×

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!

No Face-Scanning Tech at San Diego Super Bowl

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the but-only-terrorists-want-privacy dept.

Privacy 22

b3n writes "From our local paperspace fishwrap this article (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/mon/ business/news_mz1b20snoope.html) ... "San Diego police have rejected the use of a controversial face-scanning technology for Sunday's Super Bowl, saying it's too costly and ineffective. Face-scanning technology that compares faces in a crowd with digital photos of criminals, fugitives and suspected terrorists gained national attention and sparked an outcry when it was used at the 2001 Super Bowl in Tampa, Fla.""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

22 comments

Whew! (2, Funny)

hawkbug (94280) | more than 11 years ago | (#5121234)

I guess it's safe for me to go now :)

Re:Whew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5121323)

If you really are a hawk [fhsu.edu] bug [mzoo.com] -- as you claim -- then it's probably quite safe as -- in my experience -- no one messes with a hawk bug.

this is the post with the most (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5121250)

Ahhh.... (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 11 years ago | (#5121272)

So we do have a fourth amendment. I was a bit unsure after the PATRIOT act and all. Thanks, San Diego Police, for your concern with our privacy.

Re:Ahhh.... (3, Insightful)

ZeroLogic (11697) | more than 11 years ago | (#5121381)

You've got it all wrong. The deciding issue wasn't the legality or morality of using a system such as this one. It was based on cost and effectiveness.

Re:Ahhh.... (2, Insightful)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 11 years ago | (#5122110)

Aha! Therin lies the joke. I wasn't genuinely thanking San Diego Police for their concern for privacy at all. This is an issue heavily tied with civil rights questions (especially regarding the fourth amendment), and being in the YRO section, we're supposed to say, "Yippie! No face scanning. Thanks for coming to the decision not to go ahead and violate the fourth amendment this year!" Meanwhile the Constitution has been reduced to a guideline that police can follow or go ahead forget about. "Yippie! Thanks, San Diego Police!" Get it? I hope so.

Seriously you'd think that the tongue-and-cheek tone of the post would clue people in to the fact that a joke is indeed being made.

Fourth Amendment? (1)

smithmc (451373) | more than 11 years ago | (#5129023)


So we do have a fourth amendment.

Where does the Fourth Amendment come into play? What is being "seized" or "searched"? The pattern of photons reflecting off your face into the camera lens? Oh, please. If you don't want to be seen in public, wear a burkah - y'know, like they do over there...

Re:Fourth Amendment? (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 11 years ago | (#5129673)

Part in parcel with common interpretation of the fourth amendment is the right to anonymity. Here in America, "show me your papers, please" is considered unreasonable search and ceisure. Face scanning is merely a digital extension of this.

Re:Fourth Amendment? (1)

smithmc (451373) | more than 11 years ago | (#5129856)


Part [and] parcel with common interpretation of the fourth amendment is the right to anonymity. Here in America, "show me your papers, please" is considered unreasonable search and ceisure. Face scanning is merely a digital extension of this.

No it's not. Face scanning doesn't break anonymity. They're not interested in determining who you are, they just want to know if you are one of the people on their list. You think they're actually going to expend the computing horsepower needed to uniquely identify each person at the Super Bowl?

Re:Fourth Amendment? (2, Insightful)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 11 years ago | (#5131605)

See, if the cops start asking civilians for their "papers," so to speak, they are probably also looking for criminals and Joe Sixpack's data will effectively get ignored. However, that doesn't stop such a system from becoming a more powerful control mechanism. I shouldn't have to show my face for a camera period, since "policy" with respect to what's done with data collected often changes. Simply having to prove I'm not a criminal at various checkpoints is a restriction on anonymous movement in public, and reminds us of totalitarian governments (namely Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany), and is distinctly what the Bill of Rights attempts to avoid.

You should read up on Nazi and soviet propaganda. You don't get tyranny overnight, and we must learn to guard ourselves vigilantly.

Hmmm..THAT Guy There... (3, Funny)

4of12 (97621) | more than 11 years ago | (#5121326)

...looks kind of suspicious.

He's bloated, gosh, I think he's actually dead!!

Who wheeled him in here? Is he a victim of anthrax, smallpox sent to infect the crowd?

No, wait. He's just an Oakland Raiders fan.

Good! (2, Funny)

goatasaur (604450) | more than 11 years ago | (#5121340)

Maybe the organizers and police think the Super Bowl will be more interesting with the threat of an explosion in the stands.

They're right. Beats watching Celine Dion warble "Are You Ready For Some Football?" with the Muckanut High School Marching Band.

who need machines? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5121563)

Any cop can spot a terrorist: just detain the Arab-looking guys with beards, they're probably terrorists.

That's probably about as accurate as the face-scanning machine, and about as logical.

Your rights ONLINE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5121688)

What the hell does this have to do with my rights in cyberspace?

What, and not have headshots of all the people... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5121792)

...who are stealing football by attending the game and not watching the ads on television?

Me, I'll be TiVoing the game, then fast-forwarding through the game just to see the ads. That'll absolve one attendee of their contractual responsibility to see the ads. (Is there an alt.binaries.multimedia.commercials.superbowl [multimedia....superbowl] group yet? Cause if there's any multimedia files that should be free to distribute, it's ads!)

the REAL reason.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5121843)

... all those troublemakers from the Vet's 700 level wont be there, so they see no point in using it....

then again, San Diego has no snowballs to throw, and Santa certainly wont be there, so "Iggles" (as the locals call them) fans wouldnt have anything to do anyway.

There is no spoon... (2, Interesting)

MrWa (144753) | more than 11 years ago | (#5122932)

This reminds me of the running joke surrounding the Pentagon's Office of Propoganda (or whatever it was called) that they later abandoned...

The first rule of an organization like this would be to make people believe it doesn't exist.

Of course...this being an Oakland Raider game, it would be hard to recognize anyone's face, given the extremes to which Raider fans paint their faces...

The system was useless... (2, Insightful)

Geraden (15689) | more than 11 years ago | (#5122956)

Seeing as the Dallas Cowboys weren't playing, the system probably wouldn't have found anyone!

I am still on the fence as to the danger posed by systems such as these. Although I agree that having face recognition systems at events such as these might catch a few criminals, I am concerned that law-abiding citizens' rights may be trampled upon in the process. These systems are not foolproof, and will "catch" a certain percentage of innocents. How many peoples' Super Bowl have to be ruined by a quick trip downtown before the system is rejected by the public?

I'd be PISSED if it were me being wrongfully detained.

Scott

Interesting. (2, Informative)

Irvu (248207) | more than 11 years ago | (#5126692)

They Quote the police Cheif saying that it is too costly and ineffective. They also mention the ACLU's objections to it as unreliable, if not worse than useless, and a vast privasy invasion. Then they spend the bulk of the article taking quotes from the makers of the systems and discussing how popular it is.

The feeling that I get from the article is that this is really a nonissue, yes one of the makers mentions "privacy concerns" but there is little mention made of the consequences of "False Positives" or even of how many false positives there were in Tampa Bay.

Interesting.

Oakland fans (1)

Mullen (14656) | more than 11 years ago | (#5129101)

The only thing worse than living near the stadium in the city that is hosting the Super Bowl is living near the stadium in the city that is hosting the Super Bowl with the Raiders in the Super Bowl.

Useless either way (1)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 11 years ago | (#5137360)

Face recognition software like they have in Florida does not recognize faces overly well.
Unless they dont allow masks, helmets, face paint or anything on your face then you can "beat the system" simply by doing what you probably already plan on doing. That and you wouldnt be able to let any raiders fans in if you banned that! :P
I am more concerned about TV trucks with nuclear bombs in them *cough* sum of all fears *cough* too bad they ruined the movie by screwing the plot up.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...