"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Sep 2, 2007.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
    as criminals or targets.
    Rich, Sep 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich wrote:
    > Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
    > as criminals or targets.
    >


    To an unaccountable government, people already ARE criminals or targets.

    ANY-way:

    I'm pretty sure it's an extension of 2-D and 3-D pattern recognition
    military research going back several decades to try to wring as much
    information as possible from satellite photos. Now with better imaging,
    more computing power and faster databases, all sorts of things are
    possible, such as "gait recognition."

    It's going to get to the point that people will have to make crazy faces
    and perform Silly Walks ($1) to go incognito in public.

    --
    It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Sep 3, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    >> Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
    >> as criminals or targets.
    >>

    >
    > To an unaccountable government, people already ARE criminals or targets.
    >
    > ANY-way:
    >
    > I'm pretty sure it's an extension of 2-D and 3-D pattern recognition
    > military research going back several decades to try to wring as much
    > information as possible from satellite photos. Now with better imaging,
    > more computing power and faster databases, all sorts of things are
    > possible, such as "gait recognition."
    >
    > It's going to get to the point that people will have to make crazy faces
    > and perform Silly Walks ($1) to go incognito in public.
    >


    IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
    then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom. BTW, the
    government making most use of this technology is British, where
    surveillance cameras are vastly more common than in most countries.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 3, 2007
    #3
  4. Ron Hunter wrote:
    > Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>> Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
    >>> as criminals or targets.
    >>>

    >>
    >> To an unaccountable government, people already ARE criminals or targets.
    >>
    >> ANY-way:
    >>
    >> I'm pretty sure it's an extension of 2-D and 3-D pattern recognition
    >> military research going back several decades to try to wring as much
    >> information as possible from satellite photos. Now with better
    >> imaging, more computing power and faster databases, all sorts of
    >> things are possible, such as "gait recognition."
    >>
    >> It's going to get to the point that people will have to make crazy
    >> faces and perform Silly Walks ($1) to go incognito in public.
    >>

    >
    > IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
    > then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom. BTW, the
    > government making most use of this technology is British, where
    > surveillance cameras are vastly more common than in most countries.



    It's too early in the morning to be throwing out stinky bait like this.
    "IF you have nothing to hide...?" C'mon.



    CL

    --
    It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Sep 3, 2007
    #4
  5. Rich

    dr Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    <snip>
    >>

    >
    > IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
    > then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom. BTW, the
    > government making most use of this technology is British, where
    > surveillance cameras are vastly more common than in most countries.


    Doesn't this just mean we get to watch the crimes being committed though,
    for ourlate night entertainment. Doesn't seem that all this CCTV serves any
    other purpose at the moment !

    d
    dr, Sep 3, 2007
    #5
  6. Rich

    Ron Hunter Guest

    dr wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >> IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
    >> then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom. BTW, the
    >> government making most use of this technology is British, where
    >> surveillance cameras are vastly more common than in most countries.

    >
    > Doesn't this just mean we get to watch the crimes being committed though,
    > for ourlate night entertainment. Doesn't seem that all this CCTV serves any
    > other purpose at the moment !
    >
    > d
    >

    It can come in very handy should a crime be committed in a place where a
    camera was on, and being recorded. Many crimes have been solved because
    they took place across the street from an ATM with the camera on all the
    time, or a security camera which recorded the incident. Other than such
    an incident, the recording is usually written over in a few days.

    Online cams are another matter.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 4, 2007
    #6
  7. Rich

    timeOday Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    > Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
    >
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>> Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
    >>> as criminals or targets.
    >>>

    >>
    >> To an unaccountable government, people already ARE criminals or targets.
    >>
    >> ANY-way:
    >>
    >> I'm pretty sure it's an extension of 2-D and 3-D pattern recognition
    >> military research going back several decades to try to wring as much
    >> information as possible from satellite photos. Now with better
    >> imaging, more computing power and faster databases, all sorts of
    >> things are possible, such as "gait recognition."
    >>
    >> It's going to get to the point that people will have to make crazy
    >> faces and perform Silly Walks ($1) to go incognito in public.
    >>

    >
    > IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
    > then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom.


    Good, I think we badly need one in the Oval Office.
    timeOday, Sep 4, 2007
    #7
  8. In article <>, Ron Hunter
    <> writes
    >
    >IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
    >then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom.


    In an infallible system that may be true and we all know that computers
    and databases are infallible.

    To make matters worse, should you ever find yourself recognised
    erroneously, it will be almost impossible to prove your innocence
    because so many people are just as gullible as you.

    Computer say: "Guilty".

    Allegedly, they crucified the last person who really had nothing to
    hide. Everyone before and since has put some skeletons in the closet.
    More than 2000 years after that event, the gullible still don't
    understand that innocence, real or apparent, is no guarantee of freedom.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 5, 2007
    #8
  9. Rich

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    > In article <>, Ron Hunter
    > <> writes
    >>
    >> IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
    >> then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom.

    >
    > In an infallible system that may be true and we all know that computers
    > and databases are infallible.
    >
    > To make matters worse, should you ever find yourself recognised
    > erroneously, it will be almost impossible to prove your innocence
    > because so many people are just as gullible as you.
    >
    > Computer say: "Guilty".
    >
    > Allegedly, they crucified the last person who really had nothing to
    > hide. Everyone before and since has put some skeletons in the closet.
    > More than 2000 years after that event, the gullible still don't
    > understand that innocence, real or apparent, is no guarantee of freedom.


    Such issues are easily cleared up unless people are failing to think for
    themselves. Cases like babies appearing on the 'do no fly' list.
    Ludicrous!
    Ron Hunter, Sep 5, 2007
    #9
  10. In article <>, Ron Hunter
    <> writes
    >Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >> In article <>, Ron
    >>Hunter <> writes
    >>>
    >>> IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to
    >>>hide, then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom.

    >> In an infallible system that may be true and we all know that
    >>computers and databases are infallible.
    >> To make matters worse, should you ever find yourself recognised
    >>erroneously, it will be almost impossible to prove your innocence
    >>because so many people are just as gullible as you.
    >> Computer say: "Guilty".
    >> Allegedly, they crucified the last person who really had nothing to
    >>hide. Everyone before and since has put some skeletons in the closet.
    >>More than 2000 years after that event, the gullible still don't
    >>understand that innocence, real or apparent, is no guarantee of freedom.

    >
    >Such issues are easily cleared up unless people are failing to think
    >for themselves. Cases like babies appearing on the 'do no fly' list.
    >Ludicrous!


    That's precisely the problem, people DON'T think for themselves when
    confronted with "Computer say: Guilty", especially when a metric of
    their employment is how many convictions they can achieve. Everything
    is stacked up to proceed with the prosecution no matter how much raw
    evidence contradicts a computer "decision".

    I have a friend & colleague who only recently managed to extricate
    himself from one of these early "automated conviction" systems. More
    than two years, and considerable personal expense, after being sent an
    automated "notice of intent to prosecute", or NIPs as they are known
    here, for allegedly jumping a red light in a town over 300 miles from
    his home and which he had never visited in his life, the police have
    finally accepted that it wasn't him that was involved at all, and
    dropped the prosecution. The problem? Traffic light cameras, automatic
    number plate recognition and a vehicle that was a similar colour -
    though not even the same model - to his.

    Sorry, but I don't care how sophisticated the technology is, recognising
    faces by computer is always going to be more error prone than reading
    seven alphanumeric digits - and they can't even do that with 100%
    reliability. Irrespective of the technology's capabilities, the
    authorities already demonstrate far too much faith in a computer
    conclusion even when a cursory look at the original information
    demonstrates that the "computer conviction" is wrong.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 5, 2007
    #10
  11. Rich

    Paul Bartram Guest

    "Kennedy McEwen" <> wrote

    > Sorry, but I don't care how sophisticated the technology is, recognising
    > faces by computer is always going to be more error prone than reading
    > seven alphanumeric digits


    Computers make very accurate mistakes, very fast...

    Perhaps they should scrap 'number plates' and use barcodes instead. Of
    course then a black felt-tip pen will become required equipment in every
    hoon's car!

    Paul



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Paul Bartram, Sep 6, 2007
    #11
  12. In article <46df8d3e$0$27392$>, Paul Bartram
    <> writes
    >
    >"Kennedy McEwen" <> wrote
    >
    >> Sorry, but I don't care how sophisticated the technology is, recognising
    >> faces by computer is always going to be more error prone than reading
    >> seven alphanumeric digits

    >
    >Computers make very accurate mistakes, very fast...
    >
    >Perhaps they should scrap 'number plates' and use barcodes instead.
    >

    or just have barcodes laser etched on everyone's forehead at birth. ;-)
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 6, 2007
    #12
  13. Rich

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:30:29 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

    >> Perhaps they should scrap 'number plates' and use barcodes instead.

    >
    > or just have barcodes laser etched on everyone's forehead at birth. ;-)


    Not needed, but it might catch on as a fad if the barcodes are
    laser etched by skilled tattoo artists. :) Subcutaneous RFID and
    other types of chips are already being used. For pets, presumably
    to prevent a one way trip to the dog pound. For humans (I don't
    know if it has gone beyond testing) so that unconscious accident
    victims can be scanned for medical histories while being taken in
    ambulances to hospitals. Lose a chipped kid in Walmart? Have the
    floor scanned for the tyke. :)
    ASAAR, Sep 7, 2007
    #13
  14. Rich

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:30:29 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >
    >>> Perhaps they should scrap 'number plates' and use barcodes instead.

    >> or just have barcodes laser etched on everyone's forehead at birth. ;-)

    >
    > Not needed, but it might catch on as a fad if the barcodes are
    > laser etched by skilled tattoo artists. :) Subcutaneous RFID and
    > other types of chips are already being used. For pets, presumably
    > to prevent a one way trip to the dog pound. For humans (I don't
    > know if it has gone beyond testing) so that unconscious accident
    > victims can be scanned for medical histories while being taken in
    > ambulances to hospitals. Lose a chipped kid in Walmart? Have the
    > floor scanned for the tyke. :)
    >


    For some reason there is a real hysteria about 'chipping' humans. Seems
    some people think this has religious significance? Can't see it myself,
    but then I don't plan to have myself 'chipped' either... Maybe if I am
    ever kidnapped by aliens, I might not have a choice.... GRIN.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 7, 2007
    #14
  15. Rich

    Paul Bartram Guest

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote

    > For some reason there is a real hysteria about 'chipping' humans. Seems
    > some people think this has religious significance? Can't see it myself,
    > but then I don't plan to have myself 'chipped' either... Maybe if I am
    > ever kidnapped by aliens, I might not have a choice.... GRIN.


    It could save your bacon though. They might scan the chip and find you'd
    already been probed and your memory of the event erased, therefore they
    don't need to do it again!

    Paul



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Paul Bartram, Sep 8, 2007
    #15
  16. Rich

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Paul Bartram wrote:
    > "Ron Hunter" <> wrote
    >
    >> For some reason there is a real hysteria about 'chipping' humans. Seems
    >> some people think this has religious significance? Can't see it myself,
    >> but then I don't plan to have myself 'chipped' either... Maybe if I am
    >> ever kidnapped by aliens, I might not have a choice.... GRIN.

    >
    > It could save your bacon though. They might scan the chip and find you'd
    > already been probed and your memory of the event erased, therefore they
    > don't need to do it again!
    >
    > Paul
    >
    >
    >

    I was amazed when an episode of Power of 10 claimed that 17% of
    Americans claimed to have been kidnapped by aliens, but maybe they meant
    that as in 'illegal aliens', of the human variety. Grin.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 8, 2007
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. °..Jan Plexy..°

    "L" lens technology or "DO" technology??

    °..Jan Plexy..°, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    426
    SamSez
    Oct 4, 2005
  2. The Message [00000-0000-0000-0000]

    OT(?): Law Enforcement 101

    The Message [00000-0000-0000-0000], Mar 8, 2007, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    866
  3. Gary Roach
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    459
  4. richard

    Re: from an undercover law enforcement website

    richard, May 3, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    424
    Evan Platt
    May 3, 2009
  5. chuckcar

    Re: from an undercover law enforcement website

    chuckcar, May 3, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    528
    iL_WeReo
    May 4, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page