6 ms·

I don't understand your reasoning. You want to open source a $1B piece of facial recognition software so that _more_ agencies / NGOs / companies / individuals

by beambot 14y ago

I don't understand your reasoning. You want to open source a $1B piece of facial recognition software so that _more_ agencies / NGOs / companies / individuals can track our movements? That sounds a little counter productive. At least the FBI (presumably) has accountability and oversight. Can you imagine trying to police abuses if deployed to every municipal law force and marketing agency in the country?

wahnfrieden 14y ago
Facial recognition is useful for more than tracking movement.
- pdelgallego 14y ago
  Advertising is one of them. I wonder if google/facebook/apple will go that path someday. Actually, is more matter of "when" than "if".
  - MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
    Here's a scene from Minority Report with an imagined advertising landscape after automatic recognition becomes common. The assumption was that retinal scans would be used instead of facial recognition, but the imagined scenario is apt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk
    - gknoy 14y ago
      It's even more apropos when we consider how many people in the future may be wearing Google Glass-like augmented reality devices. In Minority Report, you might see someone else's advertisements, but if they are projected directly on your viewscreen (or retina, etc) then advertising and propaganda gets even more creepy, as it's more private. A plausible version of such a dystopian vision is one where your new glasses get infected with malware that spams you with advertisements, which I believe I read about in a novel by Gibson. A more frightening one would be one in which what you see is based on propaganda.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      Speaking of retinal scanners, I've heard of a high-res scanning camera that can acquire a retina (or maybe it was iris) every ~1.2s IIRC, from people just wandering around. I'd like one in my home, but not in public.
cracell 14y ago
But if it was open source and we knew exactly what it was capable of it would be easier to pass legislature that restricts it and makes certain uses of it illegal. This stuff is coming one way or another and wouldn't you rather it be properly legislated? And that we as the public could know their capabilities?
- nir 14y ago
  That legislation would only apply to entities following the law, though.
  - yequalsx 14y ago
    Let's apply your comment to a law against murder. Doesn't have much relevance does it? Your comment isn't germane. Laws always apply to the people to whom they are written to apply to. It is true that some people don't follow some laws. Presumably violating the law carries some penalty if caught. This does not affect whether or not said law is efficacious or needed.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - rhino42 14y ago
      He may be pointing at organizations such as the TSA, which seem to have carte blanche nowadays.
njharman 14y ago
re police abuse. Facial tracking goes both ways. The authority will, inevitably, acquire the tools of oppression. One of the few defenses is to have the same tools. In fact, being able to id and track the "watchers" is more important/freedom sustaining. Also, science (as in allowing the code to be studied, learned from, spur further research and discovery) trumps paranoia over "big government".
melling 14y ago
You want everyone to pay to develop their own version? It's only a matter of time before it becomes widely available anyway.
neurotech1 14y ago
The cat is already out of the bag. Facebook does mass facial recognition. Other facial recognition code is already available in open source. The difference is the current open code is not designed to work with a massive database. What is really stopping other agencies and LEOs from deploying facial recognition is they don't have the implementation budget or the skill to properly scope the project. Edit: I'm not sure if I should be more worried about blowing $1bn on a failed project, or more worried if they actually succeed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File
- AutoCorrect 14y ago
  yet another reason for limiting the budget of government.

by beambot 14y ago

wahnfrieden 14y ago

Facial recognition is useful for more than tracking movement.

pdelgallego 14y ago
Advertising is one of them. I wonder if google/facebook/apple will go that path someday. Actually, is more matter of "when" than "if".
- MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
  Here's a scene from Minority Report with an imagined advertising landscape after automatic recognition becomes common. The assumption was that retinal scans would be used instead of facial recognition, but the imagined scenario is apt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk
  - gknoy 14y ago
    It's even more apropos when we consider how many people in the future may be wearing Google Glass-like augmented reality devices. In Minority Report, you might see someone else's advertisements, but if they are projected directly on your viewscreen (or retina, etc) then advertising and propaganda gets even more creepy, as it's more private. A plausible version of such a dystopian vision is one where your new glasses get infected with malware that spams you with advertisements, which I believe I read about in a novel by Gibson. A more frightening one would be one in which what you see is based on propaganda.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Speaking of retinal scanners, I've heard of a high-res scanning camera that can acquire a retina (or maybe it was iris) every ~1.2s IIRC, from people just wandering around. I'd like one in my home, but not in public.

cracell 14y ago

But if it was open source and we knew exactly what it was capable of it would be easier to pass legislature that restricts it and makes certain uses of it illegal. This stuff is coming one way or another and wouldn't you rather it be properly legislated? And that we as the public could know their capabilities?

nir 14y ago
That legislation would only apply to entities following the law, though.
- yequalsx 14y ago
  Let's apply your comment to a law against murder. Doesn't have much relevance does it? Your comment isn't germane. Laws always apply to the people to whom they are written to apply to. It is true that some people don't follow some laws. Presumably violating the law carries some penalty if caught. This does not affect whether or not said law is efficacious or needed.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - rhino42 14y ago
    He may be pointing at organizations such as the TSA, which seem to have carte blanche nowadays.

njharman 14y ago

re police abuse. Facial tracking goes both ways. The authority will, inevitably, acquire the tools of oppression. One of the few defenses is to have the same tools. In fact, being able to id and track the "watchers" is more important/freedom sustaining. Also, science (as in allowing the code to be studied, learned from, spur further research and discovery) trumps paranoia over "big government".

melling 14y ago

You want everyone to pay to develop their own version? It's only a matter of time before it becomes widely available anyway.

neurotech1 14y ago

The cat is already out of the bag. Facebook does mass facial recognition. Other facial recognition code is already available in open source. The difference is the current open code is not designed to work with a massive database. What is really stopping other agencies and LEOs from deploying facial recognition is they don't have the implementation budget or the skill to properly scope the project. Edit: I'm not sure if I should be more worried about blowing $1bn on a failed project, or more worried if they actually succeed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File

AutoCorrect 14y ago
yet another reason for limiting the budget of government.