Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy

Anti-Surveillance Mask Lets You Pass As Someone Else 196

Posted by samzenpus
from the I-thik-I've-seen-you-before dept.
SonicSpike (242293) points out this article about a mask that can foil surveillance cameras and provide fuel for nightmares. "If the world starts looking like a scene from Matrix 3 where everyone has Agent Smith's face, you can thank Leo Selvaggio. His rubber mask aimed at foiling surveillance cameras features his visage, and if he has his way, plenty of people will be sporting the Personal Surveillance Identity Prosthetic in public. It's one of three products made by the Chicago-based artist's URME Surveillance, a venture dedicated to 'protecting the public from surveillance and creating a safe space to explore our digital identities.' 'Our world is becoming increasingly surveilled. For example, Chicago has over 25,000 cameras networked to a single facial recognition hub,' reads the URME (pronounced U R Me) site. 'We don't believe you should be tracked just because you want to walk outside and you shouldn't have to hide either. Instead, use one of our products to present an alternative identity when in public.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Surveillance Mask Lets You Pass As Someone Else

Comments Filter:
  • by msauve (701917) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @11:43AM (#46972891)
    If he gets others to wear his face mask, he can go around without one and be hidden in the crowd. He should be paying others to wear these.
  • by BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @11:51AM (#46972947)

    Isn't it funny (or sad) how the government is increasingly using mass surveillance in public places, and yet when you attempt to thwart their efforts at tracking you by doing something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?

    The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has many places that ban the act of wearing masks in public places. Free? Brave? To drones, maybe.

  • by bmo (77928) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @11:56AM (#46972975)

    They should be banned lest criminals use these.

    Criminals use oxygen.

    --
    BMO

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @12:00PM (#46973003)

    How long before wearing one of these makes you a potential terrorist in the eyes of the police, FBI, etc.?

    Haven't you heard? We all already are.

  • by BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @12:33PM (#46973221)

    California has had a mask law on the books long before photo recognition, CCTV, etc.

    When the laws were created is irrelevant to the reality that protecting your privacy is made impossible in many places by government thugs.

    reasonably IMHO

    Again? [slashdot.org]

    Come on. I shouldn't have to tell people in "the land of the free" that banning things like this merely because criminals could abuse them is disgusting. Even if the safety is real, it's not something any truly free country would do, just like we shouldn't have the TSA, the NSA mass surveillance, or any of the other nonsense that's happening right now.

    What's with all these people who claim to want a free country, and yet support policies that take us in the opposite direction? It's just an eyesore.

  • by BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @12:43PM (#46973285)

    You can thank the Klan for that in many places.

    No, the Klan did not create the law. I blame the government and its supporters.

    Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?

    I'm in favor of rolling back anti-Klan laws that make it illegal to wear masks in public places, regardless of what the mask looks like. Opposing the Klan is all well and good, but when you ban masks in public places, you're anti-freedom.

    Do you think that America is less free or brave because the Klan finds it more difficult to hide itself to harass or kill blacks, Jews, and Catholics?

    I think America is less free and less brave because we (i.e. authoritarian idiots like you) continually sacrifice freedom for security (both real and imaginary). I do not think innocent people should be harassed by government thugs merely for wearing masks, trying to get on a plane, participating in a protest (protest permits), trying to get their voices heard (free speech zones), etc.

    It's always funny how you come when there is a topic about surveillance, and you're nearly always pro-surveillance and anti-privacy. I say "funny," but I don't really expect anything more from the likes of you. As I've suggested to you before, I really think North Korea would be more to your liking.

  • by HiThere (15173) <charleshixsn@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> on Sunday May 11, 2014 @02:02PM (#46973747)

    [sarcasm]
    I notice you posted anonymously. Doesn't that seem inconsistent with your views? Or are you currently perpetrating a crime? Or are you only planning one?

    Come on, admit it. You're being an Anonymous Coward because you're committing a crime.
    [/sarcasm]

  • by BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @02:18PM (#46973849)

    Actually, it provides privacy from mass public surveillance. There are different kinds of privacy, and some (i.e. privacy from having people take upskirt pictures) exist even in public places.

    And this is about the government, not random people looking at you.

    You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public.

    Anyone who tries to say I shouldn't is an authoritarian scumbag.

    This is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," so you can damn well bet I'm going to claim such a right.

God is real, unless declared integer.

Working...