Facial Recognition Software Moves from Overseas Wars to Local Police
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
On the bright side, as long as we keep underfunding police forces, maybe that reduces the surveillance apparatus? </sarcasm>
I'm not suggesting that the ban is good, or other countries will not follow suit, however it just seems like quite a jump to make - because 6 countries have some form of a ban on a burqa we have to watch out for face recognition. Should we not wear a cross if we're Christian because Syria persecutes Jehovah’s Witnesses?
In 2011, France went even further, forbidding concealment of people’s face in public—through a burqa, niqab (a version of the veil that leaves a slot for a woman’s eyes), but also masks or balaclavas
http://www.connexionfrance.com/cctv-video-surveillance-prote...
President Sarkozy wants 2011 to be the year that "vidéoprotection" goes mainstream, and has set a target of 60,000 cameras watching public spaces around the country by the end of this year, up from the current 20,000.
So i guess i'm confused what you're getting at here.
Eventually the video from body cams will be scraped for ID information, which can then be cross referenced with the cell phone data they pull from the local Stingray or dustbox. They've got your name, your face, your digital communications, and your physical location tracked over time, controlled at the metro level, all without any kind of warrant/oversight or consent from you. Pair this with an ARGOS equipped drone, and you could easily show a live map of where "problematic" individuals are. Reaching that point is a totalitarian panopticon, and 100% enforcement of the law becomes possible, criminalizing everyone.
At what point does the complex of this technology constitute a search/seizure that requires a warrant? At what point does this complex of technology constitute an unreasonable search or seizure? When does this cross the line into being illegal or unconstitutional, if we aren't already there? I mean, there's no legal participation needed to follow me around all day via a sky camera, snoop my communications all day for content and metadata, note all of my purchases, note all my interactions with others, note my general state when in view of police body cams, and generally scrutinize me 100% of the time.
I would also take this moment to note that these issues are separate from the NSA-related dragnet, though they are indeed likely to be integrated into it eventually. The body cams and police technology are about physical surveillance and enforcing physical compliance and "orderliness". The NSA is about enforcing and surveying ideological and norm compliance.
I'm not even allowed to wear a baseball cap in my local public library.
Incrementalism is a powerful tool for exerting an unstoppable force onto something which would otherwise notice that force and resist it.
In areas where violent and property crimes are high, it will be a blessing. In places where law enforcement is used mainly for supplementing municipal revenue, it will be a curse. And where the government uses the law as a weapon against dissent, it will be a nightmare.
This is true of almost any police tool. I mean you can apply to guns, pepper spray, probable cause, etc. As a blanket statement reply: It really comes down to implementation and training.
Really though, i'm not arguing for or against face recognition in local law enforcement. As a biometrics researcher i love to see real applications that actually work for the community, but as someone who disagrees with mass collections, outside of the obvious, such as a license photo or voluntary admittance to a NEXUS/TSA pre-check/Global Entry program, i worry.
To quote:
>> "I think it's helpful for people to understand that their fears that they're being tracked or that they are somehow having their privacy violated by tracking their personal pursuits over time is not even something we have the capabilities of doing. And we have no interest in that."
Ars 'creeped' out a couple of people by getting the license location data and doing look ups on people's plates. So yes, they may not be able to track everyone every where, but if someone wanted to know where 'you' were going it would be trivial to figure out. I'm not as worried about police and the .gov having the data. I'm more worried about when 'bad' people get access to that data and use it for nefarious purposes.
See the Federal security clearance hack for an example.
Today.
> And we have no interest in that.
Today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ferguson-warrants-p...
A more interesting one is here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/the-shocking-f...
In Ferguson -- a city with a population of 21,000 -- 16,000 people have outstanding arrest warrants, meaning that they are currently actively wanted by the police.
Your right here, but fighting the tools that improve efficiency also doesn't solve the systematic problem, only puts focus on those tools.
>> don't think anyone can argue that actually enforcing all those arrest warrants would improve the situation - does it really make sense to lock up 3/4 of a town? No, obviously not.
Enforcement is left to the officer/department/prosecutor. The tools merely provide the officer with additional means of conducting their work in the field.
>> But then they sit there ready to be used as justification for other police action.
Comes off as quite bitter, but there's an actual point here. There is a consistent need to be "hard on crime", and provided your point that there is "average of more than one outstanding 'warrant' per person" in Ferguson suggests that finding additional means to identify those with warrants is a good thing - to, again, be "hard on crime". However, the fact is that if a person has a warrant, then even a simple license plate/ID check will return the same information. In an 'active' system, the officer would need to manually take a photo to return any matches - this is not much different than the ID check.
Though in a 'passive' system the officer would be notified of the individual's warrants as they pass by. This system is clearly the most invasive and feared amongst HN readers, and while a warrant can be issued for innocuous things like missing child support payments, the same system could also be used to identify those who are suspected of more serious crimes. I don't necessarily agree with locking up someone because they missed a payment or two (your "unjust process"), but I'd much rather fight those issues separately rather than condemn a piece of technology.
Besides, the tools becoming available allow for much more subtle oppression, and that's the point being made here: you point at gross and obvious abuses of the past, when we can do much worse much more quietly.
Your jury, for example? Why care about skin color when what you really want is employment history, or socioeconomic class, or whatever other advertising criteria best help a prosecutor win a case?
EDIT: At least post counter-arguments before downvoting, folks. Rayiner used a strawman and distraction "oh ho, but but but ~executing thieves~!" as a way of discrediting a reasonable opinion "You know, little by little we can end up in a Minority Report sort of world". I was merely responding in kind.
People can express racism without it being overt, yet it can be just as destructive. In a relatively recent North Florida murder case, the jury was pruned to be all-white by the white prosecuter, citing a "sympathetic age similarity" with one of the prospective black jurors, who was 34. The defendant was 19.
Oh yeah, and thanks for the frog in the boiling water scare. We should certainly have the conversation. This is probably not the best forum. HN just isn't built for it.
Not so crazy now, but the accusations of "conspiracy" are still flying. There will not be any real apology from the public once these new technologies are used against them.
Note that, as people are increasingly demanding that police wear body cameras to record evidence of possible police abuse, these cameras can also be fed to image recognition systems.
What a great time we are being set up for. I wonder if the anti-recognition camo patches are done yet?
Mighty good it did them there...
It's disturbing that no matter how much technology police gets, they always seem to want more. I mean, look at the encryption backdoor debate. We're being monitored in all ways imaginable, and apparently it's still not enough.
What is your measure of success? In fact, the field biometrics system worked really well for human network mapping - which was it's intended purpose. We defeated a lot of IED networks in part because of this tool.
Most of its utility will be in the civilian sphere. Inevitably, they'll be scanning your face every time you buy a beer.
They also fail to recognize that scanning large swaths of civilians breeds intense resentment from an already hostile population and ends up causing more support for the insurgency. Knowing American cops, I can't envision an iris scan being committed without some snarky negging from the officer.
Maybe take off the tinfoil once in awhile.
There is already some work in the privacy clothing area. Almost makes it look like items for a sci-fi RPG.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2969732/privacy/how-japans-pr...
If you’re worried about Big Brother monitoring you from security cameras, Japan has developed eyewear that can keep you anonymous.
The Privacy Visor consists of a lightweight, wraparound, semitransparent plastic sheet fitted over eyewear frames. It’s bulky and not exactly stylish, but it could have customized designs.
It’s meant to thwart face-recognition camera systems through a very simple trick. It reflects overhead light into the camera lens, causing the area around the eyes to appear much brighter than it normally does.
Building off previous work with CV Dazzle, camouflage from face detection, Stealth Wear continues to explore the aesthetics of privacy and the potential for fashion to challenge authoritarian surveillance.
Presented by Primitive at Tank Magazine were a suite of new designs that tackle some of the most pressing and sophisticated forms of surveillance today. The countersurveillance solutions include a series of ‘Anti-Drone’ garments and the Off Pocket™, a privacy accessory that allows you to instantly zero out your phone’s signal.
edit: is there any proper way to easily quote text? So that it stays text wrapped.
Don't put four spaces in front of quoted text. Just use some quote-indicator character. Most people on HN use >, but anything is fine so long as it's clear what you're quoting.
You're right that not everyone shares my somewhat unique perspective, and so to those who have no relationship with police officers and are therefore ignorant of the facts, it may seem fallacious. And also it's fun to make those quippy accusations, so I understand the impulse.
Being a soldier and being a Cop are take different skill sets. I don't want to get into all the differances, and I don't want to argue with anyone, but I'll take a shy security guard, over a "gung ho" guy who wants to see some action? Our streets are not the streets of Iraq, or Afganistan.
I have the highest regard for any ex-military. I think you guys/ladies should get first shot at any federal job--including jobs that involve public safety.
I think most of you know by now that being veterans doesn't mean much to most civilian police departments in the hiring process. It should because you served your country, and need a job when you get home. Most of you are intelligent enough to realize civilian police departments should not be run like military operations. I do cringe when I hear, usually ex-marines talk/think they will be shoe-ins when they get home and apply to the academy. (I hope you guys don't take this wrong way, but I think most you know what I'm getting at?).
Meaning--war is vastly different than basically revenue collection, and dealing with the public! Yes--most departments are still training officers in a military fashion, but that's been changing. Hopefully, it will change quicker? The more progressive departments are changing training procedures as I write this, at least that's what I heard. One of the biggest reasons, I was told was the proliferation of lawsuits that are being levied against aggressive, illegial police tactics, and cameras are Everywhere. The days of coverups/"Blue code of Honor" are over, for the most part. My friend said they are over. I haven't seen much of a change yet.
Agreed! This is a perfect example of people arguing "slippery slope!!" when the tech first came out and getting shouted down repeatedly. Now they're being vindicated, as it's absolutely happening exactly as predicted.
My point is that the slippery slope argument is often used and no matter how many times people say it's invalid or unlikely, is often right.
So the whole narrative, where police militarization is due to veteran hires, rings pretty hollow for me. What we are seeing here is the result of an end-justifies-the-means mentality. The military has the same mentality, but this is very deliberately tempered by a focus on honor and duty - something that law enforcement lacks by comparison.
Everybody knows that bootcamp is designed to provide a common experience and rebuild recruits, standardizing to the military's brand of discipline and morality - like interchangeable-parts from the industrial revolution. I've wondered what distance that influence would cover in one's life, because so far it is still holding up in interesting ways. I've talked to guys I hadn't heard from in ten years, and despite differences in profession and family situation, a pretty strong pattern has emerged in uncommon political/philosophical thought.
So maybe the influence is much more local. Maybe some soldiers become cops because their drill instructors withheld affection :)
I should say there wasn't so much a problem with recruit quality, as the people I mentioned were just as good at soldiering as the others, but it was certainly different. Most of the men in my family were in the Marine Corps at some point, and I worked with Marines on my second and fourth tours, so I have a little bit of insight into what you mean about the culture difference. Also I should say I always enjoyed working with Marines.
And with respect to your other point, I think military service is so valuable for individuals that I strongly support conscription. I believe only good things could come of requiring every person to go serve in the military (or Peace Corps or something) for two years when they turn 18. If we did that, I think the problems we're facing as a nation would see some positive change within a single generation, and I'm confident enough in that statement that I am sure you feel the same way. For all the things I hated about the Army, the physical and psychological tools they equipped me with have helped enrich my life in so many ways. Every time I think about my feelings about this, I picture that scene from Starship Troopers when the guy wheels his chair out from the desk and he's missing a leg and has a prosthetic arm, but he shakes Johnny's hand and says "Good for you. The infantry made me the man I am today"[0] and that's how I personally feel about it. I mean, I have all my fingers and toes, but I feel like that guy. Including the tragedy, I wouldn't trade the experience for anything.
As far as conscription, I think that would be close to the worst thing ever. From a utilitarian perspective: it would be incredibly expensive and would reduce force readiness. From a moral perspective: it is pretty hard to logically justify the threats of violence organic to such an endeavor - threats against the intended benefactors, civilians. I might have agreed with you 10 years ago, if the infantry remained all volunteer under such a program, but the utilitarian arguments no longer appeal to me. I wish I could put my finger on exactly what bit of information flipped the switch in my brain and made me an anarchist, but it was a pretty long process. It probably occurred around the time that I was spending a lot of time studying first order logic and cybernetics (As you can see, I'm a big fan of technology once popular in the 70's). Applying lessons from those fields, related to scaling working systems, to social systems - leads to the idea that a social system founded on an immoral precept will never be able to compete against a system founded otherwise. The test is pretty easy, if a rule has an exception then the problem to which the rule applies was not well defined and this leads to serious scaling issues. I could go on for hours, but I don't think anybody really wants that.
Regrets. I don't have any, aside from not taking math more seriously as a kid. I am rational and self interested, the product of my experiences - so if I had it all to do over again, I would. But, if there was a button I could press that would magically bring a few former Fallujah residents back to life - I would press it.
BTW, the Starship Troopers reference is interesting because the author, Heinlein, has a Naval Academy grad who used the book as a platform to describe his preferred philosophy of governance. Ayn Rand did the exact same thing with Atlas Shrugged. Both are good reads, but I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I lean more towards Rand's objectivism.
In my teens, I used to abhor the idea of conscription. But traveling the world as an adult (outside of the military kind of "travel"), I saw systems with conscription and that conscription having a direct positive impact on the public's participation in government, which seems to most maximally bring to fruition the will of the people, whatever their collective wishes are. A distant cousin of "an informed decision is the best decision, regardless of what is chosen". Places like Israel and Finland. Interestingly, Sweden abolished conscription in the early 2000s, and I believe there is a resultant apathy in the youngest generation that is pretty plain and obvious and generally acknowledged even among that generation. It is very interesting to have watched that happen, and I believe having abolished conscription is directly to blame for that apathy.
With respect to your magic button, the way I look at it is that everyone eventually meets their demise. A mantra my best friend instilled in me is that everything happens for a reason. I don't want to get into religion because we're not on mushrooms and that is a whole universe unto itself, but the point I'm trying to make here is that our current mindset and state of being has come at a price. The important thing to say here is that we don't get to set the price. Our experiences cost real, actual lives. I also carried a machine gun my entire time in the Army, at various times I was also a Bradley gunner and a .50 gunner. We pressed buttons that gave us experiences at a cost that we didn't choose. That's just the way the world worked out for us in those moments, and it is what it is. What I'm driving at is that it is difficult or impossible to speculate about what our lives would be like without those costly experiences, because those experiences are necessarily driving our decisions today. It took a lot of time for me personally to come to this point, and what it ends up doing is really brings those costs to bear, so that I get much more out of life than I would otherwise. Once I stopped feeling numb about the whole thing, even going out for a run on the trail next to my house in the suburbs feels like a gift, and that's a pretty profound realization, considering the general attitude of apathy a lot of the population of the developed world feels. They take life for granted.
So, that was a tangent, maybe also not directly addressing all of the things you've said. But maybe helps quantify some of the reasons I've said what I've said.
While I won't spend a lot of time considering the absence of free will, analysis paralysis, propositional logic is pretty comfortable - once subtle violations of axioms are skylined. As I consider self ownership to be universally preferable, any system requiring its forfeiture is simply wrong. Even in a democracy one does not enjoy self ownership, as every voter owns some small part of everybody else vulnerable to the results of a vote.
This way of thinking can at best be a cold comfort, but it is nice no longer feeling that sense of crisis when new information hits your brain and violates the prior model of the world.