Banned Chinese Facial Recognition Technology Was Used in Search for US Protesters (nytimes.com) 156
Some protesters in Minnesota set a fire last year. But then the surveillance footage from that day "set off a nearly yearlong, international manhunt...involving multiple federal agencies and Mexican police. The pursuit also involved a facial recognition system made by a Chinese company that has been blacklisted by the U.S. government."
The New York Times tells the story of the couple who was eventually arrested: Ms. Yousif gave birth while on the run, and was separated from her baby for four months by the authorities. To prosecutors, the pursuit of Mr. Felan, who was charged with arson, and Ms. Yousif, who was charged with helping him flee, was a routine response to a case of property destruction... But beyond the prosecutorial aftermath of the racial justice protests, the eight-month saga of a young Minnesota couple exposed an emerging global surveillance system that might one day find anyone, anywhere, the technology traveling easily over borders while civil liberties struggle to keep pace...
They drove, heading south on Interstate 35, a highway that runs down the middle of the country, stretching from Duluth, Minn., on Lake Superior, to Laredo, Texas, on the Mexican border. They had made their way through Iowa and just hit the northern part of Missouri, 300 miles from Rochester, when police first caught up with them. A warrant had been issued for Mr. Felan's arrest, allowing the authorities to ping his cellphone to locate him. According to a court document, late on a Monday night, more than a week after the events in St. Paul, local police in rural western Missouri, who were asked to go where the phone was pinging, stopped a black S.U.V. registered to Mr. Felan. Ms. Yousif was driving, and said she didn't know where Mr. Felan was. The police let her go...
Over the next week, police kept pinging the location of Mr. Felan's phone but kept missing him. According to a court document, he sent a message to his brother in Texas saying he was turning it off between messages, worried about being tracked; the couple eventually bought new phones... On a Friday night in mid-June 2020, a surveillance camera at a Holiday Inn outside San Antonio captured Ms. Yousif and Mr. Felan driving his mother's brown Toyota Camry into the hotel's parking lot. They got out of the car, walked outside the view of the camera and then disappeared...
Later in Mexico, at a meeting with law enforcement officials in Coahuila, Federico Pérez Villoro, an investigative journalist, remembers meeting a government employee in charge of Mexico's first large-scale facial recognition system who'd said America's FBI had asked them for help finding people accused of terrorism. This is significant because they were using the Dahua surveillance system from China, that's partly state-owned and "blacklisted by the U.S. government in 2019...According to a notice in the Federal Register, Dahua's products were used in "China's campaign of repression, mass arbitrary detention and high-technology surveillance" against Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups."
Ironically, in the end it wasn't the $30 million system that identified the couple, according to the U.S. Justice Department. It was somebody who'd contacted them directly to collect the $20,000 reward. "But the technology is spreading globally, in part because China is aggressively marketing it abroad, said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Center for A.I. and Digital Policy, a nonprofit in Washington.... China is marketing mass surveillance technology to its trading partners in Africa, Asia and South America, he explained, pitching it as a way to minimize crime and promote public order in major metropolitan areas." In a 2019 report on video analytics, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that millions of surveillance cameras installed in recent decades are "waking up" thanks to automation, such as facial recognition technology, which allows them to not just record, but to analyze what is happening and flag what they see...
The New York Times tells the story of the couple who was eventually arrested: Ms. Yousif gave birth while on the run, and was separated from her baby for four months by the authorities. To prosecutors, the pursuit of Mr. Felan, who was charged with arson, and Ms. Yousif, who was charged with helping him flee, was a routine response to a case of property destruction... But beyond the prosecutorial aftermath of the racial justice protests, the eight-month saga of a young Minnesota couple exposed an emerging global surveillance system that might one day find anyone, anywhere, the technology traveling easily over borders while civil liberties struggle to keep pace...
They drove, heading south on Interstate 35, a highway that runs down the middle of the country, stretching from Duluth, Minn., on Lake Superior, to Laredo, Texas, on the Mexican border. They had made their way through Iowa and just hit the northern part of Missouri, 300 miles from Rochester, when police first caught up with them. A warrant had been issued for Mr. Felan's arrest, allowing the authorities to ping his cellphone to locate him. According to a court document, late on a Monday night, more than a week after the events in St. Paul, local police in rural western Missouri, who were asked to go where the phone was pinging, stopped a black S.U.V. registered to Mr. Felan. Ms. Yousif was driving, and said she didn't know where Mr. Felan was. The police let her go...
Over the next week, police kept pinging the location of Mr. Felan's phone but kept missing him. According to a court document, he sent a message to his brother in Texas saying he was turning it off between messages, worried about being tracked; the couple eventually bought new phones... On a Friday night in mid-June 2020, a surveillance camera at a Holiday Inn outside San Antonio captured Ms. Yousif and Mr. Felan driving his mother's brown Toyota Camry into the hotel's parking lot. They got out of the car, walked outside the view of the camera and then disappeared...
Later in Mexico, at a meeting with law enforcement officials in Coahuila, Federico Pérez Villoro, an investigative journalist, remembers meeting a government employee in charge of Mexico's first large-scale facial recognition system who'd said America's FBI had asked them for help finding people accused of terrorism. This is significant because they were using the Dahua surveillance system from China, that's partly state-owned and "blacklisted by the U.S. government in 2019...According to a notice in the Federal Register, Dahua's products were used in "China's campaign of repression, mass arbitrary detention and high-technology surveillance" against Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups."
Ironically, in the end it wasn't the $30 million system that identified the couple, according to the U.S. Justice Department. It was somebody who'd contacted them directly to collect the $20,000 reward. "But the technology is spreading globally, in part because China is aggressively marketing it abroad, said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Center for A.I. and Digital Policy, a nonprofit in Washington.... China is marketing mass surveillance technology to its trading partners in Africa, Asia and South America, he explained, pitching it as a way to minimize crime and promote public order in major metropolitan areas." In a 2019 report on video analytics, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that millions of surveillance cameras installed in recent decades are "waking up" thanks to automation, such as facial recognition technology, which allows them to not just record, but to analyze what is happening and flag what they see...
Cameras waking up? (Score:5, Insightful)
The surveillance state worry with CCTV camera isn't new. What is new is that you don't need thousands of rent-a-cops behind monitors trying not to fall asleep while watching the populace on a bellyful of donuts.
Meaning before facial recognition, you knew you were in a friggin' police state already, but there was a chance the police wasn't paying attention. Not anymore.
Re:Cameras waking up? (Score:5, Informative)
Sorta. It also depends on "which crimes" you commit. The government appears to be a lot more interested in pursuing some criminals over others depending on the political leanings of whoever was offended by the crime.
Police state + banana republic abuses of the system. What could possibly go wrong.
Re:Cameras waking up? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have became a nation of cowards, and that is, ironically, what really scares me. We have cowards who use the pretense of free speech to perform violent acts, then when they get caught, they are like we did nothing wrong. We have cowards who overly arm themselves against protesters, so they don't feel like they should have to change their mind on these scary ideas, but hide behind weapons, police, and the power they currently hold, and because they are so scared they are willing to do violence preemptively to these people because they are scared.
If people were brave, and they did some sort of Social Disobedience, they should bravely go and accept and publicly turn themselves in. If the people in power were brave, they would allow a degree of chaos and unrest, treat the protestors humanly, and actually try to listen and understand what they feel so strongly about.
America is suppose to be a the Land of the Free AND Home of the Brave. To be Free we must be Brave. Being brave isn't being the guy who has the biggest gun, or causes the most damage. It is willing to stand up for what you think is right, and at the same time, allow yourself to be vulnerable enough to see that you can be wrong, being able to understand and endure the consequences for your actions.
You are a coward for trying to run away from the officials who are trying to catch you for crimes you had committed. The Officials are also Cowards too, for taking extreme methods (Because they have the money and power) to try to catch these people.
Re:Cameras waking up? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cameras waking up? (Score:4, Informative)
You should actually see what happened once they investigated that "kidnap plot" a bit. It turns out that a large number of participants were FBI "confidential informants" who not only witnessed activities, but had an influential hand in inciting and planning the activities.
From Buzzfeed....hardly a sympathetic outlet to Trump supporters:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/a... [buzzfeednews.com]
So the small number of stupid dipshits who were entrapped are likely to get released as a result.
Best,
I wouldn't call it entrapment (Score:3)
And yes, the FBI keeps a close eye on these groups. If they didn't we wouldn't have any governors. Well, at least not any governors they don't approve of. It's important to democracy that you keep an eye on actual terrorists or, well, they'll win.
Re: I wouldn't call it entrapment (Score:2)
How many paid informants does the FBI need inside an organization/group. I think most people would balk once paid FBI infiltrators cross the 50% mark.
If you found out that out of four bank robbers three were paid FBI informants with immunity, wouldn't that be a problem? What if it were two out of four?
Bank robber is generally don't have organizations (Score:2)
These militias are the 21st century equivalent of the mob. It's literally organized crime. Also most of these guys aren't doing so hot financially yet they somehow seem to have money to buy entire arsenals of firearms and even land to play cosplay on. At some point you have to question where all that money
Re: (Score:2)
This is also the case with many Muslim terrorist plots that make the news. One misguided or immature Muslim guy meets some likeminded "friends" at mosque, actually FBI agents, who plan a terror attack along with him but then arrest him for it.
This procedure may seem silly or even cruel, but it has one very good result: when the actual terrorists are looking for people to work with, they can never know if the people they meet are genuine extremists or law enforcement. This makes recruiting more terrorists, a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't ever go to buzzfeed and I'd heard of the extent of FBI involvement.
It's been discussed online for a couple of weeks already, although the various reports change the number of FBI informants and whether the group included members of the FBI too.
The whole story was a nonsense burger to start with. All of it blamed on white supremacists and trump supporters, and even at the time it was clear it was an anarchist group of clowns.
Now we know it was a federally sponsored anarchist group of clowns.
Re:Cameras waking up? (Score:4, Informative)
It's more ironic that you're making this claim on an article that describes the use of facial recognition technology against BLM protesters involved in setting fire to a building.
Did it occur to you to make even a vague attempt at reading the summary before posting this idiotic take?
Re: (Score:2)
It's more ironic that you're making this claim on an article that describes the use of facial recognition technology against BLM protesters involved in setting fire to a building.
Did it occur to you to make even a vague attempt at reading the summary before posting this idiotic take?
That's not ironic at all; it doesn't matter which "side" you're on, your "side" won't always be in power. Everybody should be able to see the danger and fight against it, instead of waiting for somebody they agree with to get persecuted.
"... they came for the ____ and I wasn't a ____, so I didn't speak up. ... Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh look, another idiotic take.
I didn't defend the use of facial recognition. If you'd bothered to actually read my comment, you'd know that. Instead, you just pulled out some strawman arguments and set about pretending I'd made them.
Oh, and the fact that you want all the BLM and supposed Antifa protesters charged is revealing. Tens of millions of people protested and 93% of the protests were peaceful [time.com], but you ignore that.
Over 14,000 people have been arrested in connection with the BLM protests, but you i
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and the fact that you want all the BLM and supposed Antifa protesters charged is revealing. Tens of millions of people protested and 93% of the protests were peaceful [time.com], but you ignore that.
93% means 7% of protests were not peaceful, causing a hell of a lot more harm and death, but you ignore that.
Over 14,000 people have been arrested in connection with the BLM protests, but you ignore that as well as you demand even more arrests.
14,000 arrests means thousands of police officers were doing their job, with valid charges. And I don't know if more arrests should have been done when 14,000 is such a tiny fraction of "tens of millions". Even that amount of arrests sure as hell didn't prove to be any kind of deterrent. Regardless, tell me how many of those 14,000 are still sitting in jail today? How many of them, simply had cha
Re: Cameras waking up? (Score:2)
Facial recognition software without the taint of Chinese oppression has been used against 1/6 protesters - they've charged over 500 people so far, based on facial recognition and cellphone data.
That BLM protest arsonists are being targeted us only fair, or have we declared arson is protected speech?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Donuts are high in carbohydrates and probably provide a cognitive boost because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Temporarily, the crash really sucks though.
Re:Cameras waking up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Cameras waking up? (Score:2)
The issue with the software in question wasn't accuracy, it was because the Chinese host used it to reign in Ughers...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Mexico bought software used by the CCP against Uighurs and might use it when we ask them to help find someone who fled there. I think that was a point the author was trying to make, but she did a pretty lousy job all around.
Arson is not a protest (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Arson is not a protest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It works pretty well on both sides. Less than 1% of the people at the Capital protest breached the Capital building, but all you hear about is people trying to conflate 500 of150k people into all conservatives. On the other side, you hear about the 1% violent who caused more than $1 billion in damage over last summer, and it overwhelms the message of the other 99% of the protestors. Heck, you could even say the same about the message BLM was trying to protest. The .01% of bad cops get conflated with the
Re:Arson is not a protest (Score:5, Insightful)
It gets conflated to being all conservatives most likely because the conservative legislative leadership are so loudly denying that anything bad happened. The one congressman who claims it was just like a normal tourist visit despite the broken windows, deaths, and hospitalizations. the leadership who refused to help create an independent bipartisan investigation, so now it's mostly a partisan investigation instead. The accusations that the police who testified were openly liberal and not to be trusted. For a group of 500 poeole who don't represent all conservatives, it sure seems like a heckuva lot of senior conservatives are defending them and spreading the misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
the leadership who refused to help create an independent bipartisan investigation, so now it's mostly a partisan investigation instead.
Yeah, it sucks that Pelosi would only allow people who despise Trump to serve on the committee, how dare they try to include another point of view in the bipartisan investigation, we can only have people who have the belief that Trump is evil incarnate and eats babies.
You comment on the right wing, but consider this, does what happened fit the definition of an insurrection either? Does it help anything to be so hyperbolic about what happened either?
Insurrection, FYI, is an attempt to overthrow the whole go
Re: (Score:2)
No, Pelosi just did not want to allow the conspiracy theorists on the committee. When the point is to investigate what happened, why would you want a member who claims that nothing happened and is spreading lies and misinformation constantly?
Pelosi rejected Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. Both who voted against certifying the election despite no evidence that the states submitted invalid electoral votes. They both also signed onto a brief to the Supreme Court asking the court to overturn the election results. T
Re:Arson is not a protest (Score:5, Insightful)
Protesting at your national Capitol by beating the shit out of the police [aljazeera.com] absolutely is a riot. You keep conveniently forgetting that part.
Re: (Score:3)
The police getting beat by members of the blue lives matter party is certainly ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I strongly suspect that this is the first time in your life you've given the faintest shit about a cop getting beaten up, hmmm?
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas you deeply, deeply care, just not this time, right?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the difference, I care every time.
I absolutely want those responsible punished, and tossed in jail.
I would *also* like to see protesters that committed arson and harmed cops during ridiculous BLM protests go to jail as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume. Which, the saying goes, makes you an ass...
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly have an odd way of demonstrating that. The OP writes that "Similarly, protesting at your national Capitol and gaining entry by security holding doors open is not a "riot", and you write nothing. I correct OP by pointing out they're conveniently forgetting the "beating the shit out of the police," and you're immediately so triggered that you immediately distract from the thing that you claim to care about by manufacturing a tu q
Re: (Score:2)
Now link the footage of protestors protecting the police from violent idiots.
Now link the footage of the police assaulting peaceful protestors.
Now ask how a riot resulted in no police deaths, no burned buildings, no looting beyond some petty theft and people wandering around taking selfies.
You keep conveniently forgetting all of those parts. Meanwhile the body count is: Alleged Rioters killed 0, Police killed 1 (confirmed), 1 (possible).
Oh, and four police that were present on the day have subsequently comm
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you? You're trying to make some point here, but I'm missing it.
That one cuts both ways [theguardian.com], now doesn't it.
It's not a riot unless there's police deaths? Well, you just disqualified all the BLM protests from being riots then, right? You're conveniently forgetting the mass injuries [cnbc.com], now aren't you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one artificially limiting what constitutes a riot and getting my ass handed to me with facts.
No, you're the one deflecting away from BLM riots that coined the term 'Burn, Loot, Murder' to try and bring into the conversation a mostly peaceful protest that included elements of violence.
Still, we should be glad I guess. At least the failed narrative of 'insurrection' has been abandoned.
Remember her name, until it becomes too inconvenient for you.
Oh ffs. "Alleged rioters killed 0" is not "Alleged rioters killed: 0".
The protesters killed nobody. The police killed at least one person, people are reporting a second. Good fucking luck getting justice for either of t
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Quote what I wrote that did that.
The statement "Protesting at your national Capitol by beating the shit out of the police [aljazeera.com] absolutely is a riot" says literally nothing about BLM and does nothing to correct the OPs comment concerning BLM.
The fact that you manufactured that connection says an awful lot about you.
You wrote "Meanwhile the body count is: Alleged rioter
Re: (Score:2)
Roseland Boyland is an interesting one for you to pick out, given the police have been accused of causing her death.
So defending the lives of others is a privilege reserved for whom?
I don't know if Michael Byrd shot Babbitt because he's a racist thug or if he's just a cowardly policeman shooting an unarmed person that wasn't attacking him or anybody else. He sure as fact was defending the lives of nobody. The fact that the heavily armed police wearing body armour stood behind her immediately drew their weapons into firing positions at the shot shows that they hadn't seen
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please [10tv.com]. "Sure as fact wasn't defending the lives of nobody" wasn't exactly the prosecutors' conclusion, was it. Wasn't attacking him or anyone else... merely breaking down locked doors and crawling through a window as part of a mob charging into a secured area to reach House repr
Oh boy am I going to get down modded for this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Still lying about doors being held open, aren't ya? That's why the terrorist Ashley Babbit was killed trying to crawl through a broken window. It's why the U.S. flag, fire extinguishers and flags of the con artist were used to beat the police. It's why bear spray and mace were
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we'll find out when things get to court.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/defe... [go.com]
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/0... [cnn.com]
Of course, there are people saying this didn't happen too:
https://www.newsweek.com/capit... [newsweek.com]
https://www.arkansasonline.com... [arkansasonline.com] highlights some discrepancies. (I particularly like the 'We were let in by police' defence of someone that climbed through a window to get in).
The truth? Well, let's see the 14,000 hours of footage from the security cameras. Surely those wi
Re: (Score:2)
This kind. [ourquadcities.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ashli Babbitt was both violently invading the Chamber and also standing outside chanting, having previously built a gallows that she then abandoned?
Your story doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Your inability to comprehend the concept terrorism by a group and criminal conspiracy suggests that your scrutiny is crap.
Re: (Score:2)
The comment you replied to above, was about Ashley Babbit. If you seem to think that she was responsible for a gallows construction that somehow makes her a terrorist, I would like to see some proof as well.
Re: (Score:2)
âoeracial justice protestâ
Wow, you're so triggered you can't even spit out the words.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the article is about using banned Chinese facial recognition after-the-fact in an attempt to locate these people, not a complaint that surveillance footage was collected at the time.
Also, "the Left" doesn't need to use banned Chinese facial recognition systems to locate those committing the Rig
Re:The capitol insurrection in context (Score:4, Insightful)
Protecting my home, my property, my store, my family, my dog, and my life by a mindless swarming mob comprised of hundreds of burners, robbers, and skids is not "the Right's violence". It's self-defense!
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how you didn't respond to the original poster that invoked "the Right's violence," and then completely changed the reference from one to the January 6th insurrection into what I can only assume is a mythologizing of Mark and Patricia McCloskey.
Re: (Score:3)
then get turned in by their horrified acquaintances the old fashioned way.
"Ironically, in the end it wasn't the $30 million system that identified the couple, according to the U.S. Justice Department. It was somebody who'd contacted them directly to collect the $20,000 reward."
Re: (Score:3)
The right took their own videos and shared them openly on social media during and after storming the capitol.
More outsiders torching the cities (Score:5, Interesting)
It will be interesting to see if we learn anything about how extensive their own supplies were when they arrived in St. Paul. Did they bring enough with them to set those buildings on fire, or were they helped by someone when they arrived?
Re: (Score:2)
...It will be interesting to see if we learn anything about how extensive their own supplies were when they arrived in St. Paul. Did they bring enough with them to set those buildings on fire, or were they helped by someone when they arrived?
Supplies? A fucking 5-gallon can of gas and a lighter, is likely all that is needed to set a building ablaze.
I suspect you didn't do well in chemistry. Gasoline actually burns poorly at atmospheric pressure. Yes, it is flammable, but if you pour it on a solid structure the likelihood of being able to set that solid structure ablaze with only a small amount of gasoline is actually pretty low.
On top of that, driving a couple hours with a 5 gallon can of gas in your car isn't the greatest idea. You could well knock yourself out with the fumes, even in a properly vented can. And if they started driving from R
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that, driving a couple hours with a 5 gallon can of gas in your car isn't the greatest idea. You could well knock yourself out with the fumes, even in a properly vented can.
This sounds deeply unlikely.
My father's driven a car around with a can of fuel in it his entire life. Pretty unnecessary, but when he was driving a lot in Cyprus it was an important habit to build and he's kept with it. Never once been overcome by fumes. Never even noticed any fumes.
You may need to buy a new fit-for-purpose petrol can and learn how to seal it properly.
What you do in public is public (Score:5, Insightful)
Eyewitnesses have always been able to report what they see. Photographing public behavior has been legal as long as photography has existed. This new technology isn't changing the rules. If you want what you're doing to be private, you have to do it in privacy.
Re:What you do in public is public (Score:5, Insightful)
Differences in scale can change the dynamic quite considerably. For example, if I fill your cup with water I'm doing you a favour. If I fill your house with water its at least an act of vandalism.
Speaking for myself, the main issue with mass automated surveillance isn't that I can be monitored if I commit a crime, its that its open to abuse and un-official use. For example, officials or law enforcement using it to monitor ex-partners or watching the neighbours because they don't trust them.
Given that surveillance is here to stay, permitted and non-permitted actions need to be made clear, and guidelines and punishments for misuse need to be agreed and enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
Watching people in public is permitted. Reporting it is permitted. Photographing it is permitted. Recording it is permitted. Publishing those photographs and records is permitted.
Why? Because public is public.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not adjusting for the two things technology bring to the table. The "mass" in mass surveillance (networking). The deep learning brought to bear. For an example everyone turn off their ad-blockers. Their tracking preventers. Remember you're on the "public" internet.
Re: (Score:2)
The scale is what is terrifying. And the fact that it is recorded. Yes, random photos, random overhearing, even targeted surveillance is (for some) to be expected. What we have here is a way for tracing your steps years back, by a semi-automated process.
Say you give $10 to a homeless man. 5 years later he turns out to be head of a cartel. You get automatically flagged as a money launderer.
Look at china's system to publicly shame jaywalkers. That is insane. And that is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
However digitally processing someone's face, storing data about them in a database and treating them as a suspected criminal by comparing their face to a list of wanted or known criminals is considered an invasion of privacy and requires justification, particularly when done by law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
permitted and non-permitted actions need to be made clear
If the information is available, it absolutely will be used in whatever way the possessor of said information wants. Some abuses can be curbed, but there absolutely will be numerous abuses. Many people will suffer.
Privacy is not a boolean (Score:2)
Privacy is not a boolean. There is a difference between seeing a friend as you walk down a street and following that friend around. There is a difference between a camera in a shop of which the footage is only investigated after a crime has been committed, and a camera that watches 24/7 with active face recognition. There is a difference between knowing a family member is on the toilet and filming what he is doing there.
In all the above cases, you can know what somebody is doing, and where. But any accident
Re: (Score:2)
Eyewitnesses have always been able to report what they see. Photographing public behavior has been legal as long as photography has existed. This new technology isn't changing the rules. If you want what you're doing to be private, you have to do it in privacy.
Let me know how you feel when you're accused of jaywalking 5 years from now when they dig through their mass surveillance tapes in search of more ways to feed greed.
Re: (Score:2)
Eyewitnesses have always been able to report what they see.
Sure, but now there are new and very different witnesses. Computers. It is odd that you dismiss that so casually. They never sleep, they make the same errors as the people who programmed them, and they are coming for YOU. Yes, you. It will be like having an Evangelical preacher following you everywhere you go and judging your actions. While nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, everyone should be expecting the Computing Inquisition. All the parts are in place, the will to perform it is present, all we ar
You can't stop the software (Score:5, Interesting)
As this article once again points out, a ban against facial recognition software means nothing to businesses and individuals.
Dahua makes very good cameras, and those cameras have become inexpensive enough for homeowners and small businesses to install. Human figure and vehicle recognition are standard in Dahua's higher tier models. Built-in license plate recognition is an option on other models. They are readily available at multiple vendors, including Amazon.
Of course, laws could be passed to ban all Dahua cameras with those features, but to what end? Unless you intend to make all high-resolution varifocal cameras (and personal computers) illegal, it is trivial to take a video stream from a modern camera and process it using facial recognition software, LPR software, etc.
You can't stop the software. All of this angst about facial recognition software is ultimately moot. Unless you intend to create an even more oppressive police state to prevent anyone from downloading and installing "forbidden" software, we as a society will have to learn to live with the consequences of cheap and readily available facial recognition systems.
If it's illegal, the outcome of its use is limited (Score:2)
Can't be used in court cases, would be a bad mistake for an employer to use it to sack someone and government entities caught abusing it would get a smack on the wrist - though hoping for much more is wild optimism. So yes, a formal legal ban does have some value. Possession and use of the software would be a misdemeanour, but that's enough to push it across the line as far as courts are concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be used by the government to prosecute somebody doesn't mean it can't be used in other types of court cases, like an employment dispute with a non-governmental employer.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost the CD/DVD/Blu-ray burners controversy all over again. Technology allows it. People do it. Some complain about it. Technology still here, and people have moved on onto something else affecting their lives. If all this is still with us it's because we enjoy what it gives us. e.g. free content, etc.
A Bit More Context (Score:5, Informative)
The two fugitives were Mena Yousif and Angel Felan. They set fire to a high school, a goodwill store and a sportswear store. They were caught in Mexico on immigration violations, meaning they were, I guess you'd say undocumented workers now? One is charged with three counts of arson, the other with helping the first evade capture.
LOL "Start a fire." That's the most passive way to say "commit arson" I've heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the journalist won't face any thing but maybe a bonus for repeating shit for the viewers of CNN. All our media is so bias it just tries to cater to specific groups by saying shit they hope that group will agree with and then keep watching.
You will never see an American news outlet of any persuasion just give you the facts of what happened and not toss on a bunch of emotional commentary on how to feel about it.
Some people set a fire? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some protesters in Minnesota set a fire last year" is about as disingenuous as Ilhan Omar describing 9/11 as "some people did something." Call it what it is: violent rioters committed arson.
This constant attempt to water down harmful actions using anodyne language isn't fooling anyone. It makes it impossible to take the subject of such articles seriously. Using the powers of a surveillance state is bad enough. You don't need to try and elevate criminal behavior into martyrdom to try and make it more bad.
LOL at the story (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: LOL at the story (Score:2)
One arsonist and one woman with a really shitty taste in men.
If they turned themselves in they weren't going to throw the book at a woman who just had a kid. He should have taken responsibility.
Protesters Don't Set Fire to Things (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some protesters in Minnesota set a fire last year."
It's spelled "rioters," not "protesters."
Re: (Score:2)
"Some protesters in Minnesota set a fire last year."
It's spelled "rioters," not "protesters."
The problem is that both labels are accurate enough to be applied and neither label captures the full essence of what occurred. You are fighting a losing battle over labels. Find a different point of attack if you wish to succeed.
'Protesters' (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure you've moved away from being a mere protestor when your 'protest' involves multiple acts of arson. Or is the NY Times reserving harsher labels for those with the wrong political views?
What is this article about? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, at no point does facial recognition software factor into the pursuit or capture of these fugitives. AT NO POINT. Why bring it up? Why put it in the headline when it plays no role in the story? On the same note, why bring up the death of George Floyd when it bore no relevance?
A significant portion of the article, somewhere between a third and a half by my rough estimate, is devoted to creating sympathy for the fugitives. Not only is that inappropriate from a traditional journalistic standpoint (facts and objectivity), it's a bit insulting. Am I supposed to be impressed by a woman who was welcomed as a refugee and ended up fleeing the country after attacking us? Am I supposed to be extra compassionate because she was seven months pregnant when she drove an hour to help set fires at a store, a gas station and a SCHOOL?!?! Some fucking gratitude.
I am also unsawed by her ordeal with her child's citizenship, as that exists only because she was illegally in Mexico, and as a fugitive did not want to go to an American consulate to file paperwork. I have no sympathy for a pair of fugitives who thought lighting fires in poor minority neighborhoods was anything but monstrous.
Helpful hint: select all (ctrl+a) and copy (ctrl+c) before the paywall shows up, paste into a word processor.
Oh, and one other thing (Score:2)
Burying the salient point (Score:3)
So... although banned facial recognition was involved in the hunt for the fugitives, ultimately it played no part, making the headline misleading as it implied that facial recognition was a contributory factor in their apprehension.
Further, instead of focusing on the illegal attempt to use it by the FBI, the story instead gave us a movie plotline of a couple on the run.
Re: (Score:2)
whoa!!! (Score:2)
Link to the court document is broken. Thanks for nothing, EditorDavid.
they don't look like white supremacists (Score:2)
(shrug) All my left wing friends have been insisting for a year now that
- there really haven't been any violent protests at all in the US since Floyd's murder, this is over-focus by the right-wing dominated corporate media
- the violence that they can't explain away (in Minneapolis, because I literally watched it in person) was triggered by white supremacist provocateurs planted in the crowd to bring about violence
- the stores burned down were all done by carefully managed white supremacists who would sneak
Re: (Score:2)
there really haven't been any violent protests at all in the US since Floyd's murder
there really haven't been any violent protests at all in the US since the election in November
Fixed it for you.
So is EditorDavid paid to shit talk China now? (Score:2)
And isn't it ironic... don't you think (Score:3)
Ironically, in the end it wasn't the $30 million system that identified the couple, according to the U.S. Justice Department. It was somebody who'd contacted them directly to collect the $20,000 reward.
No, it isn't ironic.
Such a nice state you have, a real superpower (Score:2)
Your backyard is clean because polluting is banned, and manufacturing is done by the Chinese because that's cheaper.
Your policing is humane because using tech is banned, and facial recognition is done by the Chinese because that's cheaper.
Your laws are labour friendly because abusing them is banned, and illegal immigrants do it cheaper.
True Americans know that their might is all in the military after all.
So the story is.. (Score:3)
He set a fire, was identified, tracked to Mexico, where the FBI asked for help locating him, and the Mexican police used Chinese facial recognition software banned in the US - but the arsonist was eventually caught based on a $20k reward.
What's the issue? The FBI should have put limits on Mexico's assistance based on US policies & preferences?
Let's not lose track of the fact that this was an arsonist worthy of a $20K reward and across-country manhunt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And Conservatives keep telling us its the Left that's violent.
Re: (Score:2)
Also conservatives also think our Military is also partisan to one side. I have met people who served in across the different areas of the US Armed forces. They are not uniformly conservative, they are liberals, conservatives, and moderates, at roughly the same levels that the US population has.
Being that they are in a job, where they have to be around different types of people, and even in areas where they are not liked, but trained not to attack unless things get really bad. They often pick up a lot of a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:2)
The problem is, there a 2% of conservatives and liberals that are nutbars. The rest just want to live in peace, and hash out minor, tiny differences without hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. If that were true, they would have picked someone like Kasich, Pataki, Jeb, or even Carly, in the 2016 primaries; and the last four years would not have been the total shitshow their dear leader made it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are violent idiots all over the political spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
No Marine I know would beat the living shit out of anyone for having an opinion. In fact, to a person, they would all die to defend the freedom to have and voice that opinion, no matter how stupid it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet, I'd love to build a scanner and collect data. Any links you can share?
Re: (Score:2)
The irony of course isn't that the conspiracy theory fails because the police wouldn't be waiting for legislative authority. They've demonstrated repeatedly that minor issues like the law won't get in their way.
It's that the conspiracy theories about mass surveillance turned out to be true, which is why we know the police wouldn't be waiting.
Re: (Score:3)