Realtime facial recognition cameras used at Super Bowl
According to the LA Times at <http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates2/lat_cameras010201.htm>, police used real-time face recognition systems to scan the faces of about 100,000 people who attended the Super Bowl in person. The cameras were hidden. 19 people with "criminal histories" were identified, but no arrests were made. The article quotes usual suspects like Bruce Schneier, Cliff Stoll, and Erwin Chemerinksy saying that the system is troubling, as well as an Oakland Raiders official who views it positively. Per the article, "[o]ther applications are expected to include ATM machines and public events such as the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City." -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:56:14AM -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: | | According to the LA Times at | <http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates2/lat_cameras010201.htm>, | police used real-time face recognition systems to scan the faces | of about 100,000 people who attended the Super Bowl in person. The | cameras were hidden. 19 people with "criminal histories" were | identified, but no arrests were made. | | The article quotes usual suspects like Bruce Schneier, Cliff Stoll, | and Erwin Chemerinksy saying that the system is troubling, as well | as an Oakland Raiders official who views it positively. One of the more troubling (to me) things is Chemerinsky's comment that people have no expectation of privacy in public. The idea that you may follow someone around with a video camera, take mm scale radar pictures through their clothes, etc, etc without their permission because they are in a public space is simply wrong. The free-speech-chilling nature of this technology should be clear. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:26:51PM -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:56:14AM -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: | | According to the LA Times at | <http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates2/lat_cameras010201.htm>, | police used real-time face recognition systems to scan the faces | of about 100,000 people who attended the Super Bowl in person. The | cameras were hidden. 19 people with "criminal histories" were | identified, but no arrests were made. | | The article quotes usual suspects like Bruce Schneier, Cliff Stoll, | and Erwin Chemerinksy saying that the system is troubling, as well | as an Oakland Raiders official who views it positively.
One of the more troubling (to me) things is Chemerinsky's comment that people have no expectation of privacy in public. The idea that you may follow someone around with a video camera, take mm scale radar pictures through their clothes, etc, etc without their permission because they are in a public space is simply wrong.
I think it's important to flesh out what you mean by "wrong" - if you mean that he's misread US law on this topic, I agree with him, not you - the privacy and publicity (and 4th Amendment) cases have for the most part agreed that it's perfectly permissible to record (mechanically or electronically) whatever's perceptible from or in a public place. This summary of the legal and practical history of video surveillance may be of interest - <http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/> There are a few limited exceptions - as of Jan 1 2000, California criminalized surreptitious nonconsensual videotaping under or through another person's clothing for sexual purposes, where the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy (CA Penal Code 647(k)(2)), but that's pretty limited. There's a table of state voyeurism statutes at <http://www.law.about.com/newsissues/law/library/docs/n98voyeurlaws.htm> but it's a few years old - of the 12 states listed there, I'd say that only two (AK and TN) appear to even potentially criminalize surveillance or recording in public places. I get the impression that other states may eventually criminalize sexually oriented surveillance - but I anticipate the statutes will be aimed at sexual or voyeuristic content, and won't touch garden variety baby-brother surveillance for behavior control.
The free-speech-chilling nature of this technology should be clear.
Yes, but that's a two-edged sword - the free press implications of limiting recording, depicting, and describing public content are also very serious - I think the people most likely to successfully use a law against public recordings would be police officers going after people like the ones who videotaped the beating of Rodney King. There's a persistent rumor that in CA, cops act very aggressively to prosecute people who surreptitiously tape encounters like traffic stops - I've got no idea whether or not that's true. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:34:17PM -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: | > | > One of the more troubling (to me) things is Chemerinsky's comment that | > people have no expectation of privacy in public. The idea that you | > may follow someone around with a video camera, take mm scale radar | > pictures through their clothes, etc, etc without their permission | > because they are in a public space is simply wrong. | | I think it's important to flesh out what you mean by "wrong" - if you | mean that he's misread US law on this topic, I agree with him, not you - | the privacy and publicity (and 4th Amendment) cases have for the most | part agreed that it's perfectly permissible to record (mechanically | or electronically) whatever's perceptible from or in a public place. I mean wrong as in unethical, not illegal. More comments to follow, if I can find some free time. ;) Adam | | This summary of the legal and practical history of video surveillance | may be of interest - | | <http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/> | | There are a few limited exceptions - as of Jan 1 2000, California | criminalized surreptitious nonconsensual videotaping under or | through another person's clothing for sexual purposes, where the | victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy (CA Penal Code | 647(k)(2)), but that's pretty limited. There's a table of state | voyeurism statutes at | <http://www.law.about.com/newsissues/law/library/docs/n98voyeurlaws.htm> | but it's a few years old - of the 12 states listed there, I'd say | that only two (AK and TN) appear to even potentially criminalize | surveillance or recording in public places. | | I get the impression that other states may eventually criminalize | sexually oriented surveillance - but I anticipate the statutes will | be aimed at sexual or voyeuristic content, and won't touch garden | variety baby-brother surveillance for behavior control. | | > The free-speech-chilling nature of this technology should be clear. | | Yes, but that's a two-edged sword - the free press implications of | limiting recording, depicting, and describing public content are | also very serious - I think the people most likely to successfully | use a law against public recordings would be police officers going | after people like the ones who videotaped the beating of Rodney King. | There's a persistent rumor that in CA, cops act very aggressively | to prosecute people who surreptitiously tape encounters like traffic | stops - I've got no idea whether or not that's true. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
I'm new to this list, so hello everyone. I'm also on the other side of the pond, so I'm interested in what you are recounting. Here, in the UK, stalking is illegal, so is recording phone conversations covertly. But the police are installing a network of CCTV -- not the general surveillance cameras in town centres which everyone loves, but a new set of low-level cameras that are directed into the windscreens of vehicles passing. So they can track exactly who goes where when. I'm not sure what intelligence they have installed (so far). In fact, I am not sure of anything about them, because they have never been mentioned in the media, and most people I've talked to haven't even noticed they are there! I'm wondering whether to try marketing driving masks... And whether, if I did, they would be outlawed (on grounds that they reduce driver vision and cause danger, of course). richard
>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:34:17PM -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: | > | > One of the more troubling (to me) things is Chemerinsky's comment that | > people have no expectation of privacy in public. The idea that you | > may follow someone around with a video camera, take mm scale radar | > pictures through their clothes, etc, etc without their permission | > because they are in a public space is simply wrong. | | I think it's important to flesh out what you mean by "wrong" - if you | mean that he's misread US law on this topic, I agree with him, not you
On 02-02-01, 01:21:54, Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org> wrote regarding Re: Realtime facial recognition cameras used at Super Bowl: -
| the privacy and publicity (and 4th Amendment) cases have for the most | part agreed that it's perfectly permissible to record (mechanically | or electronically) whatever's perceptible from or in a public place.
I mean wrong as in unethical, not illegal.
More comments to follow, if I can find some free time. ;)
Adam
| | This summary of the legal and practical history of video surveillance | may be of interest - | | <http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/> | | There are a few limited exceptions - as of Jan 1 2000, California | criminalized surreptitious nonconsensual videotaping under or | through another person's clothing for sexual purposes, where the | victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy (CA Penal Code | 647(k)(2)), but that's pretty limited. There's a table of state | voyeurism statutes at | <http://www.law.about.com/newsissues/law/library/docs/n98voyeurlaws.htm> | but it's a few years old - of the 12 states listed there, I'd say | that only two (AK and TN) appear to even potentially criminalize | surveillance or recording in public places. | | I get the impression that other states may eventually criminalize | sexually oriented surveillance - but I anticipate the statutes will | be aimed at sexual or voyeuristic content, and won't touch garden | variety baby-brother surveillance for behavior control. | | > The free-speech-chilling nature of this technology should be clear. | | Yes, but that's a two-edged sword - the free press implications of | limiting recording, depicting, and describing public content are | also very serious - I think the people most likely to successfully | use a law against public recordings would be police officers going | after people like the ones who videotaped the beating of Rodney King. | There's a persistent rumor that in CA, cops act very aggressively | to prosecute people who surreptitiously tape encounters like traffic | stops - I've got no idea whether or not that's true.
-- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 09:06:20AM +0000, Richard Lyons wrote:
I'm new to this list, so hello everyone. I'm also on the other side of the pond, so I'm interested in what you are recounting. Here, in the UK, stalking is illegal, so is recording phone conversations covertly. But the police are installing a network of CCTV -- not the general surveillance cameras in town centres which everyone loves, but a new set of low-level cameras that are directed into the windscreens of vehicles passing. So they can track exactly who goes where when. I'm not sure what intelligence they have installed (so far). In fact, I am not sure of anything about them, because they have never been mentioned in the media, and most people I've talked to haven't even noticed they are there!
I'm wondering whether to try marketing driving masks... And whether, if I did, they would be outlawed (on grounds that they reduce driver vision and cause danger, of course).
Well, that's disturbing. I wonder how long it's going to be before politicians figure out that these cameras will also be revealing the details of their lives, too - mistresses being driven around at lunchtime, driving meetings with underworld figures or members of other parties, etc - people generally expect some privacy while driving, especially if they're not near home. It does sound like a wonderful way to get blackmail material or general intelligence. I'm pretty skeptical about the idea of the masks - not that they wouldn't work, in that sure, they'll block your face - but I don't think that people will start wearing them or buying them. Doug Barnes, an early cypherpunk, gave an interesting talk at the recent Mac Crypto conference regarding the social role of privacy - in particular, he suggested that people who take steps to preserve their privacy may be signalling to other potential counterparties (in a variety of social and business contexts) that they're not trustworthy or fully legitimate .. our reactions to those signals may not be occurring at a fully rational or conscious level. While he suggested some methods for changing that perception, as a baseline that's a reasonable way to think about how most of the world views privacy. Even people who are also concerned about these cameras may be reluctant to buy or wear masks - not because they like the cameras, but because they don't want to be perceived by their family and friends as thieves or as untrustworthy people. Slides from Doug's talk might be online at <http://www.io.com/~cman/ps/peoplestupid_files/frame.htm>, though I haven't been able to get them to load in Netscape under FreeBSD. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604
>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 02-02-01, 20:05:02, Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com> wrote regarding Re: Realtime facial recognition cameras used at Super Bowl:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 09:06:20AM +0000, Richard Lyons wrote:
I'm new to this list, so hello everyone. I'm also on the other side of the pond, so I'm interested in what you are recounting. Here, in the UK, stalking is illegal, so is recording phone conversations covertly. But the police are installing a network of CCTV -- not the general surveillance cameras in town centres which everyone loves, but a new set of low-level cameras that are directed into the windscreens of vehicles passing. So they can track exactly who goes where when. I'm not sure what intelligence they have installed (so far). In fact, I am not sure of anything about them, because they have never been mentioned in the media, and most people I've talked to haven't even noticed they are there!
I'm wondering whether to try marketing driving masks... And whether, if I did, they would be outlawed (on grounds that they reduce driver vision and cause danger, of course).
people generally expect some privacy while driving, especially if they're not near home. It does sound like a wonderful way to get blackmail material or general intelligence.
Well, that's disturbing. I wonder how long it's going to be before politicians figure out that these cameras will also be revealing the details of their lives, too - mistresses being driven around at lunchtime, driving meetings with underworld figures or members of other parties, etc
I'm pretty skeptical about the idea of the masks - not that they wouldn't work, in that sure, they'll block your face - but I don't think that
Except that I'd certainly expect the police here to treat politicians a little differently from other drivers -- unless the public was looking, and these cameras aren't in the pubic domain. people
will start wearing them or buying them.
Doug Barnes, an early cypherpunk, gave an interesting talk at the recent Mac Crypto conference regarding the social role of privacy - in particular, he suggested that people who take steps to preserve their privacy may be signalling to other potential counterparties (in a variety of social and business contexts) that they're not trustworthy or fully legitimate .. our reactions to those signals may not be occurring at a fully rational or conscious level. While he suggested some methods for changing that perception, as a baseline that's a reasonable way to think about how most of the world views privacy. Even people who are also concerned about these cameras may be reluctant to buy or wear masks - not because they like the cameras, but because they don't want to be perceived by their family and friends as thieves or as untrustworthy people.
That is a very good point. I think getting a car with dark glass may be a better response.
Slides from Doug's talk might be online at <http://www.io.com/~cman/ps/peoplestupid_files/frame.htm>, though I haven't been able to get them to load in Netscape under FreeBSD.
I had a look at that URL. Star Office browser crashed trying to open it, but when using IE5 I got at least the text. I've copied it below in case you or others would like to see.
-- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604
------------------------------------------------------ Richard Lyons ------------------------------------------------------ smtp: richard@the-place.net ------------------------------------------------------ copy of Doug Barnes's slides follows: ---------------------------------------- Its the People, Stupid An analysis of privacy self-protection as a public health issue. ---------------------------------------- People Worry About Privacy Privacy cited as #1 concern people have about using web sites. Surveys show up to 97% of people say they are reluctant to provide information on web sites. Much hand-wringing as information is, in fact, combined and used in harmful or undesirable ways, e.g. medical records. ---------------------------------------- But Do Nothing About It Vast majority of e-mail is unencrypted. Vast majority of IP traffic is unencrypted. Almost everyone voluntarily trades personal information for a small increase in ease-of-use. More advanced tools are not developed based on limited uptake of more basic ones. ----------------------------------------- Case In Point: Doug Barnes Will happily install buggy P2P software to find warez and MP3s, but grumbles every time he has to fire up PGP. Thinks less and less before entering personal information at web portal sites with each passing month. Actually used Evite recently to announce a party. ------------------------------------------ Old, Tired Excuses The available software sucks. Greedy companies have stupid patents and wont let us play. Evil Government wont let us export. Nothing really bad has happened yet, once someone gets in serious trouble, then everyone will see the light. ------------------------------------------ Its Time for a Fresh Excuse Lack of buy-in on privacy self-protection is a social and emotional problem more than a technical or political one. Although similar to other widespread social problems, important differences make real solutions harder. ------------------------------------------- What is Privacy Self-Protection? Using available tools to protect ones own privacy. Strongly encouraging counter-parties to use these tools. Demanding guarantees and use of privacy protection from vendors, withholding trade when necessary. ------------------------------------------- Analogous Problems Privacy self-protection is most like: Using condoms. Washing hands. Civility. And has similar elements with: Wearing seatbelts. Water treatment. -------------------------------------------- Common Elements Small individual efforts Low-probability of a potentially very large negative outcome Importance of network effects Need for common infrastructure & network effects. --------------------------------------------- Minimum Efforts Using slightly more expensive software Using software that is slightly more difficult to configure or understand. Dealing with new error conditions & failure modes. Paying (or enduring cost-recovery) for somewhat increased resource usage & infrastructure. people make these sorts of efforts for many other reasons, but not for privacy. Why not? ---------------------------------------------- Apparent Solutions (1) Legislation Could mandate minimum standards of privacy protection in products. BUT, government has a conflict of interest, limited jurisdiction, and (in theory) should not be as worried about this as individuals. Government education Same conflict of interest Likely to be ineffective ----------------------------------------------- Apparent Solutions (2) Corporate Initiative Products targeted at personal privacy have not been big sellers. Corporate-targeted products suffer from a conflict of interest. Grassroots Public Health Approach ----------------------------------------------- Grassroots Public Health Approach Members a group recognize harm, organize as necessary, and create awareness of the public health problem. Advocacy of harm avoidance is a pro-social activity. Identifies advocate as a good counter-party in an iterated prisoners dilemma. Self-reinforcing and highly effective at solving this type of problem. ------------------------------------------------ Anti-Social Nature of Privacy I had a wonderful time, even though there were a lot of cypherpunks there. Anon. ------------------------------------------------ The Stigma of Privacy Obsession While everyone wants privacy, an exaggerated interest in privacy sends signals that evoke a strong negative response in most human beings. Privacy gives an individual an advantage in an iterated prisoners dilemma. BUT, this disrupts co-operative solutions to IPD. Detecting & shunning those overly concerned with privacy is part of a co-operative strategy for IPD. ------------------------------------------------- Limited SanctionHuman rights (knowledge seekers are the other.) Sexual Medical? ------------------------------------------------- A New Excuse A social movement advocating for strong privacy sows the seeds of its own destruction by identifying itself as fundamentally anti-social in nature. No grassroots approach to privacy self-protection will have widespread success until this problem is defused. --------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Adam Shostack -
Greg Broiles -
Richard Lyons