Face Recognition App Taking Russia By Storm May Bring End To Public Anonymity (theguardian.com) 157
An anonymous reader writes: Anonymity in public could soon become a thing of the past. A service called FindFace allows users to photograph people in a crowd and work out their identities with 70% reliability. It works by comparing photographs to profile pictures on Vkontakte, a social network popular in Russia and the former Soviet Union, with more than 200 million accounts. In future, the designers imagine a world where people walking past you on the street could find your social network profile by sneaking a photograph of you, and shops, advertisers and the police could pick your face out of crowds and track you down via social networks. In the short time since the launch, FindFace has amassed 500,000 users and processed nearly 3m searches.The Newsweek wrote about this app last month. The publication reported on an abuse of the app in which porn stars and sex workers were targeted. Some wanted to use FindFace for the purpose of "outing" these sex workers to their families and social media contacts.
Everybody put on a Putin Mask! (Score:5, Funny)
And stick it to the man!
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think he'd care.
There is already a video of him bareback riding a bear and he's rather proud of that one. [56thparallel.com]
Basically if you ever posted social media selfies (Score:2, Insightful)
You are hosed, forever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And since your friends and family keep telling you that "you're only being paranoid" and posting group photos anyway, you're screwed anyway.
Your only chance is to always wear a mask everywhere you go, but some countries have laws against that, including Canada.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Yet another reason NOT to be on Facebook".
Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest issue is probably longevity. Nothing gets deleted, and what's ok today is hounded tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Google: Brenden Eich Proposition 8
Re: (Score:1)
The biggest issue is probably longevity. Nothing gets deleted, and what's ok today is hounded tomorrow.
Things get old. Faces crumble. Tatoos fade. Opinions change. At 40 you're already invisible enough not to care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So says the AC...
Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self (Score:1)
The DMV now creates a social media account for you. Soon not having a social media account equals being vagrant.
Re: (Score:1)
Soon not having a social media account equals being vagrant.
citation needed
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's coming. Employers [recruitifi.com] think [time.com] you're [forbes.com] suspicious [mashable.com] (or even a psychopath) if you aren't posting on Facebook every day...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if your job is related to social media, I can see it, but I doubt that the average auto mechanic is hired for his rad Facebook skilz.
Don't forget, the sources of these stories wanted people to be dumping their life's stories in a forum that they can monitor programmatically.
Also, how do they handle the multiple John Williams Problem? When I was listed in the whois database back in the 1990s, I received emails for someone else with my name at least once every few months, and my surname is not exactly
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Which DMV? Every US state and commonwealth has its own, even if it is not called the DMV, like in PA.
Re: (Score:1)
I stuck a pic of Rush Limbaugh up instead. Some trolls are probably trying to chew him out over the "creative" things I said about their mothers.
Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that people aren't hypocrites who will look down on other people for doing the same things that they do. Just one look at the number of rabidly homophobic politicians and religious leaders who turned out to be having gay sex on the side should be more than enough to prove that assumption is wildly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop thinking about germs! That analogy's over!
Service (Score:3, Insightful)
The publication reported on an abuse of the app in which porn stars and sex workers were targeted. Some wanted to use FindFace for the purpose of "outing" these sex workers to their families and social media contacts.
It would also be helpful and possibly more equitable to out the people who frequent the sex workers. In fact, maybe leave the sex workers alone since for the most part they are just earning an honest living, and out the people using them, who typically are betraying someone they have promised to be faithful to.
Re:Service (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
because it's the government and the public's duty to be involved with people's personal lives.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> Most of the states concluded that infidelity is not a reason for "at fault" treatment in the courts of law. Basically lawyers decided that it is not a legal issue.
Yeah, well the STDs make it a bit more of an issue than you make it out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this. Stay out of others personal lives, it is none of your beeswax.
Great idea. So if my wife and I want to tell the neighbor that her husband is seeing a sex worker, stay out of our business! :D
Re: (Score:3)
This must be a cultural thing. Where I grew up, you kept your nose out of your neighbor's business, or you got shot. It's an easy habit to get into: "does this affect me directly? no? STFU!". Makes for far less drama in everyone's life, and better communities in general.
Re:Service (Score:5, Informative)
If one of them is married, though, there's a third, non-consenting adult involved, who deserves to know - and if there are people who feel like exposing this kind of thing,
Then those people need to mind their own god damn business. Society only works when there is a certain level of anonymity and trust in your fellow strangers. If we can't leave our houses and do the things that are human nature (no matter how much you may disagree with them) without fear of someone willfully destroying your life, then we no longer live in a free society. You might as well go back in time and live in East Germany if you want your neighbors all up in your shit, having to watch everything you say or do. Only this is scarier...the people doing it willingly, without the Stasi pulling the strings? No thanks.
Re:Service (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Service (Score:5, Insightful)
If my wife is not being honest with me, I want to know about it. If I'm not being honest with her, she wants to know about it. If you want to help increase people's ability to deceive their spouse while stepping out, that's your business. And if I want to do the opposite, that's my business. :D
Everyone has secrets. Maybe you should just trust your wife, and she should trust you, or you both can learn to deal with the alternatives. What if I told you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, then you hauled off and killed her in a fit of rage? How is that going to make the world a better place? This sense of duty some people have to wreck other peoples lives in the pursuit of exposing the 'truth' makes me sick. Seriously people, if nobody's life is in danger, why inject yourself into the situation? And to be clear, I'm talking about strangers here. Friends and family do have more of a leg to stand on when doing things that affect others in their lives, but perfect strangers spying on others in order to expose them can go get right bent.
Re: (Score:2)
What if I told you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, then you hauled off and killed her in a fit of rage? How is that going to make the world a better place?
What I didn't tell you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, shortly after you get herpes and aids, because the mailman had it, then your wife had it, now you have it. Then you haul off and kill her in a fit of rage? And then live out the rest of your life with a pair of incurable STDs.
How exactly is that world the better place?
There really isn't a winning move.
And to be clear, I'm talking about strangers here. Friends and family do have more of a leg to stand on when doing things that affect others in their lives, but perfect strangers spying on others in order to expose them can go get right bent.
Ok, that's fair. I'm not sure where you draw the line; neighbors? coworkers? acquaintences? I can sort of see your point about total strang
Re: (Score:2)
I visit prostitutes every time I am in Prague. My fiancee died years ago in a motorbike accident and I didn't want to start a new relationship after that. And nevertheless it is none of your business, you self-righteous prick.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. We'll just have to require that all married people have their rings permanently grafted onto their fingers so that they can't be removed. Maybe tattoo their foreheads while we're at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, do or don't they have to have the yellow star, white cross or red crescent on the jacket ... we need to know what the rules of the faith are if we are to report them to the right authorities.
Re:Service (Score:4, Interesting)
Or just leave both of them alone if they are both consenting adults. Just because I wouldn't be one or use one doesn't mean I need to go "exposing" those that do.
Never underestimate the ability of the morally superior to take exception with your behavior and decide what is best for you; until someone decides what they are doing is wrong and then comes the hypocrisy disguised as righteous indignation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
War isn't on the list. In fact one reason I advocate secession is to help make war less possible. If everybody who didn't support the US governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shove it up your ass, AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not out people who do things that are legal, just because your morals aren't reflected in the law.
Let's just all make our own decisions like grownups. If you don't want to out people, don't do it. If other people want to, leave them alone.
If people had let the public know long ago that Bill Cosby was stepping out on his wife with such frequency, he might not have been such a tool for authoritarian "family values" tyrants.
Re: (Score:2)
Any other things you want to out people about? Driving a bit too quick? Drinking a bit too much? Being friends with someone you don't like?
Hell at least the driving too quick is an offence. It just seems that you have picked a particular personal issue and planted your moral flag on it. Why not leave people alone? I suggest you focus on your own immediate friends and family, there will be more than enough turmoil and heartache under the surface there without you triggering issues for others.
Re: (Score:3)
It would also be helpful and possibly more equitable to out the people who frequent the sex workers.
Don't worry. The 70% figure is a complete fabrication. The figure is more like 1 billion %. This is a click-bait slash-advertisement disguised as a news item.
It's far easier to identify the Johns themselves thanks to commercial license plate scanner databases. Those are actually reliable (assuming a car is used during the interaction). And even then, they'd need to have pretty good video evidence to demonstrate that they were not just asking for directions, or that the girls didn't go up to their car unsoli
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. The 70% figure is a complete fabrication. The figure is more like 1 billion %.
Wow, I've heard of making doubly sure = 200% but 1000000000% sure? What does it do, read the DNA off a skin cell and compare that?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. The 70% figure is a complete fabrication. The figure is more like 1 billion %. This is a click-bait slash-advertisement disguised as a news item.
Well, in true slashdot tradition, I just ran my mouth without RTFA, so I wouldn't know! :D
Re: (Score:2)
And even then, they'd need to have pretty good video evidence to demonstrate that they were not just asking for directions, or that the girls didn't go up to their car unsolicited.
Very good point. So you tell the wives, and let them conclude the investigation themselves in their own way.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you can have one without the other.
A Change in Society (Score:5, Interesting)
With the ability of technology to do these kinds of things, society is going to be changing. But which direction will it go?
Will we become a more repressed society, afraid to engage in activity that other people don't approve of? A society where we share as little as possible with others out of fear?
Or will society become "anything goes," where people accept that everyone has a past that may not be pretty, and people may engage in activities that we may not appreciate? After all, that camera could be pointed towards us - who are we to judge?
Re: (Score:2)
Very insightful. I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted.
Re:A Change in Society (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod parent up.
For human-vs-human, I agree you can look at others but others can look at you too. You can find the name of a pretty girl and try to harass her, but then she can also report your name to the police.
Things change however when it is human-vs-non human, like companies, state or police. Except for the police, they could already do it for years.
Re: (Score:1)
With the ability of technology to do these kinds of things, society is going to be changing. But which direction will it go?
Will we become a more repressed society, afraid to engage in activity that other people don't approve of? A society where we share as little as possible with others out of fear?
Or will society become "anything goes," where people accept that everyone has a past that may not be pretty, and people may engage in activities that we may not appreciate? After all, that camera could be pointed towards us - who are we to judge?
If history repeats itself it will be both. It will start off more repressed until a series of "deviants" come out and start making it more mainstream. I'm speaking broadly here but if you follow historical movements the trend is surprisingly similar.
Re: (Score:1)
We will always have cultural and social taboos, what I find interesting are the changes that happened to the www over the last 20 years or so.
Personal web pages are gone, replaced with Facebook profiles, twitter and other social media outlets, in that there seem to be three kinds of users:
1. The user that is not afraid to say dumb things (and does, often)
2. The user that coaches their online appearance, plastic shiny happy people
3. The anonymous coward type (HEYOOO) who craves the relative freedom of 1 with
Re:A Change in Society (Score:5, Insightful)
With the ability of technology to do these kinds of things, society is going to be changing. But which direction will it go?
Will we become a more repressed society, afraid to engage in activity that other people don't approve of? A society where we share as little as possible with others out of fear?
Or will society become "anything goes," where people accept that everyone has a past that may not be pretty, and people may engage in activities that we may not appreciate? After all, that camera could be pointed towards us - who are we to judge?
I imagine it will be both.
People who need to maintain their "reputation" will need to be even more self-censoring than they were before. This will create a world(and it is already going this way) where anything you say, or do, any way you react to something, body language, facial expression, what videos you watch, books you read, music you listen to, things you post, etc will be recorded, analyzed and codified. A Police State that couldn't have been dreamed of by Orwell.
Then again, there will be those with the need for a "streecred" type of reputation will do the opposite, and perpetuate their badassness...
Eventually, there will be a corporate(Facebook) way of ranking people, which will impact us all in ways we don't even fathom.
Those who don't need to maintain their "reputation" won't need to worry about it, either because they will have absolutely no financial stake in anything(where most people will end up) or they will be so wealthy that it won't matter.
In some aspects of how human society is going, it reminds me of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", where to hide among the "converted" humans(Social Media-ized), non-converted humans had to hide their humanness.
We are also seeing how the politicization and polarization in the First World is creating a more "us vs them" reality, and we also see that geographically, people of the same class/race/political view are "self balkanizing", meaning different groups don't mingle as much anymore, never see each other, live in separated areas, etc;
Re:A Change in Society (Score:5, Insightful)
Or people will learn to self-moderate their online interactions the same way they self-moderate public face-to-face interactions. When I post something online, I think "Would I say this to a room filled with my wife, parents, friends, relatives, boss, co-workers, and (depending on the topic) my children?" If the answer is "No", I don't post it. If the answer is "yes", I go ahead and post it. Too many people will post a ten paragraph screed against their coworkers on Facebook and then act surprised when their boss finds it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kinda curious / worried how exactly the loss of that ability will change society. Not everyone gets along - that's a given. For all of human history, when we run across a person we have trouble working with, we've been able to rant about it to our friends or family. This isn't because we feel we shouldn't be working with the person - if that were the case we'd either
Re: (Score:2)
I think the big problem is that some people see "online interactions" as being equivalent to "sitting with a friend in a private room and talking" when it's more analogous to "sitting in a crowded restaurant and talking." You might still talk about private things in the crowded restaurant, but you shouldn't act too surprised if the person sitting at the table next to you overhears your conversation. This is especially true if your online interaction is a Facebook post - even if you think you locked it dow
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional "human behavior", molded from hundreds of thousands of years, is now having to change.
As Solandri points out, with ubiquitous monitoring and facial recognition, etc, people will have to "keep things to themselves".
Some people are natually inclined to be like that, while others aren't.
Some people may thrive in such an environment, while others will find it horrid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think before we see any large social changes we will see a lot of laws and regulation put into action against such technology. Social networks for example can lock away access to peoples photos behind a login and when logins are only given out to people who have verified their identity spidering becomes much harder. That's not even far future, many services already require a mobile phone number for id and some countries don't give you a mobile phone number anonymously. Collecting the data will still happe
Re: (Score:3)
After all, that camera could be pointed towards us - who are we to judge?
Well I think it'll go both ways, the things that actually are pretty common but mostly happened in secret will be "normalized" because it turns out you're not that alone like say having an abortion after a one night stand. But if you've been in a donkey show then no, saying everybody's done something like that won't work. And there's always been the goody two shoes who really are trying for sainthood and bible thumping everyone else, not just being hypocrites. And there's what you share in what context, if
No it won't... (Score:2)
Public anonymity went away a long time ago...
That being said: When Google Glass did this it was considered enough of a violation that they banned that and such apps from the device. Social acceptability has to come a long ways here (USA) for this to catch on and certainly before it "brings and end" (fuck you click-bait title) to anything.
As Seen In... (Score:3)
In future, the designers imagine a world where people walking past you on the street could find your social network profile by sneaking a photograph of you, and shops, advertisers and the police could pick your face out of crowds and track you down via social networks.
As seen in: Watch_Dogs (2012), Eden of the East (2009), Minority Report (2002), and plenty of other science fiction of one form or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Enemy of the State (1998)
Sad next step (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is to be a panopticon, the only sensible next step is to make sure everybody has access, not just government.
Privacy depends on anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
With FindFace and the similar services that are sure to follow in its footsteps, almost everybody will be able to identify almost anybody else in a few seconds. This heralds the end of privacy as we know it. Even widespread video cameras and NSA communications monitoring don't do as much damage to privacy as these services will, because the public at large doesn't have access to the video footage and the data that the NSA and other TLA's gather.
I'm afraid privacy will soon be officially a thing of the past. At least I can take comfort in the fact that I have been diligent about not having my picture appear on the Web - identifying me using a FindFace-like service would probably be quite difficult. Until hackers break into the Ministry of Transportation and steal my driver's licence photo, that is... As for all those people who are promiscuous users of Facebook and the like, I'm sure they don't care about this any more than the lemmings a few ranks back from the edge of the cliff care about what's coming up shortly. Good luck to us all in this brave new world.
Re:Privacy depends on anonymity (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't follow you. I'm very private, keeping most of my life to myself. I have coworkers who see me all day every day and in some ways see me more than my own family. They know almost nothing about my private life though. I'm not anonymous but I am quite private.
I've never followed this logic that you have to be anonymous to be private. It just logically fails on every level. Why bother with encryption if you're anonymous? If you're not anonymous encryption keeps you private (when done correctly). Frankly anonymity appears to be a myth. It just does not seem to exist in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never followed this logic that you have to be anonymous to be private.
I couldn't agree more.
I'm the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
By way of reply I'll quote Insightfill, (from farther down in the thread), who puts to rest my comfort in not having my picture plastered all over the web, and also addresses the privacy / anonymity question:
Similar to web cookies, the aggregation of multiple sightings of you in public will construct an "identity" of you far more detailed than currently exists in the public record today. The sum total of where you live, where you shop, where you work, where (and who!!!) you visit will result in a profile fingerprint that's just as useful, simply lacking your name. It's enough.
I would add that with all the friends and acquaintances I have who participate in social media, the name to go along with that profile won't be long in coming.
So with pictures on FindFace and the like, and the inevitable geolocation data attached to them, at some point my interests, food preferences, e
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly. What you posted is fantasy though so I'll try to reply without sounding like a prick.
Similar to web cookies, the aggregation of multiple sightings of you in public will construct an "identity" of you far more detailed than currently exists in the public record today. The sum total of where you live, where you shop, where you work, where (and who!!!) you visit will result in a profile fingerprint that's just as useful, simply lacking your name. It's enough.
This is not an identity. Its meta data at best. Knowing where you went is easy to get now and has been for decades. Detectives have been doing this for a very long time to establish things like timelines. Just because you went to a library however does not mean you read a book. It is by no means or any stretch of the imagination "just as useful". That is, strictly put, fantasy.
I would add that with all the friends and acquaintances I have who participate in social media, the name to go along with that profile won't be long in coming.
Names are public record. Stored on b
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly. What you posted is fantasy though so I'll try to reply without sounding like a prick.
Thanks - but I never thought you were being a prick. And because you work in Big Data I acknowledge that you're well versed in this subject and have likely given it a lot more thought than I have.
Where you went is not information about you. Neither is how you drive on a public road.
I suppose differentiating between information about 'what I did' and information about 'me' is useful here. But where I go on a regular basis, (and how I drive), although it's not information 'about me', can by inference be used to draw conclusions and make predictions about me, in a kind of profiling process, can
Re:Privacy depends on anonymity (Score:5, Interesting)
On the bright side, it will be a great help to those of us who have difficulty remembering people's faces.
Now:
Person I Should Know: "Hi, Jason. How are you doing?"
Me: "Fine... um... you. How are you?"
Soon:
Person I Should Know: "Hi, Jason. How are you doing?"
FindFace On Google Glass: "This is John Smith. He works for XYZ Corp and last e-mailed you about the Sprockets project."
Me: "Fine, John. How's that Sprockets project going?"
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to web cookies, the aggregation of multiple sightings of you in public will construct an "identity" of you far more detailed than currently exists in the public record today. The sum total of where you live, where you shop, where you work, where (and who!!!) you visit will result in a profile fingerprint that'
And this is the free version (Score:2)
Re:And wearing a mask is illegal (in Minnesota) (Score:5, Interesting)
1) found my own church. ....
2) Commandment 1 - Thou shalt not expose your face in public.
Now I'm legit because covering my face is my religious belief.
A Scanner Darkly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Or more likely: Fake mustaches are about to become universal.
ftfy. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Or dazzle camouflage makeup [cvdazzle.com]. See, 1980s cyberpunk was right when it thought we'd all soon look like extras in an early Lady Gaga video!
This is why (Score:2)
This is why I never used a Social media site, never uploaded a single photo, Now if I can only get others to stop uploading photos with me in them.
Re:This is why (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On the Bright side (Score:2)
Public vs Private (Score:1)
How can you "out" a porn star? And who ever thought showing your face in public was anonymous.
There are some strange ideas about what it means to be in public. And who ever said that making a movie for public consumption was a private affair?
There are some real things happening where your privacy is being violated. Most of these are occurring in the areas that are firmly recognized as being private by law. Such as violations by others into your own property. I will would worry more about that.
Re: (Score:2)
> "It works by comparing photographs to profile pictures on Vkontakte,
> a social network popular in Russia and the former Soviet Union"
> This makes no sense to me, didn't the USSR dissolve in 1991?
You missed the comma right after the word "Vkontakte". I parse the phrase as meaning that Vkontakt is *NOW* popular in Russia, and in other countries, that were *FORMERLY* part of the Soviet Union.