New York To Test Facial Recognition Cameras At 'Crossing Points' (vocativ.com) 96
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Vocativ: In a 35-minute speech detailing a landmark $100 billion investment into state infrastructure, largely focused on New York City and Long Island, Governor Andrew Cuomo made a number of promises that would thrill New Yorkers, like the promise of a renovated Penn Station, called Penn-Farley, a direct train from there to LaGuardia Airport, and the completion of the long-awaited Second Avenue Line. Oh, and facial recognition cameras around the city, he said: "At each crossing, and at structurally sensitive points on bridges and tunnels, advanced cameras and sensors will be installed to read license plates and test emerging facial recognition software and equipment." "We're going to be using this in Penn-Farley and we also want to be testing it in bridges and crossings system," he added. On the matter of facial recognition cameras, Cuomo was shy on details. It's unclear how many cameras will be deployed, which agencies will have access to them, what defines a crossing, how citizens' photos will be stored, and what photo databases will be used to compare against the faces of the millions of people who drive into the city. In his speech, Cuomo referenced the cameras as necessary for New York to adapt to 21st century security threats. "In this age of terrorist activity and lone wolves, if you look at points of vulnerability you'll go to our tunnels and to our bridges. So really they have to be reimagined for a new reality," he said.
Reimagined for a new reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reimagined for a new reality (Score:5, Insightful)
I came here to post the same as the AC above did. But from the same luminary:
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. ... The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. ... The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."
Re:Reimagined for a new reality (Score:5, Interesting)
no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.
Said King George III about George Washington:
The actual resignation of his command, having made peace between the civil and military powers of the new country -- and, in an emotional ceremony, bidden farewell to his officers on December 4, 1783 -- took place in Annapolis, Maryland, on December 23, when he formally handed back to Congress his commission as commander in chief, which they had given him in June 1775. He said he would never again hold public office. He had his horse waiting at the door, and he took the road to Mount Vernon the next day.
No one who knew Washington was surprised. Everyone else, in varying degrees, was astonished at this singular failure of the corruption of power to work. And, indeed, it was a rare moment in history. In London, George III qustioned the American-born painter Benjamin West what Washington would do now he had won the war. "Oh," said West, "they say he will return to his farm." "If he does that," said the king, "he will be the greatest man in the world."
Re: (Score:2)
It's so rare in history that, other than Washington and Cincinnatus, I can't think of any examples!
Re: (Score:2)
Our monitoring software is guaranteed to work up to quadruplets, in section 34.7.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There was even a word for it in Newyorkspeak: facecrime, it was called.
You could get facearrested and Facebooked for that.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:body cams first (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Could you perhaps... (Score:4, Interesting)
Could you perhaps burn-out the CCD's/CMOS sensors with a powerful-enough laser?
Re: (Score:2)
That would certainly bring the hammer down.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wear one of those rubber masks of politician's face. Nixon would be fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Laughing man would be best, but here in the real world, we'll have to settle for a non-digital solution. I'd vote for the Mr. Robot masks.
Re: (Score:1)
Nixon was an amateur.
If you want the sure-fire get-out-of-jail-free card, you wear the Hillary Clinton mask.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'd rather go to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, our algorithm is pretty simple, it only looks for people wearing masks or hoods while keeping their face down.
Re: (Score:2)
The really high end masks would fool your crapware
Coincidentally (Score:4, Insightful)
It will be used for more than fighting terrorism.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In soviet AmeÐika, government terrorize you!
Welcome to 1780s NYC, Serfs! (Score:1)
Remember, you only have 3/5ths of a vote if you're not a landowning English white male over 35, and only white males are permitted to vote at all.
Whatever you do, don't wear dazzle masks or shimmer hoodies that defeat such Ubermensch Control devices.
That would be double plus ungood.
Re: Welcome to 1780s NYC, Serfs! (Score:1)
Your race baiting is uncalled for - focus on the only true issue: LIBERTY VS. TYRANNY - all else is a distraction meant to divide & conquer.
I recall this tyrant Cuomo a few years back saying " if you are pro 2nd amendment and pro life, get out of NY" - what a disgusting divisive public official who is completely out of touch with American history and values - but who is well versed in the collectivist mentality - this tyrant knows that when the people fear Albany, his power is omnipotent...but when Alba
Overhead or low placement? (Score:3)
My father taught me to always wear a hat, so you'll almost never see me without a fedora or trilby, brim low enough that I doubt any cameras above eye height will ever catch my face.
Where I go is my business. Registering where everyone goes with facial recognition is just a variety of Papieren, bitte.
Re:Overhead or low placement? (Score:5, Insightful)
No problem. Cameras can track people by their walk and any other number of ways.
Unfortunately your mum was right, you ARE a unique snowflake.
Re: (Score:3)
I foresee a resurgence in a certain ministry [wikipedia.org].
War on Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
If we are to call it what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
No, if it was a war on freedom, we'll end up with more freedom as per the war on drugs, guns, terrorism, etc...
how to find "structurally sensitive points" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, never look *at* the camera !
Time (Score:5, Interesting)
For ski masks year round from everybody just to say Fuck you very much.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
or one of the baseball hats with IR LEDs in the brim
Re: (Score:2)
For ski masks year round from everybody just to say Fuck you very much.
Watch how quickly we get anti-mask laws if masks actually become popular. Then it will be anti-face paint laws — you can still draw weird patterns on your face to confuse facial recognition sensors. That won't help with gait detection, but that does cost quite a bit more.
Re: (Score:1)
Watch how quickly we get anti-mask laws if masks actually become popular.
Plenty of states already have anti-mask laws - http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html [anapsid.org]. They run the gamut from banning congregating with other masked individuals (unless for approved purposed) to banning masks, etc. that conceal identity.
Why (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Psychology. The nature of terrorism as a threat is what makes it so efffective towards western populations. I can avoid going out in a lightning storm, and I can for the most part reasonably well avoid bees, but the thing which makes terrorism such a hard issue to tackle is that it's unpredictable and usually there's not much you can do to avoid it if it hits and you happen to be there.
Same is true with car accidents and a whole host of other issues, but the difference is that this is intentional. People can mostly deal with the old truism of 'shit happens', when you're talking about natural catastrophes and accidents, but when you're talking about people with malicious intent, it's much harder to get people to adopt the notion that this really isn't a big deal. Add to that the fact that so far most strikes post 911 in the west have been small, but all it really takes is one major one again to cause massive panic and outrage: lightning and bee stings are not hoping on getting their hands on biological or nuclear weapons for maximum damage.
I'm personally not american and I agree that the war on terror (how can you even have a war on terror which usually is a direct consequence of war itself, that is, wars tend to cause terror) is a failure. I don't support draconian monitoring of people or what the intelligence agencies are doing. But I do think comparing terrorism to naturally occurring accidents is not exactly a good comparison because the 2 phenomenon are quite different in that only one of them is driven by conscious intent to harm people - and that matters when it comes to dealing with threats.
Re: (Score:1)
No its not a failure, its a failure to see what the definition of its success was. Wall Street whores and the government they prop up have gained more control through fear mongering. They scare the populace, which does nothing when they make another power grab, how is that a failure?
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to its official goal as in controlling terror. Obviously it's benefited other instances and the governments to expand their power but from the standpoint of the citizenry it's been a total failure in every measurable way.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said I assumed so, that's why I differentiated between official reason and actual reason, I get - and agree with - your point.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is "why"? - you have a higher chance of dying from a bee sting or a lightning strike, why not address the higher risks first?
Yes lets kill all the bees :D
Re: (Score:2)
Bye pesky 'democracy'.
A New Age Of Trunk Riding (Score:3)
This is so easily foiled, anyone who wants to hide can just rest under a blanket, lie down, hide in the trunk, etc. Not a good use of money.
fun fad for New Yorkers (Score:2)
Make your face look like Hitler's. The software should recognize him yes?
In other news... (Score:3)
80's disco fashions [cvdazzle.com] look to be headed back in a big way
I see clowns (Score:2)
Nothing but clowns.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe and Asia pioneered this kind of surveillance crap, and few people know about it there or care about it.
In the US, there's a good chance that SCOTUS and Congress put a stop to this. Don't hold your breath for that to happen in Europe.
Great way to encourage... (Score:2)
At each crossing, and at structurally sensitive points on bridges and tunnels, advanced cameras and sensors will be installed to ... test emerging facial recognition software and equipment.
That sounds like a great way to encourage jaywalking.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, it encourages no-one to walk anywhere and drive instead.
That's fine, if it's only at "crossing points"... (Score:3)
That's fine, if it's only at "crossing points"... it'll only end up tracking tourists, since New Yorkers are about half as bad as San Franciscans, when it comes to just walking anywhere they feel like it, rather than in crosswalks.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny (Score:2)
Howl (Score:1)
Reminds me (Score:2)
I have a dinner with Andre
So many things wrong (Score:2)
NYC doesn't need to test facial recognition cameras, the companies that make the cameras should be responsible for testing them, and then certify them for NYC. Why is NYC doing QA for another company?
Why would NYC need facial recognition cameras ever?
Will data be retained or only statistics?
In TFA they offer no answers and aren't willing to share any plans with the public, which is very damning after publicly announcing they will be spending a ton of taxpayer money installing these at bridges and tunnels. O
Birds of a feather (Score:1)
I have a better idea (Score:2)
Instead of throwing money at technology that has side-effect of oppressing and suffocating the privacy of normal citizens, why not put that money toward promoting peace, cooperation and understanding?
I remember when people around the world loved America because it led by example. Because it was a place people could go that offered more freedom and privacy than the nation they were currently in. Its constitution was followed STRICTLY because the words in it were written specifically by those who literally fo
threat?= (Score:1)
"21st century security threats"... I wonder if those threats would even exist if the US hadn't invaded and weren't still occupying & regularly bombing Iraq and A'stan.
Recognize my ass! (Score:2)