Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

No Face-Scanning Tech at San Diego Super Bowl 22

Posted by timothy from the but-only-terrorists-want-privacy dept.
b3n writes "From our local paperspace fishwrap this article (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/mon/ business/news_mz1b20snoope.html) ... "San Diego police have rejected the use of a controversial face-scanning technology for Sunday's Super Bowl, saying it's too costly and ineffective. Face-scanning technology that compares faces in a crowd with digital photos of criminals, fugitives and suspected terrorists gained national attention and sparked an outcry when it was used at the 2001 Super Bowl in Tampa, Fla.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Face-Scanning Tech at San Diego Super Bowl More

No Face-Scanning Tech at San Diego Super Bowl

Comments Filter:

  • Whew! (Score:3, Funny)

    by hawkbug ( 94280 ) <psxNO@SPAMfimble.com> on Monday January 20, 2003 @05:35PM (#5121234) Homepage
    I guess it's safe for me to go now :)
  • So we do have a fourth amendment. I was a bit unsure after the PATRIOT act and all. Thanks, San Diego Police, for your concern with our privacy.

    • Re:Ahhh.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ZeroLogic ( 11697 )
      You've got it all wrong. The deciding issue wasn't the legality or morality of using a system such as this one. It was based on cost and effectiveness.

      • Re:Ahhh.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 )
        Aha! Therin lies the joke. I wasn't genuinely thanking San Diego Police for their concern for privacy at all. This is an issue heavily tied with civil rights questions (especially regarding the fourth amendment), and being in the YRO section, we're supposed to say, "Yippie! No face scanning. Thanks for coming to the decision not to go ahead and violate the fourth amendment this year!" Meanwhile the Constitution has been reduced to a guideline that police can follow or go ahead forget about. "Yippie! Thanks, San Diego Police!" Get it? I hope so.

        Seriously you'd think that the tongue-and-cheek tone of the post would clue people in to the fact that a joke is indeed being made.


    • So we do have a fourth amendment.

      Where does the Fourth Amendment come into play? What is being "seized" or "searched"? The pattern of photons reflecting off your face into the camera lens? Oh, please. If you don't want to be seen in public, wear a burkah - y'know, like they do over there...

      • Part in parcel with common interpretation of the fourth amendment is the right to anonymity. Here in America, "show me your papers, please" is considered unreasonable search and ceisure. Face scanning is merely a digital extension of this.

        • Part [and] parcel with common interpretation of the fourth amendment is the right to anonymity. Here in America, "show me your papers, please" is considered unreasonable search and ceisure. Face scanning is merely a digital extension of this.

          No it's not. Face scanning doesn't break anonymity. They're not interested in determining who you are, they just want to know if you are one of the people on their list. You think they're actually going to expend the computing horsepower needed to uniquely identify each person at the Super Bowl?

          • See, if the cops start asking civilians for their "papers," so to speak, they are probably also looking for criminals and Joe Sixpack's data will effectively get ignored. However, that doesn't stop such a system from becoming a more powerful control mechanism. I shouldn't have to show my face for a camera period, since "policy" with respect to what's done with data collected often changes. Simply having to prove I'm not a criminal at various checkpoints is a restriction on anonymous movement in public, and reminds us of totalitarian governments (namely Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany), and is distinctly what the Bill of Rights attempts to avoid.

            You should read up on Nazi and soviet propaganda. You don't get tyranny overnight, and we must learn to guard ourselves vigilantly.

  • Hmmm..THAT Guy There... (Score:4, Funny)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @05:45PM (#5121326) Homepage Journal

    ...looks kind of suspicious.

    He's bloated, gosh, I think he's actually dead!!

    Who wheeled him in here? Is he a victim of anthrax, smallpox sent to infect the crowd?

    No, wait. He's just an Oakland Raiders fan.

  • Good! (Score:2, Funny)

    by goatasaur ( 604450 )
    Maybe the organizers and police think the Super Bowl will be more interesting with the threat of an explosion in the stands.

    They're right. Beats watching Celine Dion warble "Are You Ready For Some Football?" with the Muckanut High School Marching Band.

  • What, and not have headshots of all the people... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20, 2003 @06:43PM (#5121792)
    ...who are stealing football by attending the game and not watching the ads on television?

    Me, I'll be TiVoing the game, then fast-forwarding through the game just to see the ads. That'll absolve one attendee of their contractual responsibility to see the ads. (Is there an alt.binaries.multimedia.commercials.superbowl [multimedia....superbowl] group yet? Cause if there's any multimedia files that should be free to distribute, it's ads!)

  • There is no spoon... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MrWa ( 144753 )
    This reminds me of the running joke surrounding the Pentagon's Office of Propoganda (or whatever it was called) that they later abandoned...

    The first rule of an organization like this would be to make people believe it doesn't exist.

    Of course...this being an Oakland Raider game, it would be hard to recognize anyone's face, given the extremes to which Raider fans paint their faces...

  • Seeing as the Dallas Cowboys weren't playing, the system probably wouldn't have found anyone!

    I am still on the fence as to the danger posed by systems such as these. Although I agree that having face recognition systems at events such as these might catch a few criminals, I am concerned that law-abiding citizens' rights may be trampled upon in the process. These systems are not foolproof, and will "catch" a certain percentage of innocents. How many peoples' Super Bowl have to be ruined by a quick trip downtown before the system is rejected by the public?

    I'd be PISSED if it were me being wrongfully detained.

    Scott

  • Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2003 @10:47AM (#5126692)
    They Quote the police Cheif saying that it is too costly and ineffective. They also mention the ACLU's objections to it as unreliable, if not worse than useless, and a vast privasy invasion. Then they spend the bulk of the article taking quotes from the makers of the systems and discussing how popular it is.

    The feeling that I get from the article is that this is really a nonissue, yes one of the makers mentions "privacy concerns" but there is little mention made of the consequences of "False Positives" or even of how many false positives there were in Tampa Bay.

    Interesting.
  • The only thing worse than living near the stadium in the city that is hosting the Super Bowl is living near the stadium in the city that is hosting the Super Bowl with the Raiders in the Super Bowl.
  • Face recognition software like they have in Florida does not recognize faces overly well.
    Unless they dont allow masks, helmets, face paint or anything on your face then you can "beat the system" simply by doing what you probably already plan on doing. That and you wouldnt be able to let any raiders fans in if you banned that! :P
    I am more concerned about TV trucks with nuclear bombs in them *cough* sum of all fears *cough* too bad they ruined the movie by screwing the plot up.

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Close