Report Hints At Privacy Problem of Drones That Can Recognize Faces 107
New submitter inotrollyou writes "Drones are getting more sophisticated, and will soon carry 'soft' biometrics and facial recognition software. In other news, sales of hats, tinfoil, and laser pointers go up 150%. Obviously there are major privacy concerns and not everyone is down for this." It's not just drones, either: In my old neighborhood in Philadelphia the Orwellian police cameras were everywhere, and they're being touted as a solution for crime in my Texas neighborhood, too. The report itself is more predictive than proscriptive; under U.S. law, as the Register points out, you can expect less legal as well as practical privacy protection the further you are on the continuum between home and public space.
Privacy Burqas anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
So the solution is simple. Let's all wear burqas to protect our privacy!
I believe you can also analyze people's gaits and recognize them that way. So let's all use Segways.
That would be a rather funny dystopian future, no?
Or I guess we could start making a few laws defending our right to some anonymity.
Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
But if you make laws to protect people's privacy, then the terrorists win!
Because only a terrorist would want to protect their privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 I wish I had mod points.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" makes me want to barf.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin.
Re: (Score:1)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, but a Large Boot up their Ass." -A. Coward
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Not all of us turn into paranoid, illogical morons...
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of us turn into paranoid, illogical morons...
But the vast majority of us can certainly do a pretty credible imitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us your secret.
Re: (Score:1)
As a parent, I hereby declare that you are full of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so why are you letting them on a plane before age 18? Their weak immune systems plus that recycled air (partial engine bleed) will surely shorten their life.
Your kids should have had part of my childhood -> hours spent in the 100 acre woods behind my house, with no one in immediate range. As a bonus, they'd have a healthy respect for gravity.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: many jurisdictions already have laws against.. (Score:1)
... and have laws against removing the license plate from your car. The original purpose of a license plate was merely to prove that you had paid a registration tax, not as a means of identifying someone.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny: My grandmother was a stickler for grammar and spelling; I remember her correcting my use of "license plate." "No, it's a registration plate or registration tag. The driver gets the license."
Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
You are looking for the Pixelated Mask/Balaclava
http://www.martinbackes.com/new-artwork-pixelhead/ [martinbackes.com]
One with a person actually wearing it:
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120823-44537.html [thelocal.de]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Police wear balaklavas-->illegal for the public to wear balaklavas
Police eat donuts-->WHERE WILL THE MADNESS END?
Re: (Score:1)
True, but why are governments in the US permitted to write anti-mask laws? Such things are rather clearly unconstitutional on several levels, but nobody fights it because, up until now, the only reason other than parties and parades to wear a mask in public was because you were up to something. It simply wasn't necessary to obscure your face to stop privacy violations.
"But, but, anybody can see you in public". The statists and cop-apologists like to say that one a lot. Like most conservative crap, it's
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Easier solution: let it be known that cops are being replaced with cameras. Cops currently support the camera system under the belief it helps them do their job. But if they start to think it makes them obsolete....
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah good fucking luck on that front.
We have obama the media mafia asshole now. Lookin like romney the robot is next. He belongs to the banks and insurance companies.
None of them. And none of the people in power have any interest in protecting anything the rest of us would call 'rights'. Unless it involves the right to be a good little consumer/worker and shut the fuck up.
And as the majority (or so im told) of people in this country keep voting for D and R (like they are different) None of this shit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What about *MY* drones? (Score:5, Insightful)
I often see this targeted specifically towards law enforcement drones. But what about MY drones? Facial recognition software isn't limited to them, and camera-toting low flying drones (or just cameras) are increasingly lower in price. (Example, the AR.Drone.)
If laws are needed to protect privacy, they need to be expanded beyond just law enforcement. I'm certain that Facebook, Amazon, Target, Google, etc, all have far more extensive databases that can (in conjunction with facial recognition software and a camera) not only track where you are (and verify with cell phone data) but what stores are between your destinations, in your vicinity, and target advertisements very specifically.
The government is not efficient enough, nor do they have the technical savvy, to use the vast majority of the data they collect. Even assuming that department A talks to agency C, or that they have remotely compatable databases/protocols.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"The government is not efficient enough, nor do they have the technical savvy, to use the vast majority of the data they collect."
If you believe this you have been listening to too much media chatter. The government's "technical savvy" is as great as any available and its lack of "efficiency" just means that they are not constrained by limited resources.
The problem with imagining distopian futures from fiction is that people always see themselves as the protagonist in the story. But the vast majority of peo
Re: (Score:3)
The government is not efficient enough, nor do they have the technical savvy, to use the vast majority of the data they collect. Even assuming that department A talks to agency C, or that they have remotely compatable databases/protocols.
The NSA exists to be efficient, technically savvy, and have the ability to glom multiple databases together.
The idea that government is not efficient or "savvy" really needs to lay down and take a nap.
There's a reason we talk about things that require the resources of a government.
Re: (Score:1)
Just as soon as the NSA willingly hands over any of that data, or solicits the input of another federal agency (let alone local or state police departments) without a written order from someone of authority, your argument may have merit.
I do not see this happening any time soon.
(Note: I have some familiarity with the cultural and procedural difficulties inherent in cooperation, even within a single organization.)
How do we Identify "Friend" or Foe Drones? (Score:1)
Historically, airborne vehicles were few, expensive and clearly identifieid by their markings, and carried an assumption of legality. With inexpensive video-driven drones how will the public be able to clearly identify a "good" drone from a "bad / pervert-driven" drone that's upskirting flybys?
Re: (Score:2)
The upskirting drones will be hovering in ground effect at knee-level.
A STASI wet dream (Score:1)
That is all. Welcome to the USSA.
lol (Score:2)
And the comment pointing it out was modded troll. I'm having flashbacks to Nazi Germany now.
It's for my own good. (Score:1)
It'll keep those damn meddling kids of my lawn.
Isn't that worth it?
The argument for the police state (Score:5, Interesting)
However, if I had had a camera in my car recording everything, I would have had pictures of the person who did it, and they would be responsible for all of that. Hence, the victim of a crime, and a hit and run is a crime, has a very good reason for wanting a police state. They forget the little things they did to others, and remember only their own distress that someone robbed them of their property. As long as Americans, and I am specifically talking about the US here, are criminals, there is going to be a continual clamoring for more security, as long as everyone is personally responsible for everything. Every so often someone will find some deep pockets to go after, which leads to one of those silly sounding law suits –which sometimes are silly, but are often not as facile as their caricature.
So that's the reality, as long as people who are taking every precaution get screwed by the wild westers out there, they will demand more protection, more security, and hence, fewer rights for all. Because real liberty comes with the price of responsibility, and Americans have long since decided they just don't want the responsibility, and would, instead, rather steal from each other.
As for me, while this loss is annoying, it doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for more spy cams. But I'm not most people, having visited some unfree countries, where there is little crime, because the criminals are all wearing nice blue and green uniforms, and carrying automatic weapons.
Re: (Score:1)
...Americans have long since decided they just don't want the responsibility, and would, instead, rather steal from each other.
Yeah well, it's hard to tell if they follow, or set the example [johnpaulus.com]. American criminals wear nice suits.. Watching the punks is the perfect diversion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
However, if I had had a camera in my car recording everything, I would have had pictures of the person who did it, and they would be responsible for all of that. Hence, the victim of a crime, and a hit and run is a crime, has a very good reason for wanting a police state. They forget the little things they did to others, and remember only their own distress that someone robbed them of their property. As long as Americans, and I am specifically talking about the US here, are criminals, there is going to be a continual clamoring for more security, as long as everyone is personally responsible for everything.
You're right, but got it exactly backwards in the last sentence. Government has steadily removed responsibility from the people, through educating them to be weak and helpless without aid from others. Then passing mandatory insurance laws and the like was simply child's play, by promising guaranteed protection from all ills (i.e. auto accidents) which the citizen was naive suckered into. He would have been financially better off to have just set aside that auto insurance money, and all the other money that
Re: (Score:2)
the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Newsflash (Score:2)
CCTV cameras have NEVER prevented a crime.
Also: CCTV cameras have NEVER solved a crime.
Re: (Score:1)
Not true. Several crimes in our state have been solved due to the perps being photographed by surveillance cameras at banks and businesses.
I'm not arguing pro or con on the drones, just correcting the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
CCTV isn't admissible for good reason: the resolution sucks.
At twenty feet, one would have difficulty separating the eyes on the face of a subject, never mind smaller features with which to determine a positive identification of a perp.
The only use it has is for extracting confessions.
Re: (Score:2)
But the beauty is the CCTV enabled the police to identify the person and then once they had them they found other clues about their person that were admissible. CCTV photos solved the crime. Without them the perp would have gotten off scott free. Thus CCTV does help solve crimes and is useful.
Still has nothing to do with drones, especially since those have higher resolution but facts are facts.
Re: (Score:2)
at 500 feet, a drone's camera has a lower angular resolution than a ground-based eye.
The Real Question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Kahn probably used them back in 1995-ish, too! (Score:1)
The thing is, ya gotta ask, "Would old King George III of England have used it against the colonists?" If yes, it probably should be banned Constitutionally.
Oh wait, this is Texas. Ummmm, would Santa Anna have used it against Davy Crockett at The Alamo? Yes he would have.
Value vs Cost (Score:4, Insightful)
So those gathering the data try really hard to make sure the law doesn't interfere with them and the average guy on the street doesn't work too hard to stop them.
Where we the average Joe need to pay real attention is the compiling this data. Suddenly it isn't some useless log wasting space on the Bridge Commission's server but government data compiling that starts making an Orwellian list of who you are, your friends, your associations. This way a politician (say the local Sheriff) can target rivals. You might find that the major donors to a campaign can quickly be found to have mistresses, is gay, or things like business dealings that they don't want public (not bad things just things like a land deal that if public is ruined); nothing illegal just private.
People blah blah about the 2nd amendment but power doesn't sensibly come from a well oiled 9mm except in action movies. It comes from control of information. If you control the flow and content of information then you have real power. If we allow governments and corporations to gather and compile real about us then they will have real power over us.
Quite simply the western world needs to massively restrict what information can be gathered but even more importantly its compilation. As I say it is probably better for all of us if the bridge can figure out usage patterns of drivers. But the FBI should have zero access to this information without a specific warrant for a specific car for a specific case and with probable cause. I am not talking about that the bridge would be allowed to refuse but that by law they would have to refuse.
The reverse needs to be true; we need full access to what our governments and corporations are up to; this would massively reduce the stupidity that they tend to get up to. Again control of information works for us here and oddly enough results in the members of a democracy having power returned to them.
A great example of the hypocrisy of most western governments is that they want to video us with speed/red light cameras, drones, police cameras; yet in nearly every senate, congress, parliament, or council they have strict rules about how the cameras are run. In Canada when someone is speaking the dozen or so people who bothered to show up crowd around behind them so that on camera it looks like they are all there; in reality the parliament is usually nearly empty. They say that any other way would "confuse" the people. Also you basically never get images of them sleeping, picking their noses, or just worst of all just never being there.
In one of the worst councils in North America Halifax has nearly every critical meeting behind closed doors. Again the public can't handle the truth or the discussion is proprietary ( meaning they are discussing a deal with a private company that would make you vomit). The same with the completely worthless Legislature. Their discussions are only released something like 90 years later.
The whole paranoia about governments watching us is simple math. If they can watch us cost effectively they will. If they can stop us from watching them they will.
Re: (Score:2)
"People blah blah about the 2nd amendment but power doesn't sensibly come from a well oiled 9mm except in action movies"
Power certainly flows from the barrel of a Kalashnikov, which can be used to obtain more powerful weapons from the State itself.
Without the ability to kill your enemies you are helpless. Laws are mere paper constructs, but violence is real and powerful. Ask Qaddafi!
Oh, wait, violence solved that problem too.
The Assadists in Syria made many laws, but Syrians are dealing with that problem by
Re: (Score:2)
Hermit on the Mount (Score:2)
I'll just stay here on my mountain surrounded by my 400 ninja guard pigs and do target practice... Oops that one was a drone. Looked like a skeet to me.
Drones are entitled to privacy! (Score:2)
Report Hints At Privacy Problem of Drones That Can Recognize Faces
Yeah, those drones can be touchy about their privacy. Have you ever seen one with a facebook page? Personally, I would respect their privacy, because having a drone unhappy at you could have lethal consequences.
TSA tasked with building the facial database? (Score:1)
Re:Cameras can see things? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the problem.
The problem is that cameras plus other spying techniques can see things, and analyze them quickly, and helpfully inform any police officer that's interested that Leinad177 left his house at 7:56 AM, drove 2 blocks east, 3 blocks south, went into a Dunkin' Donuts (from the credit card and POS system, he likes a double latte and 3 Boston Cremes), got back into his car, got on the nearby interstate, drove to the office (where he works according to tax forms), arriving at 8:36 AM. He then browsed /. much of the morning, left for lunch at Applebees (had a chicken fajita rollup and a large soda), went back to work, did some sysadmin work (all you can tell here is the ssh to the company servers) most of the afternoon, left at 4:42 PM, and then drove downtown to the political protest. At the protest, he chatted with a few people, shouted some slogans, and held a camera phone while watching police beat up an Iraq War veteran, and footage of the Iraq War veteran being beaten made it on to the evening news.
And later that evening, Leinad177 got a visit from the PD demanding that he turn over his phone. He refused because the police couldn't produce a warrant, so a secret instruction went out to pull over his car for minor infractions, the IRS was instructed to make sure he was given a thorough audit, and prosecutors asked to look for something they could arrest him for.
Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (Score:5, Interesting)
Before anyone chimes in with "Do nothing wrong and you have nothing to worry about."
A lawyer friend of mine cited a stat that on average, everyone breaks three laws per day because there are so many laws on the books. In other words, everyone is a criminal. And mix in municipalites with budget problems, well, you can just see ticketing machines like in "Demolition Man".
Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice, also, that in the example I gave, Leinad177 probably committed no crime more serious than going 5 mph over the speed limit.
You mean it is gasp! a revenue collection play? (Score:2)
I simply can not credit government wanting more money to line their pockets.
"bothering anyone else" or revenue collection (Score:2)
Just saying. Not a lot of love from the red light cams when there is a mechanical failure that prevents you getting your car out of gear...
Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (Score:5, Informative)
And the reason why everyone isn't arrested is because the police couldn't give two fucks about what you're doing as long as it isn't bothering anyone else or quite obviously dangerous.
Again, if you actually read the post, the reason my hypothetical person was targeted was not because he committed a crime, but because he filmed police doing something that was embarassing to the police and possible illegal. And given that police around the country have been caught harassing people for filming them committing crimes, to think that they would react that way is not a paranoid delusion, it's realistic.
Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (Score:5, Insightful)
the police couldn't give two fucks about what you're doing as long as it isn't bothering anyone else
A majority of arrests and convictions in the USA are for victimless crimes (recreational drugs, gambling, commercial sex, etc.). The police (and politicians, and voters) care very much about what you do in private.
Re: (Score:2)
Also part of the problem is that they didn't give two fucks about Leinad177 prior to the embarrassing incident, but can gather all that information after the fact, along with facebook and linkedin histories, possibly emails from Hotmail/GMail, search histories, tracking cookies, etc. To find something historical that they can give two fucks about to create a case about after the fact. If I can search through your entire life history with digital search tools that can quickly track you via images in camera
Re: (Score:3)
The easiest way to avoid the police under the most Orwellian camera system imaginable is: Don't look like a criminal, don't act like a criminal. Whining about how you should be allowed to do whatever you want and act however you want is childish bullshit. You act like a child, you're going to get treated as one. You act like a douchebag, you're going to get treated as one. First impressions, and all.
As the representative (and veteran) of a free country:
FUCK YOU.
Re: (Score:2)
And the reason why everyone isn't arrested is because the police couldn't give two fucks about what you're doing as long as it isn't bothering anyone else or quite obviously dangerous.
It must be nice to be that ignorant and naive. The police must be some sort of nebulous entity to you. Strict enforcers of justice, purely impartial, free from corruption, and acting with an unending, unwavering, and pure interest in the greater good.
Police are people too. Notice how hard they are fighting back against people video taping their activities? Have you ever heard from somebody that has been targeted and harassed by the police and city because they are making "waves"?
These people don't need
Re: (Score:2)
The best way for us to get rid of the representatives and government we disagree with would be to force the laws they passed to be fully enforced. Everyone would turn the elected out at the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
Before anyone chimes in with "Do nothing wrong and you have nothing to worry about."
Yep. That's false no matter what. This 50min video for law students at YouTube has a police officer explaining in detail every single trick their peers (and he himself) use to get confessions and convictions, even from innocent people: Dont Talk to Police [youtube.com]. As he explains at one point, it isn't "it MIGHT be used against you", it's "it WILL be used against you". Even if you're innocent. Specially if you're innocent. Because then you'll talk, without minding your words. And then they WILL use... every... singl
Re: (Score:3)
Not me. I'm not breaking any laws. I'm just sitting here quietly in my chair.
Not doing nothing wrong.
Wait. My testicles are producing testosterone.
Under SEC. 2. (c) (41) of the "Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990"
"The term `anabolic steroid' means any drug or hormonal substance that promotes muscle growth in a manner pharmacologically similar to testosterone, and includes..."
(X) Testosterone.
Under this act, anabolic steroids are now Schedule III drugs.
Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substanc
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck.
I always knew those two stupid bastards were up to no good. Always getting me into trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Demolition Man
Well that's all fine and fucking dandy. I'l be damnded before they make me use the three seashells.
They can pry my Charmin out of my cold dead hands.......
Re: (Score:1)
A lawyer friend of mine cited a stat that on average, everyone breaks three laws per day because there are so many laws on the books. In other words, everyone is a criminal. And mix in municipalites with budget problems, well, you can just see ticketing machines like in "Demolition Man".
Three strikes ur out law. Meaning, the first 3 crimes per day are ok, but the 4th gets a ticket in ur inbox.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that in the part about the protest, if they're are, say, 30 people in a camera shot, identifying everybody without this kind of face recognition is quite a chore and is typically only done if the footage shows something illegal happening. By comparison, with face recognition, it's basically a matter of pressing a button, so it will be done whenever the police feel like it. Of course, this isn't entirely flawless: It could very well be that you end up getting blamed for the activities of your no-good
Re:Cameras can see things? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I have a drivers licence and a passport. Both of which made me have my taken picture under strict conditions, no smiling, no hair over face, etc. Their excuse: facial recognition. They aren't even hiding it, it is why you have to have your picture taken like a mug shot.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all for being worried when a competent system is released.
If a law or use of technology is wrong (according to community or other public agreement), the time to act is before it's put in place. If the public waits until afterward, the task is more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
Re: (Score:2)
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
Schoolyard conversation a number of years from now:
"My dad's drone can beat up your dad's drone."
Re: (Score:2)
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
Except that it's a safe bet that civilian drones will be heavily licensed, regulated, limited in their lawful abilities/features, and restricted like firearms are now. Likely even more heavily-regulated than firearms. The government, with it's current attitude, would never allow civilians the legal ability to use drones as in your example.
The official in your example would inform law enforcement, and they in turn would send a SWAT team to your house and arrest you after identifying and tracking you with a L
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you're right.
Re: (Score:1)
The Stasi would of loved this anyone can be monitored on a moments notice. Nixon would of loved this Jack Anderson? not so much. W. Mark Felt Watergate's "Deep Throat" and Washington Post reporters would have found it difficult. Reporters everywhere will need a new way to protect their sources. Maybe a website you can upload encrypted documents to...
Any ideas?