Florida Surveillance Cameras Claim a Victim 575
kris_lang writes: "The St. Petersburg Times has an article that describes how an innocent man was tracked down because he was used as a "demo" face for Visionics Face-It face recognition software with their on-the-street video surveillance system in Tampa's Ybor City district. The "demo" image was printed in the St. Pete Times, and then sold to U.S. News and World Report which used it in an article. A USN&WR reader in Oklahama misidentified the face as being that of her ex-husband wanted on felony child neglect charges. The Tampa Police tracked him down to his job site and interrogated him. Now here's a question: how did they identify him in the first place to be able to track him down? Well, Florida has also been using digital photos for their newer driver's licenses. So they already have a handy-dandy database to work with."
Come on people (Score:2)
there's a way out (Score:2, Interesting)
Who is this random woman? (Score:5, Interesting)
Stating the obvious... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Stating the obvious... (Score:2)
Are you really serious? So the measure of how accurate a computer can be expected to be will be measured against humans?
If a man can't correctly multiply 1.05 * 57 / 123456 * 3443823.1231, in his head, how can we expect an automated system to do the same?
Do you see how your thinking is flawed?
Irony (Score:5, Funny)
So the technology is already better at face recognition than a woman in Oklahoma. Technology: 1. Humanity: 0.
Re:Irony (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? (Score:2)
If they used the driver's license database to identify him, and track him down, wouldn't that same information also have shown that he was NOT who the woman claimed he was?
WTF? How did that conversation go?
Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Idea (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Plus, it keeps out "the voices" and the alien Carnivore anal probe mind control rays.
Re:Idea (Score:2)
1984? Maybe. Brazil? Definitely! (Score:4, Interesting)
Bzzzz....
Ok... (Score:2, Insightful)
We have a guy who gets tagged as a demo person in a trial version of some new hardware. Kinda like being sent one of those "You may already be a winner!" envelopes; you didn't ask for it to happen, but it happened, and so be it.
Now, somebody sees you on national television (kinda like actually WINNING the prize) and decides that you owe them money (which happens a lot to lottery winners).
So the police come in, question the guy, and find out that nothing's really going on, that it was just a case of mistaken identity. Big freaking deal.
Ask yourself this: would you care at all if some other schmuck in Florida was walking down the street, somebody thought that he was their long-lost ex-husband who had been negelcting the children, and reported them to the police, only to find out it was mistaken identity? Of course not.
But because this was done using some new technology that hasn't been perfected yet, and because in some Orwellian universe this technology may be able to infringe upon privacy, well, it's important.
Keep things in perspective here, ok?
Re:Ok... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll admit I would care less about that, but that is not what really concerns me. What concernes me is this:
Suppose there is a criminal who resembles me in basic appearance, buld, facial characteristics etc. (be honest, how many times have you mistaken at total stranger for someone you know) and I go off to the mall/movies/park/office and the software pegs me as the bad guy, and I get swarmed by police officers. But wait here comes the best part, four days later on my way to dinner downtown it happens again.
Now pretend it was you. is the computer controlled survailance future leading us towards utopia? Or towards the Orwellian future you would rather choose to ignore.
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance" --Thomas Jefferson
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
The plundering of our rights and freedoms are never made in massive steps, but in small nudges (i.e. more restricted copyright laws lead to the DMCA) No one was told that "Communism/Lenninism/Socialism" was only a sugar-coated prelude to the murder and fear of Stalinism. And anyone who doesn't think that we in the US, or any other democratic/republican/parlimentary statis is immune to this, then they have fogotten the first thing taught to them in history class: "Thos who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it"
Mistaken Jaguar... (Score:2)
I ran a quick errand on foot and thought I saw my car parked a block away. I was furious thinking one of my roommates took it out without asking. Turns out the first (or last, don't remember anymore) three letters of the plate were different and it was a bit cleaner - the differences ended there. Fortunately, when I got new license plates (from North Dakota since I was going to school at the U of Mn ) I never got pulled over again. Go figure.
Re:Mistaken Jaguar... (Score:2)
I wonder if the pattern 274-1957 is sufficiently similar to other phone numbers to catch a lot of misdials...
Jesus... (Score:2, Flamebait)
If there's a crime halfway across the nation and then there's a match on you, do you honestly think that they're going to bother you? Of course not.
What's more likely to happen is this: Your face gets identified as a "Bad guy". The police come up to you and ask to see your ID, and say, "Somebody resembling you has committed a crime, are you willing to answer a few questions?".
Now imagine this: there is no software, they simply looked at a "Wanted" poster and saw the resemblance. Come on, get a life and stop worrying that "they're out to get you" and "my privacy will be demolished".
Oh, one more thing: quoting a bunch of authors while not spelling things correctly does NOT make you seem intelligent; it makes you seem stupid.
Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, in this very article there was a crime across the country and the police bothered this guy, so, yes.
As far as being "swarmed", in a recent case of a Cult of Scientology critic who was prosecuted for humorously threatening their religion with a Tomahawk cruise missile and fled to Canada to seek religious asylum, the CoS turned him in to the police in Canada and he and his wife were arrested by a fully-armed SWAT team in the middle of a crowded parking lot.
I think the situation would have been a whole lot worse for this guy from Florida if his face had matched up with Osama Bin Laden's, or someone like that. It would be real easy for someone to get hurt in situations where the police get very excited very quickly.
Is this worse than just mistaken identity from a "Wanted" poster? Maybe, maybe not. The possible reach of a mistaken identity is a lot farther, since now your photo can be compared everywhere around the country rather than just in your town. The chances of you looking like a criminal in some jurisdiction is higher than the chance that you look like someone in your own town, you know.
And if that weren't enough, I have problems with people assuming that I'm guilty when I go somewhere. A surveillance society assumes that everyone is just waiting to do something wrong. I'm pretty sure that's not the sort of attitude we want to be fostering.
Henson correction (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, he made a joke about a "Tom Cruise missile" (Tom Cruise is one of the more visible members of Scientology, as is John Travolta). The "Church" worked very hard to keep all but very carefully selected phrases of Henson's out of court, removing all context from his comments.
Those who've lived or worked in places with "quote boards" should be well aware of how phrases can sound when taken out of context.
Re:Jesus... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, yes, and yes.
The cops bother anyone that they can, and unlike the courts they generally consider you guilty until proven innocent. That's their job. Obviously you haven't been questioned by the cops lately.
A story I heard... (Score:3, Insightful)
His truck had been stolen, but later recovered. However, the police had neglected to remove it from the 'stolen-cars' database. The result is that he was pulled over, roughly pulled from his car, and handcuffed for several minutes until the problem was sorted out.
Re:Ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
In college, I was doing research on the fall of Democracy in Chile. What fascinated me about the subject was how Chile, which had been a democracy for about a century, had become a military dictatorship. More importantly, I wondered if such a thing could ever happen here.
It turns out that there is an entire series of volumes titled The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes [loc.gov]. There are volumes dedicated to Europe (e.g., Nazism in Germany), Latin America, a couple of more general texts, and a single volume dedicated just for Chile. And the entire scope of this series was summarized best by Julius Caesar over two thousand years ago:
All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.
Or, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." Or the great Benjamin Franklin quote above: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for security deserve neither." They get neither, as well.
We can't trust a government to do anything right. Why do we? Would you trust a bunch of complete power-greedy strangers to feed and clothe your children? Government has to be kept on a very short leash. If you do not set up and defend strict limits on the power officials can have and how long they can have that power, government will get too big for its britches. And if you give them more power than they deserve for more "security," you will find yourself walking down the streets, accosted by policemen. Or arrested without habeas corpus -- or bail.
Crimes... (Score:2)
Re:Crimes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Getting a ticket for being on a nude beach,
where nobody at all is complaining, can make
you a "Sex Offender", no different in certain
eyes than if you raped their 5 year old daughter.
No New Technology used (really!) (Score:5, Insightful)
- Police install cameras
- Police take picture of guy
- Police put guy's picture in a magazine
- Woman buys magazine, reads article
- Woman believes (mistakenly) that guy in picture is her ex and calls police.
- Police go after man
- Man gets angry
I don't see any mention of face-recognition software anywhere in that list (nor the article). The fact that the cameras were on the street is largely inconsequential because I've seen cameras on many, many, many pieces of public (and private) property in the Seattle area. None of these are hooked up to face-recognition software (AFAIK) and they can be used to find criminals just as easily.Re:No New Technology used (really!) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ok... (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone had mis-identified me, that would be one thing. If they'd mis-identified me, taken a picture of me, and printed it in a magazine with a caption suggesting that I was a criminal, I'd be pissed. Justifiably so, I think.
Furthermore, don't forget that the police weren't just walking around with a copy of that magazine for the hell of it: they were summoned there by a local who saw the picture in the paper and recognized the guy. From now on, there's the off chance that someone bumping into this guy is going to remember that picture, and suppose that he's a criminal.
Take this hypothetical - what would you do if your name and likeness were "accidentally" added to a list of sex offenders, a la "Megan's Law"? It's one thing to get yourself removed from the list, but what happens if you bump into someone who remembers you from that list? Say, "No, really, it was all just a big mix-up?" You're already a perv and a freak in the eyes of the suspicious.
Re:Ok... (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is the same Orwellian universe in which law enforcement has routinely used illegal wiretaps, the FBI has illegally infiltrated and monitored left-wing activist groups, the NSA may monitor global electronic communications, the FBI maintained massive files on citizens based on the whims of a perverse director, and people during the 1950s were harrassed by Congress and denied employment based on their constitutionally protected political beliefs (which they may or may not have actually held), the government tested the effects of radioactive material on humans without their knowledge or consent (and conducted other horrendous experiments as well)... If that's the Orwellian universe you're talking about, then, yes, this is important and I am concerned.
Governments in the US, all the way from the federal level to the local level, have a terrible history of abuses. The potential for abuse here is huge, and the temptation to abuse it will be even larger. I cannot think of a single technology available to law enforcement that has not been used to violate the rights of citizens in some way or another, and I see no reason why this technology will be any different. We have a lot to lose here and very little to gain. Why take the risk?
Re:Ok... (Score:2)
"By your logic, someone with poorer-than-average eyesight should not be allowed to identify a criminal, just because the chances of misidentification are a little higher than if the eyewitness was Superman."
No, that is not my logic; you have misrepresented my statements. I clearly stated there was a great difference in probability, not a little difference.
Re:Ok... (Score:2)
"So you ar against publishing photos of wanted criminals and sketches of suspects, because others are likely to be falsely identified as them?"
First, it is not true that others are likely to be falsely identified. The chance of a false positive is small. The issue is how much larger should we allow it to be.
Second, photographs of criminals are published knowing they are criminals -- they are fair game for publicity. Publishing photographs of innocent people is different.
Third, photographs of criminals are not published in isolation. They are published with other qualifying information, such as name or aliases, known locations, possible occupations, identifying marks, et cetera. These things are published because photographs or, worse, sketches are known to be poor identifiers and require confirmation. When police receive a report that somebody has seen a person who looks like a photograph or sketch, they are likely to go in to investigate whether the reported person is the sought person. By contrast, in this case, the police went in knowing the reported person was the sought person, because they had the identity of the photograph subject. It wasn't the report of who the person in the photograph was that was wrong, it was the report that the person was a criminal that was wrong. This isn't the typical way of identifying criminals we have had in the past, and it shouldn't be adopted without safeguards.
The innocent victim in this case was humiliated in front of his colleagues, friends, and employer. Those people are certainly less likely to use or recommend him for future work.
Gee (Score:3, Funny)
Here's why these things should be illegal (Score:4, Informative)
In the United States, there is a presumption of innocence. Face-recognition systems assume the opposite: you are a wanted criminal and only a null result on their database search proves you are NOT, in fact, a criminal. It's hard for us to be critical of these systems because, superficially, we don't want the bad people to get away. The pro-surveillance arguement is something like: "Well, if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear". But it's not that simple: I have a right to expect that I am assumed to be an innocent civilian until proven otherwise. I should not have to prove my innocence on a daily basis. These things should be ruled unconstitutional.
IANAL, of course
Re:Here's why these things should be illegal (Score:2)
Ok, lets throw some pseudocode at this and prove this statement to be false:
innocent = true
for criminal in criminal_db() {
if you == criminal {
innocent = false
}
}
As you can clearly see, you can easilly code a matching system so that you are presumed innocent until found otherwise.
Re:Here's why these things should be illegal (Score:2)
Re:Here's why these things should be illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Errr, WRONG. Face-recognition systems try to find matches from their criminal database. They don't ASSUME anything.
It's like that guy I watched on the Travel channel who works free-lance for casinos in Vegas. He has photographic memory, and remembers the faces of the people caught cheating in casinos. He drives around in his car, and the casino people feed suspected cheater photos to him wirelessly. He looks at the pic, and tells them if he was caught cheating before.
The memory guy hasn't proven the gambler is cheating -- he just flags that person as a higher possibility than the others, and they keep a closer eye on the guy.
I have a right to expect that I am assumed to be an innocent civilian until proven otherwise.
You do have that right. Some cameras with face-recognition software haven't taken that away. The only thing that can take it away is mis-use of the technology. For example, picking up every match from the database, and taking them downtown to the local precinct for questioning, without some other mitigating factors.
These things should be ruled unconstitutional.
It is not unconstitutional for you to be brought into a police precinct for questioning. And if you are wrongfully harassed, you have steps you can take to fight back.
IANAL, of course
Oh, of course...
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
The title of this post totally shows how DESPERATELY the editors want this to be an issue. When the software IDs someone incorrectly, fine.
INSTEAD, some lady in Oklahoma saw a picture of this guy, and said "That's my deadbeat ex!" This has no reflection on the software (which, BTW, I'm no fan of)
You hurt your cause when you present nondamning "evidence"
Re:WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (Score:3, Informative)
What happened was this:
1.Cops wanted publicity for shiney system, press wanted photos.
2. Some photographer took a photo, and the AP or some news wire requested it. It got sent, correctly captioned as saying "this mas is not a suspect".
3. Some intern at US News pulls the photo from the wire (I used to do this job in a major newspaper, stuff like this does get overlooked from time to time), redoes the caption, or perhaps forgets to include the caption, and it is sent to layout people.
4. Layout people redo the caption to suit space requirements and the focus of the story that accompanies it. They change the headline to the sensationalistic "You Can't Hide Those Lying Eyes in Tampa." and put the dudes face below it.
5. Magazine is published and read by an idiot. She calls cops.
I have not seen the caption of the photo, but I assume that the part about the dude being free of all suspicion was dropped to conserve space.
No matter whose fault it is, this still happened because we have cameras in public places, face recognition software enabled or not. This is a shining example to show to the people who support invasions of privacy what kind of harm they can really do, and it does a good job of eroding the "Well, if they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about" argument. This kind of crap is wrong, and the fact that the mistake was made by human eyes and not a digital ones does little to fix it, and little to sooth my worries
Re:WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (Score:2)
but the Florida surveillence cameras did claim a victim
Change the topic to the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov. Reporter writes a story about how Dmitry was arrested with an accompanying photo. Behind Dmitry in the photo is a man. Woman sees picture, says "That's my deadbeat ex!" and he is arrested.
The reporter never should have reported Dmitry's plight because it led to a someone being wrongly arrested???
this still happened because we have cameras in public places
No, this happened because the media prints photos and SOME people who see the photos are idiots. This is unrelated to the fact that public officials are making bad decisions and putting cameras in public places.
How did the image make it in all those papers? (Score:2)
But wouldn't they need some sort of release to publish his photo? On the DV list I'm on, every other month a thread comes up about getting releases when doing public shoots. So, how or why did they go ahead and send this photo around the country without his consent?
Of course, If I were here husband... (Score:5, Funny)
You got my point (Score:2)
Masquerade (Score:3, Funny)
Zero Tolerance For Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, we are seeing Government going beyond its Constitutional role to harass an innocent man. It really bothers me to see so many people in this forum say, "So What?". The "What" is that a person should not have to fear that the Government will randomly pick you out of the crowd and threaten you! Questioning is a form of Governmental threat because you know if you don't get the answers right or look the wrong way, you go to jail until you deplete your bank account on a lawyer -- plus as a bonus, when you are found innocent, you don't get reimbursed for your expenses.
If anything in the US, the cameras should not be trained on private citizens but on public officials. They are the real criminals. I would love to have the bright light of sunshine pound down on each and every politician -- focusing in on the actions they commit during their waking hours.
Frankly, as far as I am concerned, Uncle Sam should go have marital relations with himself. Its so sad to see the "Freest Country on the Planet" resort to this Fascist behavior. Even worst are the bleating sheep that think these cameras are a "Good Thing®".
Re:Zero Tolerance For Government (Score:2)
Take the matter into your own hands. (Score:4, Interesting)
Use your laser printer to print "big brother is watching you from this camera" in bold dark letters. You can also get some clipart of a suveilance camera and print that too.
Take a stapler, some tape, or wallpaper paste and paste this paper right next to (or above or below) any camera you happen to notice. Include ATMS, building security systems etc. Once the sheeple become aware of exactly how closely they are watched they may do something.
Right On! (Score:2)
I'd take out the part about "not... on private citizens" and just say, cameras for one, cameras for all. Either everybody gets to be on camera, or nobody. Hmmm... wait a minute! Anybody who enters a public place, politician or hooker (often in the same public place, oddly enough) IS caught by any cameras present! Of course, they fail to catch any crimes which are committed behind closed doors, in the comfy chairs at the country club or in dimly-lit mahogany rooms at the State Department.
Maybe politicians and bureaucrats should have surveillance in their offices. If they do, so should you! You both have jobs to do, and honest responsibilities to uphold.
Bit of a quandary, eh? An obvious solution is to let everybody see what's on the cameras, of course. How about the "Orrin-Hatch's-office-cam" for website of the week?
(Disclaimer: the previous views are heavily influenced by "The Transparent Society" by David Brin. To quote Scripture, "There is nothing new under the sun"...)
Public images. (Score:2)
Someone with a lot of guts and no criminal history whatsoever should do this with cops. Whenever you see a police officer, go right up to them and take a picture of them and follow them around at a reasonable distance and continue filming them. What are they going to do? They're doing the same thing to you, its only fair. If they question you about it, hand them a business card, or better yet a big colorful flier linking them to your website and offering to sell them CD's of pictures of police officers in that city. To make it even more interesting, have a crowd of people follow you around with camcorders so any interaction by the police will be recorded. Also, if possible, get a permit from the city to perform artistic observations on the street, so they can't even accuse you of loitering.
Now this is where it really gets fun. Get some of your own face recognition software. It doesnt' have to be perfect, just adaquate and combine the photographs with GPS locations. Then build a database of the daily observed activities of individual police officers. If some public access was allowed to the public recognition systems in question, photographs of cops could be run against databases of wanted individuals until a false positive shows up and then publish that information.
Personally I hope that guy does sue, if only to lose. Specifically he needs to sue whatever stage it was that sold or provided a picture of him to the media without his consent. If the court decides that it is acceptable to do so, then all the preceeding activities should be legal.
-Restil
Get a Lawyer (Score:2)
Anyone know how much Hedy Lamarr got for that when she sued Photoshop?
--Blair
Well, congratulations (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, congratulations (Score:3, Insightful)
-just my 00000010
Wear a mask everywhere. If u can do it on Oct31... (Score:2, Insightful)
Double standard?
Re:Well, congratulations (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the failure of a woman in the midwest and the Police of Tampa. The software didn't make the determination to pick this guy up, the police did based upon faultly info.
This is NOT 1984 nor will it ever be.
1984 was not just about cameras watching, but also a completely intrusive government. That is not the world that we live in.
That is like saying guns are bad, not the people that kill others with them. So, following that, if we got rid of the guns, there would be no murder right?
Just like if we got rid of the software, there would be no surveilance cameras right?
get real.
Re:Being observed (Score:2, Insightful)
And I don't want to hear (or read) that "If you have nothing to hide, then it's not a problem" crap. An eye over my shoulder, even if for no other reason than to watch what I'm doing, is very disconcerting.
Especially when that eye is attached to an error-prone system that treats everyone it identifies as criminals. The Bill of Rights is supposed to guarantee that we are innocent until proven guilty, but cops and employers treat individuals the opposite. Not only is Big Brother a mean bastard, but he is also an idiot. If law enforcement has power that exceeds their competency to use it properly, they are as children with bulldozers; no matter how good their intentions, innocent people are going to get hurt. This incident had mild consequences, but it shows that the system is being used recklessly.Re:Being observed (Score:2)
What do _you_ think the police should have done? You get a tip-off like this, would _you_ just let it go? Of course not, you'd follow it up. Which means finding the person and saying, "We've been told are going under a false name, and you're actually Mr. John Doe, who's wanted for XYZ. Is this the case? Do you have some ID, or can you get some ppl to vouch for you, to demonstrate that you're not?" Why do you think this is so unreasonable? Or is a policemen not allowed to investigate someone unless he _personally_ has seen them committing the crime, and can _personally_ identify them? If so, kiss goodbye to them convicting the mugger who attacks you on the street, even if you saw his face, know his name, and know where he lives!
Insightful my ass.
Grab.
I have plenty to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
My visits to a political party's headquarters,
a planned parenthood center, or my girlfriend's
house should not be monitored by the government, period.
Re:I have plenty to hide (Score:2, Funny)
Or by your wife, for that matter...
The slippery slope... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think one of the most basic freedoms in the US is to be free of government surveillance unless there is at least some evidence (ahead of time!) that a crime has been committed. Otherwise, mistakes may happen, and apparently they often end with innocent people in prison - even on death row. Certainly DNA testing has recently borne this out on numerous occasions.
The Fourth Amendment must be used to prevent such invasions of privacy, or we'll slide down the slippery slope until we're living in a country that'd make the old Soviet Union look open and enlightened.
On a somewhat related note, I'd be very wary of a government that repeatedly calls for more police and prisons, even though the crime rate has been going down for years. (This same government has also decided to artificially inflate the crime rate by pursuing an unwinnable "war on drugs"...and is using that as an excuse for all sorts of excesses including confiscating vast amounts of private property.)
186,282 mi/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Prisons. (Score:2)
Also prisoners now provide extrememly cheap labor to major US corporations. We have joined the likes of china in using prison labor to help corporations. These corporations are not likely to give up slave labor so easily so they pressure politicians to make draconian laws and tougher mandatory sentencing.
This is america and the prison industry is the new slave trade.
Re:The slippery slope... (Score:2)
The Fourth Amendment is practically going the way of the dodo. Ever been through any number of police checkpoints? They claim to be checking for drunk drivers, people without seatbelts, lack of insurance, etc. Most people are within the law, but they get stopped and harassed just the same. Generally I have faith in the Supreme Court, but the Court is of the opinion that the benefits of these checkpoints outweigh our rights that were supposedly guaranteed to us.
July 4 (Independence Day) is a prime time of year for these intrusions without probable cause. Ironic?
Re:The slippery slope... (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly there are false positives from both "Wanted" posters and shows like America's Most Wanted. Unless the rate of false positives here is higher, I don't see any reason to get any more uptight about it.
I completely agree, though, about the war on drugs. It's completely and totally irrational. (for the record: I have never even tried any illegal drug, so I have no vested interest in saying this).
Re:The slippery slope... (Score:3, Insightful)
We have lots of surveillance cameras in the UK, and I'll tell you what -- (almost) everyone likes them.
Re:The slippery slope... (Score:2)
Based on exonerations. Meaning, the party convicted and sentenced to death had their whole conviction overturned, not just their sentence stayed.
What, exactly, is to be gained by long deliberation in such a case?
You don't think a human life deserves more than 13 minutes of deliberation?
woman's mistake is irrelevant (Score:2, Interesting)
The danger for privacy is that the next step is doing the match for reasons other than suspicion of criminal behavior. Marketing, intimidation, or whatever. This story is evidence that all the issues of tracking people's behavior on the Web are now a concern in the real-world too.
I'm sure a store would love to know who you are just by taking your picture when you walk in (or just walk by)
Why the SPTimes printed this (Score:3, Interesting)
In particular, they took a photo of this guy, published it and sold it without getting a model release. As a direct result of their actions, he ended up if not in trouble with the police at least in the appearance of trouble.
In the USA these days, odds are good that if he sues them (if nothing else, the model release issue gives him legal grounds) he'll get either a significant settlement or a significant award in a trial. In publishing this, I'm sure the SPTimes is hoping to a) keep him from pursuing them and/or b) reduce the amount of sympathy he could get from a jury. It's not a retraction of the earlier story because there's really nothing to retract, but given the nature of the previous story this is about as close as they could get.
Maybe the above marks me as cynical, and I'm sure that's not the only motivation (and it may well not even be a key one - if it was would it be admitted by anyone?), but I'm sure that editorial staff there are aware of it.
Re:Why the SPTimes printed this (Score:2, Funny)
As a St. Pete resident... (Score:3, Informative)
The cameras on the street are not hidden whatsoever, and with the media hype that surrounded their installation, I would imagine the larger percentage of people who live in that area, were aware of them being there.
Unfortunately, mistaken criminal recognition problems are going to arise anytime the only verification method used is cameras in a surveilance environment. I think the main goal now should be to make sure that mistakes are recognized before law enforcement contacts alleged offenders. If there had been even the most minimal of checks and balances involved in the investigation of the gentleman in this article, the problem would most likely have been averted.
No one'll read this, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bigger Brother (Score:2, Informative)
Policemen torturing people for protesting on public property is a sign of an oppressive state. And the fact that no criminal or civil charges ever actually stuck in court is a confirmation that the state approves wholeheartedly [efmedia.org] of their actions.
Re:Big Deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Big Deal? (Score:2)
the problem is that he looks guilty infront of his coworkers, his boss, and anyone else that saw him get interrogated. He has lost respect.
Only if he had zero respect among his peers in the first place could he suffer any damage. I don't know about you, but if this happened to me, I would simply tell people "mistaken identity". My peers, knowing me, would instantly accept it. Case closed.
If our standard for the police is never making a mistake, not even the most minor, as in this case, we might as well as close them down.
Re:Big Deal? (Score:2)
It is quite common for it to happen on job sites (I'd guess at least once every other week someone gets arrested). I remember when we would work with other contractors (air conditioning, roofing, etc), we would begin to recognize each other's groups, and we knew several people from other contracting sites. It was always funny to ask "Where is Bob" and have the response "oh, he's in jail for 6 months"...
Re:Big Deal? (Score:2)
> Don't pick a fight you can't win.
For a police officer, your attitude is downright unamerican. You really don't believe in presumption of innocence before suspicion, do you?
Re:Big Deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't blame the police for the kid bolting and killing himself. Blame his stupidity, his driving skills (or lack thereof), and maybe put a little blame on society/news media.
I'd love to have a world where cops wouldn't have to carry guns. But when teenage gangsters already have better firepower then they do? I'm sorry, but we live in a violent world, these men and women put their lives on the line every day, and should have a means to defend their lives.
Re:Big Deal? (Score:2)
Ummm... where did you pull that from dude?
They pulled us out of the car, searched us, and ound our stuff. They laid it on the roof of the vehicle, and turned us around to talk to the officer questioning us. We turned around, and all the "stuff" was gone. The police officer watching the roof of the car let out an assenine remark. He said, I guess the wind got it.
Then you should politely ask "got what?" (and maybe thank him properly). Kindof hard to convict you of a crime if the evidence is missing right?
Why the f*ck is that police officer what he is? He should be pushing burgers down the block from me at the McDonalds.
Well he should be in jail, but whatever. Not having your experience under my belt (interesting story, thx) I'm still going to optimistically assume that most cops aren't that corrupt. (unless of course I'm in L.A.)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
If Officer Friendly misidentifies me as a wanted felon, if the case proceeds to trial I'll get to examine him on the witnes stand and test his powers of face-matching.
Who do I subpoena when Amalgamated Profits, Inc.'s latest Eyewitless XP software flags me as being a bad guy? Can I have design docs and test records introduced into evidence? Can I make the prosecution track down every developer and engineer and bring them to the stand?
It's bad enough when cops with no understanding of physics are given radar guns and the ability to hand out tickets. (Did you know that radar waves won't reflect from a stationary metal surface, only a moving one? That was the testimony of a Baltimore County cop who ticketed me last year.) Now cops with no understanding of software failability are being given buggy software and the ability to drag people off at gunpoint based on its output. The fun's just getting started.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Can I make the prosecution track down every developer and engineer and bring them to the stand?
You seem to be assuming that this will be an automatic guilt machine just because you have been identified by the camera. This is no different than if a tourist happens to catch you on tape committing a crime. It's just one piece of evidence. It still has be reviewed by a jury along with all the other evidence.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Compeletely innocent men have been jailed, sentenced to death and probably killed in this country. Even if you avoid avoid getting killed (perhaps you are a white person for example) or found not guilty your life will be ruined and you will be destitute.
4th Amendment (Score:2)
You are a troll. Unfortunately, a lot of reasonable people make this ludicrous argument. To say that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear, therefore they should not have a problem with this is to ignore the unbelievable potential for abuse. By your inane reasoning, law-abiding citizens have little use for the 4th amendment. After all, they shouldn't mind a search of their houses, cars, or person because they have nothing to hide right?
The point is charges do not need to be pressed for this to be a tool of oppression. There is tremendous evidence that unscrupulous police officers are already using driver's license databases to stalk women, spy on ex-lovers, and pursue revenge. A corporate-controlled system that has the ability to locate a person is ripe for abuse. I suggest you wake up and stop swallowing this crap that these systems are here "to protect you" and that "only criminals need to worry".
One more thing: To quote Ben Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I say you are one of these people. Perhaps you should consider relocating to a country that better suits your attitude - perhaps China?
Re:So what? (Score:2)
These are as bad as the idiotic "red light" cameras that are popping up like mushrooms.
I don't break laws (other than speeding) and I don't cheat on or have an Ex...and I don't want these damned things on the street.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
If the cops came to my work and wanted to talk to me about mistaken identity based on photos taken by street cameras... [blah vengence]
So you think that there should be absolutely zero possibiliy of mistaken interrogations? What about if a tourist video tapes you and they happen to see someone that looks similar on America's Most Wanted? Should we ban all cameras in public? What's the difference?
This is a difference issue, and I agree with you here. There is no excuse for publishing someone's photo in this context, although the problem is not with the cameras, it's with the news agencies.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
With the amount of money the Federal and State law enforcement organizations get for crime databases...there is no reason why this mistaken identity garbage should happen. Not only are the police stopping and questioning people at thier workplace...they are mistakenly invading homes and shooting people because of failures with 911 systems or just plain screwups. It's not right and it needs to stop.
If the Police get to run around in black smocks and refuse to identify themselves to the public, why should the public have to put up with crap like this?
Re:Even with a warrant: (Score:2)
I've been told by local cops that all they need is a 100 dollar bill on a citizen and they can take anything they want.
Story goes that 90 odd percent of US 100 dollar bills have at some point been in contact with cocaine or heroin. All they have to do is test the bill, chances are it's got some coke of smack on it, then they can take your car, computers...whatever they want under the Property Seizure rules.
Crazy...and totally a story...
Re:So what? (Score:2)
http://www.koin.com/c6k/news/specialreports/sto
http://www.koin.com/c6k/news/specialreports/sto
"KOIN's investigation found that amber lights connected to cameras changed to red much more quickly than those without the cameras. Armey says that the news story gave him the proof that he needed to call for a national study."
A study done in Farfaix County Virgina found that increasing yellow times made intersections safer.
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/vastudy
I was wrong about out here, the company isn't LockMart, it's an Australian Company. And yes...the Company DOES issue the tickets.
http://www.theage.com.au/bus/20001102/A21000-20
"The company's attraction is that it offers an entire traffic service, from the taking of photos, to processing and collecting the money from motorists. Redflex will provide Beaverton with cameras, evidence processing, court evidence, training services and a toll-free hotline as part of a public education service."
It's simply wrong to force people into breaking the law in order to increase revenue for a city.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
You left out 3) Everyone who disagrees with you and 4) Straw men who are easy for you to tear down
I don't worry about my privacy. I do worry about finding my way into a database whose users are not answerable to the same public that they are supposed to be protecting. What happened in the article above is a clear indication that it's not going to be pretty.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
I don't worry about my privacy. I do worry about finding my way into a database whose users are not answerable to the same public that they are supposed to be protecting. What happened in the article above is a clear indication that it's not going to be pretty.
Except you don't make any argument as to why this is different than ANYTHING we have now. Police make the same mistakes. People videotape in public now, and can turn over those tapes to the police if they thought they saw a criminal.
No one has given a satisfactory answer as to why extending the eyes of the police is any different to putting more police on the street.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
This isn't just extending the eyes of the police. It's giving them a database on us, a searchable, programmable, easily accessible database. The owners of the database should be 100% responsible to what they do with it, and answerable to the public to a much stronger degree than they are now. If I find myself in that database, and yet not charged with a crime, I should be able to demand, instantly, that my record be purged. If my record is misused in any way (as it was in the story that started all this), I should expect there to be a powerful application of discipline (immediate firing, barring from further public employment, etc) of the person who misuses it. If I am mistakenly identified as a criminal, and my life is disrupted in any way, I should expect immediate and unconditional apologies and reparations, and proof that disciplinary or corrective action has been taken towards those who made the mistake. The problem with this kind of system is that it's granting a tremendous level of power and access to a group of people who frankly have not proven themselves trustworthy of their previous level of power and access.
The reason it's being done is the overriding, overhasty rush to wipe out a percieved crime wave. I don't know about you, but I've lived in middling to large cities all my life and I've never been mugged. I've worked or gone to school in a crowded downtown area in a city of more than a million inhabitants for ten years running, and I just don't have that problem. Crime has been on a decline, but these systems are installed, and our rights are slowly eroded, by the public's hysterical perception that crime is somehow on the rise, and they are increasingly at risk, when in fact the opposite is demonstrably true. So not only do I see an unreasonable level of power and access being granted to police, I also am unable to find a corresponding force to drive this except the continuing press-driven crime hysteria. At this juncture, I really would rather risk being a victim of a mugging than a police "mistake" just about any day. As several others have mentioned, a child-support rap you can laugh off. Being mistaken for a pedophile or murderer could ruin your career.
Do feel free to barter away your freedom for your safety. Just keep your hands off mine, thanks.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
I am a counterexample to your theory. My reasoning is the same as Carnivore; maybe it would catch a few criminals faster, but the large potential for abuse outweighs that benefit.
Who are you... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got a deal for you, why don't you and everyone else who doesn't mind being monitored 24/7 just wear a radio collar so the police can keep up with you and make sure you're not doing anything wrong. The rest of us will just continue with our lives as they are.
The only people who don't want this are 1) criminals, and 2) people who cheat on their spouses and don't want to get caught.
Wrong! The only people who do want this are the sheep who don't understand that by agreeing to this kind of thing in the name of public saftey, they are slowly giving up every shred of personal freedom they have. Another poster said it, but's it's worth repeating, Rights just don't disappear, they're slowly eroded away over time.
Re:Who are you... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to start with this comment. If you don't think that putting cameras like this on every street is a loss of a Right, then you are blind.
Obviously you don't know what the phrase "expectation of privacy" means. In legal terms, it means that you expect to be unobserved. In public (particularly a restaurant, sheesh), by definition, you can't expect to be unobserved.
We're not talking about being observed, or in other words seen. We're talking about being monitored, about having your face scanned and compared to a database. That is fundamentaly different than being observed. And it's very different than simply having your picture taken. "Expectation of privacy" is not a legal term. There is a "Right to privacy" in my legal dictionary which I think is what you're talking about. According to that, there is a right to privacy, in the absence of a reasonable public interest. Now, I'm not going to argue with you about the term "reasonable", but the fact is that this right of privacy does exist, even in public. I don't know where you get your legal advice, but I hope you didn't pay a lot for it.
So then, do you think that all police should be banned from the streets, unless there is a crime in progress? No policeman should be allowed to view you in public?
I never said that, why do you pretend that I've said something I haven't and then proceed to argue that non-existent statement? I don't think that we should ban police from the street, I'm talking about surviellance camers.
Re:Who are you... (Score:2)
Reality Master 101 loves the straw man. Stuffed with fluff, and easy to punch, he don't talk back, that straw man. Especially if you load him up with Pure False Alternative.
Re:Who are you... (Score:2)
Why let that stop you? You do know other women exist don't you? with your superior genetics all of them would love to sire your brood. You can't let one woman stand in the way of your genes. Why rob the world of your children just because your wife says so.
Re:Who are you... (Score:2)
Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Lets assume that, unless proven otherwise, all people are law abiding.
Thus, there is no need for cameras in public.
*Sigh* This will probably be modded as "troll".
Dasunt, master of the understated argument.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Perhaps you disagree, but I've never viewed getting pulled out of work by the police for crimes I didn't commit, in front of my co-workers and my BOSS no less, as something I'd enjoy or benefit from...
Obviously no one wants that to happen to them, and we want to minimize it as much as possible. That's one of the reasons I'm in favor of cameras... mistakes happen because of a lack of knowledge, not more knowledge. Public cameras give us more knowledge of the crime so we can put the right people in jail, not someone pegged by an 80 year old lady peeking out her window in the dark.
And don't forget the cameras can work both ways... they will help identify police abuse.
Re:Suprised?? NO (Score:2)
You -are- responsible for whom you lend your car to. You can try and collect from the person, you know who it was.
Winnipeg will be getting Red-light cameras soon. I'm glad, way too many people run red-lights in this city. I see someone blatantly run a red light atleast once a week. (And I don't drive that much).
Your speeding vehicle is a serious threat to anybody else on the road. People die from being hit by cars. Those are facts.
Re:Suprised?? NO (Score:2)
It's funny, I don't care for survielance cameras on the street, but timing toll booth passes sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Look at the incredible idiocy of the activity you describe. The truckers, afraid of getting caught speeding, rush like hell to the very end of the toll road, risking all kinds of havoc on the way, and then stop completely at the end to avoid getting caught, thus completely negating any real benefit they gain from violating the speed limit.
It's stuff like that that continues to convince me that people speed only because it gives them a hard-on. I've never seen someone actually make it more than a car length in front of me, even on a major highway, when they speed like that. All they're doing is racing to the next bottleneck. Amazing.
Re:1984 is finally here? (Score:3, Funny)
No.
Now please proceed down the hall into room 101.
Thank you citizen.