▲ 115 points
back
102 comments
"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself--anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face...; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime..."
1984, Book 1, Chapter V
I wonder if one could get away with vandalizing cameras as protected speech. I would certainly start wearing makeup: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20003431-1.html
I read that book in high school too.
I think this is a good argument for requiring all software purchased, and all technology developed, with public funds to be public domain and/or open source.
A lot of people will believe that we should just kill the project and move on, but honestly, the tech is there, and we have all seen what happens with tech: it just keeps going. The functionality will be snuck in as an add on to some other software package anyway.
This isn't to say we shouldn't kill the project -- just that this should be required as open. It won't undo any security/benefit gained from it, much like open crypto. It will however give us the voters the ability to actually provide input about what can/can't be done by the government.
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?
I agree in some sense. This technology as a law enforcement tool is inevitable. I can't see a future in which every national government doesn't use it on some level.
So making it open and promoting discussion about its limits is probably the way to go.
I agree with having all/most software developed with taxpayer money be open-sourced. It might even lower the total costs if others contribute to it.
I think the 21st century trick for this is to "privatize" it. Public funds go to a trusted private partner who can operate in the dark. Then it seems like the billions are spent and gone by the time the questions are asked and the damage is done.
It's not as simple as github.com/usgov but some of what you're looking for is certainly there. If the government has rights to the source code then it can fall under FOIA. They have ways of denying those requests but only with the proper documentation.
Bruce Schneier:
We're at a unique time in the history of surveillance: the cameras are everywhere, and we can still see them. Fifteen years ago, they weren't everywhere. Fifteen years from now, they'll be so small we won't be able to see them. Similarly, all the debates we've had about national ID cards will become moot as soon as these surveillance technologies are able to recognize us without us even knowing it.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/remote_scannin...
To me the implications are we have 15 years to make sure we know who is watching us and when.
I think we will get a subculture or fashion for complicated facial jewelry or weird makeup patterns to confuse facial recognition algorithms. If cameras and facial recognition technology becomes as ubiquitous as some people are afraid of, I'm guessing that punk will rise again and take a principled stand against authority and privacy intrusions.
We are never going to stop the technology being developed and used. And nor should we - the benefits can be enormous.
But we must put in place legislation that prevents abuse - and I think it needs to be broad and overarching.
I suggest
1. All monitoring of individuals / crowds in public
and semi-public areas must be clearly notified, and
the raw output of that monitoring must be made
publically available within a short and reasonable time
frame
2. All access to that raw feed and subsequent
processed feeds by government officials must be
audited and made available in raw form
3. Exceptions can only be made through warrants
signed by civil courts
There are similar laws already in place in some countries:
>>In addition to scanning mugshots for a match, FBI officials have indicated that they are keen to track a suspect by picking out their face in a crowd.
Reminds me of that one scene from Minority Report where Tom Cruise boards a tram, only to have the cameras scan and identify his face and alert the authorities.
I give it a year or 3 before the government issues a secret order to Facebook to hand over all photos and photo tag records. Facebook already has the data required to match a huge number of faces with their names, addresses, likes, interests, political and religious leanings, and everything else.
Sure, the project is just for known criminals now, but it'd be fairly straightforward to start tracking a large portion of the world.
Every year the number of things that constitute criminal acts increases...
it's probably too hopeful to think they haven't already done that.
What a dilemma: I don't want dangerous people running around hurting people, and I don't trust the government to use such power responsibly.
I'll take my chances with the "dangerous people," personally. There are, presumably, fewer of them, than there are government agents.
How would you feel if you saw your child get murdered by a junkie?
Widely available face recognition could potentially threat societies in cities.
What would we gain from this? Targeted ads when walking in to your local store? Never having to tag another photo again? (that one is just awesome, but what else?)
Personally this is a tech that I would gladly postpone as long as possible, or at least until the whole tech-thing has stabilized. Most governments still want and think it is within their right to censor internet and is as eager as ever to criminalize cryptography - do we want such immature governments to have this tool in their arsenal as well?
>Personally this is a tech that I would gladly postpone as long as possible, or at least until the whole tech-thing has stabilized.
Don't think this whole "tech-thing" is going to "stabalize" anytime soon. And by anytime soon I mean 'ever'. :)
I think that a fundamental problem with increasing invasions of privacy facilitated by rapidly changing technology is that the melting away of privacy occurs almost immediately as the tech becomes available.
It happens on two fronts. A)Governments adopt tech towards this end almost universally, and push (and often surpass) the legal limits imposed by law, and B)Citizens continually degrade it themselves in exchange for services. Just look at Facebook, and how seemingly every service we use is stripping out information about us to build or integrate with a social graph.
You get this effect where younger generations are born with an ever increasing tolerance of privacy stripping technologies, combined with governments continually pushing past the boundaries of whats allowed. When they do go over the line, they merely deny it until they are caught (if they are), and then change the law to make their behavior legal, with no sanction for past transgressions. The population, ever evolving to respect privacy less, does not fight this.
Unless there is a cultural shift to revise, reiterate, and anchor respect for privacy to a Constitution-sized stone, I think we will see the same trend continue in perpetuity. Especially when you consider what has happened despite our Constitutional privacy protections.
The conflux of private enterprise profit seeking and government desire for control is an extremely powerful dynamic operating against privacy, and it is operating against it every day, by degrees. You are going to get your targeted ads as you walk into a store someday (probably sooner than later), and law enforcement will almost certainly have trivial access to it without a warrant, as they do to many now. I don't see this dynamic changing, and obviously technological advancements aren't going to wait around for us to sort these complex issues out.
There are plenty of potential benefits, for example I flew home (to England) a couple of days ago and rather than queue for a while to have someone check my passport I was able to pop my passport onto a scanner then have the machine check my eyes to see if I am who I claim to be, which meant that in 30 seconds I was out the other side. Facial recognition could speed that up even further.
You could get home and your front door would automatically unlock as you approach it, get into your car with genuine keyless entry rather than just the kind that means the keys are in your pocket, pop into Starbucks and be handed your regular drink (or something you ordered on a phone) by somebody who has never served you before, etc.
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of arguments against this technology, and I'm not even saying that the good points will end up happening (there's plenty of technological improvements Starbucks could make with existing fairly basic technology already), just that it isn't hard to imagine more than just Facebook-style photo tagging.
The same technology could possibly identify weapons that people had. A side effect of that would be that we could make a very legitimate argument to demilitarize the police force, if a crowd is unarmed, the police should not need guns, tasers and pepper spray are adequate.
Likewise, we would have more recordings of police interactions and be able to lower those corruption rates, as it is now they are currently resisting allowing people to film them.
Socially, if you want anything remotely reasonable to happen here, and the technology is only going to progress and get better, I think we need need to counter weigh the benefits with costs to the police. Maybe they don't need guns any more, I know most of them will be against that, if they can tell who and how many people are in a given building at any time, maybe they don't need SWAT teams. Likewise, if they are looking for specific individuals they can identify more ideal times to apprehend that person with out violence.
Existing iris scanners can be deceived by pictures of other people's irises. I do not doubt that facial recognition will be fooled by people making masks (to fool infrared scanning).
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/fake_irises_fo...
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18997580
The basic principle of biometric reading is the equivalent to sliding your photo under the door to a guard. The guard checks the photo against an already existing set of photos and lets you in. They don't check that the photo is of you - which is a common failing when you let marketing design your security.
>images of a person of interest from security cameras or public photos uploaded onto the internet could be compared against a national repository of images held by the FBI. An algorithm would perform an automatic search and return a list of potential hits for an officer to sort through and use as possible leads for an investigation.
I feel like this is going to be the prosecutor's fallacy on steroids. Not only do you have the "cold hit" problem of DNA testing (but with way, way more false positives), but you'll end up with a defendant with near 100% odds of positive identification by the victim. Of course "looks like the perpetrator" and "positively identified by victim" almost entirely overlap as evidence, but it won't necessarily feel that way to a jury.
Are false positives really such a problem? Most repeat criminals do it because they are dumb and/or impulsive. If you get 10 hits, you just send a cop around to ask each one if they did it. The one that says yes gets arrested. A major fraction of crimes can be solved this way. Many more can be solved by slapping surveillance robots on people and catching their next crime.
I'm pretty sure that if our founding fathers were writing the Bill of Rights today there would be an amendment against dragnet electronic surveillance. It's too easy to turn into a panopticon, driven by people who like panopticons such as my mom with an attitude of: "I'm not doing anything wrong and it's worth it to protect against terrorists". Wait until they redefine what "wrong" is.
I have to admit I completely misread that as "FB launches..." and didn't think anything of it, other than that $1 billion was a bit excessive.
I wonder if Facebook gets subsidies... It's an Orwellian paradise.
And let's not forget Google too - they have Picasa, Google+, Android face unlocking...
The onion: the facebook as a cia op.
http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatic...
If looked at from a distance, with the creation of globalization, (free) trading blocks, 'interdependence' (inter means 'to bury', mind you), we are becoming borderless and so the bad guys no longer reside in such-and-such country. The 'terrorist' is everywhere, the 'terrorist' is/could be you. Thus the idea is to let the gov't deal with it, to protect you against you.
Btw, 'love' the argument that 'If I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care?'
So who is a "criminal"? The article does not clarify exactly what constitutes a criminal record? Just convictions? Felonies only? Or does it include simple misdemeanors such as speeding tickets? Or does it actually (most likely) include all arrests, including those that never result in convictions (where there is NO criminal record)?
i must wonder how many here realize what the aspirations of an ipo or even a corporate investment mean in this age. so many of us are working for what we disdain - without even realizing it. yet we are the same people that can make the most difference - if we see our responsibilities in a future determined by technological opportunity.
What if my twin brother becomes a wanted criminal? Do I risk being jumped and stuffed into an unmarked white government van?
Don't worry. Before you know it we'll also have DNA tracking. So you'll be easily distinguishable from your twin brother.
Don't worry, they'll cross-reference facial recognition matches with your cell phone location in realtime. Just make sure you carry your cell phone at all times. Your brother will be identified by having no cell phone to cross-reference with, or one with a name that does not match the appearance.
Of course with a little makeup and hair styling you can prevent facial recognition software: http://cvdazzle.com/
I bet we will be seeing some interesting hairstyles, like those above, in counter culture after facial recognition software becomes pervasive.
This, on top of the $451,000,000 already spent on its Sentinel Case Management System.
http://www.informationweek.com/government/enterprise-applica...
This isn't a new hat. It is something already being used by police departments to identify suspects on video by comparing their facial attributes against records produced by analyzing driver's license photographs.
Here's to hoping facial camouflage paint/sticker solutions become fashionable.
It's bad when Facebook does it, but the FBI… That's perfectly OK!
I was thinking the same thing. I'm wondering what Germany will use as an excuse to implement similar system after telling Facebook to destroy their database.
I read the headline as "FB launches $1 billion face recognition project," might not be the actual headline but might as well be true!
That's old news:
http://allthingsd.com/20120618/facebook-acquires-facial-reco...
I foresee ski masks being the fashion of the future.
I'm a researcher at a face recognition company. Big sunglasses do a good job.
I wish it were that easy. By law you have to be identifiable in public, therefore you can't wear a mask that covers completely your face.
Can't wait for a few major politicians to get caught by these doing something illegal.