As this link details, the city of Tampa is employing face recognition software to scrutinize people on the street in the hope of identifying criminals. I am of two minds with respect to this.
On the one hand, if someone has not committed any crimes, he/she has nothing to fear from this technology. Indeed, the streets of Tampa may be made even safer by its use.
On the other hand, there is something deeply unsettling about this (to me, at least). I can’t articulate it well, but the notion of randomly scanning faces gives me a sense of deja vu, perhaps from one too many bleak science fiction plots set in the future replete with retinal scans, faceless and dark-garbed security agents, and the pervasive presence of an evil government. Or maybe I’m just being dramatic. In my heart, I think not. But I can’t find the right words nor the right way to attack this concept.
So I ask - can one of the more eloquent and passionate among you build a less emotional, and more logical, case against this type of intrusion into the lives of random passers-by on the streets of Tampa? On the streets of your town?
I don’t usually worry about Big Brother-type plots, but this issue also makes me uneasy. It’s one thing to use this somewhere where the threat of some kind of dangerous attack is likely: Airports, Superbowl games. After all, police are expected to be there anyway, and the system sounds like it has good potential to guard against a terrorist attack that could cost hundreds of lives. But to just watch people on some street? I think a lot of citizens would be uncomfortable with that.
It’s not an invasion of privacy, because all these people are in public anyway.
It doesn’t appear to violate any fundemental rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
But maybe the best way to argue against it is on the basis of effectiveness: The article mentions that the system spotted 19 people it thought were people with outstanding warrants, yet none were arrested, or, I suspect, even questioned. The police apparently couldn’t get through the crowd.
Another line of arguement is that even if it does not violate anyone’s rights, the people have the right to object to law enforcement techniques they are uncomfortable with, so we can send a message to our elected representatives that we don’t want our police using this technique. The drawback is that this arguement won’t work unless enough people pressure their elected officials to get them to pull the system. After all, even though the system is designed to make us safer and more secure from criminals, this might be outwieghed by the feeling of safety and security from our government that we lose.
Not terribly eloquent or passionate, I know, so it’s not quite what you asked for, but it’s my two copper-plated metallic disks of zinc.
All the crook need do is wear a mask. Doesn’t even have to be a good one. Or are masks illegal?
Peace,
mangeorge When masks are outlawed, only criminals will have masks.
The link provided has expired, so unfortunately I’m writing a rather uninformed opinion. But my basic reaction is somewhat related to my stance on the death penalty – before you even get into issues of right or wrong, it just seems frought with the potential for mistakes to happen. What will happen when this system gives a false positive? Will someone, someday sue the city (you’d think they might be worried about that, in our current litigation-happy society) if there is a record of a wanted criminal hanging out at Starbucks, and the police fail to follow up quickly enough to prevent this person from committing the next violent crime?
I’m also curious about how much this software records, and and how long it is kept. I’m imagining a bizarre scenario where the software finds a criminal at a bus station, who coincidentally happens to be standing next to me, asking if I know when the next bus is coming. Since I am a helpful person, I pull out my bus schedule and engage this person in a conversation about city buses and their lack of punctuality. Now, what if, in a few months, I’m a suspect in a crime I didn’t commit (one of my big fears, by the way). Can this system be used to backtrack to find my picture, and will the police then say “A-ha, she’s fraternizing with known criminals! She must be guilty!” Even if this can’t be used in court, it might have some impact on the way the police conduct the investigation.
Oh, you wanted a logical case? Er, not much help here, sorry about that.
I would think that trying to keep all the faces of non-offenders on record in some database would demand huge storage capacity, and storing images of each face scanned instead of deleting them would be too expensive.
OTOH the images of convicted felons are already stored so why not use the information available.
Delphica if you happened to wind up talking to a felon who was already under police surveillance it would not be any differant to being seen with this new equipment so I do not see any new issues there.
Thre is an issue which has some similar points of discussion in the UK which relates to the use of the newest generation of vehicle speed cameras.
Most of our speed cameras are photographic device and a copy of the image which has your vehicle registration and your speed superimposed is sent through the mail to you with an attached notice of the penalty you have incurred, you can go to court to appeal this or try to get reduction for extenuating circumstances.
The new generation of speed cameras use infra-red illumination, and store the image digitally, this can then be linked directly to the Department of Vehicle Licensing Centre(DLVC) which by use of their computor sustem can then send out a penalty notice, all without human intervention.
Thing is these cameras can record thousands of vehicles per minute, wether speeding or not which means that the movements of any citizen could be tracked, all someone has to do is look at the stored file related to your vehicle and your driving licence.
This has excercised the minds of many civil rights groups and at the moment these cameras are not all that widespread.
I’ve a feeling that if these cameras were more widely used they would fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights and possibly the Data Protection Act one reason being that information may not be stored on citizens without their consent and their knowledge of what it is to be used for.
I don’t see it as being any different than a cop on a street corner scanning the crowd for people they are looking for that look similar to a composite sketch or mug shots. Ever had a patrol cop next to you at the stop light give you a gander? He’s doing the same thing, comparing you to mental images of people to be on the alert for.
This is closely related to straightforward video survelliance to prevent crimes and/or capture criminals. This was discussed in this thread, and many of the points made are relevant here.
I’m very strongly against it. Being in public shouldn’t forfeit your right to some semblance of privacy, in my mind. That’s not the society I want to live in.
It’s not even the videotaping itself that bothers me. It just seems like a slippery slope. Why not put microphones in sidewalks, public parks, etc. to monitor people’s conversations? Why not put GPS units on all of us, so the police can find us instantly if we are accused of a crime?
I’m not trying to be a paranoid nut – to me, it seems like you have to draw a line when it comes to civil liberties, even if it makes it harder to catch criminals.
Yes, Giraffe and that slope has already been pretty well greased. Look at how attitudes toward privacy have changed in the last 10 years or so.
“If you’re not breaking any laws, you have nothing to worry about”
Sound familiar? Sounds scary to me.
Peace,
mangeorge
Thanks, Sua. That was a great link (and is also the second time this week that I’ve missed a thread that anticipated my OP).
In the link, spoke- says:
I think that captures much of the underlying concern of my question. That and the fact that, unlike a cop who gives you a “gander”, face recognition softwear can be automated and archived
I don’t see a problem with it. It’s not like the cameras are capturing anything private about you, you can’t really compare it to hypothetical mikes in public places recording your conversations because a person can expect to have a conversation in public without being overheard if they are careful, there’s no real way to avoid anyone seeing your face aside from wearing some kind of mask, which you can do if this concerns you enough. It’s not like they are looking for actual evidence of crimes (like roadblock stops or questioning random people on the street), they are simply looking for known criminals, comparing their faces to a mug shot.
I’m usually pretty big on civil liberties and the right to privacy, and I don’t see a problem with this. I think people are just spooked because it’s a new technology that they aren’t used to yet.
Just how good is this software, anyway? The human brain, which evolved in part with the skill to recognize distinct faces, constantly misidentifies people. Especially in regards to criminals–people misidentify suspects in lineups all the time. But we’re going to trust a computer to do it? “Sorry, sir, you’ll have to come with us. The computer says you look just like this guy we think is a rapist.” Egads. What a bad idea.
But I guess because I’m not a criminal and don’t look anything like any other person, I have nothing to fear.
Well, I have already mentioned this technology in a different thread. Thanks Sua for the link.
I can see some advantages.
In Casino’s Statuims and airports where the chance of a dangerous attack or criminal activity is likely (wevets has already said this} is a good thing.
The link the OP provided is dead. So, I shall consider other options for such a system.
Lets say, bus stations, gas stations and subways now have these systems. Runaways and abducted children could be tracked or at least provide more “eyes” looking for the child or suspect.
Yes, there is chance for false sighting, yet we have enough of those already from human “eyewitnesses.” At least with the camera crying wolf, there is additional film back up to conpare seprerate from the software.
If this technology is wide spread enough would they be able to backtrack someones movements?
Say I am accused of setting a fire somewhere, police might then be able to back check for my movements looking to find Mr Osip was actually at Wal-Mart at the time.
I could see where again, if back checking could be used to trace the possibility of others involved in a crime.
I do not see this as a bad idea to have cameras everywhere to monitor pulbic traffic. Well, except for the cost involved in installing and maintaining such a system.
It is after all a tool nothing more. I Tned to think the eneasy feeling most people (including myself) have about such a concept is like any tool, it’s capabilites can be abused and used for unapproved purposes.
That would be the greatest disadvantage of the whole system. The potential damage done with the abuse of this system is very disturbing indeed.
Wow two posts whiel writing this. Badtz I agree with you on the Mikes concept. PlDennison, Humans are actually more fallible in this technology. I would rather have a camera see someone shooting me than 10 humans anyday
The system (or the ones I am familiar with) calibrate 14 different facial features to determine a possible match. Most likely more now that the technology has been around for a bit and can improved. If you want, I am attending a National convention from the 15th thru the 22nd and will gladly dig up more information on this subject. Sorry I have not the time to dig up links or such, Maybe I can dig while I am at work for more information durring lunch as well.
Osip
For facial recognition software to be at all efficient, it needs to measure the ratio of key measurements between various facial features, a kind of definition of how the face is constructed, I would imagine therefore, that the software, rather than storing a ‘bitmap image’ of known felon’s faces, stores a database of just the definitions, which could potentially be very compact.
I read about a system that could store references which would enable it to construct an acceptable likeness of someone’s face in less than fifty bytes, it was like a computerised identikit; all it did is use one byte to describe the type of eyes that you have (from a list of 256 possible choices, which covers most people), then another byte to define their position on the face and so on. (I’m sure I’m oversimplifying that, but you get the idea)
Anyway, we all know that criminals eyes are too close together, so couldn’t the camera just measure that?
Actually, masks are illegal, in many Southern states, anyway. Anti-mask laws were enacted years ago as part of an effort to combat the KKK.
I sense that a lot of people are uneasy with this face recognition technology, and with generalized surveillance. There seems to be a sense that it violates our rights, even if the right being violated is not spelled out in the Constitution. Maybe it’s time for the Supreme Court to find another unenumerated right in the good ol’ [url=“http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/”]Ninth Amendment:
Anyway, we all know that criminals eyes are too close together, so couldn’t the camera just measure that?