Through a Face Scanner Darkly(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Through a Face Scanner Darkly
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/through-a-face-scanner-darkly.html
11 comments
Many localities explicitly ban the wearing of masks in public outside of recognized festivals.
As is the case with FB, Twitter, and the other social networks, young people will not see a problem with this, at least while they're young. As they grow older and live their lives, and have medical problems, have brushes with the law, have problems at work, etc etc, and more information is collected, they will realize one day that the sum total of the profile now collected about them, in the cloud, is suddenly having a genuine real impact on their lives... and it will be too late. Years too late.
"It’s much easier to meet interesting new people when we can simply look at someone, see their Facebook, review their LinkedIn page, or maybe even see their dating-site profile."
How sad.
How sad.
I'm still trying to figure out just what my reaction to that sentence was. It was some strange mixture of pathos, horror, and, contemplating a world in which such an idea has taken hold, how to unite people against such a thing.
> contemplating a world in which such an idea has taken hold
Like any conference for the past few years already?
Like any conference for the past few years already?
Fortunately, your nightmare world would helpfully self-select those of us who share your horror for you to unite with, because presumably everyone who actually thought this was a good idea would be too busy only meeting people like themselves and consolidating their groupthink.
Personally, I concluded that the claimed functionality such as you described must have been added for comic effect, particularly the line in the next paragraph about how someone's facial recognition technology could help me to know whether someone who is presumably right in front of me at the time is attractive or not...
Personally, I concluded that the claimed functionality such as you described must have been added for comic effect, particularly the line in the next paragraph about how someone's facial recognition technology could help me to know whether someone who is presumably right in front of me at the time is attractive or not...
Well, if there was ever any doubt that technology like Google Glass encourages creepy mass surveillance and that powerful new privacy laws are overdue, I guess there isn't any more.
As far as I can see, the path this kind of technology leads us down is only likely to end one of two ways:
1. We develop a more open and forgiving society that acknowledges everyone has faults and treats everyone fairly as the person they are today.
2. We create a society where every time you leave your home, or even in your own home, you constantly have to guard every little thing you say or do, including giving up all kinds of otherwise useful or enjoyable activities that might (justifiably or otherwise) reflect unfavourably on you in the future to someone whose opinion matters at the time.
Sadly, while there might be many people in the world who would both enjoy and respect the first option, it's not really an option at all right now, because there are also a lot of people in the world who will exploit personal information at the expense of the subject. Sometimes that is simply because they aren't very nice themselves. Sometimes it's for more indirect reasons like the way our societies have set up commercial incentives for businesses.
As long as everything from human nature to our economic systems are stacked against the transparency/fairness outcome, maybe it's best if we don't go too far down that path. This seems like a great example of the saying that just because we can do something, it doesn't mean we should.
As far as I can see, the path this kind of technology leads us down is only likely to end one of two ways:
1. We develop a more open and forgiving society that acknowledges everyone has faults and treats everyone fairly as the person they are today.
2. We create a society where every time you leave your home, or even in your own home, you constantly have to guard every little thing you say or do, including giving up all kinds of otherwise useful or enjoyable activities that might (justifiably or otherwise) reflect unfavourably on you in the future to someone whose opinion matters at the time.
Sadly, while there might be many people in the world who would both enjoy and respect the first option, it's not really an option at all right now, because there are also a lot of people in the world who will exploit personal information at the expense of the subject. Sometimes that is simply because they aren't very nice themselves. Sometimes it's for more indirect reasons like the way our societies have set up commercial incentives for businesses.
As long as everything from human nature to our economic systems are stacked against the transparency/fairness outcome, maybe it's best if we don't go too far down that path. This seems like a great example of the saying that just because we can do something, it doesn't mean we should.
Laws may help some, but I worry that as devices get smaller and computers are integrated into everything, they won't be able to protect us for long. Ubiquitous computing may (in the next decade or two) actually obsolete any expectation of privacy. We need to start acting as if every digital device nearby is reporting information about us, because most of those devices will soon have that capability.
In that case, I hope (1) is the outcome.
In that case, I hope (1) is the outcome.
Universal surveillance capability with strong and effective laws protecting privacy should help restore the balance of power.
If there's a presumption of surveillance, and an effective means to compel production of any electronic records, the you end up with an effect similar to that which some people have noted concerning reviewing social networking pages as part of hiring practices (either public-facing content or by the reprehensible practice of requesting passwords).
As several people have noted: sure, if you want to go there, you'll discover that I'm a member of X, Y, and Z lawfully protected groups in terms of discrimination. In which case the onus is then put on the employer (preponderance of evidence) to show that a discriminatory hiring decision wasn't made, to say nothing of legal costs in defending against same.
I'm not entirely sanguine that this be the case -- there's a lot that can go wrong with legal procedure and protections. But laws do matter and can help.
Simply because something is technically possible doesn't mean it must happen.
If there's a presumption of surveillance, and an effective means to compel production of any electronic records, the you end up with an effect similar to that which some people have noted concerning reviewing social networking pages as part of hiring practices (either public-facing content or by the reprehensible practice of requesting passwords).
As several people have noted: sure, if you want to go there, you'll discover that I'm a member of X, Y, and Z lawfully protected groups in terms of discrimination. In which case the onus is then put on the employer (preponderance of evidence) to show that a discriminatory hiring decision wasn't made, to say nothing of legal costs in defending against same.
I'm not entirely sanguine that this be the case -- there's a lot that can go wrong with legal procedure and protections. But laws do matter and can help.
Simply because something is technically possible doesn't mean it must happen.
You're hoping against both human nature and statistics. Even if 99% of people are decent, that 1% will still eventually screw you over for their own profit.
Maybe it will come to active countermeasures. For example, you could set your browser (fingerprint and all) to trawl through an invented web history to poison tracking databases. Running such a program would both screw with the trackers and give you plausible deniability. Tag other people's selfies with your name on "social" sites, and tag your own with several names.
Maybe it will come to active countermeasures. For example, you could set your browser (fingerprint and all) to trawl through an invented web history to poison tracking databases. Running such a program would both screw with the trackers and give you plausible deniability. Tag other people's selfies with your name on "social" sites, and tag your own with several names.
No, he's hoping that there are fewer opportunities for you to be screwed over for profit.
Unfortunately, those opportunities appear to be as boundless as human stupidity.
Laws may help some, but I worry that as devices get smaller and computers are integrated into everything, they won't be able to protect us for long.
Sure they will. Laws help to protect us from all kinds of unwelcome behaviour despite there not being any direct physical intervention to prevent someone who is willing to accept the consequences from acting in that way. This is actually a particularly easy problem to solve.
For one thing, even if miniaturisation of the technology does make it hard to detect, someone still had to create it. That will require sophisticated and expensive manufacturing facilities for the foreseeable future.
Then in most cases it's going to be sold. That means money changing hands, and some form of advertising so vendors can be found by interested buyers.
Arguably the big new risk to privacy from modern technologies is the scale they can reach, uploading, correlating and redistributing vast quantities of data. That means someone has to store the database and provide access to it and probably charge money for that access.
Any of these aspects can be identified, challenged or restricted in law as a preventive mechanism. Moreover, doing so will typically be much easier than identifying someone walking down the street with covert surveillance equipment, which frankly is already widely available without trying very hard to find it, it's just not widely used.
The idea that mass surveillance and the demise of privacy are inevitable conflicts with reality. These things don't happen in isolation, and the people doing them have motivations for their behaviour, and you fight socially unacceptable behaviour that happens to invade privacy the same way you fight any other kind.
Sure they will. Laws help to protect us from all kinds of unwelcome behaviour despite there not being any direct physical intervention to prevent someone who is willing to accept the consequences from acting in that way. This is actually a particularly easy problem to solve.
For one thing, even if miniaturisation of the technology does make it hard to detect, someone still had to create it. That will require sophisticated and expensive manufacturing facilities for the foreseeable future.
Then in most cases it's going to be sold. That means money changing hands, and some form of advertising so vendors can be found by interested buyers.
Arguably the big new risk to privacy from modern technologies is the scale they can reach, uploading, correlating and redistributing vast quantities of data. That means someone has to store the database and provide access to it and probably charge money for that access.
Any of these aspects can be identified, challenged or restricted in law as a preventive mechanism. Moreover, doing so will typically be much easier than identifying someone walking down the street with covert surveillance equipment, which frankly is already widely available without trying very hard to find it, it's just not widely used.
The idea that mass surveillance and the demise of privacy are inevitable conflicts with reality. These things don't happen in isolation, and the people doing them have motivations for their behaviour, and you fight socially unacceptable behaviour that happens to invade privacy the same way you fight any other kind.
As Eric Schmidt might remind us, "if you don't want anyone to know about something someday, maybe you never should have done it."
I wear corrective lenses. Every time I hear that I think of Pol Pot.
I'm not sure I grasp the connection.
"During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population, at the same time executing selected groups who they believed were enemies of the state or spies or had the potential to undermine the new state. People who they perceived as intellectuals or even those who had stereotypical signs of learning, such as glasses, would also be killed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
Thanks.
Absolutely. It's not like millions of people have ever been rounded up and executed just for following the wrong religion or anything. And you'd better believe I just Godwin'd this thread, because this kind of thing is exactly why the Germans are much more cautious about things like privacy and state surveillance than most.
Security cameras have face recognition (and other identification technologies) behind them already. Putting recognition technology in the hands of the people will level the playing field: Is that the cop or TSA agent starring in a YouTube video abusing someone? Is that previously anonymous bureaucrat helpful or a time-waster?
So it's not a matter of choosing between those two futures. "They" have already got their database about you. Do you want the same tools, or not?
So it's not a matter of choosing between those two futures. "They" have already got their database about you. Do you want the same tools, or not?
>powerful new privacy laws are overdue
Problem with any new privacy laws is that they will only restrict us, not the government. Since the government is the only one with the legal authority to torture and imprison and rob us, I don't much see the point.
Problem with any new privacy laws is that they will only restrict us, not the government. Since the government is the only one with the legal authority to torture and imprison and rob us, I don't much see the point.
That's such an oversimplification, both in how it treats the "government" has a single undivided entity, and on how it implies that illegal acts are the only thing that people have to fear, that I don't have the will to counter argue.
But regardless of that, privacy is a right onto itself, it shouldn't need justification. It's violations of thereof that should need to be justified.
But regardless of that, privacy is a right onto itself, it shouldn't need justification. It's violations of thereof that should need to be justified.
Since the government is the only one with the legal authority to torture and imprison and rob us, I don't much see the point.
There is a lot more that can hurt quality of life than something as obvious and severe as imprisoning someone. And if your government has the legal authority to torture you, you need a new government.
Failing to control sensitive personal information, and for that matter the inevitable mistaken information that will go along with it, could harm innocent people for reasons including but certainly not limited to: their religious views, their political inclination, their stance on controversial subjects such as abortion or legalisation of drug use, their employment history, any previous criminal activity no matter how minor and how long ago, and the lies a bitter ex once told about them in an online forum.
The kinds of harm caused might include but again are certainly not limited to: inability to get various kinds of insurance or paying excessive premiums, inability to get a job or to negotiate a fair employment contract and compensation when they do, inability to get credit, inability to travel by certain modes of transport, inability to attend certain public events, inability to send their kids to a good school, inability to meet the special someone they would have had those kids with, and in too many real world examples already, harassment, assault, injury, or death.
Governments should be restricted in the personal information they collect and how they can use it, not least because "government" is a sweeping term that probably includes a substantial proportion of the entire adult population in any first world country. But in some respects, preventing the unjustified collection, processing and disclosure of personal information in the private sector is far more important, because that's where most of the risks of nasty but not life-destroying, hire-a-lawyer-and-sue-for-millions damage will occur.
There is a lot more that can hurt quality of life than something as obvious and severe as imprisoning someone. And if your government has the legal authority to torture you, you need a new government.
Failing to control sensitive personal information, and for that matter the inevitable mistaken information that will go along with it, could harm innocent people for reasons including but certainly not limited to: their religious views, their political inclination, their stance on controversial subjects such as abortion or legalisation of drug use, their employment history, any previous criminal activity no matter how minor and how long ago, and the lies a bitter ex once told about them in an online forum.
The kinds of harm caused might include but again are certainly not limited to: inability to get various kinds of insurance or paying excessive premiums, inability to get a job or to negotiate a fair employment contract and compensation when they do, inability to get credit, inability to travel by certain modes of transport, inability to attend certain public events, inability to send their kids to a good school, inability to meet the special someone they would have had those kids with, and in too many real world examples already, harassment, assault, injury, or death.
Governments should be restricted in the personal information they collect and how they can use it, not least because "government" is a sweeping term that probably includes a substantial proportion of the entire adult population in any first world country. But in some respects, preventing the unjustified collection, processing and disclosure of personal information in the private sector is far more important, because that's where most of the risks of nasty but not life-destroying, hire-a-lawyer-and-sue-for-millions damage will occur.
Totally agree that having one's privacy protected from the private sector is important!
But it's more important to have one's privacy protected from those who, as I said, have the legal authority to torture, imprison, and rob.
Problem here being that any legislation, in current climate, will only restrict private spying and not government spying.
>And if your government has the legal authority to torture you, you need a new government.
Agreed!
But it's more important to have one's privacy protected from those who, as I said, have the legal authority to torture, imprison, and rob.
Problem here being that any legislation, in current climate, will only restrict private spying and not government spying.
>And if your government has the legal authority to torture you, you need a new government.
Agreed!
I don't disagree with you, nor do I have any problem with creating constitution-level changes that would in principle bind governments in similar ways. I just think these are two different issues, and a win on either one of them is still a win, even if the other one is still a problem.
My advice as a research scientist at company that makes face recognition software: big, dark sunglasses.
I wear distinctive designer glasses with transition lenses. I guess that doesn't help?
It would help a little bit, but part of the reason of wearing dark sunglasses is to totally obscure the eyes. They're used as anchor points and if an algorithm can't find them, it is going to have trouble, especially in an identification task like this one rather than verification.
How about: No online profile?
Even if they had no online profiles that they personally created, for a lot of people theres enough stuff online about them besides that. I have a unique enough name that if you google my name and exclude social sites, in the first two pages you can find, where I went to high school, college, grad school, and what I studied there, various awards I won, sports and hobbies of mine, plenty of photos, and my most recent jobs. None of which I personally posted online.
That would work too. Although I fear the cat is out of the bag for a lot people.
And making sure no one else posts things involving you.
... Suddenly 'Groucho Glasses' became a standard addition to every outfit.
That is a fashion change I could agree with!
Edit: Combine with LEDs for extra fun!
That is a fashion change I could agree with!
Edit: Combine with LEDs for extra fun!
Some interesting related pieces:
* http://www.refinery29.com/2014/01/60361/nametag
* http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/01/09/stalker-friendly-...
Personally, I think this is very scary, especially since they're planning to make it opt-out, so you're in the results, unless you sign up and opt-out. I'm guessing some legislation is necessary to prevent all out abuse of this sort of technology. There's obviously benefits to this sort of technology, but in my opinion, should be tightly controlled.
* http://www.refinery29.com/2014/01/60361/nametag
* http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/01/09/stalker-friendly-...
Personally, I think this is very scary, especially since they're planning to make it opt-out, so you're in the results, unless you sign up and opt-out. I'm guessing some legislation is necessary to prevent all out abuse of this sort of technology. There's obviously benefits to this sort of technology, but in my opinion, should be tightly controlled.
I imagine should this take off, clothing/making that thwarts facial detection algorithms will also increase in popularity. see http://cvdazzle.com
Haha, very relevant given the thread title.
Or how about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fac6aHFa_k
Or how about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fac6aHFa_k
In the future we will DDOS the surveillance systems with realistic looking images of ourselves doing one of every kind of thing, as to blur the boundaries of what is real and what's not.
Orbeus, a computer-vision company, created a facial-recognition service, called Rekognition, which promises to identify faces, detect emotion, and determine whether or not the subject is attractive.
That seems like the sort of determination that ought to be made by the wearer...
That seems like the sort of determination that ought to be made by the wearer...
http://news.discovery.com/history/art-history/venice-masks-1...
In the 17th century, Brown said noblemen, patrician women, and other wealthy individuals began to wear masks and cloaks throughout the city. "This custom reached its apogee in the 18th century, as you can see in paintings by Pietro Longhi," Brown told Discovery News. She explained, "Masks and cloaks allowed one to move about the city anonymously, and thus offered considerable protection, as with the chador in the Islamic world. They also allowed women to frequent dubious places of recreation, such as gambling casinos, without compromising their respectability." She added, "It seems as if the upper class all wandered around in public space incognito in that period (the 18th century)."