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.

(The New York Times)   Forget the NSA watching your internet, cell phone, and email activity. They are making progress in watching YOU   (nytimes.com) divider line 41
    More: Scary, NSA, cell phones, computer power, branch offices, biometrics, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, facial recognition technology, Department of Homeland Security  
•       •       •

1578 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2013 at 8:00 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-22 08:07:30 AM
and the contract was steered to the firm by an earmark request in a 2010 appropriations bill by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

I knew I smelled his stench on this before clicking the article...
 
2013-08-22 08:08:37 AM
These GOP crooks need to swing.
 
2013-08-22 08:09:33 AM
I feel sorry for the poor smuck that has to go through the logs. They will see firsthand how depraved the human race is. They should get hazard pay.
 
2013-08-22 08:09:41 AM
Time to focus on the individual people, like Mitch McConnell, who are making all of this happen.
There are people making these lists and building this authoritarian infrastructure who need to be exposed.

Expose the list makers.
 
2013-08-22 08:11:17 AM
"the Biometric Optical Surveillance System - or BOSS  "

This is definitely into comic book evil territory. w.t.f.
 
2013-08-22 08:20:34 AM
While I'm all for being able to control your privacy so long as you aren't actually doing anything, fighting the technology itself isn't a fight you're going to win, it's far too useful to everything from developing AIs to video games to not happen at some point.  It's going to happen.

The angle to take in opposing this is probably to make sure the usual restrictions on admissibility apply-- if there's no warrant to seek you out specifically then tracking your movements is illegally obtained evidence, etc.  Same as how standard surveillance is handled currently, I would think.
 
2013-08-22 08:21:52 AM
Obviously the way to stop them is to stop feeding the beast. Everyone should just stop paying their taxes.
 
2013-08-22 08:22:31 AM
blogs.discovermagazine.com
 
2013-08-22 08:22:43 AM
BOSS?  Better brush up on my paradoxes:

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/BOSS
 
2013-08-22 08:31:36 AM
It's nice that the government cares so much about our safety. I feel safer already.
 
2013-08-22 08:35:45 AM
This is why I won't buy a Xbox One.
 
2013-08-22 08:43:05 AM
FTFA:  The automated matching of close-up photographs has improved greatly in recent years, and companies like Facebook have experimented with it using still pictures.

A lot of the development of this project was likely crowdsourced to the internet.  Having everyone tag pictures of one another on social media sites created a massive amount of facial recognition data to sell to the highest bidder.
 
2013-08-22 08:43:13 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Time to focus on the individual people, like Mitch McConnell, who are making all of this happen.
There are people making these lists and building this authoritarian infrastructure who need to be exposed.

Expose the list makers.


This
 
2013-08-22 08:44:38 AM
This is why I change the scar pattern on my face weekly, and take a chunk out of my ears/nose/lips and/or cheeks bi-monthly.
 
2013-08-22 08:45:15 AM
I'm wearing an assface mask, so I'm getting a kick out of realizing why I had to give my name and address to the store clerk to buy that thing.
 
2013-08-22 08:55:49 AM
earmark request in a 2010 appropriations bill by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader Seakreet Moozlim Nobama.
FIFY
 
2013-08-22 08:58:36 AM
Meh.  CCTV is already everywhere, they record your face at ATMs, some cashier stations, most retail businesses, etc.

I have a hard time manufacturing outrage over this.
 
2013-08-22 09:04:35 AM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Meh.  CCTV is already everywhere, they record your face at ATMs, some cashier stations, most retail businesses, etc.

I have a hard time manufacturing outrage over this.


The difference is that they used to have to pull the tape and watch manually, then try to find a way to match a name to a face.  When this technology is fully developed, an NSA analyst like Snowden can type your name into a computer, and the first time you walk by a camera they have in their system, the feed will come up and he can watch everything you're doing for as long as your visible to the camera.
 
2013-08-22 09:09:18 AM

imontheinternet: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Meh.  CCTV is already everywhere, they record your face at ATMs, some cashier stations, most retail businesses, etc.

I have a hard time manufacturing outrage over this.

The difference is that they used to have to pull the tape and watch manually, then try to find a way to match a name to a face.  When this technology is fully developed, an NSA analyst like Snowden can type your name into a computer, and the first time you walk by a camera they have in their system, the feed will come up and he can watch everything you're doing for as long as your visible to the camera.


They are going to be really, really bored.  I go to work, I come home, feed the cats.  On saturdays I go grocery shopping and mow the lawn.

They will be appalled at the amount of cat food I buy, and my choice in clothing, I'm sure.

The point to me is, yes, it's happening.  OK.  Is anyone actually surprised it's going this way?  On the one hand, you have X people screaming about what was supposedly missed in say, the Boston bombing, or 9-11, or pick anything like that.  Those X people yell for closer surveillance, how could we not see this, etc.  So, systems are being developed to do just that, and now you have Y people screaming NO NO NO we don't want anyone watching everything, only the bad guys need to be watched.  Well, they have to find the bad guys, and as we all (should) know, the bad guys can look like anyone, anywhere these days.

You can't have it both ways.
 
2013-08-22 09:13:57 AM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: You can't have it both ways.


You actually can if you follow the Constitution and use it legally with actual warrants based on probable cause and significant oversight and transparency.  That's not how they use this technology.  The fact that people are becoming apathetic about this is almost worse than the people who want more of it because they're afraid.  At least the latter know they have skin in the game.

What happens when the next J. Edgar Hoover comes to power and this police state-like technology is in place with little or no oversight or Constitutional protections?
 
2013-08-22 09:17:20 AM

imontheinternet: Satan's Bunny Slippers: You can't have it both ways.

You actually can if you follow the Constitution and use it legally with actual warrants based on probable cause and significant oversight and transparency.  That's not how they use this technology. The fact that people are becoming apathetic about this is almost worse than the people who want more of it because they're afraid.  At least the latter know they have skin in the game.

What happens when the next J. Edgar Hoover comes to power and this police state-like technology is in place with little or no oversight or Constitutional protections?



This technology is not in place.  I'm talking about the video surveillance, and only the video surveillance part.  It's not nearly accurate enough at this point in time.

I'm far from apathetic.  While I'm not out manning a cheering section for this, I don't disagree with it.

And I'm sure that makes me some kind of monster.
 
2013-08-22 09:20:00 AM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Meh.  CCTV is already everywhere, they record your face at ATMs, some cashier stations, most retail businesses, etc.

I have a hard time manufacturing outrage over this.


I came in here to say someting along these lines.  You are absolutely correct.  Just look at Crime Stoppers on your local news.  They don't hardly do "reinactments" anymore, they show video and still images of the suspects; many times in the act.  Those three thugs who killed the baseball player, they were identified by store security cameras as they drove by on their "get-a-way".  Look at the awesome shots they had of the Boston Marathon bombers.

It's like with the internet where it should be a "rule of thumb" not to send anything by e-mail, text, and other means that you wouldn't want the world to see.  Well it should also be another one where if you are in a public place, you shuld automatically assume you are being recorded by someone.  Unless the communication is face to face, assume someone is listening.  With all that in mind, weigh your risks accordingly.

It does suck, but we did it to ourselves.
 
2013-08-22 09:22:00 AM

heavymetal: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Meh.  CCTV is already everywhere, they record your face at ATMs, some cashier stations, most retail businesses, etc.

I have a hard time manufacturing outrage over this.

I came in here to say someting along these lines.  You are absolutely correct.  Just look at Crime Stoppers on your local news.  They don't hardly do "reinactments" anymore, they show video and still images of the suspects; many times in the act.  Those three thugs who killed the baseball player, they were identified by store security cameras as they drove by on their "get-a-way".  Look at the awesome shots they had of the Boston Marathon bombers.

It's like with the internet where it should be a "rule of thumb" not to send anything by e-mail, text, and other means that you wouldn't want the world to see.  Well it should also be another one where if you are in a public place, you shuld automatically assume you are being recorded by someone.  Unless the communication is face to face, assume someone is listening.  With all that in mind, weigh your risks accordingly.

It does suck, but we did it to ourselves.


Yep.  My local smoke store has several pictures of people who tried to shoplift from them posted up there in color, for all to see. Clearly recognizable face shots. I don't have an issue with that.
 
2013-08-22 09:23:34 AM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: imontheinternet: Satan's Bunny Slippers: You can't have it both ways.

You actually can if you follow the Constitution and use it legally with actual warrants based on probable cause and significant oversight and transparency.  That's not how they use this technology. The fact that people are becoming apathetic about this is almost worse than the people who want more of it because they're afraid.  At least the latter know they have skin in the game.

What happens when the next J. Edgar Hoover comes to power and this police state-like technology is in place with little or no oversight or Constitutional protections?


This technology is not in place.  I'm talking about the video surveillance, and only the video surveillance part.  It's not nearly accurate enough at this point in time.


After seeing the way that they've used every other bit of technology, you don't exactly have to go out on a limb to speculate how this will be used once it's fully developed, absent a sea change in policy.

Satan's Bunny Slippers: I'm far from apathetic. While I'm not out manning a cheering section for this, I don't disagree with it.

And I'm sure that makes me some kind of monster.


Not a monster, just short-sighted.

If this technology was in place when Hoover was around, he would have been able to have every Congressman, Senator, senior staff, power broker, campaign contributor, etc. watched constantly and have pictures and videos of everything they do to use as blackmail.  This technology is a danger to democracy, and while its development and use is inevitable, it can be done safely and legally with real warrants and oversight..
 
2013-08-22 09:30:33 AM
imontheinternet:

If this technology was in place when Hoover was around, he would have been able to have every Congressman, Senator, senior staff, power broker, campaign contributor, etc. watched constantly and have pictures and videos of everything they do to use as blackmail.  This technology is a danger to democracy, and while its development and use is inevitable, it can be done safely and legally with real warrants and oversight..

And I don't necessarily disagree with you at all.  IMO though, it will be used, it IS used to a point already.  Yes, it will be dangerous in some respects.  I guess in my short sightedness, I'll go with there's a price to pay for the amount of oversight that some groups seem to want.  I'm not talking strictly about government groups, but the general population.  That price is the possible infringement of personal privacy, because well....government.  It never plays by the rules it set up to play by.  And that's a tangled mess that we're still trying as a country to get pulled out, but that too will be a long hard road.  In the meantime, this will continue to be.  I have no outrage because as I said before, it's a price to pay.   The quintessential double edged sword, if you will.

There's no clear and good path out of the tornado of security issues we as a country started.  Of course there are concerns.  But, again, I also don't disagree with it.
 
2013-08-22 09:41:20 AM
it's creepy, who even wants this...
 
2013-08-22 10:04:24 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Time to focus on the individual people, like Mitch McConnell, who are making all of this happen.
There are people making these lists and building this authoritarian infrastructure who need to be exposed.

Expose the list makers.


Make it...

Addendum 36, Part 4, Section12, Subsection 36, Clause 7, Sub-clause 89: Titled "Protecting Our Children from Depravity"

The heretofore referenced statutes, and any statutes implemented after implementation of this statute, shall apply to the creator and/or other agreeing parties for one (1) year prior to taking effect on any other parties.

---

I think that says what I mean it to say.

/the legalese would need to be cleaned up
//take care of obvious loopholes
///hide it a little better
////They'll vote for it just based on the Title
 
2013-08-22 10:24:23 AM
If you want to learn about what facial recognition software already exists, I'd recommend watching "Secrets of the Dead: Terracotta Warriors".
 
2013-08-22 10:30:24 AM
Not for long once they find out how boring my life is.
 
2013-08-22 10:36:00 AM

vudukungfu: These GOP crooks need to swing.


Lol whut?  This isn't a GOP thing, this is a "everybody we keep electing" thing.
 
2013-08-22 10:50:30 AM
So, some company is gettings millions to use Picasa?
/Google's face matching algorithm is scary accurate.
 
2013-08-22 11:49:33 AM

imontheinternet: Satan's Bunny Slippers: You can't have it both ways.

You actually can if you follow the Constitution and use it legally with actual warrants based on probable cause and significant oversight and transparency.  That's not how they use this technology.  The fact that people are becoming apathetic about this is almost worse than the people who want more of it because they're afraid.  At least the latter know they have skin in the game.

What happens when the next J. Edgar Hoover comes to power and this police state-like technology is in place with little or no oversight or Constitutional protections?


The idea that warrants should be required by all new technology is silly. I agree with your spirit here, but if public cameras are common place then the expectation of privacy simply is not there.

Someday special ear implants will allow the average person to hear through walls. On that day my conversations will lose an expectation of privacy as well. Later maybe some xray goggles.

It will suck to be the get off my lawn old man in that world, as well as the excessive idealist who doesn't really understand the 4th, but life will go on.

What you may want to call for is a new amendment, but goodluck with that.
 
2013-08-22 11:57:34 AM

Smackledorfer: The idea that warrants should be required by all new technology is silly. I agree with your spirit here, but if public cameras are common place then the expectation of privacy simply is not there.


Warrants are only used when law enforcement is conducting a search or seizure of someone.  Sending a person's name through the system to get phone calls, emails, and real time tracking based on facial recognition software should only be done to people who law enforcement has probable cause to believe are engaging in unlawful activity.

The key difference is a camera passively watching versus a law enforcement agent searching.  An analogy could be drawn to the planting of tracking devices on vehicles.  While a person does not have much of an expectation of privacy in regards to being seen driving to one place or another, you don't expect law enforcement to follow your movements constantly with a tracking device.

If you take your logic to the full extent, you're saying that by violating our privacy, they are lowering our expectation of it, and thus our rights against search and seizure no longer exist.  That violates both the spirit and the letter of the law.
 
2013-08-22 12:22:28 PM
Just wear sunglasses and a hat. No facial scan will recognize you. ;)
i.imgur.com

Just a London recycling bin. Nothing to see here. You won't even notice the facial recognition camera(potential) or the WiFi mac scanner for custom ads.
i.imgur.com
And just like London, Police cars in North America carry automated license plate scanners to collect location data on every vehicle it sees. They are not supposed to store the data and are only supposed to use it to live catch target vehicles, but hey go f*ck yourself for caring about police accountability.
 
2013-08-22 12:27:19 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-22 12:57:38 PM

imontheinternet: Smackledorfer: The idea that warrants should be required by all new technology is silly. I agree with your spirit here, but if public cameras are common place then the expectation of privacy simply is not there.

Warrants are only used when law enforcement is conducting a search or seizure of someone.  Sending a person's name through the system to get phone calls, emails, and real time tracking based on facial recognition software should only be done to people who law enforcement has probable cause to believe are engaging in unlawful activity.

The key difference is a camera passively watching versus a law enforcement agent searching.  An analogy could be drawn to the planting of tracking devices on vehicles.  While a person does not have much of an expectation of privacy in regards to being seen driving to one place or another, you don't expect law enforcement to follow your movements constantly with a tracking device.

If you take your logic to the full extent, you're saying that by violating our privacy, they are lowering our expectation of it, and thus our rights against search and seizure no longer exist.  That violates both the spirit and the letter of the law.


You are taking my logic in the wrong direction.

I am saying that at the point at which an area we believe now to have a reasonable expectation of privacy (not from the government alone, but privacy in general) loses that expectation, then it is no longer invasive for the government to do the things any citizen can do, like look at us in public, overhear us speaking loudly in a restaurant, etc.

Take for example the way the courts have come down on extended listening devices.  Even though anyone can buy one, almost nobody actually uses one.  So if I'm in the middle of a field with no one around I still have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though a cop or citizen outside of my knowledge could easily be using a fancy gadget to listen in. If, on the other hand, the fancy gadget in question were to become common place among the citizenry, such that I could no longer walk out into the middle of an open field and expect that nobody would overhear me, then it should no longer require a warrant for the cops to use the same device everyone else is.

It isn't the cops lowering the expectation of privacy, it is the technology and the use of the technology that the public implements.  When/if we reach the point where a person walking down the street expects to be videotaped by someone more often than not, then it should no longer require a warrant for cops to get in on the action.

imontheinternet: Sending a person's name through the system to get phone calls, emails, and real time tracking based on facial recognition software should only be done to people who law enforcement has probable cause to believe are engaging in unlawful activity.


Reasonable suspicion makes more sense than probable cause there.  Probable cause being the same level of suspicion as an actual arrest of your person.  And again, I agree with your spirit on this point, but what I disagree with is whether or not the 4th amendment as written and interpreted thus far comes down the way you think it does. I kind of hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
 
2013-08-22 01:03:09 PM
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is spending $1 billion to roll out a Next Generation Identification system that will provide a national mug shot database to help local police departments verify identities.
-=-
This money is coming out of our pockets to let them watch us.
It's no wonder we can't pay down the debt.

/Them= too many to mention.
 
2013-08-22 01:18:55 PM

imontheinternet: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Meh.  CCTV is already everywhere, they record your face at ATMs, some cashier stations, most retail businesses, etc.

I have a hard time manufacturing outrage over this.

The difference is that they used to have to pull the tape and watch manually, then try to find a way to match a name to a face.  When this technology is fully developed, an NSA analyst like Snowden can type your name into a computer, and the first time you walk by a camera they have in their system, the feed will come up and he can watch everything you're doing for as long as your visible to the camera.


I hope he likes watching fat guys fapping, 'cause that's what he's getting.
 
2013-08-22 02:33:02 PM

Smackledorfer: It isn't the cops lowering the expectation of privacy, it is the technology and the use of the technology that the public implements. When/if we reach the point where a person walking down the street expects to be videotaped by someone more often than not, then it should no longer require a warrant for cops to get in on the action.


I see where you're coming from, but I can't agree with the argument that technology can turn everyone into voyeurs, and thus the police have the right to watch everything you do and listen to all your conversations.  Just because your neighbor is violating your privacy and listening in to your private conversations doesn't mean that law enforcement has the right to do so as well without a showing of cause.  Expectation of privacy has a subjective element as well.

Smackledorfer: Reasonable suspicion makes more sense than probable cause there. Probable cause being the same level of suspicion as an actual arrest of your person. And again, I agree with your spirit on this point, but what I disagree with is whether or not the 4th amendment as written and interpreted thus far comes down the way you think it does. I kind of hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.


I could agree that reasonable suspicion might be correct for using the facial recognition software to locate and track someone in real time, if that was really all that was happening, but once you're getting into someone's emails, phone calls, logs kept of where the person has been over the last week or month, you're doing a full blown search, not a more casual stop-and-frisk, minimal intrusion type of situation.

That said, I agree with you that the current Court is likely to take a narrow view on the 4th Amendment.
 
2013-08-22 03:21:31 PM

imontheinternet: What happens when the next J. Edgar Hoover comes to power and this police state-like technology is in place with little or no oversight or Constitutional protections?


Who says they haven't already. We don't know who sits on all this data, or how many of Scalia and Holder's emails he has for insurance.
 
2013-08-22 04:46:10 PM
It's times like this that I'm glad I don't have a facebook, and the nearest camera which doesn't regularly have a piece of electrical tape over it is nearly two miles away.

But even if it were otherwise, I'd just feel sorry for the poor bored bastard who got stuck with the job.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report