12 ms·
It's only a matter of time before someone invents glasses, masks, hats, or devices that are specifically designed to throw off these systems. Then the surveilla
by ilamont 9y ago
It's only a matter of time before someone invents glasses, masks, hats, or devices that are specifically designed to throw off these systems. Then the surveillance state will up the game by referencing other data - height, shoe type, clothing preferences, activated mobile phones, association with other known people ...
- maxxxxx 9y agoIf people start using these this will mean that they have accepted that public space is a hostile environment you can't enter without protection. We are building a pretty sad future society. Addition: and our best and brightest are working at Google and Facebook to develop the necessary infrastructure.
- ataturk 9y agoWell I already feel like that while driving. The cops aren't out there to help you, they're actively looking for wrongdoing. The problem with that is anyone who happens to fall into a targeted political group will be "wrongdoing" no matter what. To be an intelligent person and watch these things going on is the doorway to madness.
- Lio 9y agoYep, remember the old George Orwell quote from 1984:- "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." The future has more tall buildings than he might have imagined but it's going to be just as crap.
- Clubber 9y agoThat's legally been the case for decades. Anything in the public view is exempt from whatever privacy rights we have left, and has been for quite some time.
- mattmanser 9y agoThat's not true, while technically true in a legal sense, practically we had privacy via anonymity in the masses. It took a large amount of effort to track a single person. Of course governments and bussiness don't want this to change because they can take advantage of this with the new technology. But it doesn't mean that the previous laws are appropriate for today, nor imo should any legal precedents apply any more because the situation has significantly changed.
- Clubber 9y ago>That's not true, while technically true in a legal sense, That is true in a legal sense. That's why I put "legally" at the beginning. The point is there are no legal hurdles to overcome for the government. These are the most difficult and this is absolutely true. Legally we have very little if any privacy in public. The only hurdles are technological ones, which automate the inspection of people in public areas. (i.e. facial recognition cameras). Police can spy on your in your own home legally, if you leave a window open, because you just made that part of your home public. They'll setup across your yard and watch you with telescopic lenses. Police also spy on people in their own homes using IR and thermal cameras, which cannot be defeated easily, and this crosses (leaps) the boundary of your home being private. Apparently the thermal radiation emitted is now public space. I remember this in court, but don't remember the outcome. I suspect though that when these laws were made, lawmakers didn't anticipate the ease and scope of which automation could make spying. Maybe they'll reconsider, but the police departments have a lot of sway over lawmakers, so I seriously doubt it. Have no doubt though, police aren't interested in your privacy, they are interested in arrest counts. Privacy laws are an inconvenient burden to their jobs and they will use any methods they can think of to circumvent your privacy rights and argue technicalities in court. They will usually win. Of course, all of this was enabled with the War on Drugs.
- maxxxxx 9y agoThe constution was written more then 200 years ago based on the world back then. Maybe it's time to adapt the rules to our world. I don't think the authors of the Constitution even remotely imagined the possibility that one institution could have perfect surveillance of the whole country. But that's where we are going if we don't change the rules.
- nopressure 9y agoThose already exist.
- rahimnathwani 9y agoLarge sunglasses are often large enough to throw off the facial recognition systems. But wearing large sunglasses in the evening, or a hat that covers part of your face, can be used as a signal that you're hiding something.
- JulianMorrison 9y ago1980s style New Romantics face paint as dazzle camouflage?
- amelius 9y agoPerhaps burqas will become fashionable among men :)
- jacobush 9y agoPerhaps they already are
- Cthulhu_ 9y agoThose are / will be banned then, simple as. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
- bsenftner 9y agoWe have cameras that image right through fabric, so, forget burqas. Such cameras are used to identify terrorist by seeing right through those face scarves and ski masks they are often seen wearing.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- isostatic 9y agoOr just ban face coverings when going through checkpoints (like stadium entries etc) -- same as they do at airports.
- amelius 9y agohttps://cvdazzle.com/ https://cvdazzle.com/
- iwillreply 9y agohttps://cvdazzle.com https://cvdazzle.com Amongst some other projects by Adam Harvey centered on facial recognition: https://ahprojects.com/projects/ https://ahprojects.com/projects/
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Jyaif 9y agoGait recognition. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528835-600-cameras-know-you-by-your-walk/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528835-600-cameras-... Note that if you completely change everything about you, a system could detect that something is fishy because it can't match you with anyone. A work-around would then be to instead mimic someone (and make sure that the someone is not being seen by any camera at the same time as you, and that they could realistically be in the same place as you).
- Retric 9y agoGait recognition fails because your gait changes regularly. Something as simple as a sprain and you move very differently, but even new shoes ends up making a noticeable difference.
- bsenftner 9y agoI'm not aware of any serious FR or Object Tracking system using gait successfully. It is discredited as useful.
- amarant 9y agoor something akin to 1-pixel-attack-tattoos: put a few strategical dots on your face and be recognized as "horse" on all cameras :)
- codecamper 9y agoOr maybe a completely realistic outer skin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY5KTVA_2ys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY5KTVA_2ys
- bsenftner 9y agoAlready dealt with by an FR process called "liveness detection" - this is used to identify prosthetics on the face and similar methods of disguise. It entails looking for the blood flow pulse under your skin, correct temperature variations across the face and similar.
- Cthulhu_ 9y agoNah, then the surveillance state will simply make those illegal, and trigger an arrest warrant when they are unable to detect a face. This is already happening btw, with bans on facial covering clothing (e.g. the niqab, but it's automatically extended to balaclavas and full helmets when worn off of a motorcycle) in e.g. France.
- sametmax 9y agoThat's the geek attitude here, thinking it's a technical problem. But it's a human one, and no amount of smartness will fix it. If you have a surveillance state, it will not "will up the game by referencing other data". It will simply make the gears illegal, and the price to pay harsh. Now you won't dare wearing them and if you do, you are guilty even if you are not a criminal, and tagging yourself as such, making it easier for the police to find you.
- Spooky23 9y agoExactly. The legal framework and precedent is not based on pervasive electronic surveillance.
- wpietri 9y agoYes, exactly. And another element of the geek attitude is overestimating the number of people willing to adopt a burdensome technological solution in the name of (a very particular kind of) freedom. Most people will just accept the new surveillance reality and then act according to the state's wishes, exactly as most drivers slow down when they see a cop by the side of the road.
- Aunche 9y agoIf China doesn't have the resources to stop all actual crime, they certainly don't have the resources to stop people from wearing makeup, sunglasses or hats.
- michaelt 9y agoDepends how many people are avoiding facial recognition. A large railway station can have 15 to 100 million passenger entries per year [1]. That means if 0.1% of people hide from facial recognition, cops at such stations could arrest 40-270 people per day. And with a suspect arrested, a photo showing them in disguise, and a police witness, it's an open-and-shut case. That's way more cases closed per cop-hour than investigating complex crimes like burglary, murder or rape. Just what you want, if your police chief is judged on their clean-up/arrest rates. And if order of fewer people than that are avoiding facial recognition? Then you've got a surveillance state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_railway_stations_in_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_railway_statio...
- shubb 9y agoWe carry phones that track our every move, and could probably stop them with little faraday bags. Credit card bags are popular, phone bags are not, so I think most people don't care sadly.
- isostatic 9y agoKids today might not remember, but a big reason for carrying a phone traditionally was to receive a phone call. A farady bag is about as much use as turning it off.
- shubb 9y agoYou still get phonecalls? Most of the time people contact me by instant message or comments for social stuff, and emails for work stuff. It's rare that I get a call that wasn't pre-arranged. Actually I'd feel rude phoning someone without arranging it first. Not terribly rude, but a little uncomfortable. What if they are driving or in an important meeting? So maybe phones are there to let me check messages and alerts when convenient. A huge proportion of the money you paid for that phone went on the data modem after all. It isn't really a phone means voice, or sound. But folders on a computer are not made of paper. It's just a word. Not that I'd suggest putting your phone in a bag.
- isostatic 9y ago> Actually I'd feel rude phoning someone without arranging it first. Not terribly rude, but a little uncomfortable. What if they are driving or in an important meeting? Then they don't answer it. It's called self control!
- michaelt 9y agoAlas, telephones give me no way to distinguish between a spam call and a call from a hospital because a loved one has been brought in unconscious.
- 9y ago
- trisimix 9y agoBe more useful to invent an electronic that can cloak you, or jam the cameras.
- melvinmt 9y agoIt’s not just what you wear and how you look. There are many more ways for AI to identify you: the way you walk, the way you talk, the way you move your hands or tilt your head, etc. Keeping track of all these subtle giveaways of yourself would be relatively easy for AI, much harder for humans to keep track of or to hide.
- bsenftner 9y agoSeveral different types of these physical deterrents to FR have been available for several years, and this is after state actors employed them for their own operations. The FR industry has multiple methods to mitigate, as well as recognizes that FR is merely one biometric of many possible identification methods. The passive nature of FR is great, but it is not the only technology with passive identification capabilities. FYI, I'm at a leader in the FR industry, writing the FR applications used by many. (www.CyberExtruder.com)