Whieduk Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 Hi everyone. I have recently been reading a comic book called the private eye. In the story, everyone wears disguises when they go outside because of facial recognition technology being everywhere. I think that this may well also be the case in the next few years where people can be identified immediately wherever they go. I've been trying to think of privacy and why it is important but I'm having problems making a universal moral rule about it. Obviously, I'd like to keep my privacy as private as possible but other than that, I can't seem to think of a better reason. What do you think?
dsayers Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 We don't walk around with our arms up in front of our face despite the fact that we don't want to get hit in the face. This is because almost all of the time, we're not under a credible threat of being hit in the face. Our privacy on the other hand is constantly being invaded by ill-meaning, very aggressive people. Making us more defensive of such things in general. That's my external theory. My internal theory is that we live in a world where people have things they don't want to come to light. Whether its chemical dependency, being abusive in relationships... Features of their dysfunctional coping of trauma that was inflicted upon them that they do not understand enough to know that it's not their fault and they're not alone. They find solace in having a persona that they put forth for others and privacy is a way to conceal this. I agree that in a free society, privacy isn't going to be of much importance simply because we'd have less to hide and way fewer people to hide it from.
Triumph Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 There is a reason why we have doors on toilet stalls... Who do you trust enough, to watch you poop? I can't think of anyone either. On a side note, I understand that casinos already us this technology to run off people who can make money counting card playing poker, even though that is a legal way to play the game.
Josh F Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 This is hardly science fiction at this point, even Facebook uses it to 'tag' people automatically. Its pretty wild stuff, and I'm cautiously optimistic about its implementation in a free society, but am a little more pessimistic of its implications within statism.
dsayers Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 There is a reason why we have doors on toilet stalls... Who do you trust enough, to watch you poop? What reason? I've been in places where toilet stalls had no doors. Not once did I see one person watching another. The question is: Why would a bodily function that we all engage in be considered shameful to the point of concealing it? This question is particularly entertaining simply because nobody's trying to watch.
Triumph Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 What reason? I've been in places where toilet stalls had no doors. Not once did I see one person watching another. The question is: Why would a bodily function that we all engage in be considered shameful to the point of concealing it? This question is particularly entertaining simply because nobody's trying to watch. the clip is terrible quality, but south park's TSA (toilet safety administration) offers all the reasons you can ever need to this question.
J. D. Stembal Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 I posted this link in Current Events. Perhaps it has some relevance. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41447-big-brother-is-alive-and-well-in-boston/?hl=boston Part of my quasi-rational fears lie in coupling this technology with drones. How plausible does it sound that one day, in the bleak statist future, surveillance drones will find and flag "persons of interest" for the authorities to round up?
FriendlyHacker Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 What do you want to know about facial recognition technology? I'm one of those people developing it.
Mister Mister Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Two years ago I went to a Rainbow Gathering in Montana. It's a kind of hippy/alternative lifestyle event that takes place in a National Forest. Needless to say law enforcement tends to spend enormous resources having a presence at these gatherings. At this particular one, there were Park Police on horseback with cameras on their chest, using facial recognition to catch people with outstanding warrants. At least those were the rumors going around. Is it possible the government already has prototypes for this kind of technology?Also I had to share that my immediate reaction to the story you told about is that is not about a futuristic Surveillance State, but about the masks people wear to blend in modern culture.
AccuTron Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I'm intrigued by what face coverings might develop. There's the whole deal in France where a full face covering for women is illegal if it's religious, but what about blocking a cold or dusty wind? Is not privacy preservation like blocking an ill wind? If any one person wants to cover up, like a movie star trying to avoid attention already does, do they have to make sure it doesn't resemble something religious? But what would that be to begin with, but a piece of wrapped cloth?? I foresee privacy coverings being in alliance with religious practice convictions and challenges. And, um, what would be the tendencies in State reactions?
J. D. Stembal Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 What do you want to know about facial recognition technology? I'm one of those people developing it. Sorry for the late reply. The thread got bumped. Without wearing a mask, what are the best ways to go about foiling the recognition software? Would growing a beard or wearing a false nose work? Or is plastic surgery the only way of changing your visual identity?
FriendlyHacker Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Wearing anything that covers your face, avoiding large urban centers, blocking all cameras (use black tape) in any device you have, paying things by cash. Don't use xBox, playstation, wii or anything that has facial recognition, don't use skype or google hangouts.If you don't want people with facial recognition software to easily find you on facebook or google, you need to remove your facebook account, and then google yourself and remove any result you can find.There are things you can carry that will potentially jam the signal, but not really useful unless in very specific situations.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Surveillance is invasive because it gets inside our "bubbles of space". A human is used to having a bubble or zone of space around himself almost all the time, and extreme physical proximity by others can be disconcerting or offensive to us. A camera zooming in on my face is invasive, it's like someone walking up to me chest to chest, touching me, or sitting and staring at me unblinkingly. With surveillance tech we all become superheroes capable of penetrating each others' bubbles of space. It's offensive and intrusive. Invisible fingers of the state and the corporation touching, touching, touching us. Conditioning us. There's something Imperial about it: the Emperor can see but cannot be seen. We can't see who's watching us with these devices. This creates paranoia and submission.
AccuTron Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Re covering cameras on devices: Years ago, in order to enjoy a dark nighttime room, instead of a zillion LED clocks which were part of every device, during the daylight I covered them all with black plastic tape. At night, I was dismayed to find that lots of light still came through. Clock numbers were diffuse but could be still be seen. I tried adding note paper behind the tape, which made little difference. I experimented and it was surprisingly difficult to block the light short of wood or metal or thick dark plastic. So if you think you covered your camera lens, think twice. And today's software is excellent at taking fuzzy data and reconstructing it.
Recommended Posts