5 ms·

> surveillance is here to stay and that making it illegal will only serve to hide the microphones. Certainly it's here to stay, but so is murder, theft, fraud,

> surveillance is here to stay and that making it illegal will only serve to hide the microphones. Certainly it's here to stay, but so is murder, theft, fraud, and many other things. We want to maximize the leverage and tools people have to fight it.

cookiecaper 11y ago
Unfortunately you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I don't think there's a real way to fight this in the age of networks and cameras in every pocket. There are many good uses for the ability to instantly recognize and identify anybody from a crowd, as well as bad ones. Probably the easiest way to frustrate these things would be the simplest; only go out in public with substantial facial features obscured or altered. The degree to which tools with diverse uses, some of which may be bad, should be regulated is always a matter of serious controversy (cf. firearms). Whether it's legal or not, this tech will be used, so we need to get people to accept that and learn to recognize and frustrate its usage, instead of trying to deprive the populace of the tools that provide the function, which is ultimately futile.
- baobabaobab 11y ago
  http://cvdazzle.com/ http://cvdazzle.com/ I don't know how well obscuring facial features will really work. There might just be too much information. Partially obscured face, body dimensions, clothing, location, time... I think it might be a loosing battle.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Who wants to do that every day? Also, how long before we can out-calculate it? Right now we can already match things like gait patterns and multiple biometrics (eg height, relative length of limbs) well enough for many purposes using probabilistic systems (eg your metrics match 3 people but the other two are on different continents so I'm 99% certain it's you).
- jodrellblank 11y ago
  Probably the easiest way to frustrate these things would be the simplest; only go out in public with substantial facial features obscured or altered. Sorry, going out hidden means you're a terrorist. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/styles/full/public/burqa.jpg http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/style... http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/29548827_400x400.jpg http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/295... http://qz.com/324805/china-has-just-banned-the-burqa-in-its-biggest-muslim-city/ http://qz.com/324805/china-has-just-banned-the-burqa-in-its-... ('authorities in the Xinjiang city of Karamy barred anyone wearing burqas, niqabs, hijabs or simply “large beards” from taking public buses.') https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering ('The key argument supporting this proposal is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication.') Or a potential criminal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws "Germany - [..]you may not disguise your identity in public meetings such as demonstrations so the police are able to identify you." "Russian Federation - it is prohibited to wear masks and any other means of hiding identity during public events"
- Silhouette 11y ago
  I don't think there's a real way to fight this in the age of networks and cameras in every pocket. Sure there is. For one thing, a similar level of technology to the capture and processing applications could also be used to automatically detect and obscure faces where storing them isn't necessary, probably with imperfect but highly reliable success. Consider how Google's Street View wound up hiding car licence plates for a lot of places after the privacy complaints, for example. For another thing, the problem with a lot of modern privacy invasions is asymmetry: large, powerful organisations like big businesses or governments can do a lot more to you with lots of information than you can do to them in return. This could be solved for businesses by imposing rules and meaningful penalties for violating them. Facebook isn't going to be processing anyone's face for dubious reasons if it's subject to compulsory scrutiny on account of processing a high volume of personal data and the penalties for repeated breaking of the rules escalate as significant percentages of annual revenue. For deliberate violations, you could remove the corporate shield from the responsible executives as well, as with other criminal conduct. Governments is harder, because right now the governments of the West seem to be more hostile to their own people than to foreign surveillance. Ideally, our governments would actually be on our side, and the vast resources they seem to be devoting to invading their own people's privacy would instead be devoted to protecting it. Imagine how much safer we would all be from things like fraud, identity theft, commercial espionage, and worse, if instead of trying to exploit vulnerabilities and limit secure communications, organisations like the NSA and GCHQ helped to close vulnerabilities and promote safe and secure use of technology by everyone. Like everyone else, I don't know exactly what the real threat from terrorism is, but I'm pretty sure the potential savings to our economies alone from safer technology would run to many billions.
  - scott_karana 11y ago
    > Consider how Google's Street View wound up hiding car licence plates for a lot of places after the privacy complaints, for example. Right, isn't that just "hiding the microphone"? Google still has records of your license plates. Can agencies subpoena them for that information? Can Google themselves use it maliciously? The technology exists, and will be used, even if it's not accessible to the public. How much do you trust our information oracles?

cookiecaper 11y ago

Unfortunately you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I don't think there's a real way to fight this in the age of networks and cameras in every pocket. There are many good uses for the ability to instantly recognize and identify anybody from a crowd, as well as bad ones. Probably the easiest way to frustrate these things would be the simplest; only go out in public with substantial facial features obscured or altered. The degree to which tools with diverse uses, some of which may be bad, should be regulated is always a matter of serious controversy (cf. firearms). Whether it's legal or not, this tech will be used, so we need to get people to accept that and learn to recognize and frustrate its usage, instead of trying to deprive the populace of the tools that provide the function, which is ultimately futile.

baobabaobab 11y ago
http://cvdazzle.com/ http://cvdazzle.com/ I don't know how well obscuring facial features will really work. There might just be too much information. Partially obscured face, body dimensions, clothing, location, time... I think it might be a loosing battle.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Who wants to do that every day? Also, how long before we can out-calculate it? Right now we can already match things like gait patterns and multiple biometrics (eg height, relative length of limbs) well enough for many purposes using probabilistic systems (eg your metrics match 3 people but the other two are on different continents so I'm 99% certain it's you).
jodrellblank 11y ago
Probably the easiest way to frustrate these things would be the simplest; only go out in public with substantial facial features obscured or altered. Sorry, going out hidden means you're a terrorist. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/styles/full/public/burqa.jpg http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/style... http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/29548827_400x400.jpg http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/295... http://qz.com/324805/china-has-just-banned-the-burqa-in-its-biggest-muslim-city/ http://qz.com/324805/china-has-just-banned-the-burqa-in-its-... ('authorities in the Xinjiang city of Karamy barred anyone wearing burqas, niqabs, hijabs or simply “large beards” from taking public buses.') https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering ('The key argument supporting this proposal is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication.') Or a potential criminal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws "Germany - [..]you may not disguise your identity in public meetings such as demonstrations so the police are able to identify you." "Russian Federation - it is prohibited to wear masks and any other means of hiding identity during public events"
Silhouette 11y ago
I don't think there's a real way to fight this in the age of networks and cameras in every pocket. Sure there is. For one thing, a similar level of technology to the capture and processing applications could also be used to automatically detect and obscure faces where storing them isn't necessary, probably with imperfect but highly reliable success. Consider how Google's Street View wound up hiding car licence plates for a lot of places after the privacy complaints, for example. For another thing, the problem with a lot of modern privacy invasions is asymmetry: large, powerful organisations like big businesses or governments can do a lot more to you with lots of information than you can do to them in return. This could be solved for businesses by imposing rules and meaningful penalties for violating them. Facebook isn't going to be processing anyone's face for dubious reasons if it's subject to compulsory scrutiny on account of processing a high volume of personal data and the penalties for repeated breaking of the rules escalate as significant percentages of annual revenue. For deliberate violations, you could remove the corporate shield from the responsible executives as well, as with other criminal conduct. Governments is harder, because right now the governments of the West seem to be more hostile to their own people than to foreign surveillance. Ideally, our governments would actually be on our side, and the vast resources they seem to be devoting to invading their own people's privacy would instead be devoted to protecting it. Imagine how much safer we would all be from things like fraud, identity theft, commercial espionage, and worse, if instead of trying to exploit vulnerabilities and limit secure communications, organisations like the NSA and GCHQ helped to close vulnerabilities and promote safe and secure use of technology by everyone. Like everyone else, I don't know exactly what the real threat from terrorism is, but I'm pretty sure the potential savings to our economies alone from safer technology would run to many billions.
- scott_karana 11y ago
  > Consider how Google's Street View wound up hiding car licence plates for a lot of places after the privacy complaints, for example. Right, isn't that just "hiding the microphone"? Google still has records of your license plates. Can agencies subpoena them for that information? Can Google themselves use it maliciously? The technology exists, and will be used, even if it's not accessible to the public. How much do you trust our information oracles?