Big Blue's Big Blue Eyes Are Watching You 139
russellamiller directs your gaze to this Technology Review article on eye-tracking, customer-watching camera systems based on IBM research from the company's Almaden reasearch campus. The tracking systems are set up to observe and interpret the behavior of those observed -- not just in casinos, or at the Superbowl, but in retail stores you may have already been in. Though names aren't named, the researchers say "a number of large retailers have implemented" the systems already. Does this bother you like it bothers Steve Mann?
But IBM is allowed to do this! (Score:1)
Re:Project ERICA (Score:1)
Glass Eyes Too ? (Score:1)
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)
Re:Oh, no! (Score:1)
if a store realizes that cute clerks will get you in there, they will hire more.
Re:Another step (Score:1)
The last thing you want is for them to identify you as a malfunctioning consumer. A complete waste of resources that needs to be disposed of to make way for more useful consumer untis.
The other end of the stick (Score:1)
Defending IBM (Score:2)
Re:why on EARTH would you blame Zyklon B? (Score:2)
So its not the amount of human suffering caused that offends you, but the emotional reaction to the way in which said suffering was caused.
Truely amazing how the word "nuclear" can turn otherwise rational humans into emotionally controlled dimwits.
Re:why on EARTH would you blame Zyklon B? (Score:3)
Human scientists contributed to the development of the atomic bomb. Do they share responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Clearly yes.
Perhaps they may argue that if they didn't do it, someone else would have. That is what the Nazi's tried at Nueremburg claimed. However, it also clear that human responsibility starts with the individual.
The only way human and civil rights violations will stop is if we as individuals realiize our responsibility and say: no.
That is the point... (Score:3)
Speaking as a former security guard ... (Score:3)
Oh, no! (Score:4)
Oh No! (Score:4)
Yes, this technology has potential for many types of abuse, but banning known shoplifters isn't one of them--that's what's known as a legitimate and noble use of technology.
Re:Oh, no! (Score:5)
Re:Sunglasses (Score:5)
However, someone out there may sell sunglasses that block infra-red.
At a recent cypherpunks meeting, someone suggested wearing an infra-red light-source on a cap. It would be invisible to humans, but would blind many video cameras, as they tend to be sensitive to infra-red light. It would probably be especially effective against the BlueEyes system.
Anonymity is power!
Where do you draw the line? (Score:5)
But this makes me think about one of the arguments that I heard in a recent court case about using drug-sniffing dogs on a routine police stop. Those in favor of the use of the dogs asked if those opposed to the dogs would, hypothetically, be opposed to having a police officer with a "really good sense of smell" conduct the stop. To me, this raised the question of "how do you determine what is/isn't reasonable?"
Perhaps this nascent A.I. is all esoteric and high-tech stuff. But so was mp3 once upon a time. I was using computers back in the day of 2400 baud modems (and before) when the thought of a service like Napster was absolutely ludicrous and completely impractical. But today, we've gotten to the point where such technology is cheap and affordable to just about anyone. It seems crazy to try to stop it, if only because it is so easily and freely available. I have no doubt that some day such behavior-interpreting software will be easily and freely available as well. Maybe even Open-Sourced. And then how will we cope with such a world?
So what is my rambling point with this? Simply that, at some point, any advanced technology will eventually become so routine, commonplace, and easily available that trying to legislate it away becomes absurd. Imagine trying to argue that the use of glasses, contact lenses, or a hearing aid by a police officer constituted some sort of stepping over the bounds of governmental self-restraint. (And, yes, I realize that glasses, contact lenses, and such don't really enhance an individuals sensory abilities so much as raise them up to the level that a normal person posesses. But what happens when they can drastically extend a normal person's senses without them having to be burdened by carrying bulky attachments? And it's now commonplace in the U.S. for police cars to have a laptop computer with access to a large database of automobile license plates that are associated with outstanding warrants. Is that so different from other forms of sensory enhancement?)
One could make the argument that all this stuff is not that different than having an employee (or employees) of the store -- with has a high degree of perception about human nature and marketing -- stand out on the floor, making the same observations that the software is making. Except that using the software does it more efficiently and on a larger scale.
Don't get me wrong. I'm struggling to find a good argument against this stuff. Coz I hate it and it angers me. But I really don't know where it is reasonable to draw the line between using a sharp, perceptive person to make these observations and using cameras and software to do it. Especially when the cameras are already there. And the store does belong to them. It is their property, and customers are there of their own volition.
This stuff really bothers me, but where do you draw the line? What is it about using software to do this, instead of using a really perceptive person, that makes it going too far? How is this so different from the philosophical battle over DeCSS -- that one group of people wants to use some software that another group of people finds objectionable?
I am a strong supporter of Napster and DeCSS (and the Princeton professor who just withdrew his paper about cracking the SDMI watermark). I consider myself a big civil libertarian. I love the ACLU. But am I the only one who is bothered a little by the way that the lines can seem to be drawn somewhat arbitrarily?
Right now, the only clear distinction that I can see is "who are the Big Guys and who are the Little Guys?" If a big corporation wanted to use DeCSS and a lot of individuals were concerned that it would infringe on their individual rights (although it's difficult for me to envision right now exactly how that could come about, but please indulge me for just a moment), would Slashdotters be arguing the other direction?
It seems "obvious" to me that the use of this software by governments and corporations is wrong. But as I've discovered many times in the world of math and computer science, what at first seems "obvious" can often turn out to be quite false.
I, for one, would just feel a lot better if I could clearly delineate why this use of controversial, unpopular technology is Bad, but in the case of Napster and DeCSS the use of that controversial, unpopular (so to speak) technology is Good.
Anyways, those are my rambling thoughts. And I may be the only one who sees things that way. But if someone could make the good argument for me, I would greatly appreciate it.
Suddenly, my old Zen training is coming back (Score:2)
The human nervous system wires us in a manner that we understand each other, whether we want to or not. It's utterly impossible to turn off. We ALWAYS know what others about us are thinking, and if we choose not to see it, we cripple ourselves.
I'm talking brain stem stuff here.. Body language, limbic system..
What I'm trying to say here, is that by simply leaving your house at a particular time you reveal an incredible amount of info about you, even in that simple act.
Scoping people out electronically is actually kinda cool, and could be used for lots of GOOD things!
Paranoia has its' place however, and for good reason.
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Another step (Score:2)
My parents had one of their credit cards temporarily disabled due to unusual spending activity.
The reason? Someone was using the credit card number in Europe to buy stuff.
Later, when my parents got home from their trip to Europe (Switzerland, Germany, Italy and briefly England, in case you wondered), they found a nice, helpful message on their answering machine from the credit card company letting them know that there had been some unusual purchases lately and asking if they had perhaps lost a credit card and not noticed it...
opt out (Score:2)
Maybe ThinkGeek should sell a hat studded with IR LEDs, for the geek paranoid.
Re:Eye-gaze and Military (Score:1)
More peacefully, you can get a similar system for search-and-rescue helicopters where an IR camera mounted under the helicopter follows someone's head movements and they get to see the picture in their helmet mounted display.
But that was tracking head movement, not eye-tracking - I don't know if the Apache system is the same or not (and I saw it nearly 20 years ago, so I'm sure things have advanced since then).
--
Re:Sunglasses (Score:3)
(I'll take mine with a mirror finish, please. Whoo-hoO!)
--
Re:Another step (Score:4)
---
Re:why on EARTH would you blame IBM? (Score:2)
The analogy I was thinking of was blaming Alfred Nobel for blowing people up with dynamite (he invented it for use in mining)
Re:If it bothers you: (Score:3)
Re:Another step (Score:2)
Doing it with credit cards isn't always bad, though. I've had credit card companies twice have notified me that I had just been charged with some pretty unusual purchases, and I was able to quickly wipe out the problem. Once was from when a credit card was stolen in the mail, another was when some kid from a restaurant kept the number after wiping my card legitimately.
Cheers,
Re:why on EARTH would you blame IBM? (Score:2)
Well, Microsoft has already publicly demoed a similar technology, even though I don't believe it's been mentioned at Slashdot yet. When the time comes that Slashdot does a story about its evils, I can count on you to defend them, too, right? :)
Cheers,
Re:Where do you draw the line? (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I refuse (Score:1)
Re:Improved service (Score:4)
--
Re:opt out (Score:4)
--
Re:Where do you draw the line? (Score:5)
You left out deceptive. Probably 90% of the spam I get has tried in some way, shape or form to conceal the the fact it is spam, and/or to conceal where and when it came from.
--
Am I bothered like Steve Mann? No.. I am bothered. (Score:5)
Store owners see a lot of theft. A huge amount.
I remember once while I was in a 7-11 the store owner saw kids trying to steal beer on the camera.
The dome refereed to in his concerns are not to hide the existence of the camera.
No body will be fooled by that facade.
The function is to cover for a defect. Cameras swaying back and forth.
Sure you know there is a camera but you don't know where it is pointing at a given moment.
Those cameras are good. They serve a function.
The abuses have to do with cameras placed in dressing rooms and manual control cameras.
Manual control isn't worth the investment. Cameras are 90% deterrent.
In fact there is a big market for fake cameras.
But far to many people risk the camera. So you need the real thing.
Steve Mann makes a very good point.
"Shooting back"...
Cameras in the consumers hands are equally good.
Full disclosure.
They can have them so can you.
You should have every right to carry a camera.
Why the hack not?
I don't like people taking my picture.
But surveillance is just part of life.
Why should only they have that right?
Personal cameras are a good thing...
Any store that won't let people carry personal recording equipment should be devoid of recording equipment.
Re:It's bad enough... (Score:1)
Better yet, have it automatically bitch-slap your boss for overworking you, and then have it automatically schedule you for a free one-week vacation as your reward.
Re:why on EARTH would you blame Zyklon B? (Score:2)
Really? So General Motors has responsibility for all those bank robberies where someone used a Chevy (or a Pontiac or a Buick, etc.) as a getaway vehicle? I mean, really, you can't say GM doesn't know that people are going to use their cars to commit crimes.
I know, maybe GM should design in an anti-crook system, so that the car can SENSE when its being used by a bank robber and will refuse to start for the bank robber.Yeah, that's the ticket.
Re:why on EARTH would you blame Zyklon B? (Score:3)
Common argument...to which I always respond: do you blame the guy who designed the door knobs on the gas chambers? No, clearly door knobs serve a much larger purpose and like all technology, door knobs can be abused.
Human scientists contributed to the development of the atomic bomb. Do they share responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Clearly yes.
Really? If you live in the United States, chances are you are using technology -- right now -- that came as a result of that research. Nuclear power plants. Even if you don't live near a nuclear power plant, if you live in just about any developed country, your government is using the threat of their nuclear weapons to keep your ass alive and allowing you to say stupid stuff like that.
Do you feel any guilt?
I don't.
sXe sEx? (Score:1)
wait a minute, I thought straightedge people weren't supposed to have sex. keep looking, though, I guess..
Blue Man Group is already working on this.. (Score:1)
Blue Man Group [blueman.com] is already working on this..
Re:two thoughts (Score:5)
Why can't we complain about the abuse of information gathered about us without our knowledge or consent? We quite rightly can complain about it, disrupt their data collection until it leaves our hands, and discover and disclose the use this technology wherever we find it. We have no obligation to the merchant to let them use our involuntary reactions so they can harass us with higher prices and more pressure to buy, and we have no obligation not to mess with their system until mall security escorts us off the premises. Naturally, since we're in public, the Supremes will say that they certainly can, but any merchant who would press the issue so far has already lost in the court of public opinion by the time the first appeal is filed.
(Incidentally, the heat signature given off by blood vessels in the forehead is as or more unique than fingerprints.)
Oh yeah, that's "speech", not "speach".
-jhp
Re:Another step (Score:5)
However, if you don't have a choice about revealing your identity and interests to marketers, then this is where the line gets fuzzy. If a store is required to disclose that systems such as these are in use, then thats one thing. You can just avoid shopping there, or can take precautions to prevent them from being useful.
However, there IS a potentially useful side effect here. I ignore advertisements. In fact, I RUTHLESSLY avoid them. I never look at banner ads, I never click on them, I don't look at junk mail, no matter what it might be. The crap people like to hang on my doorknob goes in the trash without a glance. When I go to the store, I know what I'm going to get, and I don't waste much time looking around at subtle advertising to see what I can't live without.
IF these systems pick up my complete lack of interest in ALL advertising, do you think its possible that they might mark me as a lost cause and save their precious marketing dollars by simply not sending me anything? Yeah.. I can hope.
Another angle of the same issue.... notice how nobody really cares about intrusion into our lives when its our choice to allow it. How many people have webcams? Now, see how many of those same people would be willing to go along with mandated cameras in their houses. The end result is the same, but in one case, "Big brother is watching you", in the other case, "Bring it on Big Brother".
This newfangled marketing strategy would probably gain public acceptance if not for its secrecy. Just offer it as a free service and everyone wouldn't be able to wait to have it installed everywhere. "Sign up for this free service to automatically notify you when your favorite products go on sale!!!!" Sale of course is an arbitrary term. A store near me has a "temporary lower price" tag on EVERY SINGLE ITEM IN THE STORE, no matter what the price is. The point is... right now, at this instant, its temporarily lower, so you better get it now or the price might go up. People are morons. They don't care. They'd be an easy sale.
But no, they have to conceal it. Hide the identities where these systems are in place. Get the ACLU involved. Way to go there. Way to market your product you bozos. Lets make it extremely obvious that you might have nefarious motivies. At least you're making it easy for us.
-Restil
Re:Sunglasses (Score:1)
Presumably looking more or less suspicious isn't a concern of his, I assume he doesn't like having cameras pointed at him. I can understand that.
Re:Is there anything to be said for privacy? (Score:2)
The difference is that knowing someone is usually reciprocal, the manager in the little store knows you and you know him, at least to an extent. When you walk into the shop you recongise him and think you know what he knows about you. Having someone who doesn't know you, and who you don't know, know about you is much more disconcerting.
Re:This reminds me of.. (Score:2)
Re:Sunglasses (Score:1)
Stick your Ray-Ban's up to the remote control for your TV. If you use the remote, does it still work? Assuming of course, you have an infra-red remote, which 99% are.
I suppose as long as the telescreens (Score:1)
jumping jacks with the rest of my comrades,
sure, why not?
Top 3 (Score:3)
Mary Kate & Ashley Olsen
Michael Jackson
Robin Williams (Mrs. Doubtfire)
- Slash
Re:Eye-gaze and Military (Score:1)
--
Re:Oh, no! (Score:1)
--
Re:They have to ask you to leave first (Score:2)
A store, restaurant, or other such establishment is considered "public" in U.S. common law; as such, you are welcome to enter and remain on lawful business unless you are instructed (a) to leave, or (b) not to enter in the first place. If you enter or remain on a property you have been instructed to vacate or not to enter, you are committing "criminal trespass", as some states refer to it. See O.C.G. 16-7-21(b)(2) [ganet.org] for a typical example.
--
Re:So... use this, and go find out. (Score:2)
I think you'll find they block 90+% of UV (ultraviolet) - not IR. It is the UV that is considered harmful to the eyes (and skin).
Re:It's pretty obvious they'll make us opt in ... (Score:2)
On top of being peeved because I had to get the $*&@ card in the first place (because they stopped having their normal bloody sales.) Stupid supermarkets.
It's pretty obvious they'll make us opt in ... (Score:3)
Even if you have to opt-in, supermarkets would say "Be Part of the Retinal Scan Members Club!" Which would be tied in to getting sale prices on items at the store :P
They also use the cards to allow you to donate a portion of your purchases to schools, which is cool, but I'm sure they could figure out a way to do that without violating my privacy.
Re:Sunglasses (Score:2)
-jerdenn
Re:why on EARTH would you blame Zyklon B? (Score:2)
Doorknobs vs. gas chambers? I'm waiting to hear what you think how the people who designed & built those gas chambers thought they were going to be used.
Same thing with bombs. You design something to do something, and it gets used in the manner you designed it to work - you've got a direct line of responsibility to the results.
I would submit that the research necessary to build a nuclear power plant does NOT necessarily yield all of the information necessary to build a nuclear bomb. And if you design a nuclear power plant, you can be reasonably sure someone isn't going to drop it on a city to kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Although if you make a suitcase-sized nuclear power plant w/o the expectation that some nut might try and crack it open inside a populated area, you could probably be blamed for negligence if not intent.
Re:why on EARTH would you blame Zyklon B? (Score:2)
Come on, you can't agree with what I said, and then turn around & claim that I'm saying something different.
It's all in the intent - using your example, if somebody wrote handwriting recognition software with the knowledge that it had a high probability of being used to launch missiles, then they've got responsibility for the results. If they write a general-purpose handwriting recognition system with the idea that they're going to sell a lot of pen-based computers, and then somebody coopts the system for use in launching missiles, then it's the person who coopted the system who made the decision to contribute to something lethal.
The IBM software is designed to identify & monitor people, and to apply some analysis to their behavior. The systems that it is being used in, are designed to be inobtrusive (wouldn't want to actually upset the customers by making it OBVIOUS that they're under surveillance all the time).
Whoever designed the system deliberately created something which can be used to unobtrusively identify, monitor & analyse the behavior of anybody that comes into its field of view, with the knowledge that this information will be used to restrain people's activities (e.g., catching shoplifters) and to try and improve their ability to manipulate people (e.g., targeted advertising).
While this is a far cry from something that was designed to kill people, it's certainly not as benevolent as a new kind of bread or a poster with a cartoon mascot on it. And since the people using it know that it wouldn't be popular, they do their best to keep their customers from knowing about it.
Spying on Employees (Score:4)
Or, even worse, for quality control at tech support lines -- to make sure you've got that upbeat attitude towards the person on the other end of the phone. All of the sudden, over the intercom: "Would the person in cubicle 48B change their attitude about their current customer please?" Instead of having warnings letting us know that the call may be monitored for quality control, the warning will say that the facial expressions of the person on the other end of the line will be monitored.
Re:Another step (Score:2)
Re:Pin hole glasses would work (Score:2)
The advertised purpose of them was to sharpen your vision. I think that they were called Eagle-Eyes.
--
Re:Is there anything to be said for privacy? (Score:3)
That's why there are some things that it's best to buy IRL. Like pr0n, firearms, and drugs -- the finer things in life.
--
Re: (Score:2)
Useful in Retail Stores? (Score:4)
Where this could really shine would be at a amusement park. Analyzing the emotions of both people on rides as well as getting off of rides would really help give you a more direct picture of how fun, scary, or boring your park is.
Re:They have to ask you to leave first (Score:2)
Excuse me? Thats a bit like saying that I can't file charges on a person who walks into my house and hangs out there without asking him real nice to get out first. If they have told you, plainly and without equivocation that you are never welcome on their property again, why should they have to remind you of it?
In the case of a store with a different name I could see it, but if they can prove that you already knew you did not have permission to be there, I'd say having to ask again is BS. What ever happened to the great /. creedo of taking responsibility for your own actions?
Kahuna Burger
Re:Useful in Retail Stores? (Score:2)
well, AFAIK banner advertisers don't pay by the amount of actual money they make off people coming to their site through click throughs, they pay by the eyeballs. So with this technology, a store could tell a vendor "setting up display X gaurentees you Y additional looks at your product and Z additional close examinations. Whether they actually buy the product at that point differs by the quality and price of product, but the look number is consistent for this display."
As an advertising technique, this would bring benifit analysis more concretely in line with any other advertising venue where people reached is consistent and predictable even if response is up to the advertiser to a certain extent.
Kahuna Burger
Re:It's pretty obvious they'll make us opt in ... (Score:2)
Could you clarify the all sorts? Are we talking age, income level, employment, marital status, fetishes, what? Some people consider their zip code a private matter while others talk loudly in the elevator about their bondage collection, so I'm really not getting a clear sense of what you were asked for. Seriously, I'd at least like to compare to what I've been asked for at the 5 or more boston area places I've gotten the cute cards.
Kahuna Burger
Re:It's pretty obvious they'll make us opt in ... (Score:3)
"All sorts of personal information"?? I have a few of those lovely cards, and I've never been asked for more than my name address and maybe phone number. And the clerks don't hassle you if you don't want to give some of the info. If they're in a hurry, they just give you the card.
What I want is one card that I can use to opt into all of the individual store programs. Yeah, they could cross check my purchases across many venues and figure out that I own a cat, like to quilt and don't drink anything caffinated, alchoholic, diet or with high fructose corn syrup. And I'd start getting junk mail that actually interested me. ooohhh, trauma.
And if they paid attention, they'd find that some people activly avoid buying things made in china or certain companies with lousy policies.... and the old suggestion to vote with your checkbook could actually be noticed.... someone tell me when I get to the scary part.
Kahuna Burger Kahuna Burger
I have patented (Score:2)
why on EARTH would you blame IBM? (Score:4)
Re:Where do you draw the line? (Score:4)
I also am very leery of such surveillance, and I think that there is at least one fundamental difference between having (a) one or more sharp-eyed employees and (b) a video monitoring system: data collection and retrieval.
It's not like having one sharp-eyed employee at all, really. It's like having thousands of sharp-eyed employees, all over the world, all with instantaneous access to each other's memories and perceptions. E.g. a network of computers.
The U.S. is now Database Nation - thousands of personal details of each of us are stored in databases over which we have zero control. This is likely to continue unchecked for a very long time. The end result is that when face-recognition technology starts to work well you're trackable. Everywhere you go, every step, is stored in a database somewhere, and available to the highest bidder.
For anyone who just thought, "paranoid," riddle me this, Batman: what would someone 100 or even 50 years ago have thought about our current state of affairs, in which nearly every purchase we make is trackable, and such information is regularly bought and sold? A paranoid fantasy [constitution.org]?
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Re:Where do you draw the line? (Score:5)
However, I do believe your citing the silencing of spam as hypocracy. There is a big difference between seeking freedom of speech, as opposed to freedom to advertise. Observe this comparison:
It's perfectly okay for me to:
a) Have a racist, sexist, homophobic web page.
b) Say bad things about Christians on a message board.
But it is not okay for me to:
a) Email people, unsolicited, with racist/sexist/homophobic comments that may upset people.
Similiarly with spam:
It's okay to:
a) Set up a web page advertising my product or service.
But, it's not okay to:
a) Send personal email messages to people, unsolicited, promoting my product.
b) Post inappropriate advertising on message boards and open forums. (this is to the discretion of the forum operators, however)
See my point? Spam is bad because it wastes people's time, and sometimes even offends them. I definately do not agree that people should be jailed for spam, that is absolutely rediculous. But I do believe that when a spammer does, against the AUP of their ISP, spam a few thousand people, they should be punished by removal of their account or even a fine of some sort.
I don't really see how this is in conflict with the ideal of free speech.
It least... (Score:4)
Oh wait....
Re:Where do you draw the line? (Score:4)
Absolutely.
Slashdotters want unfiltered [slashdot.org], uncensored [slashdot.org] access to the Internet. They are vocally against any form of censorware....
Except when it's spammers. They cheer and rejoice when spammers are shut down, [slashdot.org]taken to court [slashdot.org], and otherwise are restricted from the same freedoms we want for ourselves [slashdot.org].
Why are we against spammers when we're supposedly rallying for free speech for everyone? Simple: we don't like spam. We are totally hypocritical when it comes to our own self-serving interests, just like other groups [riaa.com] we often poke fun at for the same hypocracy [slashdot.org]. We see bugs in Open Source software as an example of why Open Source is great [slashdot.org], but the same types of bugs in Closed Source software are seen as reasons why Closed Source software isn't great [slashdot.org].
We're a fickle group, and not really different than any other interest group, no matter how much of an intellectual ivory pedestal we like to see ourselves as being on.
Sunglasses (Score:4)
Determining if your being watched (Score:5)
It's bad enough... (Score:2)
Besides, I work at the helpdesk at a university, and I can tell you, there is *no* emotion whatsoever on the face of the average websurfer. Unless maybe that's the point. What I'd like to see is a computer that can analyze my face, figure out that I haven't slept in three days, and have it direct me to caffeine and hacker book vendors. Now that would be impressive technology...
/* Steve */
If it bothers you: (Score:3)
The results... (Score:4)
Millions of dollars spent by retailers to find out that my eyes are attracted to bright colors, flashing lights, and breasts. Thanks IBM.
Re:two thoughts (Score:4)
Re:Where do you draw the line? (Score:3)
This stuff really bothers me, but where do you draw the line? What is it about using software to do this, instead of using a really perceptive person, that makes it going too far?
In a word: Honesty A definition I've heard that works well for me is: "The absense of the intention to deceive."
It appears that they are using hidden cameras for their observations. If there's a "really perceptive person" standing there and watching me, it is apparent to me that I am being observed.
Using BlueEyes' hidden cameras is analagous to having a person hidden behind the display watching me.
Can you imagine the reaction if the cameras were plainly visible, pointing right at you, and there was a sign expressly stating that your reactions are being observed, tracked, and stored permanently? (Image: some people scooting quickly past the display while a bunch of rug rats are hamming it up for the cameras!) Let the market droids sort out THAT data! ;^)
Re:In the U.S. ... (Score:2)
As for requiring notification of video survelliance, where is that in US law? I'm not aware of any relevant statute. I thought most people put up signs of "This area under video survellience" as a deterrant. (Sometimes even in places where there are no cameras...)
Re:opt out (Score:2)
Another step (Score:4)
Well, they do that with credit cards already. So we should be used to it (that statement scares me, admittedly). The bad part about this is that it registers emotion and reaction to specific products - involuntary reactions in many cases. The information collected isn't just buying preferences but core values...things that might be DEDUCED from what I buy I suppose, but I still have control over what is tracked and what isn't (pay cash).
Right, so now anything I do, see, or react to can be held against me. It's a marketer's wet dream. We need to find out what stores are using these, pronto. There's a reason why they don't want their identities known! How can we go about doing this? Does anyone work places that have thought about (or are) implementing this system?
Re:Is there anything to be said for privacy? (Score:2)
-Marcel
Hang on, this could be useful. (Score:2)
Re:Sunglasses (Score:2)
Arathres
I love my iBook. I use it to run Linux!
Improved service (Score:4)
I predict a resurgence... (Score:5)
Ewige Blumenkraft!
two thoughts (Score:4)
two - This reminds me of the recent discussion here about how your right to free speach doesn't equate to a right to anonymous free speach, but should this annoy us? After all, we're, that is, america (sorry for the inclusive) is allegedly based on individualism, if we want our rights as individuals we can't complain when we're pricked out by those same qualities we covet and laud. I guess we have to learn to be responsible for ourselves and live up to whatever we say or do, wherever that is. In other words, screw them if they want to know who I am and what I do. I fart in your general direction. etc.
That is until this information is used by entrenched powers against me. Say if I want to run for political office. Hrm.
As I said, these are just thoughts. To summarize - why do we care if they watch us and identify us individually? It's the misuse of this information that is against the constitution, not the information itself. Right? OK, one last thing. Anyone ever read Gravity's Rainbow (Pynchon)? I'll not get into a plot summary here (mostly because that would be almost impossible w/ that book) but the description of experiments on poor slothrop, where they knew everything about him (including exactly what kind of woman would turn him on, etc.) and used it to generally turn him into a labrat (again, this is not a plot summary). This is turning out to be more accurate than dear Orwell's predictions now, isn't it? -end-
They have to ask you to leave first (Score:5)
If they hold you and file a police report without giving you a chance to leave then they have broken several big fat laws (false police report, false arrest, civil rights violation) and it would be well worth your while to retain counsel, because you can sue their asses off.
menace to society (Score:5)
The whole idea itself does not bother me one bit since I have to choice of entering the store or not so I see no problems with it however I see it as overhyped market hooplah.
Lets see how well the software determines my thoughts based on my eyes when: I have red eye, I jokingly widen my eyes to purposely look like I'm going to do something evil, begin to look around erratically just to piss security off, etc.. What are they going to do charge me with using my eyes for my own actions?
If department stores are stupid enough to think some camera and its software are able to determine my actions, they're dumbasses. Maybe I'll just get those joke glasses with the eyes attached to those slinky links that droop down.
Did their faces register boredom or delight? How many reached for the item and put it in their shopping carts?
Well once many people get a whiff of this I'm sure the jokesters will find ways of shaming IBM's system, and exposing it for the joke I see it as.
When monitoring pupils, the system uses a camera and two infrared light sources placed inside the product display. One light source is aligned with the camera's focus; the other is slightly off axis.
I wonder who will be the first to sue a department store for causing deterioration in their eyesight with their toy
"Soon you won't only be able to capture how many people stopped by, but who they were,"
This doesnt bother me at all I would have nothing to hide going in a department store. "Hrmm that tiger print thong looks tight!
Sometimes people go overboard and wanna bitch about everything, well I think the department stores stand more to lose by placing this in their stores than I do having to worry about what DKNY or Tommy Hilfiger sweater I'm buying.
"Once identity is established it will be cross-referenced to capture that person's income and buying preferences. It's only a matter of time."
What a sad excuse give me a damn break. Advertising agencies have been target marketing for years using other means, so where is the ACLU to bitch about all those Malt Liquor and Cigarette posters in my neighborhood? Shit last time I saw pics of Rodeo Drive there were none.
no respect [antioffline.com]
So... use this, and go find out. (Score:5)
I had one of these in my junkbox (Oops, that just dated me, didn't it?) that I bought years ago, it works.
Infrared Sensor Card [radioshack.com]
Special coating allows you to see infrared light. Use to check remote controls, security systems, and more. Locates near-infrared radiation from laser or LED sources.
http://www.radioshack.com [radioshack.com]
Now go on out and report back your findings, so we can know which stores are using this invasive technology.
And as far as sunglasses that block infrared, any "high end" pair should block at least 90% of the infrared spectrum. My prescription Revo's block more than 95%, plus they look sooooo cool.
This is great! (Score:2)
Now I finally have a good excuse when everyone complains that I won't leave the house until I've dressed up and put all my makeup on.
"But they're taking PICTURES of me..."
This reminds me of.. (Score:5)
The big problem was that they had several different names.. Waremart, WinCo Foods, and Cub Foods.. You could inadvertently stumble on a trespassing charge without realizing what you had done.. With technology like this it makes this even more likely. The store already uses cameras to follow customers and watch for shoplifting.
what makes you think... (Score:2)
On Steve Mann's essay. (Score:3)
I especially liked the part about wearable cameras. But S.M. could do with a little knowledge about the boons of cryptography!
We know that images can be electronically altered, he says, and adds that even if they can't they will one day. True, but what about digital signatures? If you have a special, tamper-resistant chip in the cam that signs frames ten at a time (or so) plus a clock, plus some GPS coordinates before forwarding them to a net location via UMTS you have a _very_ reliable witness. (The timestamp could be checked against a clock on the net after the transmission, and if there was a big difference it would be tagged as suspect)
I've been thinking about such a tool for a long time. Now it seems they're already here! Just need to add the signing chip and the GPS, and we have something no UN observer or political correspondent should be without!
Eye-gaze and Military (Score:3)
The most well known system in this case is that of the AH-64 Apache Helicopters. The pilot turns his head and the turret moves with him, the pilot focuses on a certain object in his HUD, the gun locks on and manuevers to shoot at this target.
I might be a little off, but I believe this is what I was told a couple years ago by a pilot of one of these beasts.
Project ERICA (Score:5)
He brought in a setup that they use for disabled people and showed how you can type with your eye. Essentially they use the same system where they shine a little infrared light on your eye and then it makes a glint and the computer then watches the glint of your eye move. It's pretty cool. He even had a game that you could play using your eye for your cross hair and the keyboard for everything else.
In addition they were starting to use this technology the same way that IBM is, watching where customers eyes look on web pages to see what attracts the customers attention that most. The thing that I don't mind about this is that it will actually customize that web site for you a bit more hopefully, though it is a privacy issue that I doubt that I would ever want to be involved with.
One thing that is nice to know is that your eyes have to be somewhat stationary. If your body suddenly moves the camera won't know what to track or may begin tracking your cheek muscles by accident. This might be the point of the second infrared beam that they say that they use as it would be able to keep the acquistion of where your eye is.
One great thing to know is that this technology is worthless outside as the infrared will not be able to make your eye glint like it's supposed to and the camera won't have any idea of where you are
I think it's cool (Score:5)
Sure right now it's being used to surreptitiously spy on people, but, think what you could do with it.
Systems like this could allow a computer terminal to figure out who is using it, and who else is in the room. No more passwords, no silly biometric scans, sit down at a computer and it knows who you are. Have your computer automatically minimize that quake game when your boss/mom walks into the room.
This system could probably also be expanded to figure out things about people, if their happy/sad, athletic/fat, pretty/ugly, and react accordingly. Understanding human emotions and reacting to them is one of the starting points for believable AI capable of passing the Turing test.
Sure, its being sued for something insidious right now, but think about the technical marvels behind it. Beats the heck out of a stupid 8,000-computer search engine cluster.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
Re:Useful in Retail Stores? (Score:2)
You don't really need a camera... just measure how much vomit ends up on the sidewalk outside a ride.
lawsuits and valid blame (Score:2)
I'm not sure that a filed lawsuit means that you conclusively assign blame. People file lawsuits all the time, but until it's been tried and judged, you really can't say anything. There's this story [slashdot.org] about a lawsuit saying game companies caused Columbine. So is that it, we can now blame them?
Re:Is there anything to be said for privacy? (Score:2)