Privacy activists mass-quit gov't committee on face-recognition privacy


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Not at all. That’s just the narrative the politicians want to push. In truth lobbyists are paying our elected officials to ignore the privacy of those who elected them. Paying an elected official is legal so there’s no problem with that. The problem is that these elected officials are throwing their constituency under the bus.

Let’s keep the narrative honest. Washington has the ability to protect consumer privacy. The lobbyists can’t and aren’t changing that at all. It’s just that politicians care more about money than people.


#3

Cobra Commander has the fix …


#4

Came to say I expect an uptick in mask sales…


#5

I recall an old time radio sci fi story where folks would put on their “public face” before leaving the house – I guess that we have arrived “there”.


#6

I suppose people could find whatever groups are lobbying for this and attack their infrastructure…


#7

This caught my attention. It wasn’t too long ago that we were criticizing the gov’t for wanting to use this technology in counter-terrorism because, besides privacy, it was incredibly inaccurate. Has it really gotten that much better?


#8

Regulation will only occur when facial recognition is used to identify undercover cops/agent provocateurs.


#9

I was thinking the politicians and 1% will not like to be followed either.

Governmwnts are able to block search engines from certain information, Im guessing governments will require an ignore list type of thing.


#10

Even if it isn’t, does it really matter? A surveillance program that misidentifies me as a criminal is a bad thing in different ways than a surveillance program that invades my privacy, but it’s still a bad thing.


#11

Related: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-33132199

Are those 90K festival attendees now on a police database? Probably. At least i wouldn’t be surprised if a future FOI request proves they are, provided you still can make future FOI requests link. Expect to see a lot of anti-face recog makeup, coming to a protest near you soon! It’s very cool in cory’s, ramez’s and others stories but i want some studies to show if it works and what patterns are truly effective.


#12

What if they weren’t leaving in protest? What if they all just figured out they have green eyes?


#13

An Article:
Face Recognition: Profit, Ethics and Privacy.

Whilst the benefits to business are clear and seductively tantalising, it has been impossible to ignore the increasing murmurs of discontent amongst the wider population. Concerns over intrusion of privacy and the constant monitoring of our daily lives threaten to tarnish the reputation of an industry which has endeavoured to deliver significant benefit to society through improved public safety. Can the industry be relied upon to self-regulate? Will commercial enterprise go too far in their quest to maximise profits? How far is too far? How can organisations ethically make use of face recognition technology to increase efficiencies and drive revenue, whilst respecting and preserving privacy and maintaining the trust of their clientele and society?


#14

Given that silicon photosensors are fairly IR sensitive(though the ones designed to produce ‘realistic’ images are often substantially filtered to get them a bit closer to human-style sensitivity); I wonder how well you could throw off the cameras without freaking out the public by using IR pigments mixed into otherwise neutrally colored cosmetics?

Thanks to the demand for better control of sunlight heating(either to improve solar-thermal systems or to reduce cooling costs), you can get both IR reflective and IR absorbent pigments commercially, designed to be mixed with the customer’s choice of paint, polymer, etc. In combination with a cosmetic base chosen to be suitably neutral/normal in the context of your skin tone and dress style, you could presumably formulate a palette of visually identical coatings with substantially different IR band properties.

The application would be laborious(have to switch frequently to get the right IR pattern, while maintaining even visual-band coverage); but you could theoretically look ‘just a little made up’, nothing unusual, to people, while looking like your choice of any one of history’s camo patterns, or possibly even a realistic but simulated face, to anything with too much IR in the mix…

It’s a pity that most of the really good facial recognition work is not terribly easy to run tests on without attracting some attention: the stuff they’ll just let little people use is all various ‘cloud’ services that only spit back the results(and unavoidably provide the images to the adversary); and anything cutting edge that you can get a local license for is likely to be fedware, in roughly the same market category as stingrays, weaponized malware, and LRADs, for which the vendor really prefers that unwanted customers not even get their hands on the sales literature.


#15

Oh, I agree completely, I just hadn’t heard anything in the news about it actually working, considering that only a few years ago it clearly didn’t.


#16

Wearing a mask may not help in this future. All the facial recognition devices will be networked, as corporations work out mutual data exchange systems with each other. You’ll be tracked from the moment you leave your home, to the moment you arrive at work, and all the way back home again. It won’t matter that you wear a mask, unless you and every other person on the street also wears the same mask. And the same clothes, and the same gait. People would have to carry portable black tunnels with them, to set up on the street, so 4-5 citizens could all enter, then all leave, confounding the network systems attempting to keep continuous track of a consumer, a data mine.


#17

Make sure the mirror works also in near-IR.

It’s here for centuries. It’s called “make-up”. It’ll have to become just a bit more complex, though.

How? The corporations involved are usually so big that they won’t be impacted by any attempt to boycott, or so steeped in military contracts that they won’t be sensitive to them anyway.

That’s why we need to own and run the tech too, not just The Adversary.

Another of the many reasons why we need to run our own face recog engines.

Could work in low-light conditions, with cameras that shine IR on the scene. (And therefore are as detectable themselves as flashlights.) In daylight, there’s enough light in the visible spectrum to not need the near-IR. It is still not filtered out (only some cams have snap-out IR filters, typically those with requirements to provide both low-light performance and good color rendering in visible light, which rules out the CCTV ones and leaves handheld camcorders), but it is drowned out.

Which gives us civilian, off-the-shelf tools for work with long-wave IR camouflage.
I wouldn’t mind some samples to play with.

True that. The same approach that makes thing reflective in red and unaffected in green and blue will make a thing reflective in near IR and unaffected in visual bands. We have to keep in mind that visible light is nothing special. It is too easy to forget about the invisible, or give it weird properties.

Not necessarily that much laborious. A mirror for visible, a camera with small display for NIR (possibly even the forward-facing one on a cellphone, with a NIR filter attached over it). Just look at both at once.

For tests of the method we may not care. The tests, including the methods and results, will have to be published anyway; the adversary will just know about it a couple minutes in advance, unable to fish the data out of the sea of other API calls anyway.

That can provide enough data to have our own tests and checks that are cloud-independent.

Classical HUMINT methods coupled with tried and true software piracy may be of use here. It is software, no exotic hardware is needed, the stuff is highly portable and can multiply easily.

New methods for getting rid of the attention will be needed to be developed.


#18

By “attack their infrastructure” I didn’t mean boycotting them, I mean actually attacking their infrastructure. Such as going on the offensive against their buildings, shipping, data, banking, etc.


#19

It’s a tempting approach. However, somewhat short-sighted if used prematurely. At the moment of societal collapse, when we the people get into action in overwhelming numbers, yes, it could work. Before, when the Adversary has more men with guns and better comm infrastructure, we try and we get screwed.

Different tactics, with less of immediate impact but more long-term effect, are more likely to succeed in long run. My personal favorite is developing passive (and active) countermeasures and teaching others.


#20

Nice reflection of that room!