Facial Recognition Algorithms -- Plus 1.8 Billion Photos -- Leads to 567 Arrests in China (scmp.com) 168
"Our machines can very easily recognise you among at least 2 billion people in a matter of seconds," says the chief executive and co-founder of Yitu. The South China Morning Post reports:
Yitu's Dragonfly Eye generic portrait platform already has 1.8 billion photographs to work with: those logged in the national database and you, if you have visited China recently... 320 million of the photos have come from China's borders, including ports and airports, where pictures are taken of everyone who enters and leaves the country. According to Yitu, its platform is also in service with more than 20 provincial public security departments, and is used as part of more than 150 municipal public security systems across the country, and Dragonfly Eye has already proved its worth. On its very first day of operation on the Shanghai Metro, in January, the system identified a wanted man when he entered a station. After matching his face against the database, Dragonfly Eye sent his photo to a policeman, who made an arrest. In the following three months, 567 suspected lawbreakers were caught on the city's underground network. The system has also been hooked up to security cameras at various events; at the Qingdao International Beer Festival, for example, 22 wanted people were apprehended.
Whole cities in which the algorithms are working say they have seen a decrease in crime. According to Yitu, which says it gets its figures directly from the local authorities, since the system has been implemented, pickpocketing on Xiamen's city buses has fallen by 30 per cent; 500 criminal cases have been resolved by AI in Suzhou since June 2015; and police arrested nine suspects identified by algorithms during the 2016 G20 summit in Hangzhou. Dragonfly Eye has even identified the skull of a victim five years after his murder, in Zhejiang province.
The company's CEO says it's impossible for police to patrol large cities like Shanghai (population: 24,000,000) without using technology.
And one Chinese bank is already testing facial-recognition algorithms hoping to develop ATMs that let customers withdraw money just by showing their faces.
Whole cities in which the algorithms are working say they have seen a decrease in crime. According to Yitu, which says it gets its figures directly from the local authorities, since the system has been implemented, pickpocketing on Xiamen's city buses has fallen by 30 per cent; 500 criminal cases have been resolved by AI in Suzhou since June 2015; and police arrested nine suspects identified by algorithms during the 2016 G20 summit in Hangzhou. Dragonfly Eye has even identified the skull of a victim five years after his murder, in Zhejiang province.
The company's CEO says it's impossible for police to patrol large cities like Shanghai (population: 24,000,000) without using technology.
And one Chinese bank is already testing facial-recognition algorithms hoping to develop ATMs that let customers withdraw money just by showing their faces.
POI (Score:3)
And how many were false positives? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we all have an interest in that figure for the upcoming debates on implementing 1984 as an operations manual in this country.
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:3)
Why would that be relevant? People make false positives all the time, too, and presumably these are double-checked by the actual cops making the arrest, the prosecutor bringing the case, and the judge and jury involved in assessing his guilt.
Sure, if China was flying drones which had free-fire authorisation to gun down anyone identified as a criminal, then false positives would be pretty damn important. But when they're just picking suspects out of a crowd for a human cop to arrest? I don't understand yo
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:5, Insightful)
How would it be relevant, you ask?
Consider a day when you, an innocent citizen are walking down the street and a spotter camera identifies you as Criminal Name. The police pick you up with their gentle presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and haul you off to the local jail for processing. How long, if ever, before the police realize their mistake and release you? Meanwhile, you can't go to work and lose your job and because you were in jail, you also lost your apartment because you didn't pay the rent. During your time in jail, you are treated with warmth and respect by your fellow inmates.
Look up a movie called "Blind Justice" a fact-based story about an innocent man who was mistaken for a serial rapist, and who endured a 14 month nightmare. Arrested for armed robbery, kidnapping and rape, he loses his wife and business, and then his REAL problems snowball.
Do you need any MORE reasons to be concerned?
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
Consider a day when you, an innocent citizen are walking down the street and a spotter camera identifies you as Criminal Name. The police pick you up with their gentle presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and haul you off to the local jail for processing.
I don't have to imagine it; I've already experienced it. The only difference in my case was that I was ID'd by a gentle human who the gently hauled me off with his gentle presumption of innocence.
How long, if ever, before the police realize their mistake and release you?
In my case, about 2 hours. I suspect that this varies wildly across jurisdictions, but if you're worried about processing and hold times then that's a different discussion entirely.
Meanwhile, you can't go to work and lose your job and because you were in jail, you also lost your apartment because you didn't pay the rent. During your time in jail, you are treated with warmth and respect by your fellow inmates.
Again, these are so concerns about the criminal justice system, and have nothing whatsoever to do with facial recognition systems.
You
Re: (Score:3)
One reason for concern:
It makes it easier for police to do their work.
Snap a picture of protesters. Run it through software, ID them, pick them up at home, or next time they go to a public place with facial recognition cameras.
Police work should be difficult -- it helps make sure that cops concentrate on serious crimes, not going after protesters, "vice", or jaywalkers.
A perfectly law-abiding, perfectly controlled society where everyone is shit-scared to go outside the norm will be extremely boring and sad
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
Now that's an interesting objection. I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree.
On the one hand, it seems insanely perverse to suggest that we should waste money on intentionally making policing less efficient. It seems much more logical to make it harder for legislators to create stupid laws in the first place.
On the other hand, people don't seem to really have the attention span and willpower needed to reign in the politicians, so maybe your solution is more practical.
I've run out of hands, but if I had
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:1)
It's a limit on unreasonable infringement on the ability of citizens to enjoy their lives. We can all agree that a cop shouldn't be allowed to strip search you in the middle of the street just because you "look like you're up to no good". Not so much on things like red-light cameras, since they do not inherently constitute an unreasonable infringement.
I'm not sure what would be unreasonable about a computer looking at pictures and saying "this guy looks like he might be the one who robbed the liquor store
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
The problem is once the cops go after the liquor store robbers, they'll start going after protesters and jaywalkers. Making their jobs harder limits the amount of idle hands available to be Satan's playthings.
Yeah that's what the other guy said. My answer is the same; it seems more rational to get rid of the stupid laws. And if you think that getting rid of stupid laws isn't possible, what makes you think it's possible to stop them from using this tech?
Fire 50% of the cops because their jobs are redundant due to increased efficiency? Doesn't work that way for parasites with powerful public employee unions behind them -- they'll figure out a way to lobby for new laws just to keep them relevant.
You don't even need to fire them if you think it would be a problem; you can transition them to "community policing". Walk around, help out people, change tires, take kittens out of trees. Just hire fewer recruits and let attrition bring down the numbers over
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
Noone ever goes after jaywalkers. Would you please stop with the drama?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
People have been harassed by American cops for "jaywalking" where the nearest crosswalk was 1/4 mile away and there was no traffic. Absolutely enforced rules are bad -- zero tolerance = zero brains.
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
You should probably stop doing that. Or at least not brag about it in public, where a cop might see it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bull. I was given a jaywalking ticket (no cars were coming from either direction) by two cops who had nothing better to do. They were hiding off to the side of a cross-walk, turned in such a way that their uniforms were not visible under their jackets. As soon as someone would cross the road the would pop out and turn around and detain them while they wrote a jaywalking citation. Once they were done, they would hide themselves again and wait for the next unlucky person to come by. Once they can just mail ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Noone ever goes after jaywalkers. Would you please stop with the drama?
Really? I've been ticketed for jaywalking in one city & for not stopping my bike at a T-stop intersection in a fucking rainstorm.in another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And while the police should know the limitations of the technology and just treat identified people as "persons of interest"
Re: (Score:3)
The US tops this list going back to the strikes of the 1890s and 1920s and Red Scares, going through the Civil Rights era, the War on Drugs, free speech zones in political conventions, through journalists being faced with 50+ years in prison for covering anti-Trump protests today.
Which side are you on?
https [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We can all agree that a cop shouldn't be allowed to strip search you in the middle of the street just because you "look like you're up to no good""
Yet it's done all the time. That was one of Eric Garner's beef with the cops, long before they strangled him to death.
And here's a video of a police woman fingering TWO women at the side of the road, apparently without changing gloves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Snap a picture of protesters.
In the US, protesting is not illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2, Insightful)
Effectively, it is. We jail people for felonies for tactics (like blocking streets) that are run-of-the-mill in more civilized countries like France. It's not a protest unless it causes a bit of discomfort -- people confined to "free speech zones" don't count.
Your right to protest does not trump my freedom of travel. If you and your goons want to hold me hostage by blocking my car on the highway, I'm fully in favour of the cops dragging your asses to jail. If you think it's "more civilized" to allow every pissed off asshat to disrupt the lives of thousands of people, you're insane.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
Have you *been* to France?
I worked in Paris for 6 months, and more civilized it certainly is not.
Then again, most French disassociate themselves from Paris anyway, I guess...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, you don't get to define "protesting" as blocking streets. That's "rioting."
Second, "effective" != "is."
... people confined to "free speech zones" don't count.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then let me rephrase that. People who are oppressed should have the ability and right to riot when other avenues are exhausted. Riots are often a good thing.
If there weren't "riots" in the 1960s, the Vietnam War may have dragged on for much longer. The ability to protest while causing inconvenience to the public is an important force for social change.
And if the Tiananmen Square protests had spread and succeeded, maybe China wouldn't be in the authoritarian mess that it is in right now.
Re: (Score:2)
People who are oppressed should have the ability and right to riot when other avenues are exhausted.
When rioting fails, what other "rights," should kick in?
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
I tried explaining to you why you're wrong, and it didn't work, so now please give me your address so that I and anyone else who thinks you're wrong can come over to your house and exercise our right to riot.
Thanks in advance.
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: your McVeigh example, I'm not going to concede that terrorists are always wrong. Though McVeigh's cause was pretty irrational:
We can thank "terrorists" for:
(1) an Ireland free of British control
(2) the State of Israel (the Irgun)
(3) slowing down Nazi atrocities in Europe (the resistance movements were branded as "terrorists")
(4) the American Revolution, for better or worse
Ultimately, I'm against technology that makes it easier for governments to crush rebellion and civil unrest, because the two are sometimes good, proper, and necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
We can thank "terrorists" for:
(1) an Ireland free of British control
(2) the State of Israel (the Irgun)
(3) slowing down Nazi atrocities in Europe (the resistance movements were branded as "terrorists")
(4) the American Revolution, for better or worse
In none of these instances were the insurgents allowed to protest peacefully, nor were they able to change the system democratically
Re: (Score:2)
We can thank "terrorists" for:
(1) an Ireland free of British control
(2) the State of Israel (the Irgun)
(3) slowing down Nazi atrocities in Europe (the resistance movements were branded as "terrorists")
(4) the American Revolution, for better or worse
In none of these instances were the insurgents allowed to protest peacefully, nor were they able to change the system democratically
Ireland had a Home Rule party that was gaining support & ground. However things took a turn for the worse with the outbreak of WW1 and the decision by Irish republicans to stage an uprising while Britain was deeply entangled in the war effort.
That just wasn't ever going to end well.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is taking a picture in public.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) It doesn't work that way -- rather than firing cops or reducing numbers via retirement, their unions will just make sure that more things are criminalized to keep them relevant.
(2) Windows 8, sure? IQ 80? Nah, they'd be more likely to be a danger to the public, like those yobs in Mesa who shot a man crawling in a corridor.
(3) These laws exist to keep the low-information nanny staters, petty Puritans, and do-gooders happy. You can't entirely toss them, but you can make them harder to enforce.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why you should be suspicious of anything that makes the police's work easier. That door swings both ways.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if you could give at least ONE reason why you're concerned about this technology specifically, rather than tangential factors.
It makes mistakes easier to justify and excuse.
"Well, the system SAID he was Felonious Monk. We're sorry he died in custody, but we were just doing our jobs."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to imagine it; I've already experienced it.
And another example of this is what happened to James Blake [youtube.com], professional tennis player.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
How does this tech make that easier? Currently you can just get a cop to "ID" the guy you're gunning for. With this software you have to convince an IT guy to make the software ID the guy you're gunning for. I don't see the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
And you can't do that by having undercover cops follow them around?
Of course you can. So how does this make the problem worse? Are you worried that instead of using it for targeted persecution, they'll just arrest everyone? That ought to work well. Nothing says "economic growth" like locking up 90% of your population.
Re: (Score:2)
The US already wastes a lot of money locking up 4x-5x the amount of people per capita (about 1% of adults) compared to the rest of the world. This is by design -- it keeps the rest of the people scared of stepping outside the lines.
Possible sentences of 50+ years for being a journalist who filmed a protest but didn't damage property tend to do that to people. It also serves the purpose of selectively criminalizing certain ethnic groups and making it more difficult to find jobs (with criminal records) in f
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
Not at all; you can already do that. How do you think warrants work? There are databases which list known fugitives, and police use those databases to figure out who to arrest. If you convince someone to enter a warrant into the system, they will be arrested the next time a cop pulls them over, or recognises them from the photo.
Adding computerised facial recognition into the mix does nothing except decrease the amount of time it takes to locate the person you've targeted.
Birthday paradox (Score:2)
If I compare 25 people's birthdays to one another, I have a 50% chance of getting a match. That's because I compare one person with 25 others, another with 24, another with 23, and so on. That's with a 1:365 chance of sucess on a single trial (0.27%).
Now try this with a few thousand "people of interest" out of 25 billion.
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
... can't go to work and lose your job and because you were in jail...
Uh, this is illegal, so no.
Re: (Score:2)
*golf clap*
Nice one. For a moment I thought you were serious.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that be relevant? People make false positives all the time, too
A 1% false positive rate of a few dozen claims makes it rare, less than 1 per case.
A 1% false positive rate of a few billion peoples photos makes it common, around 10 million people false positives per case.
Why are you dumb?
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
A 1% false positive rate of a few billion peoples photos makes it common, around 10 million people false positives per case.
You better hire another 20 million cops to make all those arrests then.
Why are you dumb?
Because you're a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
The false positive is a lot lower to the point of being better than humans. Tip lines get a bunch of calls and are primarily false positives, the only way tip lines help is by using humans to further narrow down the false positives to likely positives and correlate with other data such as crime scenes, personal information and confirmed sightings.
Re: (Score:3)
A 1% false positive rate of a few dozen claims makes it rare, less than 1 per case. A 1% false positive rate of a few billion peoples photos makes it common, around 10 million people false positives per case.
Since the Chinese aren't big on privacy I'm guessing they'd pair it with cell phone location/call data and potentially other electronic traces. The last figures I found said 1.39 billion cell phone subscriptions to 1.38 billion people, so for the vast majority of people you already have their approximate location. So after you've eliminated all the very likely matches to a cell phone and excluded all the unlikely matches because they're somewhere else, made some reasonable assumption on how far anyone that'
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that be relevant? People make false positives all the time, too, and presumably these are double-checked by the actual cops making the arrest, the prosecutor bringing the case, and the judge and jury involved in assessing his guilt.
Just because it happens says nothing about whether making it happen more is beneficial or not.
There is an increase of documented cases of people are being harassed by LEAs and falsely imprisoned simply for being on losing end of the "birthday paradox" lottery. Instances of crazy unlikely coincidences are even starting to show up in DNA database searches.
Hard to imagine all coincidences that would arise from automated large scale facial recognition systems.
And when you lose the lottery prosecutors will assu
Re: And how many were false positives? (Score:2)
See, that's superficially a very reasonable argument, but aren't you looking at the wrong problem?
The actual problem is "we have a lot of false positives" combined with "people don't understand statistics very well". And your solution is "we shouldn't look so hard"?
Wouldn't the better solution be to work on improving accuracy while simultaneously working to improve the ability of our justice system to weed out and reject the remaining false positives?
To me your argument sounds a lot like saying "well a lot
Re: (Score:2)
See, that's superficially a very reasonable argument, but aren't you looking at the wrong problem?
The actual problem is "we have a lot of false positives" combined with "people don't understand statistics very well". And your solution is "we shouldn't look so hard"?
Wouldn't the better solution be to work on improving accuracy while simultaneously working to improve the ability of our justice system to weed out and reject the remaining false positives?
To me your argument sounds a lot like saying "well a lot of drivers get killed in accidents, therefore we shouldn't put more cars on the road". I mean, sure, that's one way to address the problem, but it's pretty ass backwards.
I understand the argument. I just don't believe it to be reasonable to achieve. Simply deploying technology is easy. Changing fundamental dynamics of legal systems is not. "Simultaneously" in my opinion is a wish that stands no chance of being achieved.
There is a difference between philosophy - the world we want and the world we actually have. We all have to live in the context of our time like it or not.
REAL SCARY. (Score:3, Interesting)
The end is near.
Fair Warning to The World. (Score:2)
DON'T let your picture ever hit the internet.
Re: (Score:1)
As soon as you pass the border checkpoint, they will just scan your passport and have your name,DOB and photo.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you pass the border checkpoint, they will just scan your passport and have your name,DOB and photo.
China takes a picture of you as you enter and leave. That is in addition to the picture they make you submit with your visa application. One trip to China means they have at least 3 pictures of you. Also, US takes a picture of you as you enter now, too.
Re: (Score:2)
TOO late!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? if you've been out in public, your face is almost definitely somewhere on the internet. Security cameras store to the cloud. Dumbasses taking selfies as you walk by automatically upload every photo to the internet.
Have you walked past or used an ATM? Your picture is probably on the internet. Have you ever gone to a bar or restaurant? If not from a security camera discretely placed in there, there's a very good chance that some dumbass posting their dinner to instragram caught you in their p
The Future is here! (Score:3)
How long will it take (Score:3)
until it is implemented in "other countries" - like the USA - just for your security. Running around with a face mask will make you even more suspect.
Looks like a high %ige of current population will support it as well - fear for crack-pots blowing up surroundings etc. and the bad people (rapists, criminals, gang members) coming into this country...
It all works out just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
until it is implemented in "other countries" - like the USA - just for your security.
Oh, you can be fairly certain that this is used in the US already.
We'll just have to wait for the release of Wikileaks Vault 11 for confirmation.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I see that you got modded flamebait, but it appears to be true that members of ethnic groups that a person does not have much to do with do appear to "look alike". Our built-in facial recognition system appears to become fine-tuned to work with the faces that surround us, and is less efficient at other facial types.
So for someone who hardly ever meet different ethnic Chinese, distinguishing the faces of Chinese can indeed be hard. And I'm sure the opposite is true too - to a Chinese who has not seen or met many Westerners, they may have a hard time telling them apart, unless there are severe differences like "beard vs shaven", "black vs white" or visible deformities.
Likewise, it appears to be harder to estimate the age of people from ethnic groups one is unfamiliar with.
This might be an opportunity.for facial recognition to assist us, throwing up the name, age and some short info on people when it can be determined. It might even help some people tell Bill Murray and Tom Hanks apart.
Re: (Score:2)
Let the truth be known at last!
Tom Hanks and Bill Murray are, in fact _the_same_person!!!
In unrelated news (Score:1)
It turns out Apple's face recognition can't tell Chinese people apart
https://www.theinquirer.net/in... [theinquirer.net]
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is nothing more than the usual slashdot bullshit. Someone found two women in China who were similar enough. Big news.
Re: (Score:2)
No! It shows Apple Corporation are saying all Chinese people look alike to them.
Which makes them RACISTS!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bad news? (Score:2)
Facebook has way more than 1,8 Billion photos that many people are more than happy to tag with identities. I checked and something like 300 million photos a day. Of course they're not all people, but I'd guess there are plenty of them.
Odds are high that the photos, EXIF information and tags/names have probably already been sold to "various agencies"
Re: (Score:2)
I recently tried to log into Facebook to try to delete my account since I haven't used it for years. They made me go through a series of photos and name people in the photos. Each page of photos had 3 or 4 separate photos who were all supposed to be the same person for me to identify. Unfortunately, most of the time, the people in the photos were different... very different... children and dogs or completely different people (often of different sexes).
Complete fail. I wasn't able to log in. No loss.
Cause and effect ... (Score:2)
... photos don't create criminals.
BOLO is a thing whether it works at a snail's pace or the speed of light
Facial recognition is not the same as fingerprinting or DNA, but it's pretty damned close.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem comes when you're able to automatically or semi-automatically ID anyone committing any sort of transgression (jaywalking, public smoking, etc) and send fines. Also, make a map of people's movements -- right now, someone who wants to stay anonymous simply leaves the phone at home.
BOLO is used for serious crimes. Being able to ID people committing minor offenses will lead to a boring, rigid society, as well as being a boon for rapacious governments.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, what else would you expect from a country where there is no legal opposition?
Re: (Score:2)
BOLO is used for serious crimes.
Like the one we issued for an elderly man who left his home?
Being able to ID people committing minor offenses ...
Minor to whom?
... will lead to a boring, rigid society ...
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed ... Singapore, which is painstakingly law-abiding vs NYC or Prague. One is Disneyland, the other two are more interesting to live in.
Minor offenses? Things that shouldn't be crimes, except for the ideas of Puritan Christian, Muslim and/or Confucian killjoys.
Re: (Score:2)
So no citation.
=33 (Score:2)
2017-1984=33. It just arrived in a different place and at a different time than Orwell envisioned.
Modern Efficient East Germany (Score:2)
There was a movie a few years back detailing the history of East Germany and they had some people go thru the archives of what had been collected about them before the reunification. The chinese have just discovered a much more efficient way to collect data. It is already in the US to some extent with toll tags keeping track of many peoples movements and of course lots of cameras. I thought the US cameras were only reviewed on demand. I'm sure we will buy this from china and keep track of people like we do
Offenders asking for democracy will be arrested... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's face it: The times when totalitarian regimes could be toppled by "the people" are over. The technology allowing even small groups in power to suppress all kinds of opposition is already available, it is getting "better" and more broadly deployed by the month, and it is there to stay.
"Freedom" had its brief stint in human history, but in a few decades from now nobody will remember what it was. And given how parents today raise children used to permanent observation, the grownups by then will probably never have experienced freedom first and, and won't know what they are missing.
Re:Offenders asking for democracy will be arrested (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it just raises the threshold of rage required to do so. There's a point where people, including the police, stop giving a shit and turn out into the streets. Who will enforce the dictator's will if the police aren't even willing to and everything stops?
It happened in Romania in 1989 -- Ceausescu got an unexpected Christmas present of lead and the people got freedom for Christmas.
Re: (Score:2)
Who will enforce the dictator's will if the police aren't even willing to and everything stops?
If necessary, automated drones and (soon to become mandatory) implants will easily discipline (or eliminate) any member of the public service that dares to deviate from his supervisors will.
And attempts to conspire (between the usually many distinct services a totalitarian regime sets up in order to make sure any one of them has to fear the others) will be detected before anyone could even convince a hand full of people to join his cause.
But the fear of not being able to sustain a life if one's "social
Re: (Score:2)
"Freedom" had its brief stint in human history, but in a few decades from now nobody will remember what it was. And given how parents today raise children used to permanent observation, the grownups by then will probably never have experienced freedom first and, and won't know what they are missing.
TV is preparing kids for this future. Ever seen a show called "Special Agent Oso"? They have surveillance cameras in drones that look like ladybugs watching the children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think hindering technology based on policy needs can be a VERY good idea -- sometimes society is not ready for a technology. Just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD. One of the driving forces towards criminal justice reform after 2009 was the cost of policing and incarceration. Change that equation, and reform stops.
Same with self-driving cars -- they have the potential to be a privacy and surveillance nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The images of a driver, their passenger down a main road, cell phone collection, voice prints, front and back vehicle registration plate.
Every illegal migrant could be caught in near real time but for some reason is not.