Taylor's gonna spy, spy, spy, spy, spy... fans can't shake cam off, shake cam off Spotify's one-time nemesis Taylor Swift has reportedly used controversial facial recognition tech on fans while they've been getting down to her sick beats. According to Rolling Stone, the Rose Bowl venue in California rolled out the tech at her 18 May concert, in a bid to spot anyone on Tay Tay's long list of stalkers. In …
As noted, recognition tech is being taken up rapidly. It's only a matter of time before the government demands access to those scanners and data. ALL of them. Like Google, the spymasters believe its their right to know everything about everyone and store it forever. Soon facial recognition will be installed at shopping malls, train stations, sports venues, public buildings, anywhere a thin claim for preventive security can be made. Desire to recognize customers (for "rewards" of course, lol) will lead to most retail using it as well.
Think CCTV is invasive? It's usually mounted kinda high up, often providing imagery that lacks enough detail to ID people. Facial recognition will be at eye level and close, taking excellent shots of our faces. CCTV has a vague "watch for trouble" mission. Facial recognition has ONE purpose, to record and if possible identify everyone who passes it.
If you combine spying through your phone, home-automation setup, and public face recognition, you already have the effective elements of the Telescreen from "1984". With access to all these systems, the spymasters will watch and listen to us everywhere we go. It's worse actually, because Orwell didn't imagine huge searchable databases to store and serve up all that info.
All this tech was supposed to make our lives better, not bind us in digital shackles...
" It's only a matter of time before the government demands access to those scanners and data. "
They will say they need access to check that companies are complying with data protection regulations. 'Thing of the children' and 'we need this access to stop terrorists' are getting a bit long in the tooth and they need a new excuse.
it's pretty likely they have these access mandates in place already: the US govt have long had legal recourse to access these data, using the "government note" legal device (we demand the right to slurp your data, and you're not allowed to tell the public about our arrangement). We (the UK) share data with our US counterparts and in fact are very good at innovation in mass-data gathering and processing.
This may or may not have changed since Snowden alerted us to this sort of activitiy - good luck making sense of the legislation.
<I'm just heading off to spend Christmas in the bunker>...
if by "soon" you mean "already" ....
These stories always amuse me, the comments section goes bananas in shock but the fact is, this has been going on for years and they've only just noticed. We live in this world:
Bought a ticket for the concert on-line? They have your details and know who you are.
Did you tweet that you are going to the concert? They have your details and know who you are.
Do you have your phone with you? They have your details and know who you are.
Did you drive to the concert and park locally? They have your details and know who you are.
Did a friend post on FB that they were going with you? They have your details and know who you are.
And you're worried that they took your photograph? Did you miss the novichok guys getting photographed everywhere?
the comments section goes bananas in shock
I think you are confusing shock with exasperated impatient outrage.
The kind of grumbling that eventually often rises to a roar, and on rare occasions results in a tidal wave sweeping across a country leaving a bloody legacy and an even dodgier authority steering.
I absolutely share your concerns. What's even more ironic is that we're choosing (and paying) to have these things in our house.
With the government intelligence agencies' regulatory checks and balances being as clear as mud, and their relationships with the commercial data slurpers equally murky, the ignorance of the masses is depressing (my parents love these listening devices).
Can't wait for the "googamabook 5000 - wireless brain shunt", for instant ability to order toilet paper.
@AC
In essence, Taylor Swift is stalking her fans.
====================================
SlowlySwiftly but surely I'm gonna wear you down
SlowlySwiftly but surely I'm gonna bring you round
To my way of thinking, my way of kissing, my way of lovin'
SlowlySwiftly but surely, I'm gonna make you mine
====================================
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327XB7_YzqQ
Slowly But Surely lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc
Songwriters: Benjamin Weisman/Sid Wayne
yep. Now lets say this company takes those images and gives them over to say, facebook, who cross references them against ITS database, and they know who virtually everyone is that looked at that display.
Lets be clear, people: THERE IS NO ANONYMOUS DATA ANYMORE. Facebook or Google can take virtually any information like this and match it to a person in seconds. Its what makes the slurp of "anonymous" health records or trying to give 23andMe an "anonymous" sample problematic. They can deanonymize so fast it will make your head spin. And once they have that data, it will never be deleted
In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
If this sort of thing actually worked well, it would be worrying and in need of protests. With this level of reliability, it may be enough to keep Mr Javid happy but damage nothing but his budget.
"In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary."
So does that mean we shouldn't worry about it?
Or perhaps we should get vocal about it now *before* it becomes usable because there's no way they'll give it up once it is.
And you can be sure it will get better because all technology does.
This post has been deleted by its author
In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
The issue is that most people look at "success recognition rates". Everybody thinks of an AI instantly recognizing someone and making a decision. Sure the rates for that are not exactly stellar. That, however is NOT THE USE CASE.
The use case is recognize ONCE and TRACK forward (realtime) and historically (through recordings). It also involves recognition of other characteristic treats, not just face. The way you walk for example.
What is presently available is already pretty good at it and can do the job usually without a lot of operator assistance. There are also plenty of cameras in "useful places" - turnstiles, payment points, ticket/smartcard validators. Lock on. And track.
"There is overwhelming evidence that for instance casinos have successfully used such systems for many years."
Casinos are a bad example, because the serious problem with face recognition is more tolerable there. The essential problem is this: if you want a high level of success in spotting people you are actively looking for, you're also going to get a high rate of false positives.
In a setting like a casino, that's not a huge issue. In a public setting (particularly if it involves law enforcement), it's an enormous issue.
Have a look on youtube for clips of a Rolling Stones tour wherein at each gig a guest singer appears on stage and joins in to sing, presumably live, a song or two.
The one who can't sing and sounds utterly dreadful is the aforementioned Ms Swift.
Fortunately, i've not been exposed to any other work of hers to know whether or not that is usually the case.
Despite that, or maybe because of it, she has been and is very successful (by some measure) a la Ed Sheeran.
I'm not a fan of the surveilance state but I don't see a problem as long as the images are not being stored somewhere. If the cameras are scanning images and performing a check against a known database and discarding all the ones that don't match, that's fine with me.
It's the CCTV cameras that record everything we do and keep it for a month that worry me.
I'm not a fan of the surveilance state but I don't see a problem as long as the images are not being stored somewhere.
But that is the problem, isn't it? I've lost count of the number of times we were promised that our data would not be stored, and how many times those assurances were proven false. And those are only the instances of which we are aware.
CCTV didn't record and keep images for months, and ever longer, some clips are now permanently stored.
CCTV should have been highly regulated and outlawed in public areas decades ago, unless people think living in a surveillance state is the definition of the freedom and respect for individuals that allowed the West to prosper.
But most citizens believe or accept that being under 24/7 surveillance will end all crime, even government corruption.
That there is still crime and corruption, increasing corruption if anything, is not reported as part of the story. Neither have we been growing more confident of our democratic systems but pointing that out creates cognitive dissonance so best to just accept.
I see where you are coming from but this will be recorded and sold or passed to law enforcement etc..
Ask yourself this, where is the only place at a concert where you can guarantee someone will pass? Where you scan your ticket, so now this tasty data not only has your face but also your identification linking person to mugshot. Also, who do you think supplied the mug shots to check them against? The police therefore I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted something in return for that favour.
The only reason facial recognition is not more widespread is because of poor quality CCTV, when they catch up it will be a different matter.
> Ask yourself this, where is the only place at a concert where you can guarantee someone will pass? Where you scan your ticket,
Au contraire. Someone without a ticket, trying to sneak in, won't be sneaking in by showing a ticket.
Queuing up for the toilets would also be a good bet - ever been to concert where the beverages weren't watered down???
The police therefore I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted something in return for that favour.
Well there's a sentiment the public could do without in it's law enforcement.
'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.', next will be the collecting of little favours in brown paper bags ever week and eventually Chief Constables will be granting favours with future reciprocals on their daughters wedding days.
Yeah and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Here we go, straight off the top of my head. Lets say there is a shoplifter who happens to be in the same location as me 12 times and shop lifts in my local store. They check stock see it's down and go to the CCTV facial recognition for all the people in those locations and in that store between the dates the stock has gone missing. Let's hypothetically add to this that I got a caution for shoplifting when a kid and lets also add that the real criminal wore a face mask on a few occasions. What do you think could happen? There is now evidence I committed a crime I didn't, not conclusive but enough to force a caution especially in this day and age.
So no, I don't commit crime but I value my privacy and don't want it known where I am 24/7 especially if one day I decide to join a peaceful protest.
Interestingly a caution is not a conviction and as such was historically not subject to the rehabilitation of offenders act meaning that it didn't "age out". https://www.nacro.org.uk/resettlement-advice-service/support-for-individuals/disclosing-criminal-records/rehabilitation-offenders-act/
This was changed a few years ago, so that the cautions are not required to be disclosed.
But that is not the same as being "removed from criminal record", if you got caught and cautioned or convicted. That is entered in the PNC and there is no way of removing that information.
HTH
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
