Imagine you are working for a three letter agency scanning a crowd.
999/1000 people look similar. One is just a glowing sun of light.
Which one do you go take to the backroom?
999/1000 people look similar. One is just a glowing sun of light.
Which one do you go take to the backroom?
The documentation lists its limitations, which include daylight:
> The Camera Shy Hoodie is not an end-all-be-all for hiding your identity. It’s good for one thing, blowing out the view of night vision (IR) cameras in low light environments. It’s not effective in sunlight, most indoor lighting, or against conventional cameras. In fact, you will draw attention to yourself if you wear this in a context in which the security cameras are actively monitored. In the view of an IR camera, it’ll look as if you’re flashing a light directly at the lens. In addition, the LEDs need to be a minimum distance from the camera to be effective, as the cone of light from them needs to be wide enough to overlap with the cameras view of the wearers head. In practice, this is about 12ft (~3m).
The idea is designed to exploit limitations with the camera's auto-exposure, and I presume a requirement to do that is to strobe a light that outshines the ambient light by n times. That works at night because there's so little ambient light, during the day you'd have to outshine the sun (and the sun is really bright).
In that particular case, it wold make far more sense to hand out a cost-reduced version that people could wear over their own clothes.
I'm thinking of something with the LEDs mounted in a plastic ring like these (https://www.glowuniverse.com/20-inch-glow-stick-necklaces-8-...), with a battery box/controller, and maybe some kind of protest messaged taped to it.
For protests, the best form of flattery is to be imitated, so this website [2] and others, lets you pay your respects and flatter the police.
So this is not that.
I didnt get taught law, its not something that is a compulsory subject to teach and the adult population certainly doesnt get taught about the upgrades or changes to law, so I cant have a democratic debate over the laws that exist.
Ergo we are living in a legal dictatorship that put Mussolini to shame, but as most people dont know who he is, thats a point thats wasted on people.
Why is the state hell bent on removing everyone's privacy as well?
These anti-mask laws are designed to harm the public, especially when considering the riot police will be balaclava'ed up and in full riot gear.
If the scientific community especially at Uni, werent such pussy's there would be psychological paper's that exist demonstrating the provocative nature of the riot gear uniform, using military techniques, because the police and military share many training elements.
Representative democracy is a trick to cede autonomy over one's actions, so if you needed a way to control a population en-masse, this would be a disarmingly charming way to achieve this objective, the sort of thing a self attracted sociopath would come up with, and something that continues to attract sociopaths with narcissistic attributes around the world to this day!
The only groups I see benefitting from this are the agents of oppressive regimes, and the meth heads breaking into your storage shed at night and stealing your bike.
Regardless, when it happens, it's still a police force, so you still have esprit de corps, "blue wall of silence" and "DA doesn't feel like prosecuting people they work with day to day" effects, and evidence is quite frequently not gathered or "gets lost". So for example if there is excessive use of force at a protest it wouldn't be unusual for those recordings to be misplaced. Bodycams aren't universal yet, but they're always somehow turned off during excessive use of force. The latest example would be a 16yo refugee who was shot dead with an MP5 (i.e. not standard-issue-24/7-belt-carry for police, something you have to get from the car), all officers had bodycams, no recordings. Five officers were charged with various things (up to 2nd degree homicide) because a citizen made an audio recording of the police action (which is a felony btw.), revealing contradictory and false statements.
Additionally, do you have any figures, even very approximate, for what proportion of the time police bodycams are worn and on and what proportion of incidents have said camera turned off? This helps see if there's a real mismatch/incidence of corruption here.
And putting on masks to obscure your face is illegal in protests in Germany.
See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermummungsverbot
[0] I mean that in a legal sense, that's how the police works. Whether stopping the protest is morally the right thing to do or not is a different issue that I don't want to address here.
(*) The generalization is okay in this context, because behavior is pretty uniform and larger protests will have riot police pulled from other states anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/21/how-hi-vis-yel...
So, they become the low hanging fruit. The more resources we give our TLA's, the less this matters, of course :)
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/18/vr_telemetry_identity...
The example described in the paper in your link is using cameras that are setup to provide very high resolution images of people. It would be like using full-frame portrait images for face recognition, and then expecting that to translate to real-world scenarios where you might only have 20 pixels on a face, and the person is off-axis to the camera.
Gait detection has been discussed for a while, and may definitely be a thing one day, but right now we are barely at the point where pose estimation is a thing in security video. Very far from being able to do high precision pose recognition and sampling over successive frames to model something that would qualify as "gait".