I think it has viable applications as a investigatory tool, but only as that. It shouldn’t ever be used as a verification mechanism, especially in the case of criminal prosecution. For instance, searching for someone with certain features in a crowd, when trying to track or locate them, like say in a kidnapping when looking for the victim. Features shouldn’t be so specific that they can be assigned only to one person. They should be enough to narrow down a search. And it should only be a search. People have to do this manually already, and this could save time. But people are also beholden to oversight (allegedly). There’s a space for the tool to be used for good, but it needs a whole lot of regulation first. It’s SO ripe for abuse.
I think J6ers are paranoid enough to assume FR would potentially be in play. Masks and changing appearances also help skew tracking through normal video evidence. It’s not a new strategy. But some of the militarized insurrectionists really went overboard in covering their faces, and it was just as consistent as their military gear.
There are currently multiple designs of "ugly shirts" that confound facial recognition as well as other clothing designed to mess with other recognition systems.
William Gibson has brought up the idea of openly covert clothing that either relies on a pattern that causes the recognition software to fail to "see" a person wearing that pattern or clothing that actively changes as the wearer moves. The active constantly changing clothing also showed up in Philip K. Dick's novella "A Scanner Darkly."
If you're interested there are multiple patterned shirts for sale through etsy, red bubble, etc. Also, just keep wearing that n95 mask since that seems to render the wearer invisible to facial recognition software.
I was the first girl on the block to get the Barbie Airplane, and was briefly cool. Me and Carolyn would use it to run bombing raids on my brother's GI Joe Command Center. Among other things.
Thanks for reminding me about good times when I was a kid!
Totally agree. I have had similar thoughts about profiling. It may (or may not) be useful in instances where it might enable LEOs to find actual evidence in a crime but should never be accepted as evidence, or even probable cause, of and by itself.
I'd prefer as many obstacles as possible between random phone thieves and my banking apps.Also, I don't want to be billed for phone calls to a bunch of premium rate numbers.
There's a photographer from NYC who has a way of getting around facial recognition software: https://m.media-amazon.com/...
I think it has viable applications as a investigatory tool, but only as that. It shouldn’t ever be used as a verification mechanism, especially in the case of criminal prosecution. For instance, searching for someone with certain features in a crowd, when trying to track or locate them, like say in a kidnapping when looking for the victim. Features shouldn’t be so specific that they can be assigned only to one person. They should be enough to narrow down a search. And it should only be a search. People have to do this manually already, and this could save time. But people are also beholden to oversight (allegedly). There’s a space for the tool to be used for good, but it needs a whole lot of regulation first. It’s SO ripe for abuse.
I think J6ers are paranoid enough to assume FR would potentially be in play. Masks and changing appearances also help skew tracking through normal video evidence. It’s not a new strategy. But some of the militarized insurrectionists really went overboard in covering their faces, and it was just as consistent as their military gear.
Comes to that, why do they bother? They already arrest and/or kill whoever they want, evidence be damned.
gives you another fig leaf just like body cams that mysteriously malfunction.
Because building Skynet isn't bad enough, they're teaching it to be even MORE hateful of humans.
The defense was "that's just politics." Nothing to see here.
It's certainly claws for alarm.
See, it's funny because you don't need software to recognize it
There are currently multiple designs of "ugly shirts" that confound facial recognition as well as other clothing designed to mess with other recognition systems.
https://arstechnica.com/fea...
William Gibson has brought up the idea of openly covert clothing that either relies on a pattern that causes the recognition software to fail to "see" a person wearing that pattern or clothing that actively changes as the wearer moves. The active constantly changing clothing also showed up in Philip K. Dick's novella "A Scanner Darkly."
If you're interested there are multiple patterned shirts for sale through etsy, red bubble, etc. Also, just keep wearing that n95 mask since that seems to render the wearer invisible to facial recognition software.
Oo-la-la.
I was the first girl on the block to get the Barbie Airplane, and was briefly cool. Me and Carolyn would use it to run bombing raids on my brother's GI Joe Command Center. Among other things.
Thanks for reminding me about good times when I was a kid!
I had to be fingerprinted for a federal job. I have no idea whether those fingerprints were just used for screening or kept on file.
Totally agree. I have had similar thoughts about profiling. It may (or may not) be useful in instances where it might enable LEOs to find actual evidence in a crime but should never be accepted as evidence, or even probable cause, of and by itself.
I'd prefer as many obstacles as possible between random phone thieves and my banking apps.Also, I don't want to be billed for phone calls to a bunch of premium rate numbers.
Also wear those big dark cataract glasses, so they can't see your eyes or eye spacing.
"Suspicionless??" He protested, weakly... (It's in a good cause, w/out a doubt.)