People asking for body cameras on all police, whether net benefit or not, need to understand everything that is coming with it. That includes automatic facial identification of everyone. Police will simply no longer have to ask for ID. Obscuring your face is already being made illegal... (see: burqa bans)
Minority Report, here we come.<p>Incrementalism is a powerful tool for exerting an unstoppable force onto something which would otherwise notice that force and resist it.
The Metropolitan Police have had "forward intelligence teams" (FIT) filming demonstrations for some time in order to identify people.<p>Note that, as people are increasingly demanding that police wear body cameras to record evidence of possible police abuse, these cameras can also be fed to image recognition systems.
<i>> Facial recognition software, which American military and intelligence agencies used for years in Iraq and Afghanistan</i><p>Mighty good it did them there...<p>It's disturbing that no matter how much technology police gets, they always seem to want more. I mean, look at the encryption backdoor debate. We're being monitored in all ways imaginable, and apparently it's still not enough.
When I read that soldiers were forcing Iraqi civilians to do iris scans several years ago, I knew that eventually we'd see police in the USA doing the same thing here.
The technology is agnostic and can be used in ways not originally envisioned. What happens when every police appearance is captured and then run through say social media scans for 'ID' purposes?
And the federal RealID program provides a nice comprehensive dataset to train the computers with. This is the veiled motivation behind ID laws that are being promoted as protecting the public from terrorists, sex offenders, or voter fraud. But what the US government really wants is to introduce a loophole in the 4th amendment by outsourcing policing. It's not an illegal search if it's done by a private company. And they don't have to respond to FOIA requests either.
IRL privacy cat and mouse game.<p>There is already some work in the privacy clothing area. Almost makes it look like items for a sci-fi RPG.<p><a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2969732/privacy/how-japans-privacy-visor-fools-facerecognition-cameras.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcworld.com/article/2969732/privacy/how-japans-pr...</a><p><pre><code> If you’re worried about Big Brother monitoring you from security cameras, Japan has developed eyewear that can keep you anonymous.
The Privacy Visor consists of a lightweight, wraparound, semitransparent plastic sheet fitted over eyewear frames. It’s bulky and not exactly stylish, but it could have customized designs.
It’s meant to thwart face-recognition camera systems through a very simple trick. It reflects overhead light into the camera lens, causing the area around the eyes to appear much brighter than it normally does.
</code></pre>
<a href="http://ahprojects.com/projects/stealth-wear/" rel="nofollow">http://ahprojects.com/projects/stealth-wear/</a><p><pre><code> Building off previous work with CV Dazzle, camouflage from face detection, Stealth Wear continues to explore the aesthetics of privacy and the potential for fashion to challenge authoritarian surveillance.
Presented by Primitive at Tank Magazine were a suite of new designs that tackle some of the most pressing and sophisticated forms of surveillance today. The countersurveillance solutions include a series of ‘Anti-Drone’ garments and the Off Pocket™, a privacy accessory that allows you to instantly zero out your phone’s signal.
</code></pre>
How long until they're outlawed just like encryption will.<p>edit: is there any proper way to easily quote text? So that it stays text wrapped.
time to start rocking these
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRj8whKmN1M" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRj8whKmN1M</a>