Realtime facial recognition cameras used at Super Bowl

[Richard Lyons]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 02-02-01, 20:05:02, Greg Broiles <gbroiles at 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).

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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 at netbox.com
> PO Box 897
> Oakland CA 94604

------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lyons
------------------------------------------------------
     smtp: richard at 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.
--------------------------------------------------