Moscow Deploys Facial Recognition to Spy on Citizens in Streets (bloomberg.com) 68
Moscow is adding facial-recognition technology to its network of 170,000 surveillance cameras across the city in a move to identify criminals and boost security. From a report: Since 2012, CCTV recordings have been held for five days after they're captured, with about 20 million hours of video stored at any one time. "We soon found it impossible to process such volumes of data by police officers alone," said Artem Ermolaev, head of the department of information technology in Moscow. "We needed an artificial intelligence to help find what we are looking for." Moscow says the city's centralized surveillance network is the world's largest of its kind. The U.K. is one of the most notorious for its use of CCTV cameras but precise figures are difficult to obtain. However, a 2013 report by the British Security Industry Association estimated there were as many as 70,000 cameras operated by the government across the nation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: In A Stunning Reversal, DHS Concludes No Hacki (Score:1)
As far as we know, facial recognition has only been used 3 times in public in the UK, the most recent being the Notting Hill Carnival last month [theregister.co.uk]. It wasn't a great success with 35 false positives using a database of 500 suspects. They did spot one guy but it turned out he shouldn't have been on the list. The cameras were hidden from the public. Of course the technology will only get better and the country is already stuffed with CCTV cameras.
Once it's good enough to use, as it apparently now is in Mosco
Re: (Score:2)
Trump approves and rolls out the same in the US. Now everyone can be a reality TV star!
Like they are not already TV stars in their minds.... Have you see the self absorbed "LOOK AT ME" stuff on Instagram, U-Tube and Facebook lately? There is a whole world of people who think their everyday lives are somehow interesting to others.
I'm always shaking my head... No, even if you are my sister in law, I'm not the least bit interested in what you had for dinner and if it was on your latest diet or not... Tell it to my brother, I bet he doesn't care either.
Rain (Score:2)
A storm starts with a single raindrop.
Total surveillance starts with a single camera.
Or, to use another analogy, we are the frogs.
Re: (Score:2)
The odd thing is that while we don't want state surveillance, we already have a camera in every store including parking lots and sidewalks. We are being watched but it's by ourselves because of ourselves. A weird effect of the social cost of some crimes, I guess.
Tech is the enabler (Re:Rain) (Score:2)
The totality was limited not only by our rights or privacy-expectations, but by the capabilities of the law-enforcement. It was always perfectly legal for the government to place a police officer on every corner — there just weren't enough officers and their ability to share and archive their observations was limited.
But technology has solved those limitations technological limitations... If we do not want it used, we need new laws to the effect.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for Russia, but the UK police have, to date, had very little practical success [liberty-hu...hts.org.uk] with facial recognition.
(The article link is Liberty's breakdown of the London Metropolitan Police's worryingly inaccurate and painfully crude facial recognition operation used at the 2017 Notting Hill Carnival).
Re: (Score:2)
The avalanche has already started; it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
So noble (Score:1)
When russia does it, it's spying. When the US government does it, it's surveillance. Even though the effect on privacy is the same (to basically shit all over it), it's just so much more noble when your own government does it.
Re: So noble (Score:1)
AND when it's Kim jong UN who does it it's a personal home video-protection system.
Re: (Score:2)
When russia does it, it's spying. When the US government does it, it's surveillance.
"Surveillance" and "spying" are synonyms.
In America.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And we stand in line for days in advance, sign two-year contracts, and we're HAPPY about it.
The truth is (Score:2)
San Diego is already doing this.. (Score:3, Interesting)
With the help of GE and AT&T of course. I guess we are no better than Russia.
http://fortune.com/2017/02/22/san-diego-ge-intel-att/
Re: (Score:2)
We stopped being any better than Russia quite a few years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're claiming here -- are you saying that the US spies less on its citizens that Russia does on theirs?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that you understood my comment. I wasn't making a grand overall judgement between the two. I was talking about surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may have confused your reply. The comment was a reply to mine, and did not quote anybody.
Oh (Score:1)
I guess maybe we should watch Russia's press to let us know when our government does the same.
Oh wait we already missed it.
The machine from Person of Interest (Score:1)
Is already being deployed in NYC. Facial rec. is coming to every corner as we speak.
Re:The machine from Person of Interest (Score:4, Interesting)
The amount of spying in NYC (or London, or etc.) is one of the reasons why I avoid NYC (or London, or etc.)
This stuff will eventually be everywhere, of course, but I'll avoid it for as long as I can.
Really? (Score:2)
The amount of spying in NYC (or London, or etc.) is one of the reasons why I avoid NYC (or London, or etc.)
This stuff will eventually be everywhere, of course, but I'll avoid it for as long as I can.
I mean, there's no reason to seek it out, but it's also not a great reason to avoid a place for 99.9% of people. We're just not that interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, there's no reason to seek it out, but it's also not a great reason to avoid a place for 99.9% of people. We're just not that interesting.
That I object to it is plenty enough of a reason. Whether or not I'm of interest to anybody isn't even a little relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the function in your life that you are protecting by staying away from public surveillance cameras?
A moral principle, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Because I don't trust the authorities to handle or use the data properly. Same as my objection to being spied on by corporations. But I will note that my reasons aren't important. I should have the fundamental human right to not be spied on even if I have no logical reason to object to it.
Why do you think you are more important than millions of others?
I don't, and never claimed or even remotely implied that I am.
Re: (Score:2)
I think using past tense is a bad choice here.... I'm just guessing here but I'm pretty sure they ARE doing it NOW... That makes it present tense...
Re: (Score:2)
I think using past tense is a bad choice here
I think OP agrees, since they haven't used any past tense...
We did it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations, my fellow computer scientists, we're finally destroying freedom! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have to do something about the political murders (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
yeah, that's exactly the time when stuff won't be working right.
There was a 4-car pileup right outside my window... yes, there's a camera looking right at the intersection. It turned out that the camera only saves 1 frame every 30 seconds. So the car that smashed into everyone drove away... and as far as I know, nobody ever found it.
When the west does it it for the citizens (Score:1)
We live in a closed world. (Score:1)
"We live in an open world," Ermolaev said. "It’s easy to track that Laura from the sixth apartment is being visited often by Mike from a neighboring building without the city’s surveillance cameras."
I have to wonder if Artem has read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It has one of my favorite quotes ('cause I'm eaaasy) that I think fits humanity, from my own perspective.
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is s