If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
as criminals or targets. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
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 ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
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! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?
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 ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
We sell and supply Brand New Unlocked Nokia phones"""" | Marc[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | June 22nd 07 09:48 AM |
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | February 1st 07 02:25 PM |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 09:00 PM |