New Site Extracts and Posts Every Face from Parler's Capitol Hill Insurrection Videos (arstechnica.com) 433
"Late last week, a website called Faces of the Riot appeared online, showing nothing but a vast grid of more than 6,000 images of faces, each one tagged only with a string of characters associated with the Parler video in which it appeared," reports WIRED, saying the site raises clear privacy concerns:
The site's creator tells WIRED that he used simple, open source machine-learning and facial recognition software to detect, extract, and deduplicate every face from the 827 videos that were posted to Parler from inside and outside the Capitol building on January 6, the day when radicalized Trump supporters stormed the building in a riot that resulted in five people's deaths. The creator of Faces of the Riot says his goal is to allow anyone to easily sort through the faces pulled from those videos to identify someone they may know, or recognize who took part in the mob, or even to reference the collected faces against FBI wanted posters and send a tip to law enforcement if they spot someone... "It's entirely possible that a lot of people who were on this website now will face real-life consequences for their actions...."
A recent upgrade to the site adds hyperlinks from faces to the video source, so that visitors can click on any face and see what the person was filmed doing on Parler. The Faces of the Riot creator, who says he's a college student in the "greater DC area," intends that added feature to help contextualize every face's inclusion on the site and differentiate between bystanders, peaceful protesters, and violent insurrectionists. He concedes that he and a co-creator are still working to scrub "non-rioter" faces, including those of police and press who were present. A message at the top of the site also warns against vigilante investigations, instead suggesting users report those they recognize to the FBI, with a link to an FBI tip page....
McDonald has previously both criticized the power of facial recognition technology and himself implemented facial recognition projects like ICEspy, a tool he launched in 2018 for identifying agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency... He sees Faces of the Riot as "playing it really safe" compared even to his own facial recognition experiments, given that it doesn't seek to link faces with named identities. "And I think it's a good call because I don't think that we need to legitimize this technology any more than it already is and has been falsely legitimized," McDonald says.
But McDonald also points out that Faces of the Riot demonstrates just how accessible facial recognition technologies have become. "It shows how this tool that has been restricted only to people who have the most education, the most power, the most privilege is now in this more democratized state," McDonald says.
A recent upgrade to the site adds hyperlinks from faces to the video source, so that visitors can click on any face and see what the person was filmed doing on Parler. The Faces of the Riot creator, who says he's a college student in the "greater DC area," intends that added feature to help contextualize every face's inclusion on the site and differentiate between bystanders, peaceful protesters, and violent insurrectionists. He concedes that he and a co-creator are still working to scrub "non-rioter" faces, including those of police and press who were present. A message at the top of the site also warns against vigilante investigations, instead suggesting users report those they recognize to the FBI, with a link to an FBI tip page....
McDonald has previously both criticized the power of facial recognition technology and himself implemented facial recognition projects like ICEspy, a tool he launched in 2018 for identifying agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency... He sees Faces of the Riot as "playing it really safe" compared even to his own facial recognition experiments, given that it doesn't seek to link faces with named identities. "And I think it's a good call because I don't think that we need to legitimize this technology any more than it already is and has been falsely legitimized," McDonald says.
But McDonald also points out that Faces of the Riot demonstrates just how accessible facial recognition technologies have become. "It shows how this tool that has been restricted only to people who have the most education, the most power, the most privilege is now in this more democratized state," McDonald says.
No privacy in public (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't they use it for commercial use?
To protect the income of those (such as actors and models) who derive income from selling the right to use their images for commercial purposes (such as movies and advertisements).
Commercial news outlets (and others discussing factual aspects of political issues in situations that incidentally provide revenue) get a pass when using the images (especially of political public figures) for reportage, editorializing, etc. They're constitutionally protected under the fir
Re: No privacy in public (Score:4, Insightful)
*laugs im GDPR*
The purpose of privacy in public, which, yes, does exist, is to prevent people from halfway around the globe coming to murder you because they disagreed with something you did 20 years ago when you were a very different person.
Let's say some islamic terrorists, in your case. Or hell, just you not getting that job.
It's called forgiveness. It's what developed countries do. Look it up.
Yes, I'm being the devil's advocate right now.
Because even though they were obviously harmful morons, I have hopes that that will change, and for most of them, already started to improve. Don't prevent that, please.
Re: No privacy in public (Score:3)
They said trump had learned his lesson too. He hadn't.
These tools won't either unless there are consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GDPR did not impose privacy in public.
It is perfectly possible under GDPR to photograph someone in public and use that photograph for non-commercial or news reporting purposes.
You do not need their permission.
(Some countries that have implemented GDPR do also have other laws that constrain use of photographs, but those laws predate GDPR and are not a result of it)
Right to not be called a rioter (Score:3)
The name of the site itself implies that the people on there were rioters, even though the vast majority of people who were there that day did not riot, did not invade the capitol, and were just standing or walking around outside.
this becomes increasingly apparent when you dig into the parler data dump, it is from areas all around Washington DC city for the whole day. A lot of these people had nothing at all to do with the attack on the Capitol.
So yes, the name of the site is by itself a problem, and the si
Um ... (Score:5, Interesting)
What's that thing conservatives say about privacy and law enforcement... If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide?
Besides, and more importantly, these photos / videos are of people in very a public space (storming The Capital Building), where there's no presumption.of privacy.
Re: Um ... (Score:2, Flamebait)
So the arguments of your enemies are mighty alright now?
Hello, my newly minted "Republican"!
Re: Um ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Um ... (Score:5, Funny)
If the people didn't want to be identified, perhaps they should've worn a mask? I hear they've been the hottest fashion accessory in 2020.
A perfect example of why this site is problematic (Score:3)
Your comment itself proves the problem with the site.
"these photos / videos are of people in very a public space (storming The Capital Building), "
these photos are not, in fact, all of people storming the Capitol. A large number of the photos are innocent people who had nothing to do with the riots or the rioters. Some of them are not even there for the Trump rally, they were just people in the city. But their faces are all now on a site called "faces of the riot", which implies, as your comment proves, tha
How do we know *ANY* of this is true? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hint: It's customary on the web to link to the original content the discussion is referring to.
Re:How do we know *ANY* of this is true? (Score:4, Informative)
The Wired article, the Ars article and the Slashdot summary don't link the URL for this alleged site, *anywhere*
It's at the end of a simple google search using the term "faces of the riot".
https://facesoftheriot.com/ [facesoftheriot.com]
One possible reason it's not linked; maybe the reporter thinks that making it one step removed from their article protects their ethics when some lunatic turns into a vigilante and heads off to kill someone.
Personally, as an outsider, I think, the USA should draw a line under this period of their history, build a bridge, and get over it. Move on, time for a new chapter rather than keeping the old one burning.
Re:How do we know *ANY* of this is true? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Does that apply equally to killings by those, over last summer, who also burned government infrastructure (such as federal buildings)
Certainly. I don't know about where you live, but where I live all of those identified as committing crimes during the riots are being prosecuted.
created a long-term police-excuded "Capital Hill Autonomous Zone" in a state capitol
If they committed crimes in the process, and those crimes and their perpetrators can be identified, and the acts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, absolutely. Demanding that the mayor keep the police out of an area isn't a crime, though. It's stupid, and the mayor and the police should ignore such requests, but it's not a crime. Any attacks on police trying to ent
Let the wtich hunt begin! (Score:2)
Hi there, my name is Roger.
And I say: Let the witch hunt begin!
Let us all keep those people exactly in that role for the entire rest of their lives! Let's never give them the chance to change or move on! And let's give them justificstion for acting like that, by leading by example: Let's treat them just like they treated others, because treating people like that is wrong!
Because here in the United States of Horton,
we are humans.
And we are *fucking morons*!
-- If Slashdot commenters were honest [youtube.com].
anti-trust, privacy, freespeech, Keller & Doct (Score:2)
On the one hand, justice right so yay?
This podcast with Daphne Keller was the best backgrounder I've run across on the intersection of anti-trust, free speech, privacy, and just plain having healthy spaces online (so that people aren't stewardable into such an idiotic action as the DC mob undertook). https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/recodedecode?selected=VMP3501099770
Re the privacy angle, I keep going back to David Brin's The Transparent Society and it's many tough questions.
And here's one with Daphne Kelle
Lock 'em up! (Score:2)
LOCK 'EM UP!!! (... screamed in righteous fury)
Re: (Score:3)
LOCK 'EM UP!!!
Yes, this is frequently what one does in response to crimes, especially serious ones. Are republicans now against locking up violent offenders too?
Could we please stop normalizing this (Score:3, Insightful)
So, good work I guess, Mr. Subject-of-the-posted-story. You've managed to *actually* marginalize these people, something that was only previously happening in their delusions.
What a piece of shit (Score:4, Insightful)
McDonald has previously both criticized the power of facial recognition technology and himself implemented facial recognition projects like ICEspy, a tool he launched in 2018 for identifying agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency... He sees Faces of the Riot as "playing it really safe" compared even to his own facial recognition experiments, given that it doesn't seek to link faces with named identities. "And I think it's a good call because I don't think that we need to legitimize this technology any more than it already is and has been falsely legitimized," McDonald says.
He recognizes the slippery slope, then shoves us all collectively down it by suggesting we narc on our neighbors like in Stalinist Russia because he doesn't like this particular group of people. Well, neither do I. And some of them broke some laws. Cool beans.
It's still a fucking stupid idea. This will be used against people he agrees with, his neighbors, his family, and his friends. Maybe not today, but you don't get to set limits to "only people I don't like" when you open Pandora's box.
There are many things that can be done, but should not. With great power comes great responsibility, and he just abdicated all responsibility while exercising great power.
Privacy concerns? (Score:3)
These people were in public, committing crimes.
There's no privacy expectation in public or when committing a crime or being on the FBI's most wanted list.
Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
* Hong Kong demonstrators?
* Animal rights activists?
* Gay/trans rights activists?
* Anti/pro abortion campaigners?
* Mens rights activists or feminists?
I just want to make sure you're happy with the idea that demonstrators are fine to dox using public information. I'm fine with that since I'm a nerd who never leaves the house anyway but having seen the late 90s and 00s happen, I'm fairly sure a lot of the above folks won't agree.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure - please post videos of BLM overtaking government buildings and I'm sure he'd be happy to do so. But wait, BLM didn't do that - they protested in the streets (you know, legal nonviolent protest.)
Also, at BLM people wore masks, so, you know, that's going to be much harder.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget CNN's infamous "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests [google.com]" caption.
Not precisely burning down a government building but it gives a flavor of the bias in reporting different events. BLM protests' destructiveness were aggressively minimized, while the Capitol riot has now been given the moniker of "insurrection" and "coup" while the practical effects were nothing of the sort. At no time was the US government credibly under existential threat. One officer fired once, killing a protestor, ending their LAR
Re:Do BLM next (Score:4, Informative)
They attempted to capture sufficient legislators and take them to the gallows they had built outside that they could force the remainder to impose the loser of the election on the majority who voted against him. That's 'insurrection' and an attempt at a coup, the fact that they were laughably incompetent just goes with the territory of being Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would! Please show videos of that. Because the only place I've heard of that happening is Fox News, OANN or NewsMax
Re: (Score:3)
According to your source, over 500 people were arrested in a single day. (This is more than the 0 people arrested during the storming of the capital). Why would the police need help identifying the people they arrested?
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Informative)
Some statues got smashed, and some walls got graffiti'ed. The US government responded by sending secret police into the streets in the middle of the night and bagging and tagging anyone they suspected as being an offender, then get hit with every trumped up charge the municipality can think of.
Meanwhile, the DC crowd forced their way into a government building with the intent to capture some top elected officials. What do those people get? Trespassing charges!
No wonder we're living in a police state! The only thing both sides agree upon is that the other side should have been punished more harshly.
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Informative)
The point that each and every one of those links make is that none of the people arrested were formally connected with any particular group or political affiliation, with the exception of Ivan Harrison Hunter, a 26-year-old from Texas and a member of the far-right anti-government Boogaloo Bois ... who both committed arson, and, illegally discharged an AK-47. Worth noting also is that the same media and surveillance coverage captured police literally driving over the bodies of protesters in SUVs.
Not exactly a laser-focused counterexample of a coordinated nationwide fringe right insurrection involving hundreds to low thousands of active participants, multiple fatalities, and a direct clear and present danger to Congress and the Vice President.
That was the point of those links *was* to point out the false equivalency here, correct?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
none of the people arrested were formally connected with any particular group or political affiliation,
Tell me where I register and signup for the formal Antifa squad.
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Insightful)
none of the people arrested were formally connected with any particular group or political affiliation,
Tell me where I register and signup for the formal Antifa squad.
You don't have to. You just have to think fascism is a bad thing. That was the prevailing sentiment that was around in certain countries during the second world war.
If you think fascism is great, then don't consider yourself anti fascist.
Re: (Score:2)
none of the people arrested were formally connected with any particular group
How many people at the Capitol Hill riot had a formal connection to a particular group?
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Insightful)
none of the people arrested were formally connected with any particular group
How many people at the Capitol Hill riot had a formal connection to a particular group?
OOoo Oooo teacher! teacher! pick me! pick me!
They are all Republicans.
What do I win?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
93% of protests were peaceful. Seven percent erupted into violence, and in almost all cases it was because they were met with disproportionate force by police. Considering that the police have known since the 1970s that the best way to turn a peaceful protest into a riot is to attack it with excessive violence the only possible explanation is that was the desired result. Around 2% seem to have been provocateurs like the Boogaloo Boys prompting violence from the police, several of them were caught with mo
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Insightful)
Rioting is bad. Insurrection is a lot worse.
Re: Do BLM next (Score:5, Insightful)
Please show me Antifa/BLM waving a traitorsâ(TM) flag inside the seat of government for our country.
Please show me Antifa/BLM raising a gallows within sight of a government building and then invading said building, explicitly threatening to lynch named elected officials *while said officials are in the building attempting to hold normal proceedings.*
I'll wait.
Your false equivalency is shameful.
Re: Do BLM next (Score:5, Insightful)
Burning of the flag as protest has been found to be explicitly legal, not treasonous at all.
In this country treason is defined as aiding the enemy, not exercising the first amendment.
Maybe Russia would be the best place for you? China? North Korea? Because you certainly don't have american values.
Re: Do BLM next (Score:4, Informative)
Photoshop and art are not raising a gallows. And neither of those was followed by a mob rampaging through the halls of elected government screaming for people to be lynched.
Waving a foreign flag or burning a flag in protest are not the same as waving a traitors' flag in the seat of government.
I didnâ(TM)t bring motivations of the crowd into it. Why are you? Justifications are not comparable actions.
I read your words and answered you directly.
Why are you incapable of doing the same.
And why the name calling accusing me of being racist? Projecting much? Afraid others are going to accuse you of being a racist so trying to beat them to the punch? I didnâ(TM)t call you names. I rationally answered your question without restarting to hyperbole.
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Interesting)
Learn the fucking difference.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There was no insurrection. No attempt to overthrow any government.
The Seattle Occupied Zone was declared free of outside authority, and police were blocked from entering or enforcing laws.
Learn the fucking difference.
Not seeing a big difference. Just different lawless mobs behaving in similar ways.
Re:Do BLM next (Score:4, Insightful)
Not seeing a big difference.
That's because you have failed to learn the difference. Please take the GP's advice. You can start with a dictionary, and work your way up to legal definitions if you ever feel like not looking like a fool.
Comparing blocking the very people who systematically murder you as a minority from a small area, to attempting to storm the centre of government and specifically target elected officials confirming the handover of government for a nation of 328million people is just monumentally stupid. Like it's utterly bewildering. I'm assuming no one could really be so stupid, so I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that as the GP has claimed you like the OP don't know what an insurrection actually is.
Oh wait... ShanghaiBill from the Church of Trump. Nope I retract my benefit of doubt there. Your false equivalency is shameful.
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Left-wing people: Lawlessness from the right is wrong. Lawlessness from the left is justified.
Right-wing people: Lawlessness from anyone is wrong.
But you, among others, see the lawlessness in Seattle, the burning and looting of a police station, and armed protestors blocking law enforcement, as acceptable because they were on your side.
That was a right-wing mob that broke into the Capitol and threatened Congress and the Vice President, so what are you doing, splitting right-wing into multiple groups, so you can identify with the better half, while simultaneously broad brushing your opponents into one group? Well buddy, I've got the same card, MY left-wing subgroup believes in peaceful protests, not violence, and.... it's bigger than yours? Is that where this argument goes? How pointless is this, come on man.
Where were the armed patriot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, continue to compare protests against police killing with impunity to an attempt to subvert the political process by taking hostage and/or assassinating members of congress.
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Insightful)
Many more deaths have occurred because of the BLM riots than the Washington riot. Calling one an 'insurrection' and another a 'demonstration' is such an obvious example of manipulative doublespeak
Many more deaths have occurred due to drunk driving that the Washington riot. We should call drunk driving insurrection too!
Or you know, no we shouldn't because they're different things. "insurrection" is not a word for something you don't like. Here is the idiotic logic "logic" you're subscribing to.
1. Insurrection is a bad word. I don't know what it means but its a bad word.
2. My tribe did something lubruhls don't like.
3. Libruhls call it insurrection
4. That's bad and people think I'm bad.
5. Uhhhh
6. No u
7. You did something I don't like. That's INSURRECTION!
They're very equivalent... packed with stupid young men fired up by ideological lies.
And now we have slashdot packed with stupid young men trying to draw a false equivalent between two very different things.
BLM was a massive protested attended by an estimated 26 million people over many months to protest police brutality, which was frequently met with police brutality. A small fraction turned violent. You're defending a mob who stormed the capitol to attempt to kidnap and murder members of congress in order to overturn an election result they didn't like.
These are not equivalent no matter how hard you want them to be.
Plenty of 'JOINS' in progress (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody stops you from doing it yourself, I guess. After all, this was exactly the point of that website, if I understood TFA correctly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Don’t say that. It’s racist." I froze for a second. Although every cell in my body was urging me to respond, I could not utter a single word.
At least she didn't shoot you for being a Muslim.
Re:Do BLM next (Score:4, Interesting)
No idea who this guy is but to evaluate his claim we really need to know exactly what he said.
We have been over this with anti Semitism already. It very much depends how you phrase it. Criticism of the government of Israel is fine, criticism of Judaism is okay, criticism of Jews in general is not.
Re:Do BLM next (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like a bit of a shaggy dog story to me. Very long and carefully crafted. It's clearly been pre-prepared yet carefully avoids any concrete details while playing to the right's preconceptions of the left.
Re: (Score:3)
Which Presidents attacked secular Islamic states that treated women much more equally? While true they were evil dictatorships where people couldn't talk politics, those same Presidents along with the most recent from that party, also gave lots of support to the evil Monarchies that did not give women any rights to speak off and did not allow free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this person *only* concerned with the Capitol Hill event? Why doesn't he do this for the on-going riots, arson and looting in Portland?
Because the only people who rely on whataboutism are those trying to distract or change the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this person *only* concerned with the Capitol Hill event?
Because people doing things on there own time are under no obligation to appear nonpartisan. Do you put up signs for both political candidates on your front lawn, so all your neighbors can see that you're fair and balanced?
Just look at the scope of protests! (Score:2)
Well, actually not. The top news item is: "I-405 now closed in Portland for pedestrian bridge installation", protests are nowhere to be seen. I've read other articles and apparently protestors broke a couple of windows of Democratic headquarters and set one trash can on fire. It's on the same scale as storming the Capitol, for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
The day after they attacked a Democratic party building and an ICE building, leftist rioters were at it again: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/22... [cnn.com]
They were rioting for New Years, too: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/p... [cbsnews.com]
They promise more riots this year: https://katu.com/news/local/po... [katu.com]
If you aren't seeing those protests, try taking off your blinders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's all the damage the "insurgents" have done to the Capitol too — yet, four people have been killed by police over it...
You are also forgetting a little manner of forcibly entering and trying to storm the hall where the legislative session was in progress. With an intent to kill and capture lawmakers.
It's totally the same.
It is — or should be — a deal of the same scale everywhere.
Nope. A dozen of protestors running around a federal building is just not noteworthy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>If you aren't seeing those protests, try taking off your blinders.
I live in Portland. It is not as it is presented in the news in many ways.
Re: (Score:3)
Same here as a long-time Portland area resident. The "riots" are generally limited to a couple square blocks around specific target buildings and those targets are about the same, night after night. The news, when they show scenes from these nightly displays, make it seem as if the whole city's on fire. For the most part, people are going about their lives just fine - stores are open, commerce is being transacted, blood is not running in the streets. The installation of the new bridge across I-405 on Flande
Re: (Score:3)
So that's like the events of 6th January except with added arson.
Sure if you add some arson and take away insurrection and a failed attempt at kidnapping then it's completely the same.
That's an interesting way to say 'prevent the overthrow of an election'. "Stop the steal" is a pretty revealing rallying cry, kind of tells you what they were actually protesting for.
It's not OK to kill someone just because you're a delusional paranoid who thinks they're going to kill you first. Likewise it's not OK to attempt
Re: (Score:3)
Requesting independent forensic audits of the vote is not installing a dictatorship.
Welp, found the insurrection apologist.
Following legal procedures for ensuring the validity of the vote is 100% fine. Storming the capitol and attempting to overturn the results when those don't go the way you like isn't fine.
It's the absolute fucking opposite.
"hang mike pence hang mike pence"
Hyperbole if written on twitter, not hyperbole after you've broken into congress carrying zipcuffs.
Re: (Score:3)
So that's like the events of 6th January except with added arson.
Well, without the pipe bombs, without the six people who died, and what you are totally missing is that the capitol building is a _restricted space_ where entering without authorisation gets you a year in jail, and entering without authorisation carrying a gun or other dangerous weapon gives you ten years. So the six deaths are _all_ murder. And "a fire on the pavement" is not quite the same as arson.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Ongoing destructive riots in Portland (Score:2)
Maybe because the fate of the country is not decided or represented by cars and shop windows on Portland...?
Re: (Score:2)
"Scorning Biden, protesters in Portland, Ore., and Seattle called for more radical change."
In Portland, Ore., and Seattle, protesters marched through the downtown areas on Wednesday carrying signs opposing the police, immigration authorities and government in general, and some people in each city vandalized buildings symbolizing institutional power.
In Portland, about 200 people clad in black marched to the local Democratic headquarters, where some of them smashed windows and tipped over garbage containers,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But insurrection is a lot worse.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not about the "amount of violence". It is about the target and intent. Trying to capture / kill the vice president is in no circumstances "tame" no matter how inept the attempt. And they got in and had to be stopped by force, hence they clearly were not just fooling around.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only when it's used by corporations by default against innocents for the purposes of illegal profiteering, tracking, and/or profiling. That's not what's happening here, so you're conflating unrelated scenarios.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Photographs of faces" != "Facial recognition"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The liberal position (Score:3)
This isn't face recognition, it is face detection.
You don't even know what you are arguing against. That makes it even harder to take you seriously than your partisan whataboutism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a problem here: " from inside and outside the Capitol building".
Outside?! Those who entered, sure. BLM looters, sure. But not every BLM protester, or every Trump supporter.
To lump in those who participated in protests that they may have reasonably expected to be peaceful, with those engaged in criminal acts, is going too far.
Delusion is not a crime.
Re:Privacy concerns? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Congratulations, on the new "most stupid question yet." He thinks it is illegal. The question was a rhetorical device used to point out that (some) people outside also committed crimes, some quite serious. He did so because some silly* person suggested he had a problem with posting photos from outside the Capitol building, as if entering the Capitol building was the only crime committed. (* yes I looked at the user id of that silly person)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Privacy concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
You imply that they all wanted to get inside, which is obviously not the case. There's a huge difference between not going inside, and a failed attempt to go inside. Protesting is not illegal or insurrection by itself, and we don't condemn a thousand people just because they were standing within 100 yards of someone else who took it too far. Intent is an important concept in our legal system.
Re: Privacy concerns? (Score:2)
Yes, privacy is the term for allowing people to MOVE ON. Like changing from being fucking traitors because they were caugt up in something stupid or which we think was wrong.
Because in developed countries, even murderers are allowed to be forgiven after they did their time. And contribute good to society. (Disclaimer: I met such a guy recently. Smebody who raped a kid over years and years, got cauggt big time, and got out of court due to a stupid technicality. So he shot him. Went to prison. Came out. Moved
Re: Privacy concerns? (Score:3)
These guys haven't done the time yet.
They can move on after that.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Zero oversight and dangerous (Score:4, Informative)
All the algorithm does is crop and screenshot videos that someone else already uploaded to social media. Why should cropping the pictures incite violence any more than the original video did? Considering that they're included with every photo in the gallery, it sounds trivial to get all the context and verify that it's not some random photo that was added to the gallery. That'd be a piss-poor way to SWAT someone, if that's your concern.
And if we've got people walking around ready to commit murder based solely on "I saw his picture on a website", I find it hard to blame the picture or the website. Even if it were to repeatedly whisper "Kill..." each time you opened it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, now you care about inciting violence?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have evidence that the poster did not care about inciting violence at a prior date ?
Re: (Score:3)
What ???
The post I read is :
Parler is gone. This guy could just put up any set of faces or slip in people he dislikes. He could get it wrong and add someone who wasnÃ(TM)t there. Someone could kill a person just because he magically says they are from the riot. This is both highest hypocrisy and dangerously inciting violence.
Which part is "defending" Parler ? Parler is gone, remember ?
Re:No privacy concerns. (Score:5, Insightful)
These were criminals, in fact traitors, ransacking, looting, seeking to attack mostly lawful reps/senators, all in a public place, that they were not allowed to be. No law protects that . As to the software, that is also not a privacy concern. Similar software has been available for 1-2 DECADES, and used by intelligence, and LEOs, the world over
I think the whole point of this piece of activism is to make citizens in general, not just the people who raided the capitol, realize that they cannot struggle without the prospect of a swift and precise retaliation by people in power. See how Putin will use this technology to jail all his opponents after this weekends' protests started by Nalvany, have a look at how China crushed democratic opposition by exploiting facial recognition software to accurately pinpoint who to investigate, who to put in jail, and who to have disappear, or how France used facial recognition technology to make preventive arrests of Yellow Vests sympathisers.
(note that if they don't jail you right away, it just means they are building a file on you that will be used against you when the time comes.)
Just a few examples of how we are knee-deep in the Orwellian nightmare right now. If we rejoice that we can round up and jail the fascists who raided the capitol thanks to the cameras and AI; let us not forget that the same technology is used to silence legitimate protests and activism all over the world, and it is becoming harder and harder to not get caught: Japan is developing an AI that can recognize you even if you are wearing a face mask. [nikkei.com]
This piece of activism, aptly named "Faces of Riot", is a reminder that we are really, utterly f*cked.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you! As a non-American who's not living in the US, watching these events unfold is appalling.
The use of AI to create a surveillance nightmare is of course expected, what I didn't expect was people even in the most freedom and privacy-worshipping corners of the internet applaud deplatforming and "initiatives" like the site in the article because it's "happening to the other side".
Remember that you're just one mood-swing away from finding yourself on somebody's no-no list.
Re: (Score:3)
And it was not about fighting for 'freedom' (though the proper word that you should be using is LIBERTY, not freedom) since NONE of these ppl were denied liberties. It is about their not being responsible and their basing their irresponsible actions on known lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)