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!

Your Face Is Not a Bar Code

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the every-move-you-make dept.

Privacy 292

Phil Agre has a solid essay opposing automatic face recognition systems in public areas. These uses are only going to increase, because the technology is cheap (enough) and appealing to authorities everywhere; it's good to have some arguments to hand for opposing the spread of the cameras.

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

Bar code (-1)

Trollificus (253741) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267057)

I don't know about your face, but mine is.

Re:Bar code (-1)

Cmdr (Fuck You) Taco (469621) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267070)

Your mom's cunt is like a bar code. Everyone recognizes it.

Re:Bar code (-1)

asbestos_diaper (456125) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267219)

god damn, that was lame.

Next time, keep your fuckwit comments to yourself.

Re:Bar code (-1)

Trollificus (253741) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267244)

Ahh, but it'll cost 'em.

My ass is a bar code (-1)

Cmdr (Fuck You) Taco (469621) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267058)


* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a| | \ | | a
t| `. | | : t
s` | | \| | s
e \ | / / \\\ -- \\ : e
x \ \/ --~~ ~--| \ | x
* \ \-~ ~-\ | *
g \ \ .--------.__\| | g
o \ \_// ((> \ | o
a \ . C ) _ ((> | / a
t /\ | C )/ \ (> |/ t
s / /\| C) | (> / \ s
e | ( C__)\__/ // / / \ e
x | \ | \\__// (/ | x
* | \ \) `---- --' | *
g | \ \ / / | g
o | / | | \ | o
a | | / \ \ | a
t | / / | | \ |t
s | / / \/\/ | |s
e | / / | | | |e
x | | | | | |x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

michael (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267064)

You are the worst hypocrite [spectacle.org] of all the Slashdot editors. Why don't you just piss off?

Easy to see (-1)

Ralph JewHater Nader (450769) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267066)

Of course it's a bad idea. You don't want the jews to keep track of you and your money now, don't you?

Facial Recognition has other uses (3, Insightful)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267073)

Just because law enforcement would like to use it for catching criminals doesn't mean it can't be used for good.

Think about it- Similiar to Gates's house- walk into a room, machine recognizes your face (instead of the pin) and changes your pictures on the wall to suit.

Authenticate your identity online to prevent fraud (although, some Celebs might have trouble with that... 3 million elvis's ... :P

Search your high school yearbook- search old newspaper clippings...

And.... catch some known pedophile that's broken parole.

It's a great technology for those who don't run afoul of the law... but... the power and lack of regulation are very worrying.

Re:Facial Recognition has other uses (2, Insightful)

AtomicBomb (173897) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267191)

I agree most of the applications that you suggested are quite valid, but the crucial point is not in a public area...

Gate's House is not a public place, authenticate my identity when shopping online implies that I am sitting behind *my* computer, old newpaper clippings do not show my jelly belly when I was sunbathing at the local beach.... Catch my point?

Re:Facial Recognition has other uses (1)

trentfoley (226635) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267320)

To me, the most obvious use would be to find missing children. And, in that case, it would have to be in public places. I know I certainly don't want my government puting these cameras in private places (like MY home!) Besides, how much longer do you really think it will be until satellite technology makes the issue of placing cameras on the ground moot.

Face recognition (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267076)

It's not all bad, though.

Automatic surveillance would release police resources, which are currently being stretched to the limit, to more useful purposes like responding quickly to emergencies.

It's surprising to see how anti-law enforcement the /. crowd really is. The only thing that's keeping you, your families and your property safe is a robust law enforcement system. Without law enforcement your precious computers and consoles would be stolen in no time.

Re:Face recognition (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267155)

The only thing that's keeping you, your families and your property safe is a robust law enforcement system

This is the basic arguement of every attack on civil liberties. The job of the police is not to protect the citizens, it is to enforce the law only. The responsibility of protecting "you, your families and your property" is yours. This responsibility can not be deligated to the government in a free society.

Re:Face recognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267176)

The job of the police is not to protect the citizens, it is to enforce the law only.

Are you just being pedantic?

Ever seen a "To serve and protect" slogan on a police car?

The law exists to protect the citizens and since the police enforce the law, it's their job to protect the citizens as well.

If you disagree with this, please tell me what does the law and its enforcement exist for then?

The responsibility of protecting "you, your families and your property" is yours.

If I want to get my car fixed, I go to the professional. If I need medical attention, I consult a professional. If I need protection, I rely on the law enforcement services I pay my taxes for.

I'm not trained in martial arts or gun use. I don't even own a gun. Firstly, because it's damn difficult to get a license for one. Secondly, I find guns and weapons in general distasteful and barbaric. The police has the equipment and training. Why should I, an amateur, even attempt to become a law enforcer?

Re:Face recognition (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267160)

Nobody here is any-law enforcement.

We can all read history and know that police will over time become facist. We all saw the Rodney King video .

We see and the need to control is inherent in the makeup of people who become policemen.

We understand the "war on drugs" has been used as an excuse to steal property without due process.

We see its obvious that police use radar and laser tools to raise revenue.

We know too well that police will stop people they don't like to hassle them.

We read the paper where a county in suburban Washington DC routinely kills minorities on traffic stops.

We understand that cops are underpaid public servants with a big gun and a napoleon complex.

We understand the "war on drugs" has been an excuse for police departments to expand their budgets and authority.

We see this fall Washington DC police will be making the city into an armed camp because peaceful demonstrations will be taking place. Policemen see this as a direct assault on their authority and are itching to use mace and clubs on a bunch of kids.

So please don't presume to lecture us.

Re:Face recognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267184)

We...we...we...we...

You've just listed a number of rare and extreme cases of abuse by the police.

What you're intentionally leaving out is the fact that 99% of the time the policemen and -women perform their function with admirable courage, professionalism and courtesy. Of course that doesn't make headlines...

aww poor officer. (0)

blitz_0ne (444224) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267227)

Of course it doesn't make headlines because that's what they have been employed to do. Additionally these civil servants were not drafted into law enforcement they chose that career track. Don't give me that cr4p.

You missed my point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267243)

The point is that reporting only the abuse cases gives a biased view on the law enforcement.

Have some respect for the men and women who are doing a dangerous job.

Re:You missed my point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267275)

Race car drivers and mountain climbers do a dangerous job too.

Admit it. When you see a guy speeding, in your gut, you feel like kicking the crap out of him.

disgust not respect (2, Insightful)

jageryager (189071) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267339)

I have nothing but intense disgust for officers who abuse their authority
and power to beat people down.

I have had personal encounters with police:

- pulled over and harrassed for running a yellow light at 4 AM on my
way home from work. I was assumed to be drunk. And was allowed to
procede with a $50 ticket for a marginally loud exhaust.

- pulled over and harrassed for "eratic driving" on my way home from
work at 11:30 pm. Assumed to be drunk. Questioned for 10 minutes.
Finally released after volunteering to take the breath test.

- Obnoxious police officers directing traffic during a parade.
Office refused to let some cars pass even after 10 minutes of waiting.

- Obnoxious police giving me a ticket for a loud muffler when he SAW
the exhaust damage happen right in front of him.

When a cop pulls a car over for running a yellow light, or for not coming
to a comeplete stop at stop sign, in a sleepy rural one light town at 4
AM, when there is no else around, he is doing one thing and one thing
only. He is being obnoxious.

Police are people. Some good and some bad. Most people are
not pure. I don't want anyone to have anymore power over me than
absolutely neccessary. The bad things I hear and see, and have experienced
have soured me.

Kevin

Re:Face recognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267257)

"What you're intentionally leaving out is the fact that 99%"

So 1 out of 100 cases of police abuse are okay with you? Hey, as long as we catch the bad guys, then who cares if we trample civil rights?

Your whole attitude is why nobody trusts cops. 99% accuracy is good enough for you people. But you're protecting the children, right?

Re:Face recognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267277)

So 1 out of 100 cases of police abuse are okay with you? Hey, as long as we catch the bad guys, then who cares if we trample civil rights?

Ok, if you demand a perfect system then we would not have a system at all.

Any human system is prone to abuse and 1 out of 100 is not a bad ratio given the amount of good the remaining 99 cases will do.

Oh, by the way. Do you support capital punishment? If so, how come you accept imperfection there?

Police don't protect (2, Insightful)

jageryager (189071) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267212)

It's surprising to see how anti-law enforcement the /. crowd really is. The only thing that's keeping you,
your families and your property safe is a robust law enforcement system. Without law enforcement your
precious computers and consoles would be stolen in no time.
NO! NO! NO! The robust law enforcement is not keeping me, or my family, or my property safe from all the scumbags out there. All the police can do is swing by after the fact to collect evidence, and pick up the bodies. It is not their job to protect us, in spite of how many movie plots that have police guarding people.

They actually spend a lot of time beating us down. Here in NY, USA we have zero tolerance for seat belt offenders, with police roadblocks for enforcement. In USA the Federal Gov't has most law enforcement spending a majority of their time chasing victimless criminals like pot smokers.

Ask yourself how much you will like the new "law enforcement" tool when it is used to beat you down? Your kid took a spin on his bike without a helmet, so you have endangered his welfare and are arrested. You or someone who looks like you are seen buying wine regularly so you must be watched closely just in case you happen to drive drunk. You or someone who looks like you attend a Libertarian conference so you deserve a little extra harassment just for being different. You look a lot like a real badguy so you and your family are held at gunpoint will you get arrested every time you go into a public place.

Kevin

Re:Police don't protect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267232)

The robust law enforcement is not keeping me, or my family, or my property safe from all the scumbags out there.

Where I live I cannot get a license for a gun because I don't work in a field that would require it.

Even if I had the gun and shot a burglar, even just wounding him, I'd probably get sued for inflicting grievous bodily harm and I'd most likely lose the case (I've read about several cases in papers).

Yet, I've never been mugged, robbed or threatened by criminals. If, as you say, robust self defence is what keeps the crooks away, then why haven't I been robbed already?

Re:Face recognition (1)

guygee (453727) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267220)

Automatic surveillance would release police resources, which are currently being stretched to the limit, to more useful purposes like responding quickly to emergencies.

...more useful purposes, like enforcing the DMCA, harvesting the streets using speed traps, getting our friends, sons and daughters thrown into a prison full of rapists for smoking marijuana, violently attacking peaceful antiglobalization protesters, erecting 10-foot walls around the White House...

The question is, more useful for whom? Jane and Joe Median?

It's surprising to see how anti-law enforcement the /. crowd really is. The only thing that's keeping you, your families and your property safe is a robust law enforcement system. Without law enforcement your precious computers and consoles would be stolen in no time.

What many /.'ers oppose is not law enforcement in general, but the enforcement of unjust laws. Not all laws are based on concepts of justice, some laws are created through corruption or flaws in the political system. Any reasonable intelligent human that spends some time considering the difference between the legal system and the human sense of natural justice comes to similar conclusions.

Natural justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267260)

human sense of natural justice comes to similar conclusions.

If societies were built upon the concept of "natural justice" (ie. what Jane and Joe Median think is right) we'd be living in a barbaric eye-for-an-eye society.

The concept of right and wrong is so complex that it really cannot be trusted to laymen and -women. If it really were that simple, we would have had a perfect society a long time ago.

As computer geeks (2)

MxTxL (307166) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267077)

As computer geeks we all know that no matter how good the coders are that design the software, it still can and still WILL make mistakes.

And in things like this where having the same earlobes and chin as someone will get you taken down in a public place..... well, I wouldn't want it to happen to me.

Re:As computer geeks (5, Interesting)

UltraBot2K1 (320256) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267099)

The cameras are not going to be used as a definitive identification device. There is a margin of error with all forms of identification. Eyewitness accounts have been proven to be inaccurate numerous times in the past. The cameras are simply a tool to help law enforcement officers perform their job more effectively. They are NOT the judge, jury and excecutioner. They ARE an effective method of helping the police identify possible fugitives. I think anything that takes some of the strain off of law enforcement officers and increases police efficiency should be embraced with open arms.

The cameras aren't infringing upon anyone's rights. You ARE NOT entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in a public place. You ARE entitled to privacy within the confines of your home or private property. But that's not the issue. I don't understand how you can possibly be upset about someone taking your picture in public. If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide, and applaud this system for making the streets safer for our children.

Re:As computer geeks (2)

MxTxL (307166) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267140)

I agree, we are not entitled to expectation of privacy. I (and you and everyone else) have video of me taken probably as much as any hollywood movie star when I go to the local quickee-mart, to K-mart, to just about anywhere. That doesn't bother me.

What bothers me is that someone is going to be sitting in a control desk, drinking coffee, when his terminal beeps an alarm that there is a pedophile loose in HIS store. He pulls up the profile and it's a real sick bastard, wanted in seven states. Looks just like the guy in the store. Well, he thinks, I better call for backup and 5 minutes later, a perfectly innocent man is taken into custody. They rough him up a little in the car, too, just for fun. And if he resists... even if he used to be innocent, now he looking at some serious charges.

I am sure that this scenario will happen MANY times over. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this happens MORE often than they take down legitimate criminals. Why? Because this technology CAN'T be perfect, nor even very close. There are over 6 billion people in the world, and of all of them, there can't be more than several thousand face types. Sure, you throw in several combinations of features and you can get pretty good but I think you would still be swinging at less than 50% accuracy with it and THAT's not good enough.

Re:As computer geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267151)

And if he resists... even if he used to be innocent, now he looking at some serious charges.

And quite rightfully so.

If you get arrested you don't resist -- ever! Resist an arrest and the cops have every right to subdue you.

If you're innocent it will become evident at some point. Meanwhile, enjoy the ride. Give the finger and sue the arresting morons after you've been cleared.

Re:As computer geeks (2)

Dr. Prakash Kothari (314326) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267165)

The FBI maintains a database containing millions of images of fingerprints. This database is used to match prints lifted off a crime scene with an individual. The concept is the same. A computer compares two digital images, and if enough similarity is present, identifies a match. This system has been in place for YEARS, and I haven't heard of any wrongful arrests arising from it.

On a similar note, what if you happen to be walking down the street, and a cop spots you because you look remarkably similar to Joe Drugtrafficer on the FBI's most wanted list. The officer makes a visual match and takes you downtown for questioning. The principle is the same, only in my scenerio, the match is made from the officers own recollection of the wanted man's face. I would argue that a computer match of a high resolution digital image would be, in fact, MORE ACCURATE than a police officer making an identification from his mental image of a criminal. These kind of false identifications happen all the time, and are usually cleared up in a matter of minutes after the falsely accused presents some kind of identification.

Re:As computer geeks (2)

MxTxL (307166) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267223)

Firstoff, fingerprint matching is completely different. There are *practically* an unlimited number of completely unique fingerprint patterns all with distinct easily quantifiable differences. If you get a finger-print, it will look like the one on record, and only the one on record. There are flaws every once in a while, but they are statistically no big deal.

Face recognition, however, is not so exact. There are not unlimited unique faces. That's a fact. People look alike ALL THE TIME. Don't try to tell me that you can tell the difference between Gary Busy and Nick Nolte all the time. I'm sure I look like about 30,000 other people on this planet. As do you. If you bring up ethnicity, there are similar problems, chinese people look chinese, white people look white, black people look black. I know you've thought to yourself (and it's a popular thing to stereotype), all those X people look alike. This software will do the same thing.

Also, on your point of a cop being able to recognize you from memory. Yes, a computer would be more accurate. But that is when your face is compared to a discrete number of criminals. The cop can only remember so many people's faces, and you probably don't look like any of them. The image database could contain millions upon millions of images. I guarantee you would look EXACTLY like one or more. So much so that it might be justified to bring you in. PLUS, a cop will see you once in a while, this thing could run your image 100 times a day. Eventually, the combination of light, reflection, angle, image quality will line up just right, and you WILL match someone. It's a fact.

THAT bothers me, and it should bother you too.

Re:As computer geeks (1)

cdand (252551) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267259)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_986000/ 986340.stm [bbc.co.uk]

You are mistaken to think that the finger print identification system doesn't make errors. The example above is only one of many incidences of this kind of thing.

Re:As computer geeks (1)

Caine (784) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267148)

Ah, the classic "If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide".

The problem with this is who decides what's wrong. It's enough with one rotten egg in an organization to be able to severly misuse this technology, not to speak of it the whole governing body is a rotten egg! We have democracy, and such a fractioned way of government just to prevent abuse of power. The same should apply to the technology in the hands of those ruling. It shouldn't be all powerful or all-seeing for that one off chance that they go bad. You have to think one step ahead, and not just at how the present situation looks.

Re:As computer geeks (1)

thefogger (455551) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267152)

Read the article to the end.

If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide, and applaud this system for making the streets safer for our children.

Check out the last statement of the essay. Judging from your words, I think you'd make a perfect borg. All thoughts and actions shared.

Re:As computer geeks (1)

Penrif (33473) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267161)

If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide, and applaud this system for making the streets safer for our children.

Okay. I was with ya all the way, until you came to this sentence. My problem with part one: depends on the definition of "wrong". Say you've broken the DMCA (something I wouldn't mind doing myself, if I had the time to pull it off). Would it be appropriate for a camera outside of your grocery store to alert the authorites to your location? In essence, what I'm getting at is that this system has the potential for sending even the most minor crimal into complete seclusion.

My problem with part 2: this is just trying to pull at some emotional string. What is it in particular about this kind of system that makes the streets safer for children? Doesn't it claim to make the streets safer for everyone? Doesn't that logically seem like a better type of system? Yet for some reason you've limited it down to a subset of the population with the hope of achieving a bigger impact. Bah. Casts a great big shadow of sillyness on your whole argument (at least in my mind).

Re:As computer geeks (2)

UltraBot2K1 (320256) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267194)

This isn't an argument about the DMCA, so I'll leave that part out. Hopefully the courts will do the right thing and deem it unconstitutional, but if you have broken a law, be it the DMCA or any other law, and you are in a public place, then you are running the risk of being identified. Computer imaging doesn't change this, it's been happening for hundereds of years. That's why we have wanted posters in the post office. To encourage citizens to make identifications of known criminals in their area.

The Constitution protects you from unreasonable search and seisure. This means that DEA officers cannot kick in your door and ransack your apartment without having evidence of your wrongdoing. This means that the FBI cannot tap your phone or Internet connection without sufficient evidence against you.

The Constitution does NOT guarantee you the right to remain completely anonymous in a public place. If you don't want your face to be seen in public for whatever reason, don't go out in public. It's as simple as that.

You don't have kids, do you?

Re:As computer geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267207)

Maybe you ought to read the article prior to replying.

Re:As computer geeks (2)

agentZ (210674) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267215)

In essence, what I'm getting at is that this system has the potential for sending even the most minor crimal into complete seclusion.

Yes, it would. But that doesn't show the flaw in the camera system, but rather the legal system. In the US today (pardon my bias), there are laws against so many things that it's impossible for anybody to keep track of them. As a result, we are all minor criminals in some way. (Speeding, jaywalking, failure to yield, etc etc) It is these laws which give law enforcement the power to selectively enforce their power as they see fit. When you can be stopped for having a 'tail light out,' it is the cop who is singling you out. The camera system just gives the cop another thing to look at to see if you're 'suspicious.' If you are, but they don't want to stop you. If you are, and they do want to stop you, they can.

At the same time, however, we must accept that the power of the police is necessary. Somebody has to be responsible for dealing with the person who's breaking into your house, or who stole my car last month (grr). There has to be a presence to keep order in society or else we would tear ourselves apart. That power must be carefully kept in check, don't get me wrong, but it must be there.

Re:As computer geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267208)

"making the streets safer for our children."

OH, FOR FUCK'S SAKE...

Let put everything in terms of 'for the children' as if that somehow makes it the only right answer and anybody who opposes it is automatically 'against the children.'

How about making the streets safe for the adults? Might that be also important? Find a better fucking excuse/reason/whatever...

Re:As computer geeks (1)

mickeyreznor (320351) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267296)

If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide, and applaud this system for making the streets safer for our children

wow, two bullshit arguments in one sentance. I've heard these arguments used so many times for just about every justification for infringing our personal liberties (the drug war, carnivore, etc.) I'm an innocent person, but I fear the law enforcement of this land, and this thing makes me fear them even more. You say they aren't the judge, jury, and executioner, but whose to say they won't be treated that way. And oh, let's not forget the fucking children. I can't wait until they start monitoring "bad" subcultures who supposadly do "bad" things (goths, ravers, punks, people who *might* look like they're in a gang). I have many things to fear from this, and I would fear for my children's safety as well. This will be abused, and in the hands of our law enforcement this is one dangerous tool.

How to defeat face scanners (3, Interesting)

CokeBear (16811) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267079)

These devices scan your face to determine bone structure, so facial hair, glasses, or anything else on the surface wont make a difference. The secret to defeating facial recognition systems is to either break your jaw and have it reset in a different position (not recommended) or to put things in your mouth (fill your cheeks and lips) that alter the structure of your face.

Re:How to defeat face scanners (2)

keesh (202812) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267088)

Far easier to put on glasses and make sure the lenses are partially mirrored on the outside. Just as effective, far less painful and doesn't stop you doing things like talking and eating...

Couldn't you just... (1)

Ronnie76er (520052) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267136)

wear a mask or a face covering when your outside? Granted it's a little extreme, but I don't think it's against the law...

Re:Couldn't you just... (3, Funny)

agentZ (210674) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267224)

Or sure, you won't look suspicious wearing a Superman mask or covering your face the entire time you're talking to a salesperson. Seriously, if you came into my bank wearing a mask of any kind, I'm hitting the panic button before you can say anything.

Re:How to defeat face scanners (1)

EvlPenguin (168738) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267171)

So then whenever you go out in public, wear a George W. Bush mask [halloweencostumes4u.com] .

michael (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267080)

You [spectacle.org] are the worst hypocrite of all the Slashdot editors. Why don't you just piss off?

Pretty shaky arguments. (1, Troll)

The Ultimate Badass (450974) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267083)

Ager's core assumption is that liberty is a vital attribute of the individual. Even John Stuart Mill did not go so far. JSM was willing to concede the right of the government to take preventative measures, especially in a society so overcome with crime that entire neighbourhoods resemble a different, much more dangerous nation than the rest of the city they are in.

If you relax for a moment, the belief that individual liberty is a universal right -- an assumption that has by no means been proven fait accompli, you will see that these camera's provide an a priori benefit to society. Criminals cannot wander free in our streets and malls with these around.

Let's stop and think about the children for a second. I believe that if we as a free society were to register all known pedophiles in a national database with pictures, this system could ipso facto provide massive benefits for the endangered young of our nation.

I can not in good faith oppose pro bono publico a system which almost guarantees safety for my children. I do not trust the mettle of anyone who does not agree with this.

Re:Pretty shaky arguments. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267107)

No no no no no. If you're going to troll, do it properly.

Ager's core assumption is that liberty is a vital attribute of the individual. Even John Stuart Mill did not go so far. JSM was willing to concede the right of the government to take preventative measures, especially in a society so overcome with crime that entire neighbourhoods resemble a different, much more dangerous nation than the rest of the city they are in.

Nice start, get in the misinformation as early as possible. Unfortunately, most of the slashbots do know that JSM was completely pro-privacy.

If you relax for a moment, the belief that individual liberty is a universal right -- an assumption that has by no means been proven fait accompli, you will see that these camera's provide an a priori benefit to society. Criminals cannot wander free in our streets and malls with these around.

Not bad, but no slashbot will ever consider privacy not being vital. Try for a mid-point there.

Let's stop and think about the children for a second. I believe that if we as a free society were to register all known pedophiles in a national database with pictures, this system could ipso facto provide massive benefits for the endangered young of our nation.

Far too obvious. Not a chance anyone will bite that. And paedophiles has an 'a'.

I can not in good faith oppose pro bono publico a system which almost guarantees safety for my children. I do not trust the mettle of anyone who does not agree with this.

And that wrecks the whole thing. Never ever end a troll like that.

Ach, you've really pissed me off now. I'm off to abuse Michael [censorware.org] for a while.

Re:Pretty shaky arguments. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267131)

And paedophiles has an 'a'

If you use the Queen's English then yes, you need an 'a' (paedophiles). However, in American English the 'a' has been dropped. As such 'pedophiles' is the correct spelling.

Re:Pretty shaky arguments. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267189)

That's my point. You USians can't speak or write a real language, so shut the fuck up or get learning.

Re:Pretty shaky arguments. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267141)

I think you overestimate the slashbots.

Re:Pretty shaky arguments. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267127)

Let's stop and think about the children for a second.

Let's not. "The children" are always used as a scapegoat for passing more and more privacy-invading laws. So far, the baby boomer scumbags who always want to "protect the children" have lobbied against such things as violence in media, pr0n and online anonymity. Once you mention that something such as facial recognition could be used in even a remote way to "save the children", you will have millions of people backing the cause and yet another reduction to liberty in exchange for an illusion of saftey.

Re:Pretty shaky arguments. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267143)

I take it you don't have children of your own?

I'll do and accept everything that will protect my children. I'm willing to accept far more wide ranging restrictions on my personal freedom if it can be shown that these restrictions actually improve the security.

Re:Pretty shaky arguments. (1)

EvlPenguin (168738) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267145)

How the hell did the parent deserve "troll"? He expresses a valid argument, though not one I particularly agree with. Way to have your heads up your asses, moderators.

Aw fuck the kids... (2)

crovira (10242) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267173)

I'm sick and tired of pedophagia being used as the excuse for every oppressive measure adults use on each other.

Face it, statistically, pedophiles are a small and far less dangerous segment of the community that used car salesmen who sell defective Detroit Iron to mentally defective sixteen year olds (who then go to a bar to celebrate their rite of passage into the adult community by drinking until they hurl and then weave their way home.)

YOU care about your kids. Great! YOU watch over them and trust that they will have enough sense to scream and kick. (You have taught them to do that or did you abrogate that responsability too?)

I care about your kids the same as you care about mine. Neither of us really gives a rat's-ass. Its an SEP (Somebody Else's Problem.) (That's why terrorists are never effective. If you can walk away you DO or you died and aren't terrorized anymore.)

By the way "pro bono publico" is Latin for "for the greater good" (implying 'not for profit.') You'd do a better job of that by getting the drunks off the street.

As for the hookers, pimps, dealers, thieves, purse-snatchers and lawyers. we'd be better off without them too.

Re:Pretty shaky arguments. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267336)

All this left-wing big-brother talk from someone who calls themselves "The Ultimat Badass" ?

In the US at least, individual Liberty is an 'unalienable right'

JSM was a cunt, and you may want to express your own opinion, rather than quote someone else's for credibility.

And the latin doesn't lend any weight to your argument either, so why are you posturing ?

You're argument is heavily flawed as well. As a free society, we shouldn't be registering "all known pedophiles" with pictures because it implies the need for global surveillance of the truly free and innocent which reigns in the 'freedom' of everyone.

Also, you're stooping to the 'pedophile argument' which is such a small threat it's silly (although admittedly heinous). This system and it's cost were certainly not justified to merely track the 2 pedophiles in each city.

And, you're children will certainly not be 'guaranteed' safe because of this - first of all, this system would only protect your hildren from pedophiles who have already been caught (a very small percentage I'm quite sure), and most certainly not from their parents / relatives (who are a bigger threat).

Parental supervision and education would be much better protection for your kids - especially when they grow up and have to deal with other threats.

Don't look to the government to remove your responsibilty to parent.

michael (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267087)

You are [spectacle.org] the worst hypocrite of all the Slashdot editors. Why don't you just piss off?

Bow to the inevitable and kiss freedom goodbye. (1, Flamebait)

crovira (10242) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267093)

Sadly, the same biometric mechaisms which will make transactions over the internet completely secure will also make it impossible for people to hide outside of their own homes (and many governments will try to put them inside as well.)

Since surveillance cameras are cheap, can be unobtrusive, (can you tell me where the cameras are around you?) always there and always on, the powers that be will use them to implement surveilance that's just as pervasive.

Since these cameras will be installed in community owned spaces surveying community owned property, you'll have absolutely no say in the matter.

In fact, the excuses will be that the surveilance is mandated and demanded by a responsable community.

I hear Ted Kazinski's cabin is for sale.

Re:Bow to the inevitable and kiss freedom goodbye. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267115)

the excuses will be that the surveilance is mandated and demanded by a responsable community.

I can already hear the arguments: "The surveillance is mandated and demanded by the majority of the community consisting of responsible and law-abiding citizens. There have been some opposition to these plans but it has come mostly from the fringe elements of the society who, unlike you honest citizens, often have something to fear and hide."

WARNING! GOATSE LINK! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267116)

DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE!

For those of you who don't know, goatse.cx has a picture of a guy bending over holding his asshole open. It's absolutely disgusting, and why any immature stotty-faced teenager like the poster of the parent finds it amusing to link to it is beyond me.

PLEASE MOD PARENT DOWN AND DO NOT CLICK ON THE GOATSE LINK!

Re:Bow to the inevitable and kiss freedom goodbye. (1)

Starquake (245822) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267146)

Since surveillance cameras are cheap, can be unobtrusive, (can you tell me where the cameras are around you?)

Funny that you should ask. Actually, I can tell you where the cameras are in my area. I've been very observant about the cameras watching me at Subway, in the gas station, at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, etc. I'm very disturbed by the trend, not only to put cameras everywhere but also by the fact that I seem to be the only one around here who cares! (BTW I live in a rapidly-expanding town just south of Memphis.)

Since these cameras will be installed in community owned spaces surveying community owned property, you'll have absolutely no say in the matter.
Since these areas are community owned, I should have a say in the matter. After all, I am a part of the community.

Efficent Terror (4, Interesting)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267100)

Totalitarianism in this century is going to be a lot easier because the government won't have to employ tons of informants and security service personell. They can just use face recognition to watch everybody and find out who the dangerous people are or who the leaders of insurgencies are and then locate them and eliminate them efficiently without disrupting the daily lives of everybody else. Running a good security service was possible in low tech times but was a tremendous economic drain on any totalitarian country and required executing a lot of uneccessary people just to keep people on their toes.

We are seeing this put into practice, for better or for worse, in Israel. Let's ignore completely who's right and who's wrong in the whole thing (I don't want to get off topic). The Palestinans are still low tech and have to rely on generalized terror of the old inefficent kind that brings a lot more condemnation on them then they would like because it often kills people who are not involved in the conflict per se. The Israelis on the other hand have very good intelligence, possibly even face recognition that lets them locate leaders of insurgency groups and meticulously pick them off.

So in the future the world will enter an era of permanent stablity, for worse no doubt, because if you get out of line you can be effciently eliminated.
The only solution I can see to this is to put this kind of technology into the hands of civilians. Put together a big network of civilian owned face recognition systems and feed into them the faces of politicians and then watch what they do.

Re:Efficent Terror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267135)

So in the future the world will enter an era of permanent stablity

And stability is a bad thing?

If I can choose between:

a) Personal freedom but having to fear for the safety of my children.

b) Restrictions on my privacy but being reasonably assured that paedophiles will be eliminated from the society before they rape children.

I'll always choose the option b). And don't give me that shitty line about "not deserving safety or liberty". It's hundreds of years old and doesn't apply to this day when monsters like Dahmer and an untold number of paedophiles are running around.

Re:Efficent Terror (1)

prisoner (133137) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267166)

This really is stupid: "paedophiles will be eliminated from the society before they rape children"

How, exactly, are you going to do this? Test everyone to see if they're a pedophile? These cameras and software might help catch pedophiles who have escaped from prison (and how many of those are there??) but how is it going to catch a pedophile who's never been charged as such? I can see it now "AAHAA - see that guy over there? He looks like a pedophile, go get him".

Between this and the traffic cameras (3, Interesting)

prisoner (133137) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267103)

things are really starting to get tight. All of these stories about traffic cameras, facial recognition and monitoring cameras just go together too well. It seems like you can believe in one of two things:

1. This gradually closing surveillance net that will be able to track you anytime you leave your house is a result of the unwitting acts of many legislatures/public officials which result in "skynet". or

2. This really is a "boil the frog" approach by government to keeping tabs on everything. IOW, they really *are* out to get you.

I think that it's probably the first but the end result is the same. More people need to make their voices heard on this type of stuff. We here in America, in general, seem to depend on the media to out this kind of stuff but we should not be so lackidasical (sp?) about it. This really is important. Oh, btw, the "traffic management" cameras are just stupid. A highway isn't like a train where you can divert trains onto extra tracks. There just aren't any extra 6-lane highways laying around. Sure, you might "divert" traffic from the highway to surrounding streets but what do you think will happen when 6 lanes of traffic gets "diverted" to a 2 or 4 land suburban avenue.......

michael (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267106)

You are the [spectacle.org] worst hypocrite of all the Slashdot editors. Why don't you just piss off?

michael (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267117)

You are the worst [spectacle.org] hypocrite of all the Slashdot editors. Why don't you just piss off?

We are a bar code. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267121)

What are you talking about! Of course your face is a bar code, its just that we don't like toy hink of people that way. But we do it every day. A bar code is ment to help distinguish products in an efficient manner. When we meet someone we look at their faces (most of us do anyway) and the next time we meet them we recognize the code/face. There are other solutions that would enrage you more, like real bar codes. Are we willing to give up our privacy to be protected? Yes. Are we going to get over it eventualy? Yes. Are we going to let the government get away with something worse? Yes. Why? Because they will try to introduce something else, and someone will yell "We put up with the cammeras, but not this!" And that will show we have come to live a little bit less.

Would you rather they say its imposible, we all look alike?

Why this will happen (1)

BgJonson79 (129962) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267123)

When talking to some of my friends about privacy issues, even some of the computer geeks (I mean this in a good way) to do not have too many concerns about privacy and that kind of stuff, like they don't expect to have any. Sounds like one of those things where everyone will only miss it when it's gone.

michael (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267124)

You are the worst [spectacle.org] hypocrite of all the Slashdot editors. Why don't you just piss off?

666 again (0)

N3P1u5U17r4 (457760) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267129)

Hey, why don't they combine this with the universal individual ID number (mentioned in a previous recent slashdot article) and somehow implant the code in peoples foreheads!? They could make it manditory for rich and poor alike!

So What (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267142)

Not much to worry about if you're not a criminal. I'd feel safer with this kind of thing around. Guess /. is full of criminals.

One possible solution (2, Funny)

Mister Black (265849) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267150)

One possible way to defeat these systems is to have everyone wear halloween masks in areas with these cameras. It's tough to figure out who is who if we all look like Richard Nixon. Perhaps citizens in areas with these systems can organize a protest by walking around these areas with masks on. If someone will pay for airfare to Tampa plus hotel accomidations, I'll make some time to come down there and take part in such a protest.

Re:One possible solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267159)

Perhaps citizens in areas with these systems can organize a protest

Yeah, dream on.

Organize such a protest and the local residents will most likely see you as a troublemaker and a potential criminal. Why else would you resist a method that has been shown to reduce crime (locally)?

Re:One possible solution (1)

Mister Black (265849) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267228)

Why else would you resist a method that has been shown to reduce crime (locally)?

Because I don't like the idea that I am assumed to be a criminal when I am not. Nor do I like the idea of any entity (government or otherwise) keeping tabs on me. In the past government has to have a warrant to put you under surveilance. With these systems, now they can do the same thing without a warrant.

your face could easily hold a bar code (1)

bukvich (98921) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267157)

I thought the fascists running the CIA and the FBI and the NSA and the DEA had a long term plan to tatoo barcodes on everybody's forehead they could get away with.

B.

Re:your face could easily hold a bar code (0)

N3P1u5U17r4 (457760) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267198)

Hey, shouldn't this be moderated as redundant?

Re:your face could easily hold a bar code (2)

Znork (31774) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267329)

Well, that's step two of the process. First you use massive facial recognition in public places to arrest everyone a few times per year due to false positives, and maybe rough them up a bit. Then you offer people the possibility of tatooing a barcode on the forehead (or, more likely a id chip implant or something), which could actually be accurately read, saving them from the mistaken identity problem and subsequent beatings.

privacy is the problem, not the solution (2, Interesting)

bhny (97647) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267158)

trying to stop a piece of software is ridiculous. (DMCA?) Its inevitable that information will become easier to collect. Society is becoming more transparent and that can be a good thing-

read some David Brin [lycos.com]
Salon also had this [salon.com] to say

Re:privacy is the problem, not the solution (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267238)

One-sided privacy is a problem, as is one-sided transparency.

The point Brin made was to demand and expect reciprocal transparency. If someone wants to know something about you, require that you get to know it about them. For instance, if government officials want to surveil you, require that you get to surveil them.

Great (3, Interesting)

Evil MarNuke (209527) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267162)

You know in all of my days dealing with all kind of people, the people I fear the most is law enforcement.

Sure, you can say "you should have nothing to fear if you aren't doing anything wrong." but that is the problem. Sometime you have to fear when you haven't done anything wrong. In some places you will be hounded becuase you're a white man in the black part of town. Other time, you're get pulled over becuase you drive a red car. Then you get a gun pulled on you and your life treated becuase some pig "don't like your kind."

It's like i was saying the other day to a friend "you have nothing to fear but cops." Think about it, when someone robs you, you have to right to fight back. If you fight back to a cop, they can kill you. Oh sure, it not all that bad, until you had a gun pointed to you by the protector of the law knowing his buddy would go right long with the story that you resisted assest. And you might make news, and you know what? People are going to say "yeah he should've been shot." Then media pumps the crime like every person walking around is a rapist, like everybudy is just waiting to rob you blind, or jack you when ever they get a chance.

I know there is crime, and I think it's bad, but when the police turns to law abidders and make crimes, that is where I draw the line.

What's the difference? (5, Insightful)

Bocaj (84920) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267164)

A security guard recognises a criminal from a mug shot on one of his cameras. He might be right, or mistaken. He'll have to check to be sure.

A piece of software flags a person as a criminal. It might be right or mistaken. It will have to let the security guard check it out to be sure.

The only difference is now one guard can handle more cameras better. The same with finger print software. You can check more fingerprints faster. The crime labs have used those for years. A human eye must still be the ultimate authority, the computer narrows the field a bit.

-Bocaj

Re:What's the difference? (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267213)

Big difference with the fingerprint software though -
Are authorities going around taking fingerprints everywhere and running them through?

Re:What's the difference? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267241)

Do you trust a security guard to make his own identification?

A security guard recognises a criminal from a mugshot on one of his cameras. He might be right, or mistaken. He'll have to check to be sure.

A piece of software flags a person as a criminal. It might be right or mistaken, but the security guard gets excited and tracks the "positive identification" down and bring him into the interrogation room to ask questions.

The big difference is that one guard is more likely to get lazy and simply rely on what he is told. Besides, XYZ corporation advertises a 99% accuracy, how can it be wrong?

countermeasures (2, Insightful)

xah (448501) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267179)

This face recognition scare can be put to rest if Madison Avenue just decides that the newest fashion trend will be masks. Yes, masks. We will all wear masquerade garb. It will be facial encryption.

Another alternative would be to figure out how to send an electronic signal of someone else's bone structure into the camera eye of the facial recognition device, perhaps with the use of an altered laser pen-like device.

Admittedly, this is all fantasy and science fiction. But I don't think speculation hurts us at this point.

censorware.org (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267199)

this piece would have been great on censorware.org. [censorware.org]

it's too bad the site is down..

hmmm... i wonder what happened to it, michael.

not surprised (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267218)

not 1 minute has passed since i posted this, and it already has been mod'd down to troll. hmmm..either the moderator that did this was lightning quick or one of the editors is monitoring this forum and mod'ing it has he sees fit.

it wouldn't surprise me, michael you censoring nazi bitch.

Re:censorware.org (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267235)

how is this a troll?

this guy is just expressing his opinion about the article.

moderation system does not work.

Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267201)

Couldn't I copyright and trademark my own face?

The authority (especially commercial interests) that copied my face and input it into their recognition system would be accountable under copyright laws.

I should have total rights to my image and likeness. Selling a digital depiction of my face at $500,000 a copy could get quite expensive.

You can say your ass is not a shit hole... (2)

Hobbex (41473) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267202)

... but you can't stop shit from coming out of it.

The author of the article is probably right that it is not pertinent for government accelerate the trend towards automatic recognition at this point, but the just the topic betrays a dangerous fallacy in his reasoning. If it is possible to use your face to identify you (and it is, of course, we evolved that way) then your face is, for all intents and purposes, a human barcode. You can throw a fit and argue all you like about how horrible that is, but by denying the simple inevitable truth you will just be making your situation worse.

Your ass is a shit hole, and your face is a bar code. Get over it, and start from there. The right thing to do when technology starts infringing on our integrity and liberty is not to fight technology, because that is futile and stupid, but to develop technology that evens the scale, or to compensate by other means.

In this case there is no need to develope new technology, masks have been around for some time. If you are not willing to pay the price of inconvience of wearing masks in public, then you do not deserve your freedom. The true infringement on liberty is, of course, when somebody tells you that you cannot use a mask (just like Carnivore is not an issue, while bans against encryption are crimes against humanity).

As for compensating, the best way to compensate against a loss of privacy is to decrease the amount of power over you that you grant to others. As governments are able to track us better, we need to make sure that the amount of power we grant to them decreases accordingly.

Re:You can say your ass is not a shit hole... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267245)

And what technology do you propose will stop your ass from being a shit hole?

Re:You can say your ass is not a shit hole... (2)

Hobbex (41473) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267266)


You misunderstand me. I propose that you accept the fact that your ass is a shit hole, and accordingly keep your thumb out of it. I dunno if you need technology for that...

Re:You can say your ass is not a shit hole... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267281)

Naw...I'm just pulling your leg! I understand your analogy.

a well constructed post but I must (1)

prisoner (133137) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267267)

disagree. It seems that ever and anon, everyone on /. thinks that the way to get even with "the man" is to hack something together (or apart) in order to challenge them. In my mind, that's wrong. The way to challenge the man is to undo what's fucked up to begin with.

For instance, your municipality installing cameras? If you feel strongly about it, What are you gonna do - walk around with a fucking mask on? The way to fight that problem is by getting the camera's pulled out and sent to England, where they love them. Putting a mask on or shooting the damn things doesn't do anything to rectify the erosion of our liberties. Sooner or later the man is going to be able to get what he wants and it will be by utilizing several technologies. In your scenario, you won't be able to walk out of your house without a mask, voice encoder and a cape.

Also, this isn't about "fightig technology". It's about maintaining our liberties and making our governments do what we want them to do. Even those who are so lazy that they don't care about this stuff will sit up when the first story comes out about how the technology was used by a bank to catch a deliquent customer (or something similar).

Re:a well constructed post but I must (2)

Hobbex (41473) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267349)


Yes, you go around waving your bar code, I mean face, in public pretending that this technology does not exist, because you have made your government promise-pretty-please not to use it. But the fact is that this technology WILL still exist, and cameras will not get larger, and software will not get harder to use or less precise (well, unless M$ is involved) - can you really trust the government to stay true to its promise?

By the same argument, why don't we ware bar codes? It would be quite convenient when you want to people to know who you are, and all we need to do is get the bar code readers we don't want pulled out and sent to England!

You are fighting the progress of technology because what you want to do is continue your life the same as it was before these technologies existed by making people promise not to use them. The liberty of the dangerously naive will hurt us more than any government.

Re:a well constructed post but I must (1)

prisoner (133137) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267365)

It's got nothing to do with making the government "promise-pretty-please" not to use it. There's no promise about it. If you don't like the camera's work with the gov't to get them taken out. This shit starts at the local level. BTW, your solution is still to wear a mask, I take it?

Stephen King, author, dead at 54 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267209)


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Now here did I leave my tinfoil hat? (2)

Robber Baron (112304) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267236)

...To advance the control of public opinion and to research and expand the understanding of how to manipulate the human psyche, individually and collectively. Today this agenda includes the microchipping of people and their permanent connection to a global computer.

This is a line from this site [converge.org.nz] here, and a quote from a book by a certain David Icke. I was pretty sure the bit about microchipping was pretty far-fetched.
I'm not so sure now, at least conceptually speaking. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. The desired end it would seem, can be achieved by tracking individual's movements coupled with thought manipulation through popular media.

This needs some constraints, but not a bad idea (1)

gelcaps (251461) | more than 13 years ago | (#2267240)

I can't really say that i like the idea that i could be under surveillance of this type in a public place, but i DO see how it can be of great value to protecting public interests, such as catching dangerous criminals.

This is why i think that some laws should be placed to guide the use of this technology.

First of all, it should be available to ONLY law enforcement. Using this technology in bookstores, malls, etcetera, is wrong, this allows corporations to use this for their own profit, most likely at the customer's expense (we all know how trustworthy corporations are).

Second of all, if a known criminal is identified by this system and apprehended, s/he should have to go through a proper identification process before anything further occurs. This *should* go without saying, but if it isn't explicity stated in the law then i can imagine many occurrances of "mistakes" leading to some pretty uncomfortable situations.

I wonder if painting stripes on your face... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2267251)

I wonder if you paintes stripes on your face if it screw the system up. aka, how a zebra uses stripes to confuse a Lion...

1. paint black/white zig-zags on face. I think this would make it hard for the reginition software to figure out where the edge of your face was.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?