×

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!

Through a Face Scanner Darkly

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the I-know-you dept.

Privacy 336

An anonymous reader writes in with a story that raises the issue of how public anonymity is quickly disappearing thanks to facial recognition technology. "NameTag, an app built for Google Glass by a company called FacialNetwork.com, offers a face scanner for encounters with strangers. You see somebody on the sidewalk and, slipping on your high-tech spectacles, select the app. Snap a photo of a passerby, then wait a minute as the image is sent up to the company's database and a match is hunted down. The results load in front of your left eye, a selection of personal details that might include someone's name, occupation, Facebook and/or Twitter profile, and, conveniently, whether there's a corresponding entry in the national sex-offender registry."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

336 comments

It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 3 months ago | (#46137059)

Soon, there will be other heads-up displays. This is one of the more useful applications for them. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it works.

I do not look forward to this. (5, Insightful)

feufeu (1109929) | about 3 months ago | (#46137121)

I want to be able to meet someone and get to know him/her by actually talking to him/her.

And no, I don't give a fuck about sex offender list crazyness.

I do not want *anybody* to tell me who i should be afraid of or not.

Re:I do not look forward to this. (2)

Nationless (2123580) | about 3 months ago | (#46137197)

I want to be able to meet someone and get to know him/her by actually talking to him/her.

And no, I don't give a fuck about sex offender list crazyness.

I do not want *anybody* to tell me who i should be afraid of or not.

What's stopping you?

Re:I do not look forward to this. (5, Insightful)

feufeu (1109929) | about 3 months ago | (#46137251)

Nothing, for now.

Everyone wearing stupid Google glasses, in a dystopian future.

I hope I am not the only one here who would have an awkward feeling if I knew that someone I meet just did at least the equivalent of a Google search on me before we even talk.

Re:I do not look forward to this. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137401)

I work with a registered sex-offender. The reason why this guy works for us is because he was grandfathered in before the company started doing background checks, and we don't see a reason to let him go since he is in compliance with the law and does his job really well.

You can look him up and see his face and everything, again, he's fully compliant. Most importantly, though, we don't hold his past against him because his offense was something like "Intent of Sexual Assault," which is something that any cheating or otherwise regretful whore could have fabricated after leading a man on while in a drunken stupor before her boyfriend found out and gave her an ultimatum.

Of course, the whole registry thing is simply to convince suburban housewives that evil is always lurking around the corner, and that they should be perpetually afraid of events with little statistical significance. But we're not talking about terrorism, this time.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:I do not look forward to this. (1, Interesting)

Peyna (14792) | about 3 months ago | (#46137677)

Most importantly, though, we don't hold his past against him because his offense was something like "Intent of Sexual Assault," which is something that any cheating or otherwise regretful whore could have fabricated after leading a man on while in a drunken stupor before her boyfriend found out and gave her an ultimatum.

You don't have to justify your non-hate of a convicted sex-offender by downplaying their guilt. It's perfectly acceptable to say that he committed a crime, and has changed his life, and is now a law-abiding citizen. He is still paying part of his debt to society by being a registered sex offender for some period of time.

Instead of believing that a criminal is capable of change, you instead choose to believe that this particular person was never a criminal in the first place. I'm curious why that is? Is it easier to work next to someone believing they're not actually a registered sex offender?

So, do me a favor when you return to work: Consider the fact that he may actually be guilty of this crime. That he may have actually done something wrong, and attempted to take advantage of some woman sexually, and that is capable of doing so. Are you still as comfortable working next to him?

Re:I do not look forward to this. (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#46137733)

"You don't have to justify your non-hate of a convicted sex-offender by downplaying their guilt. It's perfectly acceptable to say that he committed a crime, and has changed his life, and is now a law-abiding citizen."

Why don't YOU accept the fact that some things that get people on sex-offender registries are inherently ridiculous, and therefore a travesty of justice?

Did you know that in some states, going out behind the tavern and peeing in the bushes because the bathroom is full can get you put on a sex-offender registry for life?

The laws are fucking ridiculous and need to change. Sure, some people are guilty of horrendous crimes. But taking people who have committed a pretty damned trivial offense, and lumping them together for life with child rapists, is at least as offensive as those child rapists.

Look up the actual laws. Get a clue.

Re:I do not look forward to this. (4, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 months ago | (#46137703)

Of course, the whole registry thing is simply to convince suburban housewives that evil is always lurking around the corner, and that they should be perpetually afraid of events with little statistical significance. But we're not talking about terrorism, this time.

I hate to say this but a lot of people on the registered offender lists might be innocent of what you or I would consider a sexual offense. I know of a person who stopped to take a piss on the way walking home from a bar and because it was close to a school (which was empty because it was 3 am), he had to fight charges that would have put him on the list. I think it cost him around $25k in lawyers and fighting the charges in order to not be on the list. I know of another, an 18 year old kid who was dating some chick in his math class (high school). They dated since he was 16 but she was more then 2 years difference in age so when he turned 18, a concerned neighbor turned them in and he went up on statutory gross sexual imposition charges which definitely put him on the list. The neighbor, who after discussing ways to please a man with this 15 year old girl, was appalled to find out her boyfriend of 2 years was 18 years old now and she wouldn't be 16 for another 3 months so she promptly reported the situation to children's protective services. He was a good kid and everyone who knew them went in as character references during the trial but it didn't seem to matter as it was a statutory thing and the judge's hands were tied (so he said).

They have changed the law a bit in the years since then, but if it happened that easily, I'm sure there are more people wearing the label that do not deserve it. There are likely a lot of people who do deserve it, but I'm not sure the classifications are rational enough to be concerned over someone who has to register.

Re: I do not look forward to this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137547)

easy solution. just kill google glass users. ppl will get the msg eventually. fucking scared ass nerds

Re:I do not look forward to this. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 3 months ago | (#46137235)

I think you're confused about the fact this is not a requirement. You don't need to buy these things. You can't actually buy Google Glass yet anyway.

You're safe.

Re:I do not look forward to this. (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 3 months ago | (#46137761)

no, the point is that other people will wear them and scan you without your consent or ability to prevent, absent wearing a mask like michael jackson or ripping the glasses of their faces.

Re:I do not look forward to this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137507)

You're free to go about meeting people without looking them up. No guarantee that they won't look up your profile though.

Re:I do not look forward to this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137749)

Maybe the rest of us don't want to meet people on the sex offender list, so that's why we want to use google glass to avoid people like you.

Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137173)

Glasshole.

Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137211)

I don't look forward to wearing a mask constantly, but it looks like I'm going to have to. Fuck you and your obsession with storing everyone's information in databases everywhere.

Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (4, Interesting)

Swampash (1131503) | about 3 months ago | (#46137569)

Prediction: "smart" masks that not only obscure your face but also photorealistically display the face of some other random person.

Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137671)

preferably FBI wanted and sex offenders, a few ten thousands of false positives per hour is just what The Man needs

Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (1)

weilawei (897823) | about 3 months ago | (#46137727)

And preferably that rotate between those faces and randomly generated other ones every few minutes, to really screw with the tracking.

Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137241)

brought to you by NameTag Stereo Analytics.

when they come out with version 2.0 they are changing their name to just an abbreviation.

Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137273)

Soon, there will be other heads-up displays. This is one of the more useful applications for them. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it works.

I need to find a girl at my university that needs some tuition money, and pay her to walk into the women's locker room wearing google glass in record mode. Is there an app for that yet?

Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137399)

pay her to walk into the women's locker room wearing google glass

Just get her to do it with a phone or any of the freely available concealed spy cameras (many even look like spectacles).

For a start, all these pervert-enabling options are widely available, which Glass isn't. But most importantly, they're cheaper, are designed to fool people into thinking they're not being filmed (which Glass isn't) and often have higher definition cameras.

If you're the type of person who's lacking so lacking in empathy that you'd want to do an amoral and exploitative act like this, the tech is more than good enough for you right now.

Why wait?

What the fuck does that title mean? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137061)

"Through a Face Scanner Darkly"? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Yeah, I know there was some movie or something with "Scanner Darkly" in its title a few years ago. So it's probably a reference to that somehow.

Still, that's some very broken and poorly-formed English. It's borderline nonsensical.

If anyone can actually understand what it's trying to express, can you please explain it to the rest of us?

Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (5, Informative)

mbone (558574) | about 3 months ago | (#46137093)

Phillip K. Dick, "A Scanner Darkly," 1977. One of the main plot points is that the protagonist, a police informant, has to keep his true identity a secret from everyone, including his police handlers.

Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (5, Informative)

femtobyte (710429) | about 3 months ago | (#46137139)

And the book title is itself a biblical reference to 1 Corinthians 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (King James Version) --- but I doubt the summary titler was alluding quite that far back.

Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137167)

Thank you. Do you have any idea how the word "scanner" fits in, or what it even means or refers to? The "darkly" part makes sense, as used in that Biblical quote. I just don't see how it makes sense when combined with the word "scanner".

(Yes, I know that we aren't talking about "scanner" as in modern document or photo scanners attached to a computer...)

Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (1)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | about 3 months ago | (#46137255)

The title is "Through a face scanner darkly."

I'm fairly sure this is referring to the Glass app that acts like a face scanner, a more casual term for a device capable of utilizing facial recognition technology in order to identify someone by their face alone. Surely it's a play on the fact that the original quote is, "Through a glass, darkly," where glass (ostensibly referring to Google Glass) is replaced with the term for its new capabilities.

Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137395)

FWIW -- In the original biblical quote, "glass" refers to a mirror.

Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (1)

norpy (1277318) | about 3 months ago | (#46137141)

Pretty sure he was an undercover agent.
He also gets horribly addicted to the drug in question.

Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137177)

The title novel is itself a Biblical reference: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

(That's the King JamesVersion; some other translations "we see in a mirror dimly", "we see only a reflection as in a mirror", "we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror", and "What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror".)

Cultural literacy (5, Informative)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 3 months ago | (#46137299)

E.D. Hirsch coined the term "cultural literacy" [wikipedia.org] to describe aspects of culture which have meaning that goes beyond the basic words.

An example from his book [amazon.com] is the phrase "there is a tide".

Those four words carried not only a lot of complex information, but also the persuasive force of a proverb. In addition to the basic practical meaning, "act now!" what came across was a lot of implicit reasons why immediate action was important.

For some of my younger readers who may not recognize the allusion, the passage from Julius Caesar is:

        There is a tide in the affairs of men
        Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune;
        Omitted, all the voyage of their life
        Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
        On such a full sea are we now afloat,
        And we must take the current when it serves,
        Or lose our ventures.

The phrase "A Scanner Darkly" was the title of a book (and movie) by Phillip K. Dick. It's part of the cultural literacy of science fiction, something that nerds might recognize. As in Hirsch's example, a few words convey a great deal of complex information.

The story title comes from the bible, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.", which artfully describes a system that identifies and footnotes faces seen through Google glass.

Cultural literacy references come into and go out of style, and Phillip K. Dick may be a bit dated for today's audience.

If you're interested, there are a few online "Cultural Literacy" tests, such as this one [readfaster.com] .

Re:Cultural literacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137715)

And to take this point just a little bit farther, when I read the phrase "there is a tide", I think of the Larry Niven story.

Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#46137319)

Watch the movie.

It's the story of Bob, an undercover law enforcement officer delving into drug culture.

Use of rotoscoping takes the audience themselves on a perception-altering experience. c.f. 1993's Suture.

Book, thumbs up, movie, thumbs down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137615)

Not just this particular book or movie, but current American culture places more value on a movie than on a book; more people, like the poster on this issue here, are familiar with movie version of great books, and often don't even know it is a book adaptation. And if there is a halfway decent book, there is this cry to make a movie out of it. Why, what will magically do what? And of course, waving a check for movie rights in front of typical book author, well, here's a clue: a typical book author is not wealthy.

And books are to movie producers like College Football is the NFL or the Minor Leagues to Baseball: a cheap source of stories, plots, ideas.

My final point, IMO, most movie versions of books fail. One problem is books are great for interior dialogue, great for an imaginative reader, great and reading a nice passage and staring off into space for 10 minutes. Movies struggle with interior dialogue or subjective experience.
Another problem is Hollywood tends to Hollywood-ize everything.

End of rant.
I do admit that on my to-do list is the see the Ender's Game, the movie.

Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137477)

This is a play on words of St. Paul, the writer of many New Testament books. "We see now through a glass darkly" is the original quote used in western culture. A glass in the first century was a reference to a "looking glass" (a la, Alice through the Looking Glass) and similar in use to a mirror--to primp before meeting someone or going out. Dick, being a literate man, knew this quotation (and possibly the entire book it was in).

Face identified! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137087)

By donning your Glasshole Identifier, your face will also be immediately recognizable as belonging on the National Pervy Googler Registry, to be shunned by all decent company.

Sigh (2)

LookIntoTheFuture (3480731) | about 3 months ago | (#46137089)

Snap a photo of a passerby...

Doing this is what makes you a Glasshole.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137563)

Snap a photo of a passerby...

Doing this is what makes you a Glasshole.

No, doing that is what will make him an in-patient in the ICU.

Ru Hng ào (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137095)

Ru Hng ào là ru c sn ca Qung Nam , là mt loi ru ngon , ni ting gn lin vi i sng nhân dân qua 2 câu ca dao ni ting: t Qung Nam cha ma ã thm Ru Hng ào cha nhm à say . Ruou Hong dao -Dac San Da Nang [danang.vn]

Re:Ru Hng ào (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137175)

Thanks to Google Translate, my Glass informs me this means: "Training is c ru ru Hng sn ca Qung South, is an lullabies delicious, ni ting lin gn i Blades of people over 2 ting ni folk song: Mom dad t Qung South thm nhm à Ru Hng loud drunk father."

Banned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137103)

Didn't Google ban facial recognition in its app store?

Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137115)

Beat down any fucker wearing these.

Re:Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137137)

What, and martyr them? Streisand effect. Just make policies where all cameras, in any form, except those explicitly necessary for medical disability, are collected at the door. This means prescription lenses don't change a thing, as the lenses are not the same as the camera sensor, and this wouldn't affect people with prosopagnosia, either. If you're really vigilante about it, you might rip it off their face and smash it, but the last thing you want to do is beat up the actual person, because then you're giving them even more to whine about in terms of being persecuted (to say nothing of the larger persecution they are ultimately enabling).

Re:Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137739)

Don't martyr them, just beat them.
Don't need a government to solve problems when we can take them into our own hands.

Buy stock in cap and sunglass companies (2)

jcrb (187104) | about 3 months ago | (#46137133)

Soon everyone is going to want to look like a movie start hiding from the paparazzi.

Ski masks, they're not just for bank robbers any more..

Re: Buy stock in cap and sunglass companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137267)

I recently observed that I have no idea where to get one of those classic ski masks seen in movies.
The fact is no one on a ski slope wears them and no sporting goods store I've visited carries them. The closest thing available is a balaclava but that's a different animal. I think if you want a "ski mask" you need to go to a wardrobe room in Hollywood.

Re: Buy stock in cap and sunglass companies (1)

weilawei (897823) | about 3 months ago | (#46137675)

Try any gas station in New England during the winter. You can pick one up for a buck.

Re: Buy stock in cap and sunglass companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137759)

Fuck ski masks! I wanna see everyone walking around dressed like Casey Jones!

I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (4, Interesting)

The Optimizer (14168) | about 3 months ago | (#46137155)

because no one would misuse this tech to act creepy.

True story:

Back around 1989 I was maintaining a minicomputer system for a small chain of Auto Body Shops near Ft. Worth Texas. I got to know a lot about how the business works and made friends with some of the VERY blue collar guys who sanded, welded, painted and whatnot.

At that time the body shop had dedicated terminal that could dial up the Texas DMV database and retrieve the registration info for a given license plate. On at least two separate occasions I observed one of the shop guys using the terminal to get the name and address of a car they observed that was driven by an attractive woman. Nothing creepy or potentially dangerous there? Yeah.

Maybe we should study CCTV operators in England to make sure that attractive women, or any other category of people, aren't being watched more closely than everyone else.

Re:I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137233)

Maybe we should update our privacy laws and stop allowing companies and the government to store all this information about us in shitty databases to begin with.

Re:I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137285)

Yeah. That kind of data only belongs in a real database, like MongoDB. No more of that pansy ass "relational" shit. Bunch of fucking nancies, giving a damn about data integrity, consistency, durability and atomicity. Nancies, all of them.

Re:I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 3 months ago | (#46137357)

Maybe we should update our privacy laws and stop allowing companies and the government to store all this information about us in shitty databases to begin with.

This.

When even the cops use these databases on on other cops [sophos.com] you know the only solution is to stop building the databases in the first place.

Stalking pretty girls makes for a good visceral story, but the larger problem is one of political repression -- essentially using these databases to make it harder for political upstarts to instigate change, basically co-opting democracy.

BTW, that same database the cops used to stalk other cops? Also used to stalk political candidates. [reason.com]

Re:I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137335)

VERY blue collar guys

I.e. guys who got laid more than the pale office worker who would never dare pursue an attractive woman because the HR harpies might be watching

Re:I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137585)

As long as committing rape counts as "getting laid", I guess.

Re:I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137347)

How about we get rid of the cams in the first place? Then everyone is protected from systemic abuse. Of course, this would require governments and corporations to give shits about societal health. They don't. They spin it into narratives that somehow justify whatever it is they want to do, whether it's building disruptive devices or passing laws, that harm human psychology or physiology under the guise of 'helping.'

Of course, if the woman happened to like the man who did this to her, suddenly finding her street address and sending her flowers goes from being 'creepy' to 'awww how sweet', right? For every auto tech abusing his dmv access, there are many more women misusing the courts as the ultimate rejection machine, destroying their suitors' lives in the process. Of course, that somehow doesn't get air timeas it doesn't jive with the feminist narrative.

Re: I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137567)

+infinity

Re:I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137757)

As to the cctv abuses in the UK, we don't have to study it, there's plenty of such data available.
As to the woman on the second floor where the London cops keep pointing their camera at her bedroom window, she should mount a laser to always shoot where lens would be if looking in her window. Then they'd have to explain to the investigator why they keep illegally pointing the camera at her bedroom window on the second floor.

Great.. (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 3 months ago | (#46137169)

Great, anther toy encouraging society to regress back to adolescent behavior...with much higher stakes.

Re:Great.. (3, Interesting)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | about 3 months ago | (#46137469)

Great, anther toy encouraging society to regress back to adolescent behavior...with much higher stakes.

The stakes may be higher than some people think. Over thepast few years, several people I casually know (that is, I only know them by face and first name) have expressed the opinion that the sex offender list is a license to hunt and kill. How many people with similar names are going to get "tagged" by this service?

Re:Great.. (3, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | about 3 months ago | (#46137593)

That is obviously what the lists were designed for. The fact that I can check to see if my neighbor is a "Sex Offender", but I can't look up to see if he has eaten babies, bit by bit over the course of months while they were still alive, pretty well proves to me that the list was not about protecting yourself. It was designed as a way issue the death penalty without having to deal with all of the political and judicial red tape.

Re:Great.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137667)

Because EVERYTHING the god box says is true...EVERYTHING...

So.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137227)

I bet a bunch of French and German fags like this. This is the SUPER bowl, eat a dick everyone else but America.

Conflicted on this (0)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 3 months ago | (#46137247)

On one hand, the potential for abuse is huge.

On the other hand, no more seeing someone, forgetting their name, having them strike up a conversation with you, and then having to dig through your memory to try to remember who they are (failing miserably) while acting like you know exactly who they are.

Just cop to it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137333)

Tell them you know you've met but their name escapes you and (optionally) that you are sorry.

Are you horribly offended when you have to remind a casual acquaintance of your name?

No privacy compromising technology required.

Re:Conflicted on this (1)

complete loony (663508) | about 3 months ago | (#46137367)

Having software that searches your own database of contacts might be acceptable. Searching a database containing everyone? No thanks.

Re:Conflicted on this (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 3 months ago | (#46137383)

The inconvenience of forgetting someone's name is far far less problematic than the psychological and social damage pervasive surveillance does to society. I don't see how you can be conflicted at all..

Re:Conflicted on this (5, Informative)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about 3 months ago | (#46137413)

"...and then having to dig through your memory to try to remember who they are (failing miserably) while acting like you know exactly who they are."

I'd rather trust my own memory then out-source it.

For fuck sake people, are you listening to yourselves? This is a corporation literally trying to turn people into mobile data gathering devices. You are either deluding yourself about your own level of intelligence, or suffer from a serious lack of morality, if you think any of this is acceptable. Every person on this planet values privacy to some degree--What, exactly, do we really get in exchange for the loss of this privacy? Knowledge we could get by simply asking that person?

THINK, PEOPLE. If history is any sort of an indicator, any rights we sell today, our children must buy back with blood.

Re:Conflicted on this (5, Interesting)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 3 months ago | (#46137421)

Yeah, I could really use this as a prosthetic.

I can't remember faces, and I have a lot of trouble recognizing them. It's not full-blown prosopagnosia [wikipedia.org] , but it's a real problem in daily life -- for example, if I run into a familiar co-worker at a grocery store, I'm likely not to recognize them, and I might come across as cold or distant. I compensated by being friendly to everyone, which earned me a reputation for being nice, if a bit spacy. And I can recognize my family, even "picture" them in my mind -- but I couldn't tell you what shape my wife's nose or ears are. Sketching people is right out.

I'd love to have heads-up subtitles on people, not to be creepy, just to put me on even footing with the rest of the world. If the price is that I have to feed knowledge of who I'm seeing to the Overmind, though, I'm not sure I'd strike the bargain.

Re:Conflicted on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137457)

mod parent up

Re:Conflicted on this (1)

reboot246 (623534) | about 3 months ago | (#46137453)

I usually say something like, "I remember your name, but I can't force myself to remember your face." Breaks the ice every time.

Re:Conflicted on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137609)

On one hand, the potential for abuse is huge.

Yeah, I don't want lowlifes with stolen Googleglass uploading/scanning pictures of me to see if I make enough money to make it worth their while mugging.

Sex-offender Registry (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 months ago | (#46137277)

There's a simple solution to this registry. If everyone takes a photo of their naughty bits and sends it to the police station the sex-offender registry will soon be full of nearly all 314 million Americans.

A positive side effect of this is that your glasses will now identify the remaining ultra conservatives who may be far more dangerous.

Re: Sex-offender Registry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137359)

you go first

(captcha: pickles)

Re:Sex-offender Registry (1)

LookIntoTheFuture (3480731) | about 3 months ago | (#46137407)

...everyone takes a photo of their naughty bits and sends it to the police station...

Great idea!! I'll do that right now... Snap, tap tap tap... Man, that was crazy. Did you... Guys? GUYS?

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137287)

Name one problem with this. If you're out in public your face is there for anyone to see. If you're hiding behind a scarf or burka then we can only guess your intentions.

Doesn't work like Eden of the East (anime) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137391)

The reason why this will not work any time soon is because phone cameras are too basic, they need to be ale to scan everyone's face, bone structure, and even cross-reference height / weight / sex information. Scientifically it would be cool if it worked but apps like these will only make the stupid gullible that half of us are registered sex offenders due to false positives. Imagine bringing your kid to the park but you somewhat look partially similar to a registered sex offender, and a someone that has no real clue about computers or technology in general is screaming "Sex offender" while you're playing with your kid. This hilarious example might actually happen one day but my point is, they are saying that they want to make people feel more safe but in reality it'll just make us all more paranoid except for the stupid.

2 things (4, Insightful)

memnock (466995) | about 3 months ago | (#46137397)

1. Fuck you very much, facialnetwork.com and any other company that wants to deanonymize everyone.

2. Why the sex offender registry for starters? Is facialnetwork.com trying to scare everyone into thinking that the country is overrun by sex offenders? You can piss in an alley (not that that's generally a pleasant thing) and end up on a list with people who have committed violent sexual assaults. To me there is a huge gap in the moral turpitude between the two. The latter of the two examples is probably someone to be weary of, but I don't know if the former is necessarily someone any worse than someone who uses illegal drugs.

Re:2 things (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137443)

The Bath Salts Cannibal used marijuana exclusively (and nothing else), so let's not downplay the harm of illegal drugs, even ones that are temporarily fashionable like marijuana.

Re:2 things (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137541)

Hadn't heard of the bath salts cannibal. So I looked it up. The Evangelical Baptist bit struck me as far more worrisome than bath salts, pot, or whatever.

If we could get a registry of such cult followers, I'd be more comfortable.

Re: 2 things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137587)

exactlt. religious stupidity is the problem not weed.

Re:2 things (4, Insightful)

gnoshi (314933) | about 3 months ago | (#46137613)

Well, when there are 17.4 million users of a drug in the US alone eventually one of them will be a crazed cannibal.
In 2012 there was that New York cop [telegraph.co.uk] charged with plotting to murder and eat women. There are only about 795,000 police in the US so perhaps being a cop is a stronger indicator of a potential cannibal than cannabis use.

Re:2 things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137693)

Uh, there's a reason he's called the BATH SALTS CANNIBAL.

You're a fucking moron.

Re:2 things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137513)

Be weary and wary.

Re:2 things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137621)

it's a small step towards a larger, more creepy society.

First it's facial rec., next it's targeting and isolating the sound around you, voices within a group, etc. and it will all slide down the slope towards implants. They want us implanted. They want control. Tech miracles and wonders are just on the horizon, we're seeing the glimpse. Eventually the advanced tech seduction will become too hard to stay removed from, may become mandatory and you'll have a situation like Wesley Crusher had in ST:TNG episode "The Game" where he wears a FAKE headset to stop people from trying to get him hooked into wearing a real set.

Idiocracy + Star Trek combined is coming to a reality soon near you.

Never forget: THEY WANT YOUR MIND AND BODY and they'll get it, via advanced COINTELPRO. The tipping point is NOW. If you're smart, you'll go off-grid after gradually weaning yourself off of technology and move to a place where time seems to stand still.

Re:2 things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137685)

Wait till it mis-identifies a sex offender at the park with her kid and she gets killed by an angry mob for no reason.

The big city becomes more like small town America. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137599)

So we are basically going back to the way things used to be.

We will be back at the small village/small town stage where everyone knows everyone at a glance.

Giving the way human nature and the internet is going, people are going to voluntarily put their information in the data base.

It will also be interesting, gossip and public praise and public shaming moves from small country towns to the big city.

How long before. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46137603)

. . . a company offers to classify people via facial-recognition according to
1. Religious affiliation (Jews, Presbyterians, Muslims, Athiests, etc. . . )
2. Sexual orientation
3. Credit score
4. Political beliefs (according to the websites we visit, our postings on blogs, political donations)
5. Indiscretions (posted on Facebook or Twitter)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...