Wouldn't the actual original article on The Intercept be a better link?:<p><a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/09/06/nypd-surveillance-camera-skin-tone-search/" rel="nofollow">https://theintercept.com/2018/09/06/nypd-surveillance-camera...</a><p>Original title:<p>IBM USED NYPD SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE TO DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY THAT LETS POLICE SEARCH BY SKIN COLOR
As worrying as this is, the title could use some work. This is not IBM being sneaky, it's IBM actively partnering with the NYPD to develop surveillance technology for public monitoring. IBM and the NYPD were in on this together.
I wonder if this ~2012 project [1] was intended to supplement the Domain Awareness System jointly created by Microsoft, and then later added to the Public Security Privacy Guidelines [0] along with DAS? The article states the NYPD stopped using it in 2016? What changed in 2016?<p>[0] <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_prevention/public_security_privacy_guidelines.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_prevention/...</a>
[1] <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4452844/IBM-SVS-Analytics-4-0-Plan-Update-for-NYPD-6.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4452844/IBM-SVS-A...</a>
I wouldn't be surprised to read one day that Facebook permitted some 3rd party to use private nude photos of its users to train a nudity filter.<p>We need new rules and we need them now.