So a new technology can scan the gender and age of people coming and going from a bar, and send that data to your smartphone app. Then you decide if you want to go to that bar.
Good lord, some sort of zap gun is eyeing us as we patronize bars and publishing the information. It can tell gender and age? Is this creepy or not?
As long as it only reports summary statistics, I don’t have a problem with it. If it reports data on individuals, that’s bad. In between is a little bit of a grey area.
Well, let’s consider the status quo ante: Before this technology, people made decisions about what bars they would visit on the basis of perceived or expected clientele, no? And they acquired this information from either direct observation (i.e., going to the bar, scanning the room, and noting, among other demographics, the sex-ratio and age ranges of the patrons) or by reputation (i.e., the reports of other direct observers, possibly including reports of sex-ratios and age ranges).
So, all this new tech adds is automating the observation aspect send more easily disseminating the information gathered.
Do people think it’s creepy? Was the fact that chicks (or dudes) go to popular bars formerly a state secret? Or that one very common reason people go to bars is to meet possible romantic partners?
Can this really be called creepy or intrusive when all it is going to reveal are things we all already knew? (Hub 51: mid-20s douches. Viagra Triangle bars: old balls and golddiggers. Jackhammer: all dudes, 20s to 50s.)
If by “zap gun” you mean “video camera”, then yes. But there have been security cameras recording you in public establishments for years. The difference is that now there’s a computer watching the feed that can estimate age and gender by looking at your face.
That said, I do worry about the increasing trends of automated data-gathering. Yes, the fact that you were in a bar was always public information available to anyone who looked at you before, and you could always call a friend to find out if a bar was “hot” at the time. But the fact that people had to be a part of that loop necessarily limited the spread of this information. There is a substantive difference between public information that could be gathered with a certain amount of trouble and seamless ubiquitously gathered data. It’s the same difference between, say, a police department putting a tail on a car and a surveillance system that records all the cars that move around on public streets. Yes, it was always public information that I’m driving on public streets. Anyone could watch my car and see where I go. But that’s a far cry from knowing where everyone goes in public all the time.
Reading the article, one of the thoughts behind this was to let guys know where all the women are hanging out, and vice-versa. Except later he states that they will never show more that 72% men or more that 58% women, which kind of defeats that purpose, doesn’t it?
It ain’t really a “smart” phone till it helps you get laid!
On the percentages, I don’t think so. If I’m interested in going to a bar specifically because it has more women than men, if the actual percentage is 70 and not 58, I’m still going to choose that bar. All that really matters on that point is that there are going to be plenty of unattached women. Providing the data is as much a service to the bar gathering and displaying it to attract patrons as it is to potential patrons. If they think showing that it’s too skewed is bad, it makes sense. I’d be more concerned that the information provided could be manipulated to adjust the ratio or ages slightly to make it look more popular.
That said, while I’m not one to go to bars at all, I don’t really see it as creepy. If you’re someone who regularly goes to bars, then you probably already know which bars tend to have the type of atmosphere you like or you know who to ask to figure that out. If you don’t, you probably don’t care at all since you’re going to one because it was recommended or someone dragged you along or whatever. It’s not going to tell you anything you don’t already know or can’t easily figure out.
It should also scan and broadcast the relative attractiveness of the bar’s patrons.
The technology will never catch on until it can tell you if your ex is there. And if they’re with a steady.
I know very little about face recognition software and I’m admittedly somewhat old but am I the only one here who wonders if this gizmo actually works with any reliability? It seems odd to me that on a skeptical board like this that no one’s questioned it. Does this really seem doable given the state of the art?
Exes are never “steady” with anyone, they’re all sluts.
T’was a joke for the humor impaired.
People are talking about building systems to automatically diagnose depression from facial and vocal cues. Compared to that, gender and approximate age is a snap.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I seriously doubt it’s ability to accurately distinguish between a 35 year old and a 22 year old.And Who cares if it can tell the difference between a 50 year old and a 20 year old? Who can’t tell what general age group a bar is catering to just by looking at it?
“Hey that bar has 100% male customers. What’s up with that?!”
I’m curious about how it handles cumulative data for bars that change character with time of day. Does it scan everybody leaving and match the data? Are there entrance/exit cameras at every door? If the lighting makes people look younger on the way in than on the way out, does the average reported age keep decreasing?
I suppose if the CEO is speaking truth and no individuals are identified (facial DETECTION as opposed to facial RECOGNITION) I would have no objection. Personally, though, I have a few favorite bars and I’ll just walk by and see who’s there. It’s a small town and I can be pretty well guaranteed I’ll find people I know. We only have 20 bars.
But even a gay bar with no women in it at all would show on this app as being 72% male.
I guess my point was that there is a good reason why it should show numbers higher than 72%.