9 ms·

When No One Is Just a Face in the Crowd

31 points by wikiburner 13y ago

coldcode 13y ago
In the end we will all wind up as tracked and identified records in a vast database. Hi, I'm #149586723432.
- somewhatjustin 13y ago
  Imagine if they could get a hold of that kind of data in an investigation. They'd know where you were, what you did, who you were with, etc.
  - bilbo0s 13y ago
    They can already get your mobile records during a court ordered investigation. That information includes where you were and who you were with. Or rather where your phone was and who your phone was with.
    - CompleteMoron2 13y ago
      dont forget http://indoo.rs/ http://indoo.rs/ yeah he is right - your cell phone imei mac, all those data points are recorded at each cell tower as long as it is on. I mean they can still use this marketing data to see if you are a iphone or android user and decide on application and marketing initiatives for mobile on the short term. I don't really think its something to be implicitly scared of from my analysis, but I think one should maybe keep an eye on having your cellphone wifi on all the time so your data doesnt pass thru open networks you arent aware of.
  - e12e 13y ago
    Indeed. I was rather shocked to hear a friend had be subpoenaed for a DNA swab based on phone tracking data, along with a handful of other men, in connection with a rape case that happened early in the morning (so few phones in the area). The idea was two-fold a) rule out suspects, and b) (presumably) get in touch with potential witnesses. While everyone wants the guilty party to get caught, I'm unsure what options one would have about refusing such a swab. In theory that swab wouldn't be held on file (but who can know if there is a secret backup of such data -- we don't have adequate oversight in Norway either).
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      I'm not aware of any legal precedent under which you can refuse to cooperate with an ongoing police investigation, except where such investigation would violate your basic rights (e.g. Bill of Rights in the USA) In the USA you'd probably have to contend it is either unreasonable search and/or seizure, which would be a difficult case to make. Edit: Looks like the SCOTUS ruled on DNA testing & the Fourth Amendment just last year.
- atjoslin 13y ago
  Although it will probably be a hash of numbers and letters (shorter!). Hi, I'm 7cba4209d3b4!
chimeracoder 13y ago
You don't even need facial recognition to track customers in brick-and-mortar stores without their consent. The company Nomi does exactly this by tracking MAC addresses of mobile devices[0]. This is an opt-out product, and the only way to opt out is to register your MAC address with them: http://nomi.com/privacy/ http://nomi.com/privacy/ [0] http://nomi.com/ http://nomi.com/
- somewhatjustin 13y ago
  It says on their site that they "Never collect any personally identifiable information without a consumer’s explicit opt in", so what kind of info could they collect with Wifi/Beacon?
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    First, my original comment was simply meant to point out the feasibility of the practice. The fact that Nomi says they choose not to collect "personally identifiable information" doesn't mean that someone else couldn't (using the same technique) if they wanted to. But frankly, I don't really trust the term "personally identifiable information" unless it is qualified, because it can mean very different things to different people in different contexts[0]. For example, for one service (I believe the DNS servers) Google claims to "anonymize" IP addresses, but it turns out that they only obscure the last two or three digits, which isn't enough to conceal the identity of the individual. For another example, you wouldn't believe some of the things that are considered protected health information when dealing with patients (ie, for HIPAA/HITECH compliance)[1]. Even if I trust a company's intentions (which I don't unless given a strong reason otherwise), trusting (a) their ability to understand what information is and isn't sensitive; and (b) guard that information both require a bit more than a vaguely worded assertion on their website. If you collect information about where a person (or "device") has been over time, that in itself can be an incredibly identifying piece of information - all you need is one other datapoint to "lift the veil", and suddenly you know a lot of sensitive information about a particular individual. [0] IANAL. "PII" is a legal term, and whether or not certain pieces of information qualify as PII can (and has) been litigated, so the line is ambiguous enough that a simple promise not to collect PII does little to assuage my privacy concerns. [1] Likewise, you wouldn't believe some of the things that aren't (necessarily) considered PHI.
ams6110 13y ago
Based on what I've seen of the quality of video captured by most in-store surveillance systems, they are going to have to be upgraded quite a bit. Every time the local newspaper publishes an image from a bank or convenience story robbery, the quality is so poor you wonder why they bother at all. About the best you can do is say "white man, about 6' tall, wearing something red."
- e12e 13y ago
  While this is true, AFAIK pretty much all new (and replacement) systems will be ridiculously better than the old legacy systems. Storage is cheaper, sensors are better (pixels, sensitivity), optics are better and cheaper... You'd have to make a pretty big effort to be able to find a new sub-720p video systems these days.
jhonovich 13y ago
Even with top of line, new equipment, accuracy problems are quite significant for this application. This is sadly little more than a commercial for these companies. You need a lot of pixels. Even if you have full HD 1080p, that still means FoV 20 foot wide or less, which is quite narrow for real world, outdoor applications. You need good angles. Even if you can cover a wide area, if the person is at the edge of the shot or looking the other away or looking down (very common), accuracy plummets. You need good lighting. Even with WDR/HDR capabilities, glare is an issue with sunlight. And forget about in low light, night time conditions, the noise from gain control is a major, major issue. You are dealing with huge numbers of people. With tens or hundreds of thousands of people passing, a lot will simply look alike. It's hard for a person or a computer to make such a call, especially with bad angles, glare, etc.
greenyoda 13y ago
“Just load existing photos of your known shoplifters, members of organized retail crime syndicates, persons of interest and your best customers into FaceFirst,” a marketing pitch on the company’s site explains. “Instantly, when a person in your FaceFirst database steps into one of your stores, you are sent an email, text or SMS alert that includes their picture and all biographical information of the known individual so you can take immediate and appropriate action.” I can imagine that shoplifter identification systems will have the same kinds of problems as no-fly lists. Let's say you look exactly like someone who is on the no-shop list (shoplifter database) and every time you walk into any store, you're ejected by security guards. The company that runs this database has no accountability to the public, so there's no way to get yourself removed from the list.
- chc 13y ago
  IIRC the shop managers I know just have a policy of watching suspected shoplifters very carefully rather than booting them on sight. They only get approached when they actually make the attempt. Under such a policy, it seems all right.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Yeah, it's pretty rare that someone is outright banned from a store. I've only ever personally heard of it in the context of a private grocer and a many-times-repeat offender.

31 points by wikiburner 13y ago

coldcode 13y ago

In the end we will all wind up as tracked and identified records in a vast database. Hi, I'm #149586723432.

somewhatjustin 13y ago
Imagine if they could get a hold of that kind of data in an investigation. They'd know where you were, what you did, who you were with, etc.
- bilbo0s 13y ago
  They can already get your mobile records during a court ordered investigation. That information includes where you were and who you were with. Or rather where your phone was and who your phone was with.
  - CompleteMoron2 13y ago
    dont forget http://indoo.rs/ http://indoo.rs/ yeah he is right - your cell phone imei mac, all those data points are recorded at each cell tower as long as it is on. I mean they can still use this marketing data to see if you are a iphone or android user and decide on application and marketing initiatives for mobile on the short term. I don't really think its something to be implicitly scared of from my analysis, but I think one should maybe keep an eye on having your cellphone wifi on all the time so your data doesnt pass thru open networks you arent aware of.
- e12e 13y ago
  Indeed. I was rather shocked to hear a friend had be subpoenaed for a DNA swab based on phone tracking data, along with a handful of other men, in connection with a rape case that happened early in the morning (so few phones in the area). The idea was two-fold a) rule out suspects, and b) (presumably) get in touch with potential witnesses. While everyone wants the guilty party to get caught, I'm unsure what options one would have about refusing such a swab. In theory that swab wouldn't be held on file (but who can know if there is a secret backup of such data -- we don't have adequate oversight in Norway either).
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I'm not aware of any legal precedent under which you can refuse to cooperate with an ongoing police investigation, except where such investigation would violate your basic rights (e.g. Bill of Rights in the USA) In the USA you'd probably have to contend it is either unreasonable search and/or seizure, which would be a difficult case to make. Edit: Looks like the SCOTUS ruled on DNA testing & the Fourth Amendment just last year.
atjoslin 13y ago
Although it will probably be a hash of numbers and letters (shorter!). Hi, I'm 7cba4209d3b4!

chimeracoder 13y ago

You don't even need facial recognition to track customers in brick-and-mortar stores without their consent. The company Nomi does exactly this by tracking MAC addresses of mobile devices[0]. This is an opt-out product, and the only way to opt out is to register your MAC address with them: http://nomi.com/privacy/ http://nomi.com/privacy/ [0] http://nomi.com/ http://nomi.com/

somewhatjustin 13y ago
It says on their site that they "Never collect any personally identifiable information without a consumer’s explicit opt in", so what kind of info could they collect with Wifi/Beacon?
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  First, my original comment was simply meant to point out the feasibility of the practice. The fact that Nomi says they choose not to collect "personally identifiable information" doesn't mean that someone else couldn't (using the same technique) if they wanted to. But frankly, I don't really trust the term "personally identifiable information" unless it is qualified, because it can mean very different things to different people in different contexts[0]. For example, for one service (I believe the DNS servers) Google claims to "anonymize" IP addresses, but it turns out that they only obscure the last two or three digits, which isn't enough to conceal the identity of the individual. For another example, you wouldn't believe some of the things that are considered protected health information when dealing with patients (ie, for HIPAA/HITECH compliance)[1]. Even if I trust a company's intentions (which I don't unless given a strong reason otherwise), trusting (a) their ability to understand what information is and isn't sensitive; and (b) guard that information both require a bit more than a vaguely worded assertion on their website. If you collect information about where a person (or "device") has been over time, that in itself can be an incredibly identifying piece of information - all you need is one other datapoint to "lift the veil", and suddenly you know a lot of sensitive information about a particular individual. [0] IANAL. "PII" is a legal term, and whether or not certain pieces of information qualify as PII can (and has) been litigated, so the line is ambiguous enough that a simple promise not to collect PII does little to assuage my privacy concerns. [1] Likewise, you wouldn't believe some of the things that aren't (necessarily) considered PHI.

ams6110 13y ago

Based on what I've seen of the quality of video captured by most in-store surveillance systems, they are going to have to be upgraded quite a bit. Every time the local newspaper publishes an image from a bank or convenience story robbery, the quality is so poor you wonder why they bother at all. About the best you can do is say "white man, about 6' tall, wearing something red."

e12e 13y ago
While this is true, AFAIK pretty much all new (and replacement) systems will be ridiculously better than the old legacy systems. Storage is cheaper, sensors are better (pixels, sensitivity), optics are better and cheaper... You'd have to make a pretty big effort to be able to find a new sub-720p video systems these days.

jhonovich 13y ago

Even with top of line, new equipment, accuracy problems are quite significant for this application. This is sadly little more than a commercial for these companies. You need a lot of pixels. Even if you have full HD 1080p, that still means FoV 20 foot wide or less, which is quite narrow for real world, outdoor applications. You need good angles. Even if you can cover a wide area, if the person is at the edge of the shot or looking the other away or looking down (very common), accuracy plummets. You need good lighting. Even with WDR/HDR capabilities, glare is an issue with sunlight. And forget about in low light, night time conditions, the noise from gain control is a major, major issue. You are dealing with huge numbers of people. With tens or hundreds of thousands of people passing, a lot will simply look alike. It's hard for a person or a computer to make such a call, especially with bad angles, glare, etc.

greenyoda 13y ago

“Just load existing photos of your known shoplifters, members of organized retail crime syndicates, persons of interest and your best customers into FaceFirst,” a marketing pitch on the company’s site explains. “Instantly, when a person in your FaceFirst database steps into one of your stores, you are sent an email, text or SMS alert that includes their picture and all biographical information of the known individual so you can take immediate and appropriate action.” I can imagine that shoplifter identification systems will have the same kinds of problems as no-fly lists. Let's say you look exactly like someone who is on the no-shop list (shoplifter database) and every time you walk into any store, you're ejected by security guards. The company that runs this database has no accountability to the public, so there's no way to get yourself removed from the list.

chc 13y ago
IIRC the shop managers I know just have a policy of watching suspected shoplifters very carefully rather than booting them on sight. They only get approached when they actually make the attempt. Under such a policy, it seems all right.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Yeah, it's pretty rare that someone is outright banned from a store. I've only ever personally heard of it in the context of a private grocer and a many-times-repeat offender.