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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Security

Taylor Swift Used Facial Recognition Tech At Concerts To Spy On Stalkers (boingboing.net) 147

Posted by BeauHD from the extra-set-of-eyes dept.
AmiMoJo shares a report: Taylor Swift used facial recognition technology at her live performances so that technicians running the system could then check those face scans against a private database of her stalkers. There is now big demand for serious security at live events the size of a Taylor Swift concert. There have been so many bombings and mass shootings at music concerts over the past year to even remember without Googling. Fear of being killed at a music concert is something people factor in to the decision to buy tickets and go to live events. The demand for security is real.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Taylor Swift Used Facial Recognition Tech At Concerts To Spy On Stalkers More

Taylor Swift Used Facial Recognition Tech At Concerts To Spy On Stalkers

Comments Filter:

  • I woudn't want anyone to know I attended either (Score:5, Funny)

    by OffTheLip ( 636691 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @08:03AM (#57815904)
    This is an outrage!

    • Exactly. All this will lead to is bad blood that will be hard to just shake off.

    • This is an outrage!

      This is also becoming increasingly common.

      London police are using unmarked facial recognition vans right now to identify Christmas shoppers on 17 and 18 December 2018.

      Even though Big Brother Watch claims the tech had 100% fail rate since May, UK's London Metropolitan Police are deploying the tech today and tomorrow in three tourist hotspots - Soho, Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square.

      References:
      Statement from Metropolitan Police [police.uk]
      The Register article [theregister.co.uk]
      Metro article (London newspaper) [metro.co.uk]

  • They're all stalkers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @08:13AM (#57815936)

    Taylor Swift used facial recognition technology at her live performances so that technicians running the system could then check those face scans against a private database of her stalkers.

    Umm, pretty much anyone who is a Taylor Swift fan willing to actually pay to see her concert would qualify as a stalker - including teenage girls. They bulk of her fan base has an unhealthy obsession with her and her rather uninteresting music. They don't need facial recognition, just a camera or ask for ID at the door. The only question is how creepy are they.

    Seriously, if true this is either a star taking herself WAY too seriously or some security asshat who got a new shiny toy to pay with and convinced an overpayed prima-donna to pay for it.

    • Indeed. Sadly, this is the way Orwellian surveillance is often deployed, trading a little safety for a lot of privacy... and sometimes only the illusion of safety.

      To what end? Separating rabid fans (fanatics) from genuine evildoers and then eradicating the perceived threats? That sounds like the sort of pseudo-military exercise likely to incur more civilian casualties than the one-off concert shooter...

      • You think you have an expectation of privacy at a massive concert?

        Your complaint sounds a lot like the people I know who complained that red-light cameras would mean the government would know what car they drive....because they forgot about the whole vehicle registration thing and "bolting a unique ID to the outside of their car" thing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megol ( 3135005 )

        That line of thought makes me think you are very happy.

    • She really does have criminal level stalkers (Score:5, Informative)

      by Koreantoast ( 527520 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @08:28AM (#57815998)
      To be fair to Swift, she really does have some crazy stalkers, including people who break into her home and take naps in her living room, harass her family, and legal restraining order type of crazy. [popculture.com] Concerts are one of the few openings they have where they can try to get close, so these systems are probably being used for that specific slice of risk. Yes, they can check at the door, but given that many have resorted to criminal actions to try and get close, it wouldn't be surprising if some tried to sneak in through other means. It is after all a private event, private venue, with video consent already given.

      That said, it's still creepy, and given how the Chinese have used the system to sweep up enemies of the state [bbc.com], I'm not sure I feel comfortable with this.

      • To be fair to Swift, she really does have some crazy stalkers

        So does pretty much every other celebrity of her stature and that is nothing new.

        Concerts are one of the few openings they have where they can try to get close

        Are you kidding me? If they want to get close there are far better ways to do it than at a concert though I understand some may try. The only difference is that they know her location at least for the duration of the concert but that's not really a novel problem. Big venues like the one's she plays are used to keeping things secure for popular musicians as well as people who are actually important like world leaders. If the

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          So does pretty much every other celebrity of her stature and that is nothing new.

          How does that excuse anything, or justify not using new technology when it becomes available?

          It will be exceptionally easy for even well intentioned governments and private enterprises to abuse.

          That boat sailed long ago. If you think Taylor Swift using it is the tip of the iceberg, I have some bad news for you.

      • > That said, it's still creepy, and given how the Chinese have used the system to sweep up enemies of the state [bbc.com], I'm not sure I feel comfortable with this.

        I'm not sure it's the same thing at all, it's a private venue where people are actively choosing to go attend a concert, and as others have pointed out she does have deranged stalkers - and there is a long history of deranged stalkers attacking, injuring and even killing the objects of their obsession. So in this case I'd say whatever she ne

      • " To be fair to Swift, she really does have some crazy stalkers, including people who break into her home and take naps in her living room, harass her family, and legal restraining order type of crazy. "

        To be fair, becoming a celebrity comes with a price.
        It isn't all glory and riches, you give up nearly all of your private life and are pretty much under the spotlight 24/7.

        If you're unwilling or unable to deal with this, you might want to consider a different career.

        • To be fair, becoming a celebrity comes with a price.

          Harassing / stalking isn't part of the price. Nothing justifies that.

          If you're unwilling or unable to deal with this, you might want to consider a different career.

          Seems like she's dealing with it just fine.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      just a camera or ask for ID at the door

      The trouble is a lot of her fans are minors. So many of them actually are not going to have any sort of reasonably tamper/forgery resistant identification.

      A 16 year old could be as dangerous to her as an adult. An adult stalker might pose as a minor concert goer without ID. So I can see in this instant why being able to positively identify individuals on the "No admittance list" using methods other than asking for ID would be required.

      In the past this form of facial recognition would have been implemented

      • The trouble is a lot of her fans are minors. So many of them actually are not going to have any sort of reasonably tamper/forgery resistant identification.

        I was joking about the ID at the door. Joke is that anyone willing to pay to see her performance already has an unhealthy obsession with her so basically it's an audience of 100% stalkers. The only real question is how crazy are they?

        The question is the data being correlated and stored or not.

        When it comes to facial recognition and it's abuses that is among the least of my concerns.

    • Did you even read the summary? The face scans are compared to a database of her stalkers. Meaning that there is a list of people that have previously harassed her and probably been told to stay away. I would imagine many famous people have stalkers.

      • Did you even read the summary?

        Do you understand sarcasm or jokes?

        The face scans are compared to a database of her stalkers.

        Duh. It wouldn't be a very useful technology if it didn't. You can't recognize someone you haven't previously seen.

        I would imagine many famous people have stalkers.

        Of course they do. It's not a new problem. It's also not clear that this technology provides any meaningful additional safety to the performer. It's not as if you hear about performers getting assaulted by their fans at concerts very often. Big venues tend to do security very well and they did so long before automated facial recognition was even a possib

        • Do you understand sarcasm or jokes?

          There's a reason people put "/sarc" at the end. Sarcasm, like facetiousness, doesn't translate well to print. Your upper post read like a statement of belief.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by sjbe ( 173966 )

            There's a reason people put "/sarc" at the end. Sarcasm, like facetiousness, doesn't translate well to print. Your upper post read like a statement of belief.

            Welcome to the internet. Sometimes you just don't get the joke. Happens to all of us sometimes. You are not the first person with that revelation.

            • Ah yes, the Internet. Where all you have to do is type "It was a joke" to remove any culpability for a lack of clear writing or to even reverse the point of a comment.

              • Ah yes, the Internet. Where all you have to do is type "It was a joke" to remove any culpability for a lack of clear writing or to even reverse the point of a comment.

                Ahh the internet where people will continue to get their underwear in a bunch about a joke they didn't get even after it is pointed out to them that they didn't get it.

                If you don't have something better to do than argue about this then you need to get yourself a hobby or better yet a date.

            • Was it a joke when you wrote "Seriously" or are you trying to cover up?

        • Do you understand sarcasm or jokes?

          You wrote:

          Seriously, if true this is either a star taking herself WAY too seriously or some security asshat who got a new shiny toy to pay with and convinced an overpayed prima-donna to pay for it.

          I understand sarcasm but when you write "Seriously" that is not sarcasm. My guess is that you are trying to desperately frame what you wrote as sarcasm even when you did not intend that way.

          Of course they do. It's not a new problem. It's also not clear that this technology provides any meaningful additional safety to the performer. It's not as if you hear about performers getting assaulted by their fans at concerts very often. Big venues tend to do security very well and they did so long before automated facial recognition was even a possibility.

          Let me summarize your points: first you call her "a prima donna" for trying to protect herself from stalkers. Then you question about any measures she takes about whether they would be effective and down play any risk even though stalkers have gotten close to her in the past.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        Right but that is a black list - NOT different than having humans watching cameras.

        What I would want to know is: if someone buys a ticket say with credit card do that attach the name to the ticket number (of course they do; will call etc) and when you present the ticket do the sample your face and stored that data with the identifying information they already have or do they just check you are NOT one of the barred individuals. THAT is a big difference.

        • What I would want to know is: if someone buys a ticket say with credit card do that attach the name to the ticket number (of course they do; will call etc) and when you present the ticket do the sample your face and stored that data with the identifying information they already have or do they just check you are NOT one of the barred individuals. THAT is a big difference.

          The way I understand the system is that it has nothing to do with scanning people who buy tickets. The face scans are on people who are present at her concert. They are matched with previous scans presumably from pictures of her known stalkers. Your system seems unnecessarily complicated.

        • What I would want to know is: if someone buys a ticket say with credit card do that attach the name to the ticket number (of course they do; will call etc) and when you present the ticket do the sample your face and stored that data with the identifying information

          Barring any evidence, the answer to that is "no". Also, she does not eat baby flesh backstage before concerts, by the same logic.

    • Why do you think it's either-or? It sounds to me more like a symbiotic relationship.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JASegler ( 2913 )

      Facial recognition technology at scale is what worries me. I feel most people have the same basic concern although we may disagree on the scale where the problem starts.

      Deploying this technology to gate keep against people who have or have threatened to hurt/kidnap/kill/etc someone that is going to be the center of attention at an event I don't see an issue with. To me that is a focused proactive attempt to prevent a situation balanced with that persons desire to continue on as normal as possible.

      Now you

    • Umm, pretty much anyone who is a Taylor Swift fan willing to actually pay to see her concert would qualify as a stalker

      Or maybe they have different tastes in music than you and you should keep your opinions to yourself. Frankly I'm not into it, but I won't claim that she isn't a very talented singer and from what I've glanced at in the occasional clips she's capable of putting on a good show.

  • Not spying if there's consent (Score:5, Informative)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @08:14AM (#57815946)

    To get into a concert you have to agree to their ToS, which explicitly allows them to record/capture images and likenesses.

    It's not spying if you consent.

    • Depending on where you live (especially the UK), as you go about your daily life, the chances are that you're recorded on a bunch of CCTV's. Some private, some not. Of course, only a tiny number of them actually have face recognition abilities but it's a bit scary if you think about it

      Unless face recognition has made some incredible improvements, I bet 95%+ of their 'hits' are false positives, especially at a concert with 10,000+ people all milling through a small number of entrances, wearing scarves,

    • Re:Not spying if there's consent (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Can'tNot ( 5553824 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @10:18AM (#57816522)
      It's not consent if it's buried in some ToS.

      I did find the wording here interesting though, I read another headline: "Swift uses facial recognition to track her stalkers at concerts." ... That's a telling change, but neither one of these headlines is really capturing the problem here. Maybe another headline would be a little more accurate: "Swift uses facial recognition to track tens of thousands of people, a few of which are stalkers."

      • It's not consent if it's buried in some ToS.

        It's also common sense. Did you think that if her official people happen to capture an image of you during the concert (say gathering footage for a video or documentary) they have to look the 15,321 people in the audience and get their written approval?

    • To get into a concert you have to agree to their ToS, which explicitly allows them to record/capture images and likenesses.

      It's not spying if you consent.

      It's not spying if it's bloody obvious. The number of concerts recorded or photographed basically mean you're as good as in a public place as far as people's right to take a photo of you.

  • Because otherwise ami is slipping hard. Reads like a Google translation from golgafrinchian.

    • Reads like a Google translation from golgafrinchian.

      We're going back there, we're going back....

  • The demand is real (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Daralantan ( 5305713 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @08:40AM (#57816046)

    There have been so many bombings and mass shootings at music concerts over the past year to even remember without Googling. Fear of being killed at a music concert is something people factor in to the decision to buy tickets and go to live events. The demand for security is real.

    While I agree that even one shooting is too many... I look at this and feel like the wording makes it sound like a bombing or shooting at a concert takes place very 2-3 days. I doubt very many people think that if they go to a concert that they are likely be part of a mass murder.

    • Re:The demand is real (Score:4, Informative)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @09:01AM (#57816136)

      While I agree that even one shooting is too many... I look at this and feel like the wording makes it sound like a bombing or shooting at a concert takes place very 2-3 days. I doubt very many people think that if they go to a concert that they are likely be part of a mass murder.

      Hmm, 2018 mass shootings at concerts....

      Nope, there weren't any. Closest was a series of shootings at Mardi Gras. Three dead, in unrelated instances, only a "mass shooting" if you define Mardi Gras as a single event (as opposed to a 24+hour party covering the whole city)....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jabuzz ( 182671 )

        Do suicide bombers count?

      • Maybe this article was written early 2018 but only published last week? Or did they throw in the "without Googling" as a genuine attempt to hope that people wouldn't check them on their lies?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I guess they meant the last few years. Paris, Manchester, Las Vegas... Seems like security has got better in 2018, but of course parent's are still worried when their kids want them to buy them Taylor Swift tickets.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

        Hmm, 2018 mass shootings at concerts....

        Nope, there weren't any. Closest was a series of shootings at Mardi Gras.

        Let's not count Thousand Oaks [usatoday.com], because that music was pre-recorded...

        Let's not count San Diego's attempted shooting [cbsnews.com], because the concert hadn't started and only the gunman died...

        Let's not count threats against concerts [complex.com], because that concert was cancelled...

        Yep. No problems in 2018.

    • Even if that were the concern, this technology doesn't help that problem at all. This is facial recognition identifying known threats to the performer in the crowd. The two mass killings at concerts in the last 5 years that come to my mind are the Las Vegas shooting in 2017 and the Paris attacks in 2015. Neither of those were perpetuated by stalkers. Nether of those were perpetuated by members of the concert-going crowd. None of the attackers in either case were in a place where facial recognition of t

    • >"While I agree that even one shooting is too many... I look at this and feel like the wording makes it sound like a bombing or shooting at a concert takes place very 2-3 days. I doubt very many people think that if they go to a concert that they are likely be part of a mass murder."

      Exactly. +100 Insightful. I came to post just that. What a superbly distorted and inaccurate statement that was made. One is probably way more than 100,000 times more likely to die in a car accident traveling to the venue

  • "Spy" on stalkers? Really? (Score:3)

    by Daemonik ( 171801 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @08:41AM (#57816048) Homepage
    That's an interesting take on how this tech was being used. How about "monitor individuals that might pose a danger to her" eh? We're talking about delusional individuals who have no boundaries, are fixated on her and probably keep diaries of how often she poops. Why try to make Taylor seem like the nefarious one here subbie?

  • besides, can it see through my neck beard?

  • There are other bands out there that have a different message. Swift is a pawn providing the justification to use this technology on the people who attend concerts. Association with a particular type of pattern of thought from a group of individuals is great marketing information. Besides that, why just spy on people when you can change the way they think?

    This is the beginning of the tiresome patterns of events that continually attack our rights, in western countries, of free speech and free associatio

    • What rights you do you think you have that block facial recognition tech in a private concert at a private venue, where you already consented to the photo/video recording of your likeness?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      What rights you do you think you have that block facial recognition tech in a private concert at a private venue, where you already consented to the photo/video recording of your likeness?

      My image is not my identity. I do not consent to the use of my identity and people's identities were clearly being used to scan for certain identities. Can you show me in the terms and conditions of purchasing a ticket where that consent was given for the use of identity for anything other than completing the purchase of a ticket?

      Perhaps you can tell me where in the article that consent was sought whilst they were viewing Swift preparing? Was it on top of the screen perhaps saying that facial recognit

  • Against the men she stalks in her endless campaign of serial dating.

    Seriously, Taylor would be hot. Except that she rates herself several points above her own looks. Thus rating a -5.

  • There have been so many bombings and mass shootings at music concerts over the past year to even remember without Googling.

    So... one? I mean, I can only remember one shooting and zero bombings without googling and I'm not even sure if that one was within the past year. We have a lot of mass shootings and I can't be expected to remember them all. Or, was that your point?

  • Dear general population, we are moving into a society where your entire life will be monitored and profiled. Here is another reason we've come up with for you to just accept it.
  • The story feels a bit like fear mongering with its reference to "spying on stalkers", as if their privacy is somehow being infringed upon. A better phrasing would be something like "this tech is being used to protect the artist from potential harm by over zealous fans". But I guess that doesn't have quite the same "click-baity" feel.

  • I mean yeah Rammstein put on a lot of pyrotechnics displays at their concerts, but I don't think a single Taylor Swift fan has ever even remotely taking the possibility of death into consideration for any concert they have ever booked.

    Seriously who comes up with this? The Ministry for Keeping People Perpetually Afraid (a subsidiary of FoxNews) ?

  • Um . . . no (Score:3)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Monday December 17, 2018 @01:00PM (#57817874)

    " Fear of being killed at a music concert is something people factor in to the decision to buy tickets and go to live events. "

    Contrary to the hysteria the media likes to cause when such things happen, I don't typically factor in the " am I going to die "
    variable when I go somewhere or do something. The media makes it sound like folks are squaring off in the streets daily like
    something out of an old Western movie or something.

    Truth is, the odds of being involved in a mass shooting are right up there with getting hit by lightning. . . . twice.
    ( Unless you're a gang-banger in Chicago, then the odds go up a bit )

    However, back to the main topic:

    I don't really have any issues with her using facial recognition tech as long as that is disclosed at the time you purchase your tickets.
    She might find that folks may have enough of an issue with it that they may simply pass on her concert.

    Enough folks start passing and she may rethink how she does security.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close