Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(EFF)   Facial recognition: Coming to a state near YOU. ☹ (We saw that)   (eff.org) divider line 38
    More: PSA, FBI, facial recognition technology, documents, Federal Register, National Day Laborer Organizing Network  
•       •       •

2009 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Aug 2012 at 10:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-06 09:03:34 PM  
I hear you!

www.sitcomsonline.com
 
2012-08-06 09:46:22 PM  
This is actually an interesting legal question because it presupposes all persons are now 'public figures' and thus subject to (apparent) invasion of privacy.

/But since this is FARK: Boobies! Beer!
 
2012-08-06 11:02:43 PM  
What's all this talk about fecal recognition? Oh, never mind....
 
2012-08-06 11:06:58 PM  
theblankpress.com

Your move, you bastards.
 
2012-08-06 11:08:26 PM  

davidhyde: What's all this talk about fecal recognition?


It's for people who can't tell one kind of shiat from another kind of shiat.

Next time I go to the US I'm going to just put on some plastic Groucho Marx glasses.
 
2012-08-06 11:09:36 PM  
still can be beat by just not shaving for two weeks
 
2012-08-06 11:10:26 PM  
But that trick NEVER works!

www.wildsoundmovies.com
 
2012-08-06 11:49:41 PM  
i210.photobucket.com
NEWwbies
 
2012-08-06 11:52:35 PM  

Jamdug!: This is actually an interesting legal question because it presupposes all persons are now 'public figures' and thus subject to (apparent) invasion of privacy.

/But since this is FARK: Boobies! Beer!


If license plate readers are still being questioned, I can't imagine facial readers would be considered anytime soon.
 
2012-08-07 12:06:49 AM  

Jamdug!: This is actually an interesting legal question because it presupposes all persons are now 'public figures' and thus subject to (apparent) invasion of privacy.


Whether or not the Government does it, associations of your neighbors eventually will.
(I figure anti-abortion groups to be the first mass trackers. Big, motivated, their only down side is low tech savvy)
 
2012-08-07 12:29:56 AM  
wwwdelivery.superstock.com

Good for keeping dust and fascism out of your mouth
 
2012-08-07 12:36:57 AM  
media.screened.com
 
2012-08-07 12:44:05 AM  

ZMugg: [media.screened.com image 600x300]


I propose Groucho Marx glasses. They're funny and you can only buy them in mom & pop type stores anymore. Keep the money local, the lulz global.
 
2012-08-07 01:03:39 AM  

Jamdug!: This is actually an interesting legal question because it presupposes all persons are now 'public figures' and thus subject to (apparent) invasion of privacy.

/But since this is FARK: Boobies! Beer!


You don't have a right to privacy in public; well, you do sort of, but only if it is reasonable to assume the public couldn't understand what you were doing*. But showing your mug to people in the big wide world is virtually the polar opposite of private. It is worrisome the authorities want to spend so much money and effort on this when crime is ont he downswing, it is Big Brotherish as all get out, it is even just plain skeevy, but it is in no way privacy-impinging.

* talking in an old phonebooth was covered, because the closed nature of the booth meant it was reasonable people couldn't hear you, and thus, your conversation was private
 
2012-08-07 01:23:26 AM  
I'm really beginning to hate this country.
 
2012-08-07 01:44:26 AM  
Splatter analysis is hardly a new technique.
 
2012-08-07 01:48:37 AM  
i.imgur.com

Orwellian society fast approaching. It doesn't matter which side of the political debate you are, you should be very very nervous about this going much further.

If not, well... no point in explaining it to you.
 
2012-08-07 02:42:30 AM  
If you are on the internet in photo form Google images will already do this.

If they take your photo, in public, and you aren't in the database, no worries.

If they take your photo, in public, and you are in the database,then you have either volunteered the information online(i.e. Google,Facebook,Twitter,Corporate Website,Fark Photoshop Contest), or have had reason to be photographed by the government before(i.e. Arrest,Photo ID, Drivers License, Passport).
 
2012-08-07 03:24:00 AM  
There was plenty of facial recognition at the annual bukkake awards.
 
2012-08-07 03:54:07 AM  
I think you can add Washington State to that list too. When I renewed my driver's license at the DMV this last year they made an elderly lady ahead of me take off her glasses for the photo, the repeated reasoning from the DMV worker was for the facial recognition to work right.
 
2012-08-07 05:32:34 AM  
All your face belong to us...
 
2012-08-07 06:54:51 AM  
Time to start wearing hats, and for dudes capable of it, facial hair. Chicks, too, I suppose, but we're generally not that enlightened in these parts.
 
2012-08-07 08:13:07 AM  
So will it take photo ID to get spirit gum, liquid latex and foundation soon too?
 
2012-08-07 09:31:09 AM  
What, exactly, is the concern about such technology? I'm thinking it has it's benefits. For example, picking a wanted criminal out of a crowd of thousands. Or identifying an arrestee who refuses to give any identifying information. But some obviously have genuine concerns about it. I would like to know what those concerns are.
 
2012-08-07 09:31:42 AM  
nonsequitor: I think you can add Washington State to that list too. When I renewed my driver's license at the DMV this last year they made an elderly lady ahead of me take off her glasses for the photo, the repeated reasoning from the DMV worker was for the facial recognition to work right.

I'm in Colorado, and they made me take my glasses off, too. So...maybe they'll only recognize my face when I'm pissed off and not looking directly at a camera?
 
2012-08-07 09:54:42 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: What, exactly, is the concern about such technology? I'm thinking it has it's benefits. For example, picking a wanted criminal out of a crowd of thousands. Or identifying an arrestee who refuses to give any identifying information. But some obviously have genuine concerns about it. I would like to know what those concerns are.


Imagine the facial recognition software attached to a camera network similar to the one installed on the streets of London. It gives the government the ability to track literally everything you do... where you go, who you're with, what you bought at the store. Everything. Privacy no longer exists in a world with facial recognition software.

30 years from now, you might apply for a job with the Department of Energy, but they will turn you down for the position because their social-credit database says 70% of the people you associate with are undesirable.

/Go ahead.. call me crazy. Facebook is already doing it.
 
2012-08-07 10:00:05 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: What, exactly, is the concern about such technology? I'm thinking it has it's benefits. For example, picking a wanted criminal out of a crowd of thousands. Or identifying an arrestee who refuses to give any identifying information. But some obviously have genuine concerns about it. I would like to know what those concerns are.


In most areas if you witness a crime and fail to report it, you can be charged with assisting in covering up said crime. Add in overzealous police with a prosecutor who's bother in-law runs the local for profit prison and there is some concern of illegitimate charges showing up just to keep some beds warm.

\we're not paranoid
\\we just don't trust humanity since it likes to throw poop half the time
 
2012-08-07 10:01:50 AM  

Alonjar: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: What, exactly, is the concern about such technology? I'm thinking it has it's benefits. For example, picking a wanted criminal out of a crowd of thousands. Or identifying an arrestee who refuses to give any identifying information. But some obviously have genuine concerns about it. I would like to know what those concerns are.

Imagine the facial recognition software attached to a camera network similar to the one installed on the streets of London. It gives the government the ability to track literally everything you do... where you go, who you're with, what you bought at the store. Everything. Privacy no longer exists in a world with facial recognition software.

30 years from now, you might apply for a job with the Department of Energy, but they will turn you down for the position because their social-credit database says 70% of the people you associate with are undesirable.

/Go ahead.. call me crazy. Facebook is already doing it.


This is why I don't have a Facebook page. I intend to be one of the ruling class of the underworld of the future.
 
2012-08-07 10:12:58 AM  

phalamir: Jamdug!: This is actually an interesting legal question because it presupposes all persons are now 'public figures' and thus subject to (apparent) invasion of privacy.

/But since this is FARK: Boobies! Beer!

You don't have a right to privacy in public;*
well, you do sort of, but only if it is reasonable to assume the public couldn't understand what you were doing*. But showing your mug to people in the big wide world is virtually the polar opposite of private. It is worrisome the authorities want to spend so much money and effort on this when crime is ont he downswing, it is Big Brotherish as all get out, it is even just plain skeevy, but it is in no way privacy-impinging.



*Offer not valid if you are a police officer out in public; then you have the right to not be videotaped, recorded and can even arrest the person with the camera. You know, since public peace officers in public need their privacy to do their job safely and would never have any concern about being recorded doing their jobs...in public.

If you never do anything wrong, then you are a cop.
 
2012-08-07 10:39:35 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: What, exactly, is the concern about such technology? I'm thinking it has it's benefits. For example, picking a wanted criminal out of a crowd of thousands. Or identifying an arrestee who refuses to give any identifying information. But some obviously have genuine concerns about it. I would like to know what those concerns are.


I will use an example that is being used right now. License plate readers. Cameras on a cruiser that scans every single plate they can see. That is patched into NCIC and you can immediately tell everything about that vehicle AND the registered owner. It's pretty slick.

Now some people question the legality of it. Does it actually violate your 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches? I just can't run your information unless I have a valid reason. I have to have some suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime, traffic stops, or specifically checking who you are for a specific reason.

Now this little baby is running down the interstate running a criminal check on the registered owner of every vehicle it passes. With no reason other than to just do it.

Now what we do is deactivate the registered owner portion of the software and have it only tell us if the vehicle is reported stolen. That way we are only checking on the status of property and not an individual.

The amount of current/pending case law regarding plate readers makes me think that large scale facial recognition will never see the light of day.
 
2012-08-07 10:58:07 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: What, exactly, is the concern about such technology? I'm thinking it has it's benefits. For example, picking a wanted criminal out of a crowd of thousands. Or identifying an arrestee who refuses to give any identifying information. But some obviously have genuine concerns about it. I would like to know what those concerns are.


OK, so what happens after you catch them all?
 
2012-08-07 11:16:06 AM  
www.bannedinhollywood.com
 
2012-08-07 11:43:53 AM  
What's the famous mantra about losing freedom in the name of security? "If you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about."
 
2012-08-07 04:32:12 PM  

phalamir: But showing your mug to people in the big wide world is virtually the polar opposite of private.


Obvious solution:

rossrightangle.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-07 05:01:39 PM  

Jamdug!: This is actually an interesting legal question because it presupposes all persons are now 'public figures' and thus subject to (apparent) invasion of privacy.

/But since this is FARK: Boobies! Beer!


i've had more than a few farkers talk about how silly i am for thinking that unmanned drones could be an invasion of privacy.

apparently - and i'm not sure that i know any better, but i have a hard time agreeing - if you are outside, you have ZERO right to an expectation of privacy.
 
2012-08-07 08:22:14 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Jamdug!: This is actually an interesting legal question because it presupposes all persons are now 'public figures' and thus subject to (apparent) invasion of privacy.

/But since this is FARK: Boobies! Beer!

If license plate readers are still being questioned, I can't imagine facial readers would be considered anytime soon.


Truth. I tried for about 2 hours to get the facial recognition on my laptop (Toshiba Satellite, W7Pro) to work. It simply won't- can't handle glasses, or my beard. Maybe if I were clean shaven without the glasses, but without the glasses I am blind.
 
2012-08-08 05:13:26 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Now what we do is deactivate the registered owner portion of the software and have it only tell us if the vehicle is reported stolen. That way we are only checking on the status of property and not an individual


What about the software also only letting the officer know if the owner of the vehicle has outstanding warrants?
 
2012-08-08 05:14:17 AM  

Alonjar: Imagine the facial recognition software

gozar_the_destroyer: and there is some concern of illegitimate charges showing up just to keep some beds warm.


Thanx for your replies, I do see how those are valid concerns :-)
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report