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!

Borders Nixes Face Recognition

Hemos posted more than 13 years ago | from the good-move dept.

Privacy 239

jeffy124 writes "Due to recent criticisms surrounding their implementation of face-recognition technology to watch known shoplifters, Borders Bookstores is suspending the approach. This doesn't mean it's gone for good, it may return in the future. They want to resolve the issues brought up by privacy and human-rights activists."

cancel ×

239 comments

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

Good (1, Funny)

antis0c (133550) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223717)

Because the borders down the street from me has a nice collection of O'Reilly books, not to mention a bazillion other computer books, and I would have hated to have to boycott them.. Best computer bookstore ever. (In my area at least)

I love the new Lameness Filter (-1)

ubertroll (153053) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223721)

XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Why did my comment get deleted?

The only time we ever delete comments is if the comment contains malformed HTML that is somehow causing Slashdot to fail to display properly. Comments are not deleted on the basis of content. At this point, however, it shouldn't be a big worry. The comment engine is reasonably bulletproof, and it's pretty tough to post a comment that breaks Netscape.

If you posted a comment and you don't see it now, it may have been moderated down below your threshold (see below). If you set your threshold to -1, you should be able to see it again.

Why did it take so long for my comment to appear?

If the system told you that your comment got submitted, it'll show up. Because of the way data gets cached in our system, it could take as much as ten or fifteen minutes (although it doesn't usually take that long).

What's up with "First Post" comments?

"First Post" comments are one of those odd little memetic hiccups that come out of nowhere and run amok. Basically, people with altogether far too much spare time sit and reload Slashdot, hoping that they will get the "First Post" in a discussion. This is one of those things that the moderation system was designed to clean up, and for the most part, it works. "First Post" comments usually get moderated down as off-topic almost instantly.

It seems like the quality of comment posts is declining. Are you doing anything about it?

We have a moderation system.

One of the unfortunate side-effects of the increasing popularity of Slashdot is that the number of trolls, flame-warriors and all-around lamers increases as well, and it only takes a relatively small number of them to make a lot of noise. Keeping this noise to a minimum is one of the primary goals of the moderation system (which is explained in detail elsewhere in this FAQ).

Since this system is essentially an experiment in trying to solve the problems inherent in mass communication, one would expect its success to be variable, and indeed, this is the case. Some days it works great, and some days it doesn't.

Moderation seems restrictive. Is it really necessary?

In short, yes.

As you might have noticed, Slashdot gets a lot of comments. Thousands a day. Tens of thousands a month. At any given time, the database holds 50,000+ comments. A single story might have a thousand replies- and let's be realistic: Not all of the comments are that great. In fact, some are down right terrible, but others are truly gems.

The moderation system is designed to sort the gems and the crap from the steady stream of information that flows through the pipe. And wherever possible, it tries to make the readers of the site take on the responsibility.

The goal is that each reader will be able to read Slashdot at a level that they find appropriate. The impatient can read nothing at all but the original stories. Some will only want to read the highest rated of comments, some will want to eliminate anonymous posts, and others will want to read every last drip of data, from the First Posts! to the spam. The system we've created here will make that happen. Or at least, it sure will try...

Re:I love the new Lameness Filter (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223738)

oo oo oooo oooooo oooooo
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oo oo
ooooo oo oooooo oooooo
oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oooo oooooo oooooo

oo oo oo oo
ooo ooo oo oo
oooo oooo oo oo
oo ooo oo oooo
oo oo oo
oo oo oo
oo oo oo

oooo oooooo oooooo
oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oo
oooooooo oooooo oooooo
oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oooooo oooooo

--A--N--D--

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX XXXX
XXX XX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XX XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXX XXX
XXX XX XXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXX XXX
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXX XXX XXX
XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX
XXX
XXXX XXXX
XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Hewlett-Packard will soon announce two handheld computers that run Microsoft's upcoming "Merlin" operating system, this publication has learned.
Sources also said Microsoft will announce the new handheld OS on Sept. 6 and officially call it Pocket PC 2002.

The new handhelds will be part of HP's Jornada 560 series, the sources said. One will come with 32MB of memory and the other with 64MB. Both devices will use Intel's StrongARM SA-1110 processor and will have active-matrix screens that can display 16-bit color.

Palo Alto, Calif.-based HP would only confirm that it will use the upcoming version of Pocket PC and that it plans to announce two new devices.

Some devices using Pocket PC 2002 will also get a boost this year from Intel's upcoming XScale processors. Current Intel processors for handheld devices top out at 206MHz, but sources have said the new chips will enable devices to hit 400MHz and will help expand built-in wireless capabilities in handhelds.

HP plans to support the new XScale chips and to add built-in wireless capabilities to its devices, a company representative said.

Although there isn't tremendous demand for handheld devices with high-end processors and business applications right now, IDC analyst Kevin Burden said, licensees of Pocket PC are simply laying the groundwork for when there is demand.

"The enterprise market is not placing a lot of 1,000-unit orders for Pocket PC devices right now, but the Pocket PC camp is getting itself ready for the time when there are. And there definitely will be," Burden said. In addition to HP, Pocket PC licensees include Compaq Computer and Casio.

Burden added that the corporate market is the next fertile ground for major growth in the handheld market and "in the view of IT managers, it looks like Palm is standing still."

Palm has relied heavily on its licensees and 160,000 developers to drive innovation, but Burden said it may be time for Palm to take a more active role in leading the way.

"Allowing partners to significantly help with and, in some cases, lead innovation was a good strategy to start with. But now the market is too competitive for a market leader to take such a passive role," Burden said.

Palm OS licensee Sony, for example, was the first Palm OS-based handheld maker to use a 320-by-320-pixel screen and to build in an MP3 player. Handspring was the first to use a USB port.

Palm has been making changes within the company to improve development of its OS. In late July, it announced it would create a separate subsidiary for its operating system.

The company also announced Aug. 16 that it would acquire the technology assets and intellectual property of software maker Be for $11 million in stock. The move is meant to boost the communications and multimedia capabilities of the Palm OS and make it more competitive with Pocket PC.

Palm maintains its No. 1 position in the handheld and handheld OS market, but its lead is eroding.

The company's share of unit shipments worldwide slipped from 47 percent in the second quarter of 2000 to 37 percent in the same period this year, according to market researcher IDC. Compaq was hot on Palm's heels in the No. 2 spot, with 19 percent in the second quarter of this year, up considerably from 2 percent in the same period in 2000. Handspring was third with 13 percent, and HP rounded out the top four spots with 8.1 percent.

The worldwide market share of Palm's OS was 58 percent in the second quarter, down from 69 percent in the same period last year.

Re:I love the new Lameness Filter (-1, Troll)

crapfloodinganusmaw (518103) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223792)

Take for instance msoftware still has a long way to go. It is gaining popularity, but most shops still buy their software, and for consultants who go in and build new pieces on existing systems, that often means using the pre-existing software infrastructure, especially if the work left behind needs to be understood by maintenance staff who are not conversant with anything but the vendor-specific tools.

On the other hand, I have seen a couple of projects where the client was small and had no software infrastructure to speak of (i.e. 'green field' development.) In those cases, the allure of "free" software made economic sense to the client. If enough of these small companies actually succeed and become big companies, that will increase the penetration of open-source / free software into the corporate world.

p.s. One thing that I dislike about commercial software is the hype companies sometimes try to generate surrounding a deployment of a large system. The buying companies sometimes make news releases that say they have "partnered" or have a "strategic alliance", when really what they should be saying is "we paid through the nose for X" (where X is your favourite system that costs in excess of six or seven figures.)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Why stick with windows (Score:3)
by MrBlack on 08-22-01 06:25 PM (#2205971)
(User #104657 Info)
After making the change to Microsoft development tools why did you stick with Win32? Persumably new PCs that you buy can be installed with your favourite distro, and no doubt you will want to keep a few Windows boxen around for your legacy VB code etc. My other question is why did the developers make this decision? This seems to be more of a business decision to me, not a decision that developers should make. Developers should make technical decisions and business people should make business decisions. If can achieve you goals using VB or open source tools, then the question of which tool-set to use becomes a business one rather than a technical one. Which tools are most productive (so costs are lower)? Which tools are cheaper to purchase? (once again - so costs are lower - but this is less of an issue than tool productivity, since productive tools will usually pay for themselves quite easily). Which tools are more widely supported (to mitigate risk)? Where do our existing strengths lie? Don't get me wrong, I think open source tools can hold their own from a business perspective as well as a technical perspective, I just don't think business decisions should be made by technical people (unless they are also the business people). Developers always get pissed off when sales/marketting says "we can deliver X in 3 months". The business people are making a technical decision. Technical people making business decisions is no different. BTW if you're a VB shop moving to Open Source try Python and wxwindows (if you need a gui) and straight python (if you don't need a gui). You'll find the change very pleasant.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
y legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Important Stuff:

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
Important Stuff:

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
Important Stuff:

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
Important Stuff:

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

No, not anything.
No, not anything. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 08-27-01 07:10 PM (#2223547)
Take for instance my legitimate on topic post.
Lamness Filter encountered.

I'm glad to see that you're not having any issues though. ;^)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Post Comment
Lameness filter encountered.

XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX
XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX | XXXXX |XXXXX


did you know ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223797)

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

oo oooo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo ooo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oooo oo oo oo oooo
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oooo oo oo oooo
oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo oo
ooooooo oooo oo oo oooooo oo oo

ssssss ss ss ssssss ss ss ssssss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ssssss ss ss ss sssss ssssss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ssssss ssssss ssssss ss ss ssssss ss

oooo oooooo oooooo
oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oo
oooooooo oooooo oooooo
oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oooooo oooooo

Yes, yes, it's true. It's a widely known fact. For instance, any real OS would be capable of stopping this kind of ascii abuse...

Allowed HTML: anything you can sneak through this shitty filter.... Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

Good... (1)

NathanL (248026) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223722)

I wouldn't want a picture of me picking my nose while reading Wired to get out on the net. What would I tell my parents?

Re:Good... (2, Funny)

lambent (234167) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223794)

So, picking your nose in public is okay, but not if there's a camera around?

Re:Good... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223857)



I never pick my ass in public unless there is a camera around.

Re:Good... (2, Funny)

Maserati (8679) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223915)

No, he just doesn't want to get caught reading Wired.

Funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223724)

They've had face-recognition systems at the B&N down the street for some time. His name is Arnold and he wears a uniform.

Re:Funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223732)

Cool. I love men in uniform.

Re:Funny... (2)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223757)

I agree. Back is HS, i worked for a Kmart store, where we were shown pictures of known shoplifters on a semi-regular basis. Each one was an individual who had been caught shoplifting at the store. Our duty was if we see that person, have the manager call the cops because the town police would tell shoplifters that if they were to be caught in the store again (shoplifting or not), they would be arrested and charged with trespassing.

Re:Funny... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223876)


When I was back in HS, I was busy fucking the shit out of your sister. I'd jam it in her ass to it bled, and then I'd have spooge and blood dripping all over my balls. Your sister would like it off, and then I'd punch her in the face. Man, those were good times.

Re:Funny... (2)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223944)

Wonder if you had any misidentifications? (false hits). Did the police realize or were the innocent customers still kicked out or arrested? Did any human try to double check the computer (with physical photos) or was the computer's word treated as Gospel? Any lawsuits?

Re:Funny... (-1)

Klerck (213193) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223968)

It doesn't matter if they made mistakes. It's a private business and private property. They aren't obligated to allow you on the premises or sell to you. That's why it's PRIVATE.

Re:Funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223974)

Sure, but if the customer can prove racial discrimination, the store can be sued for violating the shoplifter's civil rights. *Even if* the person was actually shoplifting.

Re:Funny... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223976)


Hell no. We had misidentifications all the time, too. But most of the pictures we had to look at were niggers, and they all look the same. Even if we did mis-ID one, no biggie; the manager was just glad to get them out of the store, criminal or not. Most nigs are too stupid to file a lawsuit anyway, unless they think they can get free fried chicken or orange soda out of a settlement. So even when they did it was cheap to settle.

Re:Funny... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223774)


Arnold, as well as every other guy in your town, would have to problem identifying the top of your mom's head.

This shows that social pressure works! (2)

YIAAL (129110) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223726)

There are lots of unpleasant things that businesses could do that they don't do because people won't put up with them. It's important that this dynamic be put to work in the privacy area. If people won't put up with this, it won't happen.

Eternal vigilance, and all that.

Who's to say they'll tell you next time? (3, Interesting)

Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223852)

Seems to me that such outcries without significant punishment or legal censure against future attempts are just signals to companies to keep this stuff in the back room.

It isn't too farfetched an idea- pretty much all of any large company's head staff would agree with such a plan, if it made their cost ratings better. A system such as this could be implemented without the knowledge of the store's staff (loss prevention in most large stores works as a hermetically sealed subsection of the store, so that all employees can be monitored freely) and if it made a difference, well, that would be one more reason for it to stay, and stay hidden.

Can't be kept hidden once used (2)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223919)

How do you keep it hidden when you have to kick out the first customer that your system THINKS is a criminal?

How do you keep it hidden when the first innocent person with enough time, money and guts SUES you?

/. changing the world? (1)

XorNand (517466) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223727)

Hmmm... Guess someone's comment yesterday about objections on /. just reducing tech book sales by a couple percentage points was a bit understated. ;-)

Well, suits them right... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223728)

Bookstore patrons aren't the most likely to steal books when you can just as easily sit in the middle of the place and read the whole damm thing anyways...

GOOD POINT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223758)

LOL... mod this fucker up.

Microsoft (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223729)

Why in hell is everyone and every company against Microsoft?! Who cares if only MSN appears on the desktop? It's Microsoft's OS, so why should they have to include stuff from other companies? If AOL and friends want their junk on people's desktop, why don't they write their own OS?! Microsoft worked for a damn long time on their's, no shit little half-assed newcomers can't beat them!

Re:Microsoft (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223836)

Put the crack pipe down and step away...NOW!

OT: Re:Microsoft (1)

gdchinacat (186298) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223837)

its not about punishing them for being successful, its about preventing them from being sucessful simply because they are able to skew the game in their favor in new arena's (OS and browser are different arenas). Its about allowing "little half-assed newcomers" to have a fair shot at succeeding.

Off topic, but I'll answer anyway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223887)


Microsoft is abusive. Actually, they are more abusive than anyone I've read on Slashdot has said.

The U.S. Justice Department court case pending against Microsoft found that Microsoft was extremely abusive. This document is on the web in the Court's Findings of Fact [usdoj.gov] . What surprised me about the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses was that it didn't mention the abuses that I thought were most important. The U.S. Justice Department mostly focused on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies. But Microsoft's mistreatment of small users is more destructive, in my opinion. (You can see more information about the antitrust cases against Microsoft at United States v. Microsoft, Antitrust Case Filings [usdoj.gov] .)

I don't understand... (2)

nougatmachine (445974) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223733)

Why do large companies like Borders announce implementations of things like this, suspend them upon complaints and then review things like customer's rights to privacy? Are these only an issue when people complain?

I swear, one day I'll just have to make my own company so I can make a point of not doing evil things like this.

Re:I don't understand... (2)

tokengeekgrrl (105602) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223763)

Are these only an issue when people complain?

Apparently, yes. I'm certain that companies having been doing all sorts of things that no one is aware of and that the general public would find appalling, if they knew about it.

On the other hand, I would rather see companies willingly forgoe certain activities due to public pressure as opposed to having it regulated and legislated to death. The basic premise of a company wanting to protect itself from theft should not be undermined.

- tokengeekgrrl

Re:I don't understand... (1)

Retarded_One (518093) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223782)

I hope it never happens to you, but one day, you may sit in on a upper-level management meeting of a large company.

It is an interesting contrast between utter horror that such morons can 'be in power', and monty-python-like humor, at their utterly retarded suggestions and plans.

Re:I don't understand... (2, Insightful)

dragons_flight (515217) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223805)

Why do large companies like Borders announce implementations of things like this, suspend them upon complaints and then review things like customer's rights to privacy? Are these only an issue when people complain?

Why not? It makes good business sense. Lots of places have security cameras, no one really would have cared if that's all they wanted. I have no idea how much they lose to shoplifting but it might be enough to financially justify installing such a system. From their point of view they are just protecting their possessions from theft.

Clearly someone knew that people might be upset by this, otherwise there is no point in announcing it, you just start doing it. Instead they sat down, told people what they wanted to do and waited to see the reaction. Now they've realized that it isn't a reasonable thing to do unless they can seriously reassure the people of their privacy.

I bet we still see systems like this appear, but it isn't a place like Border's that will likely stand up and take the intial flak. Perhaps casinos, banks, or some other place where security truly matters will be the first.

Re:I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223821)

Many casinos are already using FaceIt. Have been
for some time.

Sad news - Stepehn King dead at 54 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223740)


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/fiction writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't read his books you've probably enjoyed one of his movies. Truly an American icon.

Anonymous Coward, fag, dead at 92 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223753)

I just heard some sad news on slashdot - Anonymous Coward's penis was found dead in his boyfriend's ass this morning. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't suck his dick, you've probably enjoyed it up your ass. Truly an american faggot.

Re:Anonymous Coward, fag, dead at 92 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223790)

American, not 'american', you filthy boat-person.

Now go back to Lower Slabovia and hump some goats.

yawn..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223874)

this is posted too often, get a new gimmick

Re:yawn..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223890)


Louis Armstrong, trumpet player and Jazz pioneer, died yesterday morning in his Los Angelos home. He was 71. Armstrong's last performance was at James Madison University's Convocation Center on March 24, 2001, where he played to a standing room only 5,000. Armstrong was helped off the stage by his wife of 20 years, and he later told a reporter for the campus newspaper "I don't know how much longer I can do this. This may be one of my last shows." His final song was his biggest hit, Hello Dolly! He is survived by his wife, 3 children and 6 grandchildren.

I don't know about Borders... (1)

thesolo (131008) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223742)

But Barnes & Noble employees can't do anything about shoplifters, except ask a customer "if they need help." Most stores don't have loss-prevention officials working at them either, and only managers can actually say something along the lines of an accusation to customers.
So, provided Borders is the same as B&N, how exactly would a recognition system help them out? No one is there to watch it! Would it alert managers, or would they have to hire more loss prevention? Or does Borders work entirely different?

Re:I don't know about Borders... (2)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223802)

i worked for kmart back in hs. here's the guidelines we had:

We have store security dressed in street clothes patrolling the store. Employees know who s/he was. Same people usually spend most time in the room watching all the cameras (no, we didnt have cameras in the dressing rooms or bathrooms, so dont go there), or in the lofts looking out the one-way windows.

But not every shift could be covered, hence some shifts had no security staffed.

If staffed and you see suspicous activity, notify security. Otherwise, ask if you can help the person. Also attempt to give assistance if you think the suspicous person saw you. Another option is make a fake "Security section 7" call. This scared most shoplifters.

Re:I don't know about Borders... (1)

Bren (153085) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223956)

Employees know who s/he was.

No, no... you're doing it all wrong. It should be:
Employees know who s/h/it was.

Bren.

Re:I don't know about Borders... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223814)

I used to work at my local Borders. Company policy is not to do anything confrontational in the case of theft or suspected theft. Just call the police.

There have been many times when I had watched hundreds of dollars of merchandise walk out the door, and was told to do nothing. This is not so strange, actually, in the big corporations.

The thing about Loss Prevention is, or at least it was at my old company, if you know someone is going to shoplift, or is likely to shoplift, keep an eye on them at all times. The professional thieves know when they're being watched, and won't do anything illegal in that case. And yes, usually when a thief hit any of our stores, they were usually sighted coming back. I have no doubt face-recognition would help stop thievery.

Re:I don't know about Borders... (1)

GiMP (10923) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223860)

Staples is the same way, the most they can do is that the manager can stand in front of the door refusing to move until the cops get there.. and hope he is assulted. Great system :)

invasion!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223749)

Slashdot has been Invaded by Martians!
o o
/ \
| |
\ ______/
/ \
| [@][@] | __________________
| ^^ |_/ \
| VVVVVV <_ I LOVE YOU ALL. |
\_______/ \ HONEST... /
* | | \________________/
/ ___/ \____
|| / \
|| | | *** | |
|| | |* *| |
|| | | *** | |
\\ | | | |
\\ | |_____| |
\\ VVV _[_]_ VVV
\\ / \
\\__/| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
__/ | \__
/______|______\
LAMENESS FILTER

This Martian is Copyright © 2001 keesh. You may redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 or later.

They'll go ahead with, just later (1)

ghostlibrary (450718) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223750)

Translate "they want to resolve the issues brought up by privacy and human-rights activists" to 'they will wait until the furor dies down, then slide it in quietly when the activist's attention is devoted elsewhere.'

Or am I cynical? Most of the times there is an outcry against a new measure, the underlying economical motivation by the corporation does not change. Instead, they realize the PR costs have increased.

Faced with either rejecting the idea totally due to PR issues, or just waiting until the PR climate chances and they can proceed, it makes sense to just wait, then implement the perfectly good and economically sound idea once the controversy is passed.

Very rarely do such ideas go away just because of complaints, unless it's for a service-focused part of the business. And catching thieves isn't service-focused.

bsd rulez (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223759)

, ,
/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\ LOOK WHAT I'VE GOT
/ / | ` \ BEND OVER SIR
O O ) / |
`-^--'`< '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
<----. __ / __ \
<----|====O)))==) \) /====
<----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
fL \ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

Border's employees (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223764)



Well, it's a step in the right direction. But if only Borders would extend the same courtesy to it's employees [128.121.12.52] as it does it customers. Paranoia from within.

WARNING!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223772)

Link leads thou to a Goatse O's Cereal Ad!

OH MY GOD!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223785)

That's horrible, really.

Is crime really decreased because of the pictures? (1)

bsquizzato (413710) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223765)

The real reason I think the crime has decreased due to the use of this is other countries is because it causes a great deal of intimidation. Kind of like a death penalty: If you kill someone and get caught, you know you'll most likely die. Or the hidden police cruisers: You don't know if the car next to you while you're speeding is occupied by an officer or not, so you don't speed as much.

I'm sure that this does help pinpoint shop-lifters for monitoring by the store, but I think alot of it is intimidation.

more like shifted venue (1)

bobalu (1921) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223958)

Kind of like a death penalty: If you kill someone and get caught, you know you'll most likely die.

Unfortunately that's not true, at least in the US.

The smart money says the criminals look for more private ways to make money.

Maybe they could go into politics, for instance.

the freshmaker (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223767)

.""--.._______
[] `'--.._
GOT ANY MENTOS ||__ `'-,
`)||_ ```'--.. \
\ _ /|//} ``--._ |
\ .'` `'. /////} `\/
\ / .""".\ //{///
\ / /_ _`\\ // `||
| |(_)(_)|| _// ||
| | /\ )| _///\ ||
| |L====J | / |/ | ||
/ /'-..-' / .'` \ | ||
/ | :: | |_.-` | \ ||
/| `\-::.| | \ | ||
/` `| / | | | / ||
|` \ | / / \ | ||
| `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | ||
/ /` `\ || ||
| . / \|| ||
| | |/ ||
/ / | ( ||
/ . / ) ||
| \ | ||
/ | / ||
|\ / | ||
\ `-._ | / ||
\ ,//`\ /` | ||
///\ \ | \ ||
|||| ) |__/ | ||
|||| `.( | ||
`\\` /` / ||
/` / ||
/ | ||
| \ ||
/ | ||
/` \ ||
/` | ||
`-.___,-. .-. ___,' ||
`---'` `'----'`

Important Stuff:
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

Trial balloon management (3, Insightful)

sllort (442574) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223771)

Another example of "Trial balloon management".

The formula:
- We'll announce that we're doing something, but only introduce it on a low cost basis into a small target market.
- We'll watch the reaction.
- If it's bad, we'll denounce ourselves and retract our low cost trial balloon.
- If it works, we'll exploit the hell out of it.

This formula has been applied with both results to:
- SmartTags
- Windows Activation
- Borders Face Recognition
- Skylarov
- Implementation as a "Trade Secret" (ms & kerberos)
... and on & on.

Other examples?

hola!!.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223775)



TAKE US TO YOUR LEADER WE COME IN PEACE

\ /
\ .-""""-. .-""""-. /
\ / \ / \ /
/_ _\ /_ _\
// \ / \\ // \ / \\
|\__\ /__/| |\__\ /__/|
\ || / \ || /
\ / \ /
\ __ / \ __ /
.-""""-. '.__.'.-""""-. '.__.'.-""""-.
/ \ | |/ \ | |/ \
/_ _\| /_ _\| /_ _\
// \ / \\ // \ / \\ // \ / \\
|\__\ /__/| |\__\ /__/| |\__\ /__/|
\ || / \ || / \ || /
\ / \ / \ /
/ \ __ / \ __ / \ __ / \
/ '.__.' '.__.' '.__.' \
/ | | | | | | \
/ | | | | | | \

I THINK I STOPPED | WHAT WE NEED HERE
UP YOUR HUMAN TOILETS | IS A SALAD BAR
|

HOLY GOD I'M
GOING TO BURST

Important Stuff:
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

25p (0, Offtopic)

lemko (447514) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223776)

25th post!

Will lameness be excluded???? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223786)

sdfdfdf

Attention! (1)

4mn0t1337 (446316) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223807)

"Attention! Please be advised that, by your entry upon these premises, you are consenting to being photographed, and having your ugly likeness used in a filthy motion picture, and for other purposes.."

Now all you need is the "store greeter" loudly announcing this every few minutes as people enter the store.


*I* for one would like to see Lee Ving or Exene Cervenka hired as the friendly helpful greeter at my local Boarders, but I think that might scare a few people away...

Re:Attention! (1)

krugdm (322700) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223896)

This sounds like the signs that pop up at Great America every now and then. Saying something like "Filming is being conducted in the park today. Purchase of your park ticket indicates your consent to appear, uncompensated, in promotional materials. If you do not wish to be filmed, do not remain in the area." If you don't like it, then stay away! Anyhoo, I'm having difficulty focusing in on the fine line between this, and having live people monitoring hidden cameras or undercover security wandering the store looking for shoplifters. Personally, I think having undercover security alerted to your presence by computer is less of a "human rights violation" than getting "profiled" by undercover security, then getting followed around just because you "look" like a criminal.

privacy? (2, Insightful)

amoken (207870) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223812)

What does this have to do with privacy? Borders is a corporation, and its property is private property. If they want to implement something like this, it's fine to complain to them on various grounds, such as that the technology can't be trusted (as though a person could), but to attack them on privacy grounds is absurd. If someone said you couldn't enter their house without being photographed or under video surveillance or whatever, would you attack them on privacy grounds, or would you just leave and tell them they were being silly? It is not your right to shop at Borders.

Re:privacy? (1)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223959)

No one said Borders didn't have the right to do this (as you say, being a corporation, private property, etc.). What the public is saying is, "Fine, do this and I'll shop elsewhere."

The free market in action. And it works.

Re:privacy? (2, Insightful)

sludgely (447712) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223980)

Borders is entitled to do whatever it wants inside its own stores, but the consumer does not have to stand for it. Also, if what they are doing leads to descrimination or if there are mix ups like there have been in the past, it could most likely lead to problems. Most people are afraid of what this technology can lead to and will therefor shop elsewhere. Borders needs to decide its priorities.

Re:privacy? (1)

Nanookanano (213568) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223993)

Nice use of the term, "TANSTAAFL".

The Borders in Harrisonburg, VA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223823)



Some little bitch in my managment class interviewed the GM at the Borders here next to James Madison U. She actually thought to ask the GM about the English Borders and the camera policy. You can read it on our class BB; the GM didn't really say much, [128.121.12.52] except drone on about how she supports the company and how the have access to numbers that GMs and the public don't blah blah blah. The really have those managers numbed whenever it comes to anything stamped "corporate policy."

great (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223824)

Now prices won't come down. And all the criminals will be able to keep stealing books and we'll all have to pay for it. Everyone jump for joy.

Re:great (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223994)

You really believe if they saved money by preventing theft, they would ... pass those savings on to consumers?!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

I think (and I'm wildly speculating here), they might...

...KEEP THE FUCKING MONEY FOR THEMSELVES!

Just a hunch.

heh (2, Funny)

IanA (260196) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223825)

what bigwig at borders actually thought this was a good idea and that the public wouldn't be pissed?

how stupid can people be..

Facial recognition probably not the way (2)

sachachua (246293) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223832)

Pardon my naivete, but doesn't tagging the books work?


There are always these huge detectors along the entrances, anyway. Most bookstores tag their books, and if you limit the kind of packages that people can take in, you should be able to control theft pretty well.


Besides, even with facial recognition, how are you going to define and detect "suspicious" behavior? Software might be smart enough to track both visible and obscured objects, but it could also make mistakes. Juggling books might also confuse the software.


Tagging the books might be better, and it doesn't raise all the questions about privacy and stuff. Of course, you need to make sure that the tags aren't removed...

Re:Facial recognition probably not the way (1)

jimmcq (88033) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223909)

with facial recognition, how are you going to define and detect "suspicious" behavior

It doesn't, as the name would might suggest, it recognizes faces and compares them to a database of known criminals.

Re:Facial recognition probably not the way (2)

SnatMandu (15204) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223910)

Uh, we're talking about identifying known shoplifters. Juggling books is not likely to confuse facial recognition software.

Hmm... maybe if you're juggling books with faces on the cover?

Re:Facial recognition probably not the way (1)

tecnodude (31328) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223930)

Pardon my naivete, but doesn't tagging the books work?


Not really, I worked at Officemax, Best Buy and Compusa. Officemax and CompUsa had those electronic tags attached to a laptop. I'm sure you've seen them they're usually black with wires running under the counter to a power source and an alarm. You'd be amazed at what thieves can come up with. Every so often we'd find a razor blade where a laptop should be. It turns out if you slip a razor blade between the sticky side and the laptop it'll hold down the button and not go off while you pry the laptop out.

BestBuy had/has those white tags, the ones the Borders puts in the books and on the CDs. Next time you buy a CD try this out: Grow your fingernails a bit long, not too long but maybe a millimeter longer then usual. Slip your fingernails under the tag use at least two maybe 3 fingers and drag them across the CD. It'll pop right off, there might be a little adhesive left. It might take you a try or two but eventually you'll have those tags off faster then they can run them over that little pad. That will only work on CDs that have the tags on the outside of course, I've noticed that some DVDs I've bought had the tags on the inside, I don't know if CDs are going toward that as well.

Totally off topic, the best thief that ever hit any store I worked at walked out with over $10,000 of stuff in about an hour. That's just a guess because we never knew what all they took. It was Christmas and the store was hopping, We had people standing 4-5 deep to talk to a sales guy so there was no way we could watch the floor. It was hell, the supervisor noticed 2 of the highend laptops misssing. The other employee's thought he'd sold them "as is", nope instead we found the steel bars holding the laptop in place had been sawed through with a small hand saw, kinda like the ones you have on a swiss army knife. Management was ticked, turns out they took a few items from video too, camcorders I believe. Security watched the tape that night with the police, they could never spot who did it. They had a guess or two but thats about it.

Stealing is a HUGE problem for retail stores, but for all of what I've said, I'd guess 75% is from employees or ex-employees. Hell there were managers taking things at BestBuy, they'd just edit it out of inventory. Upper management found out some how and busted around 20 people. Now that was fun to watch, the guy riding your ass all year being escorted out in handcuffs. :-)

Busted! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223990)

> It turns out if you slip a razor blade between the sticky side and the laptop it'll hold down the button and not go off while you pry the laptop out.

> Next time you buy a CD try this out: Grow your fingernails a bit long, not too long but maybe a millimeter longer then usual. Slip your fingernails under the tag use at least two maybe 3 fingers and drag them across the CD. It'll pop right off, there might be a little adhesive left. It might take you a try or two but eventually you'll have those tags off faster then they can run them over that little pad.

Sounds to me like you're distributing information about circumvention devices.

Moving on to related topics...

When I was a kid I heard on the radio that a couple of guys shoplifted a canoe from a sporting goods store, but got busted when they came back to get paddles and stuff.

Of course, I suspect that most news stories of this type are made up, but at least this one was funny.

Privacy and the lack there of in the World today. (3, Interesting)

waltmarkers (319528) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223834)

May I just say, one private bookstore maintaining their own database of shoplifters shutting down is no doubt a victory for the privacy cause; it is a small victory. What if say, Borders got togeather and shared the system and database with, say, B&N. And they, in turn, shared with say another chain, say Walmart.

Well, it quickly becomes apparant where I'm going with this, you would have a very large database with lots of camaras that would be able to identify someone very quickly almost anywhere. Now, lets say some of these camaras are mouted by checkouts, they can place a face, to a name, and address, and credit card, and from there they have a full profile on you.

Applications: Hmm, who in my store right now is know for not paying off thier bills, who here talks a long time and doesn't buy anything? I won't help them. Who here is a real sucker for a sale and will buy whatever I tell him to? What does this guy want/ need / like / already have? Well, I won't serve person A and I'll give the slick Willy approch to person B.

Now let's say an institution already had lots of cameras set up to do this very thing, and they were already in the intial phases of it. That would be a very down right terrifing thought. Well, don't look now but it is, the British Government and many many other institutions.
What additional technology does my fear take to impliment? None.

Do you trust the governments of the world not to share this information or use it properly for your good? Neither do I.

There is only one solution, the cameras and system must be disabled. Each and every single last one of them. Write anyone who will listen, do your part, get them down before Jim and Borders that you've never walked into before says "Hello, Mr. Nobody, Good to see you today, may I show you the new copy of Wired and the new Playboy that you buy every month?"

Re:Privacy and the lack there of in the World toda (1)

Mr. Frilly (6570) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223897)

Does anyone else see waltmarker's two examples as potential benefits for your standard consumer (you and I).

I pay my bills on time, and I don't tie up service reps with stupid questions. Cool, they'll know not to make me wait 30 minutes while they're occupied with a nitwit or someone who doesn't pay their bills.

Additionally, their system recognizes me, and they know I absolutely can't stand sales people talkigng to me. Cool, they let me browse in peace until I have a question for them.

Do I trust the government not to share this information? Doesn't really matter for me, I have nothing to hide, and I don't plan on shoplifting or using bad credit cards anytime in the future... So this issue is sort of irrelevant from my perspective....

Re:Privacy and the lack there of in the World toda (1)

waltmarkers (319528) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223921)

But what if say, there was a mix up, and something made it's way on to your credit report (That shouldn't be there) as it often does. Every sales person you talk to could remind you to pay bill X thor the rest of your life.

Now let's say this truely does become a large scale comercial cooperative network. Call me Mr Burgler, ok I'm thinking what rich guys aren't home right now and far away from their home. Bingo, this whole family is 2 hours awy from thier home! I can go on a little shopping trip of my own! Talk about casing a place, this would make it dreamy. You really think you would be able to hide from anyone? Jury Duty, Balif, go pick up juror X from location Y. Warents, hits, anyone, anytime for ANY REASON could find you.

But I pay my bills on time, I don't have anything to hide. I'll sacrifice a little privacy for a little service. Why not? Thought so.

Re:Privacy and the lack there of in the World toda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223962)

It's not commerce that worries me, it's government use of this tracking technology. It doesn't take much to be a dissident these days - smoked some doobie at college? Ever posted to a mailing list the CIA is watching? Ever been involved in encryption?


Soon they'll be able to track anybody anytime and it won't take a court order to make it happen.


I agree, we must smash the cameras.

Re:Privacy and the lack there of in the World toda (2, Insightful)

Mr. Frilly (6570) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223975)

eh, good point on the home burgler thing, except maybe I'd have my own at home video system :)

Your credit report analog, though, is by far the best reason I've seen yet on this forum as to why we should be concerned about these systems. Then again, I think credit rating report systems are a good thing, and believe me, I've seen plenty of my friends get screwed over by these things. But in the end, the problem really isn't that the credit report exists, it's that there's no good system for removing an incorrect entry.

I think what these video recognition systems really need, is a legal incentive to insure that the cost of a false positive is very high. That way, it would be the burden of the seller to ensure that their databases/reports are correct, unlike the way it currently is with credit reports.

screaming is good (2)

RestiffBard (110729) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223840)

nice to know that every once in a while a company actually listens to the consumer.

Don't let Borders "resolve" anything (2)

perdida (251676) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223845)

Trusting Borders to resolve and reconcile issues brought up by activists is like trusting them what got Microsoft's money, the government, to prosecute Microsoft.

A little comparison here.

Microsoft gets called a monopoly, gets threatened with breakup, probably WON'T get broken up since this got transferred to a new judge. They come out with XP and .NET, and continue on their merry way because the Punishment bullet of the government, anti-trust prosecution, has already been shot, at least for the nonce!

Borders takes down its technology, "resolves" issues by doing something stupid like appointing a committee or a hearing board or something like that, or some kind of diversity officer.

Or there may be some other corporate solution that is cooked up by a lawyer in order to meet the constitutional requirements while conferring the bottom-line benefits, such as lower insurance premiums for the stores, that these cameras were designed to provide.

The logic these cameras use (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223846)


How does the captured image of a face translate to a "match" with a picture on file? Does it have refernce points, much like a fingerprint? How are these points defined? Does anyone have a link? Does it consider skin tone as an identifying factor?!

It's simple for a person to look at two pictures of a face and say "yeah, it looks like this person." But face recognition, I thought, was a bit of a mystery to human psychology - I mean, all faces a pretty much the same, but human beings can note and register the most subtle differences.

Would this sort of logic hold up in court? I mean, the witness says the guy on the (non face scanning) security camera isn't the man on trial - but the scanning-camera logic thinks it's a match, so it must be him! Who gets precedence, the human or the computer?

My guess the logic flows through a simple computer. Anyway, here is the simplest computer around, and the interface is perfect because we are all born with it - the interface is human DRIVE. The computer works like this: I stick my pee sprout in your mom's poop chute for 1, and I stick it in her pee hole for 0.

poop chute = 1
pee hole = 0

Sometimes I stick it in her mouth, but that is for parity.

Sometimes complex operations can take a long time to complete, but that's okay! We're looking for simplicity here, not speed. And waiting for this interface isn't that bad.

This simple computer is very susceptable to visuses. In fact, it comes pre-loaded with several.

For review:

poop chute = 1
pee hole = 0

This computer also fits into Microsoft's .Net strategy - namely, pay per use. It costs $10 per computation, or 15 minutes, whichever comes first.

poop chute = 1
pee hole = 0

the UK..Leading the way to the Brave New World (3, Interesting)

darkPHi3er (215047) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223855)

one of the interesting clashes brewing between the EU and the USA is the ongoing "ratcheting up" of intrusive and obtrusive "ubquitious surveillance" in the UK...

the British people, after decades of things going "BOOM!" in the middle of London and other cities, have choosen to turn over many of their privacy rights (which are far fewer to start with in the UK than the USA, NO Bill of Rights in Limey Land)

here's a link (from last august, was also covered on /. as i recall) to a Salon dot com article on email surveillance of Americans in the UK ....

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/08/23/bri ti sh_carnivore/

the recent tussle in Florida (WHY is it ***ALWAYS*** Florida????) over the use of face/rec is just the start of the argument over what s/f maven Bruce Sterling calls "perpetual surveillance", where any time we are in public, we are "on camera"..

those who support it argue that "personal crimes" mugging, robbery, rape, etc will be drastically reduced and more criminals will be caught and imprisoned and that living in a "fish bowl" is a small price to pay for the additional safety...the Brits seems to have bought this argument hook, line and sinker

if some organization(s) don't emerge to make sure that our "analog" privacy protections are transferred by law and statute to the digital world, which, so far, by and large they have not....our digital lives will become simple currency for the governments and corporations to trade in (Terry Gilliam, Prophet)

the corporations and their proxies, RIAA, MPAA, BSA, et al have their plans for our data, and so far, the US and European governments have either gone along with the corporations or just stood on the sidelines

The Bill of Rights needs to be attached to our digital identities, realms, behaviours ASAP, now's the time to support the EFF, or don't be surprised iff keyboard sniffers are built into OSs in the next decade...

We're all in it together...

Re:the UK..Leading the way to the Brave New World (1)

kevgull (471032) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223879)

Some of us in the UK are actually *shit* scared of the way our privacy rights are being tossed away.



We have the largest amount of CCTV camera's per person of any country in the world, and that fscking scares me.



Unfortunately, the standard, Daily-Mail reading, Princess Diana-loving, middle-England middle-class thick-as-pigsh*t Thatcherite that makes up most of the country brings up the old "Well, if you've got nothing to hide, then there's nothing to be afraid of" sh*te.

Er, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223983)

turn over many of their privacy rights (which are far fewer to start with in the UK than the USA, NO Bill of Rights in Limey Land)


No bill of rights, other than that laid down by the European Union and enforced in the European Court of Human Rights. Duh. As it happens the UK [seperate from the EU] grants far more privacy rights than the USA, which has the fewest privacy laws in the known world.


What's interesting about this situation is that nothing in either the American or European bills of rights prevents this sort of thing from happening.


So attaching it to your keychain isn't going to help.

Aspirin (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223865)

Do you know why they make aspirin white?

Because they want them to work.

Re:Aspirin (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223957)

Shove your RACIST bullshit up your ass!

too late, switched to ReadMeDoc.com ! (1)

beanerspace (443710) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223870)

Too late, just bought a slew of O'Reilly books and some LInux titles at ReadMeDoc.com ... not only were they discounted 25 to 30% ... but they gave me a further discount for buying 5 or more books ...


... and again, the nice young lady at the register recognized the faces of me and my coworker ... with a warm greeting (something else I don't get at Border's these days).


Oh, I'll go back ... especially now that they're not playing facial disgracial anymore ... but from now own, they won't be my first stop.

YESS!!!! (1)

MrSquish (459359) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223872)

SCORE! +1 for privacy! i hope they don't go though with this EVER why? it won't stop people who are good from doing it.

that stupid buzzer at the door (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223892)

I can't get out of the store half the time without that stupid buzzer going off at the door and I DON'T STEAL. I don't think i've been at the checkout line once without hearing the buzzer going off on at least 2 customers.

And now these clowns are going to implement some facial recog? Fuck-n-a, half the people rolling into the store will get tagged as shoplifters if their track-record is any indication.

Re:that stupid buzzer at the door (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223924)


I once had the same problem. Turns out that the wallet I had recently purchased had a security device in it that had never been deactivated - it was tucked deep into a photo pocket and I had no idea it was there. Caused me a slew of embarassment until I figured it out.

I used to work retail and it was great amusement to try and stick security tags on the bottom of other employee's shoes, inside their ties, etc.

It was also amusing to ball your sister in the stock room.

Man, good times.

how is this a privacy issue (1)

bhny (97647) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223912)

is is because machines are watching us instead of a security person? are we scared of the machines?

i'm being serious here. we now have face recognition software that works and thats great, and just get used to it.

Re:how is this a privacy issue (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223933)

Your a godamn fascist! If the U.K. wants to pull a 1984, let them. This is America.

Re:how is this a privacy issue (1)

grue23 (158136) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223981)

This is /., not America.

Re:how is this a privacy issue (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223986)


it is an amerika run by jews and sand nigs.

Public preception of privacy vs. crime prevention (2)

Masem (1171) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223913)

In this week's US News and World Report, one of the journalists has an editoral [usnews.com] with regards to the use of cameras to catch red-light breakers and how Dick Amery (congressman) responded negatively to them. The journalist felt that Amery's fears were in the wrong place, in that with large numbers of accidents already happening from red lights, adding more cops actually at the scene, runnign red lights to catch those that break the law, would lead to more accidents. In other words, he felt there's a point where security and safety outweight privacy rights.


While I'm sure we here on /. all agree that once you give up privacy for security, you start down a path where all privacy is given up, I think that the journalist's comments are a good representation of how the average American feels that their privacy rights should come after the safety of the nation. Sure, people stealing books from Borders aren't going to be hurting anyone, but there is little differnce between looking at everyone's face in a store and looking at everyone going through a light. And the question of who watches the watchers is raised, but the journalist appears to write this under the table, since the governments completely infallible (uh-huh).

Re:Public preception of privacy vs. crime preventi (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223926)

of course. Armey is a Republican, and the leftist journalist can't give props to him for taking the right stand.

For every leftist, there is a fascist waiting to break out.

Weird Title (1)

XBL (305578) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223936)

I thought it said ... Nixon Faces Resignation

Time for bed it seems.

Horny (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223938)

I am extremely horny. Will someone please consider having oral sex with me? You will not be disappointed.

LiNuXcHiq38DD@hotmail.com

Why this is a bad idea.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223952)

Let's shove hot grits up this guy's [goatse.cx] ass.

thank god for slashcode 2.2 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223977)

i saw right through that link, goatse boy!

Somebody please tell me (1)

Scratch-O-Matic (245992) | more than 13 years ago | (#2223965)

what the hell is wrong with face recognition software? What's the difference between that and having some guy watch a security monitor for known offenders? Do people think when the software recognizes a face, it's going to send the person off to jail with no human intervention? Of course not...it's just going to notify a security person to keep an eye on the individual. If they don't take anything, no big deal. If they aren't who the computer thought they were, no big deal.

Same with red light cameras. What's the difference between using them and having someone stationed at the intersection to watch for offenders? I've been caught by one myself...I'm now more careful about pushing the yellow lights. By the way, the photo led to a civil fine, not criminal, and there was no possiblity of it affecting my driving record. A fair tradeoff, I think.

Rule of thumb: if you are in a public place, people will be able to see you, whether they do it with their eyes, through a camera, or assisted by software. Enough with the paranoia already.

Re:Somebody please tell me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2223970)

I agree with your "rule of thumb". But, do we really want government, corps. tracking our every move. At some point we have to take a stand and say enough of this fascism.

Libertarian, and proud

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?