Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Crime Government Privacy

Facial Recognition Algorithms -- Plus 1.8 Billion Photos -- Leads to 567 Arrests in China (scmp.com) 168

Posted by EditorDavid from the face-the-music dept.
"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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facial Recognition Algorithms -- Plus 1.8 Billion Photos -- Leads to 567 Arrests in China More

Facial Recognition Algorithms -- Plus 1.8 Billion Photos -- Leads to 567 Arrests in China

Comments Filter:

  • POI (Score:3)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Saturday December 16, 2017 @04:40PM (#55752353)
    This is so 'Person of Interest'.

  • And how many were false positives? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sehlat ( 180760 ) on Saturday December 16, 2017 @04:43PM (#55752363)

    I think we all have an interest in that figure for the upcoming debates on implementing 1984 as an operations manual in this country.

    • 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)

        by sehlat ( 180760 ) on Saturday December 16, 2017 @05:23PM (#55752521)

        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?

        • 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

          • 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

            • 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

              • That's essentially what the US Bill of Rights was intended to be -- a limit on police powers. The concept has a long history.

                • 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

                  • 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. 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.

                    • 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

                    • Noone ever goes after jaywalkers. Would you please stop with the drama?

                    • We shoot people in the US for not wearing seatbelts.
                    • In New York and Boston, maybe. In Atlanta and Phoenix, people have been literally run down and tackled for jaywalking by cop trash.

                    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

                      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 )

                      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.

                    • 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)

                      by Anonymous Coward

                      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

                    • Exactly, local cops in the US and the yokels that employ them are mostly money-grubbing filth.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by haruchai ( 17472 )

                      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.

                    • better yet, keep the pigs too powerless to enforce such things.
                  • The problem is, using facial recognition makes it highly likely a person who is picked up on that basis will greatly resemble the actual criminal. There was a funny picture going around the Internet at one point of a black news anchorman having an uncanny resemblance to the police artist sketch of the suspect that was displayed in a picture in picture over the news persons shoulder.

                    And while the police should know the limitations of the technology and just treat identified people as "persons of interest"

                    • And I'm sure that any of us on Slashdot could list half a dozen countries off the top of our heads that have long standing policies of repressing its peoples and using violence to silence dissent.

                      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]
                    • I think the problem in your examples, as in most cases, as that people in authority tend to conflate dissent as an attack on their authority and that any attack on their authority is also an attack against the nation. The problem becomes even worse and harder to combat when the dissent conflicts with the authority figures personal convictions.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by haruchai ( 17472 )

                    "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]

              • You need to keep in mind the way humans function. A skill set not utilized will diminish over time, while a skill set heavily utilized will improve, at least up to a certain point. Maybe you'll catch more jaywalkers, but more murderers will likely walk free because the entire force is at a Barney Fife level of competence.

            • Snap a picture of protesters.

              In the US, protesting is not illegal.

              • 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.

                • 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.

                  • Yep, I'm insane and proud of it. Sometimes, people need to have the truth rubbed in their faces. If it causes you or anyone else a bit of inconvenience, too bad. Vote for people that will change the law so people won't have to block highways to make their point.

                • 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...

                • 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]

                  • 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.

                    • 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?

                    • 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.

              • Neither is taking a picture in public.

          • This technology doesn't cause the problem, but it certainly exacerbates it and grows the power of the people who are currently burning people.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sehlat ( 180760 )

            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."

          • 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.

        • I'm more concerned about it being done intentionally to people who are politically "dangerous." Think about all the political "criminals" that were thrown in gulags in Russia.

          • 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.

            • For starters, if you are tracking someone with facial tech, you can find something that at least appears criminal with enough justification to bring them in. Follow someone around all day, and you can eventually find them doing something that you can jail them for.

              • 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.

                • 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

        • 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

        • ... can't go to work and lose your job and because you were in jail...

          Uh, this is illegal, so no.

      • 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.

        *golf clap*
        Nice one. For a moment I thought you were serious.

      • 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?

        • 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.

        • 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)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )

          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'

      • 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

        • 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

          • 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)

    by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 ) on Saturday December 16, 2017 @04:43PM (#55752367)

    The end is near.

  • DON'T let your picture ever hit the internet.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As soon as you pass the border checkpoint, they will just scan your passport and have your name,DOB and photo.

      • 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)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      TOO late!

    • 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)

    by McFortner ( 881162 ) on Saturday December 16, 2017 @04:48PM (#55752379)
    Chinese tested, Big Brother approved! Double-plus good!

  • How long will it take (Score:3)

    by no-body ( 127863 ) on Saturday December 16, 2017 @05:01PM (#55752437)

    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.

    • 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.

  • Wow (Score:4, Funny)

    by dcollins117 ( 1267462 ) on Saturday December 16, 2017 @05:18PM (#55752499)
    This is really impressive considering they all look alike.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Saturday December 16, 2017 @05:58PM (#55752689) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by phayes ( 202222 )

        Let the truth be known at last!

        Tom Hanks and Bill Murray are, in fact _the_same_person!!!

  • It turns out Apple's face recognition can't tell Chinese people apart

    https://www.theinquirer.net/in... [theinquirer.net]

    • Apple says that one in a million random people can unlock your phone with their face. The woman in the article may work with say 50 colleagues. If you take 20,000 women like her, then you can expect one to have a colleague who looks similar enough .

      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.

      • No! It shows Apple Corporation are saying all Chinese people look alike to them.

        Which makes them RACISTS!

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • 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)

      by mspohr ( 589790 )

      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.

  • ... 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.

    • 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)

        by ffkom ( 3519199 )
        You should have mentioned that China is already set to implement just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        And of course, what else would you expect from a country where there is no legal opposition?

      • 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]

        • 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.

  • =33 (Score:2)

    by h8sg8s ( 559966 )

    2017-1984=33. It just arrived in a different place and at a different time than Orwell envisioned.

  • 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)

    by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Sunday December 17, 2017 @09:01AM (#55754913)
    ... as quickly and efficiently.

    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)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Sunday December 17, 2017 @11:15AM (#55755243)
      Let's face it: The times when totalitarian regimes could be toppled by "the people" are over.

      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)

        by ffkom ( 3519199 )

        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

    • "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.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close