Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government United States Technology

Privacy Advocates Leave In Protest Over U.S. Facial Recognition Code of Conduct 161

Taco Cowboy writes: Nine privacy advocates involved in the Commerce Department process for developing a voluntary code of conduct for the use of facial recognition technology withdrew in protest over technology industry lobbyists' overwhelming influence on the process. "At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they've never heard of are tracking their every movement — and identifying them by name — using facial recognition technology," the privacy advocates wrote in a joint statement. "Unfortunately, we have been unable to obtain agreement even with that basic, specific premise." The Commerce Department, through its National Telecommunications and Information Administration, brought together "representatives from technology companies, trade groups, consumer groups, academic institutions and other organizations" early last year "to kick off an effort to craft privacy safeguards for the commercial use of facial recognition technology."

The goal was "to develop a voluntary, enforceable code of conduct that specifies how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights applies to facial recognition technology in the commercial context." But after a dozen meetings, the most recent of which was last week, all nine privacy advocates who have participated in the entire process concluded that they were thoroughly outgunned. "This should be a wake-up call to Americans: Industry lobbyists are choking off Washington's ability to protect consumer privacy," Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law, said in a statement. "People simply do not expect companies they've never heard of to secretly track them using this powerful technology. Despite all of this, industry associations have pushed for a world where companies can use facial recognition on you whenever they want — no matter what you say. This position is well outside the mainstream."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Privacy Advocates Leave In Protest Over U.S. Facial Recognition Code of Conduct

Comments Filter:
  • Congratulations... (Score:1, Informative)

    by babymac ( 312364 )
    By pulling out of the process, they're basically ensuring they will have zero say in the outcome.
    • by Travis Mansbridge ( 830557 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @04:53PM (#49932281)
      I think their point is that they would have had zero say in the outcome anyway, and this way the public can be aware of that.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @04:58PM (#49932337)

        Yes, given the laws that may pass, the public will have no option but to wear burkas, ski masks or gas masks on public streets.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:25PM (#49932547)

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          ex: Canada
          After several high profile protests, the Canadian Parliament introduced Bill C-309, which bans the wearing of masks during a riot or other unlawful assembly. The bill became law on June 19, 2013. Those convicted of it face up to 10 years in prison.

          Now, what is "unlawful assembly"? Anything the government fucking wants.

        • Yes, given the laws that may pass, the public will have no option but to wear burkas, ski masks or gas masks on public streets.

          This will happen regardless of the law. Anyone will a cellphone is going to be able to do face recognition. Computers are already better than humans at FR, and thousands of times faster at it. Soon you will be able to download an app so that you can point your cellphone at almost anyone in the world, and instantly know who they are. These privacy organizations are trying to shove Pandora back in the box, and that is not going to happen.

          • Sure, facial recognition may be out of the box. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't restrict the way that companies and other organizations can compile and store facial data. And *those* are the key pieces. Not the ability to parse the key identifying features from a face - that's raw technology and you're right, there's no stopping it. But it's largely useless on its own. Where it gets disturbing is when we grant organizations the power to
            1) build and maintain a database containing a comprehensive list

          • The key would be transparency or the lack thereof. If I could access the same source data base as the government is using I'd really have very little problem with this.

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        Exactly, and this way the PR machine can't believably claim that privacy advocates somehow signed off on the results.

        • Well, anybody can have "privacy advocates", and "thinktanks" to provide a position paper suggesting that there exist some dissent on the topic.

          The "PR machine" can claim any damned thing it wants. That's what the PR machine is for.

          Because, after all, the PR machine works for the lobbyists. Who can, and will, fabricate reality to serve their purposes.

          • by sjames ( 1099 )

            I said believably. That's hard when it is known that 100% of the privacy advocates declared the process broken beyond repair and walked away.

      • I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I'd have a lot more respect for them if they'd stuck it out and fought for their principles, even though they knew it was a lost cause. What they did, essentially, was give up without even trying, leaving the impression that they didn't consider their principles worth fighting for.
    • by rogoshen1 ( 2922505 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:09PM (#49932423)

      Well by pulling out, they are also drastically reducing (some say by ~95%) the chance they will be held accountable for whatever deformed, mutated creature results from this unholy union.

      I imagine they didn't want to be on the hook for the next 20 odd years for something they really had no control over in the first place? Sure it's 'voluntary' and 'enforceable', but sometimes people just say things like that as a lure. When really, they have completely contrary ulterior motives.

      Gold digging special interest groups, the lot of them.

      • Well by pulling out, they are also drastically reducing (some say by ~95%) the chance they will be held accountable

        Indeed. Now, no matter what the outcome, they will feel entitled to whine about it.

    • by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:34PM (#49932615)

      By pulling out of the process, they're basically ensuring they will have zero say in the outcome.

      Not quite. They're finally recognizing the plain fact that in the United States today, if a "corporate citizen" wants something badly enough, they get it, and the little people can go fuck themselves.
      Is this a great country, or what? /s

      • by Anna Merikin ( 529843 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @06:14PM (#49932887) Journal

        If corporations are people as the US Supreme Court and former candidate for President Mitt Romney have said, then they are obviously people who can ignore laws and customs they don't like. If a human person were to use facial recognition on a widespread scale to follow the public movements of and to gain personal information about another individual, they would run afoul of several anti-stalking measures, at least.

        Not so for our corporate ubermenschen

  • by Type44Q ( 1233630 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @04:53PM (#49932277)

    I'm perfectly fine with this, as long as their right to point their omnipresent cameras at me is balanced by my right (codified into law, of course) to point a fucking shotgun at said cameras as well as their sickening fucking heads.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      So would you say it's wrong if I sat on a street corner with a digital camera connected to a laptop and used facial recognition software to catalog all the people that pass by every day?

      How about if I just use a notebook and pen and record everyone's details each day instead and then go home and night and cross reference them to previous days?

      There's no way to stop the inevitable march of technology, and so you need to find ways to live with it rather than trying to legislate around it which is a fool's
      • There's no way to stop the inevitable march of technology, and so you need to find ways to live with it rather than trying to legislate around it which is a fool's errand and part of the reason our government has gotten totally out of control. And blasting people with a shotgun is not a solution in anyone's world but yours.

        Well, no, legalising the blasting of such people with a shotgun would probably be a very effective way to protect the privacy rights of those who don't want the cameras on them. After all, there's no way to stop the inevitable march of weapons development, and so you need to find ways to live with it rather than trying to legislate around it, right?

        Or we could, you know, act like grown ups. As soon as you acknowledge that while technology may be neutral and amoral the purposes for which that technology is u

        • Well, no, legalising the blasting of such people with a shotgun would probably be a very effective way to protect the privacy rights of those who don't want the cameras on them.

          I'd have no problem with that, provided that it was limited to practicing politicians who needed killing. [wikipedia.org]
  • by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @04:56PM (#49932313)

    There has been a major push to get basically every security camera in downtown DC networked into the government systems. It's sold as a why-wouldn't-you-want-this measure, and IIRC almost everyone has signed on.

    • by Shoten ( 260439 )

      There has been a major push to get basically every security camera in downtown DC networked into the government systems. It's sold as a why-wouldn't-you-want-this measure, and IIRC almost everyone has signed on.

      You're a bit late in your assessment of this, and also a bit incorrect...but unfortunately, not in a way that makes it any less bad.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]

      There's already a remarkable network of such cameras; what's left now is that more and more government agencies (because they are run separately, and have different needs and goals) are asking to drink from the data fountain they provide. There's no singular push on behalf of "the government systems," there are multiple efforts, each with their

  • Dazzle (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @04:57PM (#49932317)

    We'll see if CV Dazzle [cvdazzle.com] becomes fashionable.

    • We'll see if CV Dazzle [cvdazzle.com] becomes fashionable.

      even if it did become fashionable, the software would be adapted to deal with such anomalies if it hasn't been already.

    • what about face like masks, look like faces just not your own?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe Muslim women have the right idea after all.

      Oh, and a pair of reflecting sunglasses so they can't do iris scanning

  • Ban Memories (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they've never heard of are tracking their every movement — and identifying them by name — using their employees eyes and ears. When I walk up to a receptionist he/she better ask for my id. And how dare that fast food employee remember my normal order. Big Brother is here.

    • Re:Ban Memories (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sique ( 173459 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:28PM (#49932571) Homepage
      Oh, maybe you should read the article. It's not about the receptionist knowing you or the fast food employee remembering your order. Because a) both work for companies you have a contract with and b) they don't sell this information for profit to someone else.

      This was about companies not having to enter a contract with you to identify you and sell that information, which the privacy advocates couldn't agree with.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        This is about total corporate control of government. This is about every corporation knowing the political alignment of individuals and their being able to turn citizens into non-persons, no jobs, no access to services, no access to travel, no credit, basically to enable corporations to economically destroy people if they don't vote right and they do not support corporate control of the country.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      What crazy places do you deal with where the receptionist's desk is in a public street and food is served?

      And if you've never heard of them, why are you talking to the receptionist in her official capacity?

    • Its about scale. Its the same reason why a cop following a person is legal, but warrant-less GPS tracking isnt.
    • Yes, because privacy standards developed when going outside meant you might pass a neighbour in the street and otherwise were effectively anonymous are definitely still relevant in the era of widespread CCTV, global networks, effectively unlimited data storage and data mining resources, and modern biometric analysis.

      If you're one of those people who says you have "no right to privacy outside your home", then you are the problem here. The point isn't how to interpret laws and ethical standards from decades o

  • by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:00PM (#49932353)

    The goal was "to develop a voluntary, enforceable code of conduct

    Because they work for/with the government, those privacy advocates are -- by definition -- adults. Yet they are so fucking naive as to make me wonder whether or not they are mentally retarded.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Apparently they are adults. They had the good sense to diffuse any claim they weren't willing to talk and then to walk out when their point was proven.

      • by Nutria ( 679911 )

        They had the good sense to diffuse ...

        Yet they went in with the hare brained notion that it might actually work. That's the mentally retarded part.

        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          Or they played along not expecting much so it couldn't be said they didn't give it a chance.

        • Cynicism is easy-both for you and the people that want to take your freedom away. What's difficult is getting off your ass and doing something about it.

          • by Nutria ( 679911 )

            What's difficult is getting off your ass and doing something about it.

            True enough. But what you *don't* do is idiocy like this.

            As with any argument against someone's firm intent, you need a lever to convince them to do otherwise. (Another post mentioned how we'll get it only when FR s/w catches a Congressman out with a woman-not-his-wife.)

    • Yet they are so fucking naive as to make me wonder whether or not they are mentally retarded.

      They are more like deeply steeped in 1984-like Newspeak when they talk of "voluntary, enforceable" codes.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's not retarded, it's a reasonable way to get something in place without spending years or decades trying to get a law on the books. It's a good way to put some limits in place early on, to shape the way the technology will normally be used and establish good practices.

      Agreeing to abide by the code would be voluntary, but if you agree then you also agree to enforcement and presumably sanctions if you violate it. The hope would be that it becomes something consumers demand companies sign up to before doing

  • by Anonymous Coward

    in Guy Fawkes masks.

  • different approach (Score:5, Insightful)

    by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:06PM (#49932389)
    Maybe they could object by pointing out that various congress critters have a habit of being seen (and now recognized) with women other than their wives in locations other than their offices. That might strike closer to home for some of them. Just a thought.
  • When you're in public, anyone can recognize you whether it be man or machine. Anyone can take pictures of you and what you are doing. There is no concept of "privacy" when you are in public.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      If someone follows you around writing down everything you do and everywhere you go, that is called stalking.

      • [stupid_laws]
        But if a company does it with cameras installed everywhere they're not physically following you, they're only writing down everything you do and everywhere you go, that is called marketing.
        [/stupid_laws]

        • All of this is reminding me of this guy [youtu.be]. I cannot help ROFL when I see these videos. The are so hilarious and I consider them to be among the best works of art of our time.

          If I ever happen to see this guy in public filming me I will simply say "I love you! You are awesome! I'm so glad you are filming me!"

          With regard to the stores tracking people: I know its a serious issue, but it is also a potentially hilarious one. I can imagine the myriad ways that you could completely fuck with their analytics by e

    • When you're in public, anyone can recognize you whether it be man or machine.

      Not if the machines aren't there, they can't.

      Anyone can take pictures of you and what you are doing.

      And anyone can be thrown in jail for breaking the law, if we choose to make something illegal.

      Your post makes me sad. I only just wrote a post of my own [slashdot.org] about why people who just say you have no right to privacy in public are the biggest problem here. I was really hoping to get more than two more screens down the discussion before I found someone who literally said that without the slightest nuance, qualification, or actual argument in favour of their position.

    • by vux984 ( 928602 )

      When you're in public, anyone can recognize you whether it be man or machine. Anyone can take pictures of you and what you are doing. There is no concept of "privacy" when you are in public.

      Yes. Actually there is.

      If i sit down at a table with a restuarant with my friends,

      I fully expect that the restaurant isn't going to record my conversation and put it online, sell it, or do anything else.

      I fully anticipate that the waiter or other patrons might overhear snippets of our conversation. But if I catch them actually making a concerted effort to listen and record it; my entire party will be extremely pissed off.

      Why? Because there is a concept of "privacy" when you are in public. Nearly all of us in society implicitly abide by this informal social contract.

      When an entity moves from incidentally intruding on our privacy in public spaces to methodically and deliberately intruding and we NOTICE it, they get dealt with.

      The current trend for corporations is to do it, but to do it beneath our notice. Everything from facial recognition cameras to advertising cookies... all do things that we'd vigorously object to if they weren't beneath our notice. If we noticed google employees snapping our pictures, following us around, taking notes, sitting behind us at our desks writing down everything we searched for and did, they'd be out on their ass in very short order.

      But the cameras and the cookies are beneath our notice; that doesn't make it ethical or right. And the legal system SHOULD catch up to our expectations here.

    • "When you're in public, anyone can recognize you whether it be man or machine. Anyone can take pictures of you and what you are doing. There is no concept of "privacy" when you are in public."

      To quote a /. comment I once saw (thanks, "fuzzyfuzzyfungus"), "most of your protection has always been logistical." "Privacy" in public has been available for a long time. Previously impossible actions were never considered, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be prohibited.

      As expanding technological capacity tries

      • by msobkow ( 48369 )

        The question is not whether it should be illegal to impose such surveillance, but the reality of what has been happening since the '90s. Look to areas like Baltimore's poor parts of town, where video cameras monitored by the police have been a mainstay for decades. Look to the UK, which has more CCTV cameras than any other nation.

        We may not like it, but the writing has been on the wall for a "surveillance state" for a long, long, long time, and anyone who thinks otherwise is only fooling themselves.

        I

  • "Industry lobbyists are <insert negative thing here>"?

    When did anybody in the US think we aren't living in a plutocratic oligarchy?

    Though please do note: I said ruled by the MONEY... not the rich... parse that as you see fit.

  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:16PM (#49932465)
    Privacy in your video rentals was not a reality until some Congress critter's rental history was obtained and made public.

    .
    Privacy in cell phone communications was not commonplace until some Congress critter's cell phone calls were taped and made public.

    Privacy in facial recognition will not become a reality until some Congress critter is caught and embarrassed via the use of facial recognition.

    Congress does not care about privacy until they are the victims of the lack of it.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Perhaps we need a site where you upload your selfies and other pictures and the recognition looks for congress critters with people not their spouse.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      Privacy in cell phone communications? Is this a repost from the 90-ies when we thought that Echelon was just a weird dream of people with tin-foil hats?

      And no, it will not stop. It will get much, much, much worse, bercause people do not comprehand that privacy is such a basic right that it was taken for granted when writing the US constitution. Without privacy, the rest is meaningless.

      People are giving away their privacy for fake 'likes'. People do not understand that once you give it away, you can't get it

    • Somehow, I suspect that in many first world countries today, if you set up a similar system with monitoring outside a venue like a government office or police station, and further cameras used to identify and track government staff to their home addresses (or potentially embarrassing alternatives), you would suddenly find yourself charged with some relatively recent and absurdly vague law involving collection of information that might be useful for preparing unspecified acts of terrorism, or something along

  • CEOs (Score:3, Informative)

    by humptheElephant ( 4055441 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:17PM (#49932493)
    People should make sure the CEOs of these companies that track you are in the database. Then follow them, photograph them and post it on google maps with date and time.
  • by Flyskippy1 ( 625890 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:29PM (#49932585) Homepage

    Haven't people been complaining for decades that businesses don't recognize them anymore? There has often been nostalgia for a time when people were recognized by name when they walked into their bank.

    Wouldn't this just be reviving the "Good Olde Days", at least for small town America? Or is facial recognition only okay when done by a MeatCreature?

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      It's very simple. Bank recognizing you when you enter the bank = good. Bank following you around = bad.

    • by KitFox ( 712780 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @06:04PM (#49932825)

      Perhaps the difference in this case is that that example involves the person having a business relationship with the bank and interacting with the teller, voluntarily giving their name for the person to connect to the face.

      What is being considered and fretted over here are such events as the following lovely bit of near-future (possibly not) fiction...

      It was a lovely day as Jack Smith strolled down the street. He glanced at the sign on the bus stop as he passed by and the sign, recognizing who he was, displayed advertisements for fresh strawberries at Hole Dudes Market. He never shopped there, but he did buy strawberries at Wallyworld every Monday, so they knew.

      There was a buzz from his smartwatch and he glanced at his wrist. WatchU sent email informing him that the bus he normally took had broken down on the interstate and he should turn left at the next light to grab a different bus. It would only make him get to work ten minutes late instead of thirty. Oh, and they'd already emailed his boss to let them know he'd be late. Wait... Who was WatchU? He'd never signed up for such a service. Besides, he was taking a day off today and heading somewhere completely different. Why did they email his boss? Well, because they knew.

      Shrugging the thought aside, he tried to enjoy the day. Thinking about strawberries, his mouth started to water, so he headed into Samba Juice for a smoothie. It was a new establishment that he'd never been in before, so he wanted to see how it stacked up against other places.

      "Hi Mr Smith!" the cashier said as he approached her, taking the cue from her register. "Would you like a Strawberry Stratosphere in mega-size today?"

      "Um, sure," he said. He looked at her, unable to place her, and finally curiosity overcame him. "Do I know you?"

      "Oh, we know all our customers, even if they are brand new," she exclaimed. "We're tied in to the system. Working a few bugs out though." She looked at the screen and blushed. "Oh, and a coupon popped up. When you head back to the Lover's Lace escort services, ask for Margarette. You'll get a discount on all personal services." They knew.

      Jack winced at that and mumbled thanks, then headed to wait awkwardly for his smoothie. The cups had advertisements printed on them based on marketing data for the customers, and he was shocked to see a code to scan on his phone for half off bulk adult diapers. That was insulting! Why did they think he needed such a thing?! Ah... right... because the camera had seen him unloading a truck while volunteering at a retirement home. They knew.

      So yes... Meat popsicles have limits on who and what they know and know about who. This system, as people want it, will have no limits.

    • The human brain isn't wired this way, it's called the monkeysphere [cracked.com] There is a difference between personal relationships, and being constantly watched by strangers. Just ask any of those celebrities that go off the rails...
  • They can't use facial recognition on you if they don't have a photo of you to start with. Unless you're hopelessly dumb and allowed photos of your face, linked with your name, to be posted on the Internet, that's not going to happen unless the government starts giving them access to things like drivers license database. If that's the way it's going to go then it's time for a full-on revolution, because everything else has failed.
    • Everyone has family and friends. A percentage of those use social media. And in that percentage, most will think you're joking or a conspiracy nut if you ask them not to put photos of yourself online and will do it anyway.

      Then there's cameras everywhere that can still "know" you until they can match with absolute certainty that you are Mr.X by checking purchases with credit/debit cards when you're the only one around, etc.

    • They can't use facial recognition on you if they don't have a photo of you to start with. Unless you're hopelessly dumb and allowed photos of your face, linked with your name, to be posted on the Internet, that's not going to happen

      What? I'd love for that to be true, but sadly it's all too easy these days. Numerous modern phone apps upload the entire address book of the user, with varying degrees of permission but some users will allow it anyway. Numerous modern photo sharing sites and social networks allow tagging of people. Hey, look, you're the person with these 37 friends in common when they run facial recognition on the thousands of photos those people have uploaded between them, and the number 123 555 4567 is also common to all

      • In my particular case I don't have a smartphone (because I think dataplans are incredibly overpriced for what you get, and because to me a phone is a phone not a lifestyle, I don't need to be glued to it 24/7/365, and last but not least because I really can't justify the expense of purchasing one when I know I'll rarely use enough of it's features or connectivity to warrant having one, NOT because I'm a Luddite or I don't understand them or something lame like that) so I don't have any problems with malicio
        • I think perhaps you misunderstood my point.

          It doesn't matter whether you have a smartphone; many of your friends and family do.

          It doesn't matter whether you choose to share your photos on-line; many of your friends and family do.

          It doesn't matter whether you don't use on-line mail services like Google Mail; many of your friends and family do.

          A data mining exercise could easily determine that only a very small number of people have the same substantial group of contacts in common. Your social group is like a

          • Actually, I understand you perfectly, but there's a datapoint I failed to mention: All of my friends understand and respect my wishes so far as not taking pictures of me without my permission, and certainly to not post them on the Internet if they do.
            • My friends typically respect my wishes as well, and it sounds like actually the two of us are in a similar position.

              But most people aren't.

    • They can't use facial recognition on you if they don't have a photo of you to start with. Unless you're hopelessly dumb and allowed photos of your face, linked with your name, to be posted on the Internet,

      You've never heard of Facebook then? I don't have a Facebook account, yet my name and face are sure to be on there, easily connected with a bit of Googling. The Genie is already out of the bottle, it's going to be extremely hard to get it back in.

  • by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:34PM (#49932625) Homepage Journal

    Identity theft will now include your face. I for one, intend to wear my motorcycle helmet 24/7 and call myself "The Stig".

    It should be noted that when facebook started their facial recognition stuff, I uploaded dozens of photos of Mark Zuckerberg to my profile, and identified them as me. Facebook still has no idea what I look like.

    • Facebook still has no idea what I look like.

      That's what you'd like to think. Unfortunately for you, my sources revealed the following information:

      ...when facebook started their facial recognition stuff, I uploaded dozens of photos of Mark Zuckerberg to my profile...

      So prepared to be shocked: here's what you look like [sqspcdn.com].

  • This has been troubling me for over a year. Last winter I twice got ads for something I picked up at a retailer, never having searched it online, causing me to look up and find these articles.

    Admittedly I've lived in very small villages before where there was no privacy, and I can relate to those who say that the idea of privacy is a fairly modern thing. But never in a village was there such a preponderous difference in power between villagers than there exists between individuals and the corporations wh

    • The difference with a village, is that the lack of privacy goes both ways, but this new era is all one way. Faceless people in power know everything about you, you know nothing about them. It can only end in tears.
  • We are becoming "1984"

    But mix in the "CtOS" from the game Watchdogs

    and we have what the U.S. is turning into.

    I predict there will be a boiling point and the next civil war even if it's soon to 50 years away will be the citizens vs law enforcement.

    militarizing police and militarizing corporations is grossly against the law of posse comitatus act.

  • Did they really think that Amazon is going to put its profit on the line to fulfill some code of ethics, even if their views did prevail? (the article mentions that is was a "voluntary agreement", so they were not bound to follow it)
  • Humans are very adaptable, the main upshot of this type of shit may be a reduction in skin cancer 30 years from now once everybody learns to wear a ski mask all the time.

    If this really does become ubiquitous people will find new fashionable ways to wear apparel, make up and skin art that confuses the cameras.

    • by ruir ( 2709173 )
      ski masks are pretty off-limits in most places nowadays, but dark glasses and hats are pretty acceptable and you will pass for a dumb hipster.
  • The real threat to privacy is from government use of facial recognition technology. Worrying about whether the Banana Republic or Google tries to recognize your mug from a camera is such a useless distraction from the real threats that one really has to wonder whether these "privacy advocates" aren't really just in league with the NSA.

You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"

Working...