Big brother IS watching

[The emperor has no clothes]

As I understand this technology, they are not taking everybody’s pics . They are matching up pics of criminals . I don’t think anybody should have to give up their pic or DNA. Unless you are arrested and booked for a serious crime. If you are proven not guilty they should have to destroy that as a safeguard.

[Romeo]

Hey have a slightly different take on all of this. Most here seem to think the government wants to control us all. Some think technology will help government catch the bad guys.
The first group is right, but I don’t think it’s for the reasons most of them think.
The second group is right as well, but probably not to the degree they think they’d are.
Of course, the government wants to control us. It’s called law and order. For every one of you that hates the idea of government control, there is an actual victim of crime by another who is calling for more justice. A government, any government, will always try to keep order. The less we police ourselves, the more they will do it for us. ALWAYS. Like OSS said, it’s all of us, not just the government. After all, whether you like it or not, the government, in all its manifestations, is and always has been a reflection of the people it governs. Does anyone here actually believe that the culture we have become deserves all the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for. One of our founders said something like our constitution will only work in a god fearing, religious society, or something to that meaning.
Who here thinks, we are still a religious people? If you do, I have a bridge for sale you may be interested in.
   As far as government being successful with all this new technology, good luck with that, as well.
For every well meaning techie who invents something to “help” us all there is at least one evil techie coming up with something to circumvent it.
The answer isn’t in the technology, it’s in the human heart, and what we all do to foster a belief in the almighty. Thanks for reading, now go ahead at tear it apart.

[Jess from VA]

If and when these private companies become direct conduit proxies for either political parties or government agencies, then they should be treated accordingly.

The right of privacy from governmental intrusion is not mentioned in the Constitution, and was created by reading several parts of it together (First ,Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments) by SCOTUS a long time ago.  So we are told we are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy, under all the circumstances, in our homes and private affairs, but the more you go into the public domain (front yard vs back yard) (cars vs homes), the less privacy you may reasonably expect.  

However, with the electronic technology of today, the dividing lines of what may be a reasonable expectation of privacy has gotten more difficult to define.  You go logging onto Faceplantbook (and put all this information about yourself in the public realm), or driving or walking down the street or attending sporting events, you may not have any reasonable expectation of privacy anymore.  But clearly, finding you in a stadium with police vs facial recognition technology is a much more intrusive manner of search.  

Some pretty effectively argue that new technologies alter the balance between privacy and disclosure, and that privacy rights should limit government surveillance to protect the democratic processes.  

When the G decides to focus on specific individuals for more intrusive searches (beyond reasonable), there is a warrant requirement based on a showing of probable cause to a judge to believe a crime has been committed and that you are involved in it.  But mass surveillance of the whole people with new and ever more intrusive technologies, allowing much closer looks at everyone than ever before in every aspect of their daily lives, begins to butt up against older case law that what you did in public had no reasonable expectation of privacy at all.  Back then, what you did in public was mostly being observed by a human eye (not billions in technical equipment).

There was a time you could make a phone call, and if there was no warrant to listen in on one side or the other, it was private (and we reasonably expected it to be private).  Today, nothing said on any phone may be private (the G may still need a warrant to use it in court against us, but they collect it all in giant databases with no warrant at all, then claim if they need to use it they can still get a warrant, but they already have it).  

We understand that while driving around we certainly have a less reasonable expectation of privacy than in our home, but with facial recognition and license plate technology, and cameras everywhere, did we expect to be monitored in every detail of our public lives all day every day, just because we left our homes?  And FISA courts which make these decisions are secret, and not open to the public, and we are to rely on FISA judges alone to protect the public or individuals (with no right of individual representation).

Technology has tipped the scales of justice (and reasonableness) with heavy weight toward the State (and private technology companies).  They don't have to intrude in our homes or backyards or other private spaces, they can watch it (or listen) on thermal imagery, or from satellites, or control consoles at govt facilities.

And of course, all of this technology has both the ability to do great good for the people and the Country, but also the power to exercise greater and greater control over the people in every aspect of their lives.
With great power, comes great responsibility.

[Robert]

DARPA and the Brain Initiative
https://www.darpa.mil/program/our-research/darpa-and-the-brain-initiative


The White House announced the BRAIN initiative in April 2013. Today, the initiative is supported by several federal agencies as well as dozens of technology firms, academic institutions, scientists and other key contributors to the field of neuroscience. DARPA is supporting the BRAIN initiative through a number of programs, continuing a legacy of DARPA investment in neurotechnology that extends back to the 1970s.

Electrical Prescriptions (ElectRx)
The ElectRx program aims to help the human body heal itself through neuromodulation of organ functions using ultraminiaturized devices, approximately the size of individual nerve fibers, which could be delivered through minimally invasive injection.

    Work Begins to Support Self-Healing of Body and Mind
    ElectRx Has the Nerve to Envision Revolutionary Therapies for Self-Healing
    President Obama Highlights New DARPA Program Aimed at Developing Novel Therapies Customized to Individual Patients

Restoring Active Memory (RAM)
The RAM program aims to develop and test a wireless, fully implantable neural-interface medical device for human clinical use. The device would facilitate the formation of new memories and retrieval of existing ones in individuals who have lost these capacities as a result of traumatic brain injury or neurological disease.

    Targeted Electrical Stimulation of the Brain Shows Promise as a Memory Aid
    Restoring Active Memory Program Poised to Launch

Neural Engineering System Design (NESD)
The NESD program aims to develop an implantable neural interface able to provide unprecedented signal resolution and data-transfer bandwidth between the brain and the digital world.

    Towards a High-Resolution, Implantable Neural Interface
    Bridging the Bio-Electronic Divide

[DirtyDan]

I’ve said it before

Assimilation by the borg (Star Trek TNG) anyone ?

Dan

[Robert]

Do you remember when the license plates were registered to the car and not the owner? Do you remember when we didn't have drivers licenses that were verified with our birth certificate and other piece of information along with our social security number that by law was not supposed to be used for identification purposes? So now we have license plate scanners that scan the plates as the Police go down the streets, I wouldn't think that would be a problem do you? Along with facial recognition, credit card receipts, smart meters for houses, along with internet history and banking and job records.

This along with social media sites and DNA from the Ancestry sites hospital or just Dr. visits makes for a complete history of places and profile of the person. The fact that all medical records are now digitized and put in databases. Now the last piece of the puzzle is going cashless. At least it will make the payments for the miles driven on public roads easy to collect and proven. Along with the higher insurance rates if found driving to fast then having the extra payment deducted from your account automatically.  Or higher or mandated health care rates based not on stated issues but actual documented information available to companies from the information that was collected on you. Or like Facebook if you belong and post a response not deemed appropriate they can actually come to your house and search to make sure you are not a problem to society.

Lets say you want to buy a house and you are able to pass the whole qualifying and get in and loose your job and the bank instantly knows about it, will you lose your house or maybe your mortgage or insurance will go up since you are now a higher risk. The possibilities are endless and easily done.

Mark Zuckerberg has unveiled Facebook's augmented reality system - and confirmed rumours the firm is developing a 'mind control' brain interface.

The social network's founder took to the stage at the firm's annual F8 developer conference at the San Jose McEnery Convention Center to introduce what he called the 'second act' in Facebook's camera strategy - a new platform to allow developers to build AR apps that intensifies its battle with Snapchat.

He also hinted at the firm's more distant future, confirming rumours it is developing a radical mind reading computer interface - and promised more details on the project 'soon'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4422436/Mark-Zuckerberg-confirms-Facebook-s-brain-interface.html


Are You Ready To Get Tatted Up With Digital Tattoos?

http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/are-you-ready-to-get-tatted-up-with-digital-tattoos

We’re already used to describing our online social identity as a “digital tattoo” – something that we carry with us permanently wherever we go. So what if it were now possible to get a real-life digital tattoo that would extend our online social identity into the physical world as well? In its exploration of futuristic new password schemes, mobile phone giant Motorola is mulling over the idea of electronic tattoos that could be implanted on your skin and be used as passwords for your digital devices. In fact, according to Motorola's Regina Dugan (ex-DARPA), there's a chance that the next generation of Motorola phones (which are actually Google Android phones) would come with the ability to recognize electronic tattoos.

 And he cause all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Not if, its when will we see this.

If you didn't have the ability to see where this is going or that it would be even possible this should make a change in your thinking and open your eyes to the possibilities. This is now can you imagine what will happen when 5G and the future technology makes available the ability to truly have a 24/7 connected society?

If these companies are planning it, we are going in that direction its what has been envisioned and working towards so its not a one off situation or idea. Only the technology is needed to link these together.

[Robert]

From:
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Sent:
Saturday, July 30, 2011 12:09 AM
To:
H
Cc:
Abedin, Huma <AbedinH@state.gov
>; Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov
>; Sullivan, Jacob
<Sullivan3.3@state.gov
>
. Subject:
The Clinton-Slaughter view of the world
The Atlantic launched my website this week — Notes from the Foreign Policy Frontier — with the following first post,
which has gotten a great response — most strongly, you will not be surprised to hear, from anyone 35 and under, but
also from the Director of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, who predicts that the framework I outline has the
potential to "shift the foreign policy debate." I will be collecting/curating as many examples/trends/analyses as possible
of social, development, digital and global foreign policy initiatives and publicizing them here and on Twitter. Would
never have been able to write this without listening to you and working together over the past two years.
Best,
AM

http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/2011-08-07-Hillary-Clinton-re-Facebook-use-in-State-Dept-policy-Case-No-F-2014-20439-Doc-No-C05786453-Aug-07-20.pdf

Slaughter is an experienced author and editor, having worked on eight books, including A New World Order (2004); The Idea That Is America: Keeping Faith with Our Values in a Dangerous World (2007); Unfinished Business: Women, Men, Work, Family (2015); her latest work The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Dangerous World (2017), and countless scholarly articles. Her most popular piece to this day is still her article in The Atlantic, titled "Why Women Still Can’t Have it All", which addressed the difficulties women still face in finding a balance between a fulfilling career and family life. This contribution revived a national debate over gender equality in the 21st century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Marie_Slaughter

[Ramie]

They are already using facial recognition in ball parks.

http://www.kare11.com/article/sports/mlb/twins/target-field-adds-permanent-fancams-with-facial-recognition/89-534723251

[Jess from VA]

Well, this is probably an improvement on men looking.  We are only looking at faces about half the time. 

[3fan4life]

I will ask you again 3fan. Which freedoms and rights would you be giving up ?


I called BS on you because you accused me of giving up freedoms that people died for. Essentially saying I didn't care about their sacrifice . BULLSHIT !

It's the whole slippery slope thing............. Where does it end?


Jess explains this very well (much better that I can):

If and when these private companies become direct conduit proxies for either political parties or government agencies, then they should be treated accordingly.

The right of privacy from governmental intrusion is not mentioned in the Constitution, and was created by reading several parts of it together (First ,Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments) by SCOTUS a long time ago.  So we are told we are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy, under all the circumstances, in our homes and private affairs, but the more you go into the public domain (front yard vs back yard) (cars vs homes), the less privacy you may reasonably expect.  

However, with the electronic technology of today, the dividing lines of what may be a reasonable expectation of privacy has gotten more difficult to define.  You go logging onto Faceplantbook (and put all this information about yourself in the public realm), or driving or walking down the street or attending sporting events, you may not have any reasonable expectation of privacy anymore.  But clearly, finding you in a stadium with police vs facial recognition technology is a much more intrusive manner of search.  

Some pretty effectively argue that new technologies alter the balance between privacy and disclosure, and that privacy rights should limit government surveillance to protect the democratic processes.  

When the G decides to focus on specific individuals for more intrusive searches (beyond reasonable), there is a warrant requirement based on a showing of probable cause to a judge to believe a crime has been committed and that you are involved in it.  But mass surveillance of the whole people with new and ever more intrusive technologies, allowing much closer looks at everyone than ever before in every aspect of their daily lives, begins to butt up against older case law that what you did in public had no reasonable expectation of privacy at all.  Back then, what you did in public was mostly being observed by a human eye (not billions in technical equipment).

There was a time you could make a phone call, and if there was no warrant to listen in on one side or the other, it was private (and we reasonably expected it to be private).  Today, nothing said on any phone may be private (the G may still need a warrant to use it in court against us, but they collect it all in giant databases with no warrant at all, then claim if they need to use it they can still get a warrant, but they already have it).  

We understand that while driving around we certainly have a less reasonable expectation of privacy than in our home, but with facial recognition and license plate technology, and cameras everywhere, did we expect to be monitored in every detail of our public lives all day every day, just because we left our homes?  And FISA courts which make these decisions are secret, and not open to the public, and we are to rely on FISA judges alone to protect the public or individuals (with no right of individual representation).

Technology has tipped the scales of justice (and reasonableness) with heavy weight toward the State (and private technology companies).  They don't have to intrude in our homes or backyards or other private spaces, they can watch it (or listen) on thermal imagery, or from satellites, or control consoles at govt facilities.

And of course, all of this technology has both the ability to do great good for the people and the Country, but also the power to exercise greater and greater control over the people in every aspect of their lives.
With great power, comes great responsibility.

There have already been instances of police placing GPS tracking devices on person's cars that were parked in their private driveways at the time.

The police did this covertly and without any warrants.

These people were not convicted criminals, they were private citizens who were suspected of criminal activity.

This clearly circumvents the 4th amendment, which is part of the Constitution.

Every US soldier takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

I took that oath as did you.

I guess the primary difference in our philosophies here is that I believe that ANY infringements on the constitutional rights of American Citizens dishonors the sacrifice made by those soldiers.

It's the age old question of: "Does the end justify the means?"

In the case it would seem that you believe that it does and I believe that it does not.



  

1 person in 60k got locked up because of facial recognition technology. gee I feel safer already   I wonder if he was ticketed for trespassing or not paying his parking tickets and arrested. Definitively worth giving up my privacy for along with, plate scanners, smart meters,cell phone locating and stingrays.

Unfortunately some cannot see a few years out and visualize a problem, search for the internet of things.

Oss did you find out what those towers at the tunnels are?

You moved to Zangshu, China ?  

Good point here.

This isn't happening in the US.

It's happening in a communist country where the citizens have NO RIGHTS.

So WHY should we even care?

I only care because I don't want our government to decide that it is OK here as well.

As I understand this technology, they are not taking everybody’s pics . They are matching up pics of criminals . I don’t think anybody should have to give up their pic or DNA. Unless you are arrested and booked for a serious crime. If you are proven not guilty they should have to destroy that as a safeguard.

My understanding is that everyone's pic is being taken and cataloged into a database where it could be used against them later.

And this is being done without a warrant of any kind.

This level of government intrusion may be OK in Communist China, it should NEVER be Ok in the United States of America.

[Robert]

Not in the US HUH 
Face recognition has been used in airports, at border crossings, and during events such as the Olympic Games. Face recognition may also be used in private spaces like stores and sports stadiums, but different rules may apply to private sector face recognition. According to Governing magazine, as of 2015, at least 39 states used face recogntion software with their Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) databases to detect fraud.  The Washington Post reported in 2013 that 26 of these states allow law enforcement to search or request searches of driver license databases, however it is likely this number has increased over time

Facial recognition at US airports becoming routine, researchers warn
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/facial-recognition-at-us-airports-becoming-routine-researchers-warn/

Facial recognition database used by FBI is out of control, House committee hears
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/27/us-facial-recognition-database-fbi-drivers-licenses-passports

Approximately half of adult Americans’ photographs are stored in facial recognition databases that can be accessed by the FBI, without their knowledge or consent, in the hunt for suspected criminals

US Homeland Security Wants Facial Recognition to Identify People in Moving Cars
https://gizmodo.com/us-homeland-security-wants-facial-recognition-to-identi-1820070071

Cops Have a Database of 117M Faces. You’re Probably in It
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/cops-database-117m-faces-youre-probably/

[Jess from VA]

If they're not happy with your face picture,  you could always send then a picture of your.. gleuteous maximus.

(Course if that's hanging out in public, you have other problems.) 

[..]

Sure, what could go wrong.

I hope some on this forum will be first in line when it's suggested in the USA.

What could go wrong 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/04/04/some-swedish-workers-are-getting-microchips-implanted-in-their-hands/?utm_term=.f7369b3c0724

[Romeo]

They are already using facial recognition in ball parks.

http://www.kare11.com/article/sports/mlb/twins/target-field-adds-permanent-fancams-with-facial-recognition/89-534723251

Who is “they”?

[DirtyDan]

who  is "they" ?..............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJC4R1uXDaE

just spitballing 

dan

[John Schmidt]

Just curious....I seldom have my cell phone on, especially at home since we still have a landline. I often don't turn it on even when I leave the house, then at some point remember how my wife fusses at me and turn it on long enough to see if she has called. If not, off it goes. So I'm curious....if the phone is off, does it still track? Not that I give a rip since I'm pure as the driven snow. 

As for cutting Trump off in traffic and being hailed a hero.....doubtful at best.  The Lame Stream Media won't cover it because it doesn't fit their hate mongering of him, but if you actually investigate you'll find that a good bit of the country's economic growth has come from him doing away with many of the damaging edicts passed by his predecessor. The man came to the office with all kinds of experience gained from all aspects of his life, including different levels of government. In his work he was constantly dealing with state, local, and federal government issues, gaining experience on how to work with and/or around them. Books and articles written about him and his exploits gives one great insight on just what makes him tick. As for his predecessor.....he came with ZIP, as did the majority of his cabinet which came in with the lowest percentage of business experience of any cabinet to date. However, he was a fair shot with a basketball, but then so am I so that ain't sayin' much! 

[3fan4life]

Just curious....I seldom have my cell phone on, especially at home since we still have a landline. I often don't turn it on even when I leave the house, then at some point remember how my wife fusses at me and turn it on long enough to see if she has called. If not, off it goes. So I'm curious....if the phone is off, does it still track? Not that I give a rip since I'm pure as the driven snow. 

If you're using a flip phone then the answer is, no it cannot.

Some smart phones can be remotely turned on and track your location even if you physically turned it off.

If the battery has been removed the phone cannot be tracked.

Many new phones are made so that the battery cannot be removed.


I realize that Google is pretty much tracking my every move.

I don't like it but I have accepted it as a consequence of doing business with Google.

If it turned out that Google was sharing this info with some Government Agency that was storing it and looking at me as a suspect every time I was in the vicinity where a crime had been committed.

I would look to do business with another company (of course it could be that they're all doing it).


I wonder if it turned out that the simple act of carrying a cell phone meant that you had zero expectation of privacy and could be the constant subject of criminal investigation.

How many people would quit carrying them?

[..]

 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-usa-border/british-facial-verification-tech-firm-secures-u-s-border-contract-idUSKBN1HN250

[Robert]

23andMe founded In 2007, 23andMe became the first company to begin offering autosomal DNA testing for ancestry, which all other major companies now use.

The company was founded by Linda Avey, Paul Cusenza and Anne Wojcicki. In 2007, Google invested $3,900,000 in the company, along with Genentech, New Enterprise Associates, and Mohr Davidow Ventures.

Founder Anne Wojcicki was married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin at the time.

[Oss]

so why cant we have facial recognition for voting?

Why is that jim crow?   Ive been in favor of real voter id, that would seem to be a great way to safeguard who actually votes.  They probably already know who you vote for

Yes facial recognition aint goin away..as long as there is electricity it will remain the standard for governments everywhere

Lets say police are looking for someone and have the pic in database...why should they not be able to utilize the network of cameras to locate that person?

The time to object is LONG past.  If you are concerned, then dont carry a phone, have tinted windows in the car, wear a disguise, whatever floats your boat.  Now just like with radar detectors maybe someone will develop a device to show you where every camera is

Science fiction is here to stay

[..]

Drip, drip, drip

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5781915/California-starts-trial-digital-license-plates-allow-police-track-move.html