507)

Let's see -- there are 36 cameras in this one district, which we can assume is a few square blocks. If Tampa instead posted 36 uniformed police officers in this area, all standing on the street corners, each with a camera snapping pictures of EVERYONE who walked by, and periodically thumbing through a folder of mug shots, don't you think people would get a little creeped out? Let's take it a step further -- perform an ID on all the faces, then build up a time-stamp database. Cross-reference that with driver's license photos at the DMV. Cross-reference that with records from electronic toll payments. Isn't that just the same as having a police officer follow you around everywhere you go, every time you leave your house? That's not unconstitutional, is it?

Why thinking people _do_ care.... (5)

Carter Butts (245607) | more than 13 years ago | (#114509)

I think this is lost by most slashdotters. If you're doing nothing wrong, why do you care!

Actually, what seems to be "lost" on many Slashdotters is the fact that the Enforcers of Law (TM) themselves are neither infallible nor even necessarily law abiding. Sure, you may be doing nothing "wrong" (though, with the Christian Coalition and friends in power, this is an increasingly large category of activities), but that doesn't mean you won't get falsely accused because:

  • You happen to have accidentally matched someone in the database;
  • Someone doesn't like your opinions/manner of dress/color of skin and wants you punished;
  • Local business owners (or other interests) think that people like you are Undersirables, and are exerting influence to have you harassed (possibly illegally);
  • Some corrupt agent of the state has decided that you look like a good mark for harrassment (e.g., for lucrative property forfeiture, blackmail, etc.);
  • You have accidentally violated some ancient law which is still on the books (of which there are hundreds), and today someone just happened to decide to start enforcing it;
  • etc.

The history of the United States (not to mention other nations) is filled with examples of people who had "done nothing wrong," but who were mercilessly hounded by the state. (I recommend books such as It Did Happen Here or Lies My Teacher Told Me for the uninitiated.) If you install a system such as this, in which people's identities are continuously "searched" by law enforcement authorities, then -- mark my words -- you have created a situation in which substantial abuse is all but inevitable. By a combination of technical error, maliciousness, bigotry, corruption, and good, old-fashioned incompetence, you're going to get a large number of substantively innocent people who will be harassed, charged, and jailed (or worse) because of this kind of omnipresent enforcement system.

Those who consider such concerns to be "paranoia" are in dire need of a history lesson. Alas, I fear that they will suffer precisely the society that they deserve....

-Carter

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

ishark (245915) | more than 13 years ago | (#114510)

I hereby give up my right to privacy. I don't want to be a 'private' citizen anymore. I want the police to follow my face about the town. I want cameras on every corner, and clipper chips in everything.
[....]

You know what? I agree on the idea of total, utter complete elimination of privacy, based on the approach "I have nothing to hide". Of course, there's a small minor problem. If the society doesn't want me to hide my affairs, I'd very much like to check the affairs of other people. Take for example the military: they suck a lot of money! I want access to all facilities to see that they are not spending *my* money to play Quake. And politicians? Full access to all bank records! We don't want anyone hiding money, do we? Ah, Swiss banks should be outlawed.

And don't forget Monsanto/whoever else laboratories, they say they do nice stuff, but I want to check out: I want access to all laboratories and data, just to make sure they're not boing evil things.

I suppose that if I were to propose such an "exteme" approach no-one would agree....I wonder why......maybe at times it's actually *shudder* useful to hide something?

Very shortsighted (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 13 years ago | (#114511)

Target those who this is aimed at, not the people who are actually trying to work at making the streets a little safer.

That's the most unbelievably shortsighted response I could imagine. Yes, let's put more people in jail for holding a chemical in their pocket. The majority of prisoners are now non-violent drug offenders. I don't believe posessing any substance should be illegal in the first place. So why would I want people constantly comparing my face with pictures of people known for posessing drugs? I don't carry them. But I don't want to be badgered by police for looking like someone they know carries around drugs.

And what you're missing is that this is only the beginning. Did you read or watch 1984? Yes, it's an extreme example. But it's a vision of what can happen after government starts watching everything you do. As another example, what if someone took pictures of all balding men walking down the street. Those pictures are compared to a database and a marketing department targets those people to be bombarded with advertising because they're balding.

How do you think opressive governments obtain and retain their power? Only through control of the population. Hitler used mass propaganda, Castro uses military force and propaganda. Big Brother will use technology to control thoughts on a personal level.

I have a constitutional right to be "secure in my persons." Well excuse this law-abiding and moral citizen for feeling insecure with 37 cameras facing him as we walks down the street.

---

If you're jumped by the cops... (2)

imipak (254310) | more than 13 years ago | (#114513)

...and you're NOT the $bad_person they think you are, can you sue for wrongful arrest, malicious proesecution or whatever? We have such a law in the UK; surely the US, where it seems people sue if they catch a cold, has something like that on the statute books?

Oh yeah - another question - do you have a scheme like legal aid [legal-aid.gov.uk] ? (that is, state funded legal cases where there's a reasonable case to answer)? I always wondered. If not, what prevents the police from using arrests as a form of harrassment of those too poor to afford the cost of a legal case?
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (2)

someone247356 (255644) | more than 13 years ago | (#114514)

Ugg...

Why do people always seem to bring up the old,
"If you have nothing to hide then hide nothing." non argument?

People should have the right to be left alone.

Privacy != criminality

The only people who want you to have no privacy don't want anyone to know what they are doing.

Why is it that everyone wears cloths, lives in non-transparent houses, uses envelopes instead of postcards? Perhaps it's because we are all criminals. After all, using onion2k's logic, what are we trying to hide?

Luckilly it isn't a crime to want/have some measure of privacy, well at least not yet.

Not having privacy is the mark of a police state, not a republic/democracy. Yes some people will commit crimes, but our lives shouldn't revolve around making it easier to be a cop.

This looks strikingly similar to... (1)

BodyCount07 (260070) | more than 13 years ago | (#114517)

this [slashdot.org] story

My comments: (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 13 years ago | (#114518)

see past slashdot article.

mod: -1 redundant

monitor-terrorism (2)

Proud Geek (260376) | more than 13 years ago | (#114519)

Sounds like it's time for me to dig out my BB Gun of Camera Slaying.

Eek, no! (1)

crcerror (266157) | more than 13 years ago | (#114520)

I don't like the cops having access to these and I certainly wouldn't want to see what some random shmoe could do with them given enough time.

What if some thief could manage to know you're normal schedule via these camera's and knew when the perfect time was to rob your house? And I won't even go into the whole stalker issue, that would open a whole new world for them to keep track of their victims. I don't think anyone should have access to these cameras. They're just creepy :-)

Re:The Public should have access (2)

XMyth (266414) | more than 13 years ago | (#114521)

yea and cop cars too...and their guns

Ever heard the phrase... (2)

Popocatepetl (267000) | more than 13 years ago | (#114522)

Give 'em an inch and they take a mile.

This is why privacy "freaks" are necessary. At least they believe strongly enough about something to fight for it.

Psychotechnic League... (1)

merlin_jim (302773) | more than 13 years ago | (#114523)

Does anyone remember this book? It's one where this type of technology is highly used... as a result, polite custom is to wear a featureless plastic mask while outside.

If I was a citizen of Tampa, I have a feeling that I would do this as a form of civil disobedience. If I ever have occasion to be in Tampa, you can be sure that I will!

Prior story and Legitimate Applications (1)

pgpckt (312866) | more than 13 years ago | (#114525)

First, with respect, this story has already been discussed in a slashdot thread from just Sunday. See the prior story at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/01/034822 6&mode=thread [slashdot.org]

As the CNN article notes, this technology is currently being used in Europe and US Federal buildings. The reason that this is important is because it is the first time such technology has been used on the public at large. For those who are concerned with false positives as the /. editor who posted this story alluded to, humans confirm the computers matches before the person is confronted. I remember seeing on a TLC presentation or the like that this software has an 80% accuracy rate. For now, that means a human element has to be present.

I think having this on the streets of Florida is a little worry, but I think that having this in airport would be very valuable. Such technology might prevent people trying to flee the United States to escape judgement, and screen for terrorist groups.

I am a little scared too. 1984 is my favorite book ever. I once read it 96 (yes, 96) times in 24 weeks...seriously. The fear of technological darkness is not to be swept under the rug. The way I see it, just about every technology that has good uses can be used for evil too. I have not seen any government abuse this type of technology yet, so I will have to say its ok for now. The technology used well has too many useful purposes to be cast aside.

For the other side of the coin, the worry is the government is being legit now, but later they will abuse the technology. Such people worry that once the technology is in place, it will be too late. For those who disagree with me that this technology has legitimate and useful purposes on those grounds, I have complete respect.

What happens... (1)

Nurgster (320198) | more than 13 years ago | (#114526)

I'm no privacy freak, but this would be a bit unnerving. What if I happen to look like some murderer or DMCA offender?

Probably the same thing that would happen if the criminals face was on "Americas Most Wanted" or you were stopped by the police in the street, they'd confirm your identity then let you go. No biggy.

Mistaken Identity (2)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 13 years ago | (#114532)

I wouldn't necessarily be frightened over the mistaken-identity problem.

#1 -- I think those face-rec algorithms are far better than humans at actually recognizing someone. I know they are better than I am. I would bet they are better than the police officers, too.

#2 -- If you're that close of a match, you might have just discovered that you have a long lost twin wandering the streets.

#3 -- Remember that most of the photos they are looking for are probably known criminals with prior records. If they arrested you, an identity check would probably clear your name. I think the worst you'd have to endure would be a couple hours behind bars while they verified your identity. Plus, you'd have the grounds for a really cool lawsuit (false arrest). IANAL!!

#4 -- Face Rec is a really cool geek technology! Most /.'ers would be proud to say they were mistakenly fingered by it. :)

Now, if they start using the system to look for people based on "artist sketches" or something stupid like that, I'd say we have real cause for worry.

GreyPoopon
--

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

TikkaMassala (411282) | more than 13 years ago | (#114533)

Spot on. I say this to all those who don't want to be scanned by these cameras - stop being the person the cops are looking for, and it'll all work out.

They're expecting to live in a free society, with no police, and no violence. Are they mad? Probably...

A case of mistaken identity (1)

Tye_Informer (412478) | more than 13 years ago | (#114535)

The cops are already "checking IDs" of people that resemble a known criminal. This is how they do it.

A couple days ago my neighbor is driving to McDonalds with his 4 year old son. He notices a police officer serveral car lenghts back that seems to be following him. He is not concerned because 1) He hasn't done anything wrong, 2) he's not in his own car anyway, and 3) the guy he borrowed the car from is visiting from clear across the country. (Car from Florida, police in California). A short distance later he sees another 3 police cars blocking off a cross street. Again he is not worried for the listed reasons, plus he remembers that a baby was found abandoned near here a few weeks ago, perhaps they are still investigating.

He pulls into the McDonalds, buys the Happy Meal for his son and is pulling out when a police officer pulls the "COPS Maneuver" and squeals in in front of the car as 3 other cars block him from behind. There are now 5 police cars with at least 7 officers "Checking his ID". They have guns drawn and 2 of them are screaming at him to put his hands out of his car. (Try this, in rush hour traffic try listening to two people screaming almost the same thing at almost the same time, it's hard to understand)

He gets out of the car, follows the instructions, (puts hands behind his head, backs up several feet, slides sideways a few feet, gets handcuffed, etc.) all the time he is trying to explain to the officers that his 4 year old is in the car. Every officer looked extremely mad and the 4 year old part didn't phase them.

After placing him in the back of their car and calling in, checking things (read 30+ minutes) they get the report back that this isn't their guy.

The explanation, his license plate number (from Florida) matched a Washington plate number for one of the FBIs 10 most wanted. Wait, no, that wasn't it, the license had expired, no, wait, no that actually doesn't happen for another couple of weeks, well we're sorry.

He calls back a few hours later so that someone can explain to his 4 year old that he is not a "BAD Guy" and receives the best explanation. He matched the physical description of the suspect. This means some officer saw him, from 3 blocks away, through tinted glass (legal in Florida, not in CA), with a baseball cap on and decided to "Check his ID".

The hilarious part, the criminal has an arabic sounding name, my neighbor is a 300 pound white guy.

Simply checking the ID is more complicated than it sounds.

Privacy (1)

Genoaschild (452944) | more than 13 years ago | (#114543)

If you're on a public street, the police and anybody who wants to can take your picture unless they go too far like start following you around and then it becomes harassment. Anyway, this is constitutional but their should be some law against it for government use.
----

Re:Privacy (1)

Genoaschild (452944) | more than 13 years ago | (#114544)

It is harassment in a way. If they are specifically aiming the camera at you and just following you around, it is not true harassment. None the less, the people have the right to privacy. The question on my mind is, is it constitutional to just leave freedom of privacy within our own homes(except with court orders) or should it also include public streets owned by the government. I think we should include privacy for the public streets because they are maintained by the government and they should know as little as possible about our personal lives. Since we our innocent until proven guilty, they shouldn't just put cameras on the street, wait for us to commit a crime and give them the evidence to prove we are guilty. On the other side, cameras in private stores and government businesses should have cameras "only in locations necessary" to discourage and stop crime.
----

Great! (1)

Blue Aardvark House (452974) | more than 13 years ago | (#114545)

During the Super Bowl, we got overwhelmed," Todd said. "That's the other thing: When you get a match, how quickly can you get to these people?

Not bloody quick, at an event of this size, it seems.

Now we got authorities watching us, and it doesn't even work well in large crowds.

I'm glad I live in Fort Lauderdale, and not Tampa!

And the problem is...? (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 13 years ago | (#114547)

How is this a major privacy problem? Couldn't an undercover cop with a good memory for faces stand on a street corner and look out for known criminals? Many police departments already do that.

Crime ridden parts of town (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 13 years ago | (#114548)

I wonder how crime-ridden cities would handle this. If this system was implemented in areas that riddled with crime, would the system overload from the hits of picking out all the criminals? The police too, when notified of a criminal being detected, wouldn't they be overwhelmed with hit notices?

Not to mention, police in some cities are no better than the criminals themselves. Whose to say they'll act when notifed of a detection?

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

ArtEnvironment (454905) | more than 13 years ago | (#114549)

You're forgetting the fact that they're going to use the camera system to not only identify your face and who you are, but also the fact that you are distributing this "illegal" DeCSS and also that "This Shirt is A Munition" that you wear. Then, they are going to take you in, and charge you for wearing a t-shirt. Then, they are going to use this as "probable cause" to get a warrant and search your house, your computer, and all your belongings. Then, under RICO statutes, they are going to take all those belongings, and sell them to pay for your stay in the corporate... errr, uhhmm... I mean federal penetentiary...

You are entering the twilight zone (2)

NeoTomba (462540) | more than 13 years ago | (#114554)

A twilight zone where, apparently, Slashdot has no memory of previously posted stories.

Who knows what other oddities we will see in the coming days now that Slashdot has the mystical power to repost stories in alternate formats!

-NeoTomba

Poll Results on CNN.com (1)

Thomas M Hughes (463951) | more than 13 years ago | (#114555)

At least its somewhat reassuring that the online poll at CNN.com claimed that 60% of all participants thought it was a violating of privacy, while 40% thought it was fine.

Then again, if the people on Slashdot voted, it was probably 40/60 before it got slashdotted. Maybe that isn't reassuring at all.
---

Re:I give up my 'right' to privacy (1)

Christopher Cox (464018) | more than 13 years ago | (#114556)

You want to give up your right to privacy? Fine by me. You can live in a glass house if that's what you want to do. The problem with this is that you're giving up everybody's privacy. If I walk down a street with these cameras, I can't opt-out.

Cameras at work (1)

Richard Bannister (464181) | more than 13 years ago | (#114558)

There are cameras all over the building where I work. There are also cameras everywhere inside the business park in question. What privacy am I entitled to? If any?

why this should scare you... (1)

mikey504 (464225) | more than 13 years ago | (#114559)

I keep seeing people point out that this is no different from having a police officer standing on the corner comparing faces to a mug shot. Well, it is different, in a very significant way: This technology enables them to (eventually) have a police officer on every corner of every street. This police officer is never going to exercise his/her personal judgement and decide to "let one slide". Picture that scenario in your mind the next time you go for a walk. If that doesn't bother you, then you are already gone. You're not the droid they are looking for.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?