> One way to look at this is that people won't feel embarrassed by things they do in public.
I've heard this theory before, that once there are no more secrets, we won't be embarrassed by our social missteps anymore, or able to use them to attack others because the attacking party will be equally guilty. I think it's a load of BS. Humans are nasty, shitty little hypocrites: if they have dirt on someone else they'll shout it from the rooftops without caring one whit if they're just as bad. Similarly, the people consuming the gossip won't care one bit if they have equally embarrassing stuff in public, before using that data to pass unalterable moral judgment.
Have you ever seen an internet comment section filled with Screaming Moral Outrage at some faux pas, even though most of those commenters are probably worse people? That's what the future is going to be like. Picture a shame mob stamping on a human face, forever.
Maybe. I dunno. I do know the "next" big problem is access asymmetry. You can see where i've been all day, but i don't have the same level of access to these specialized systems, so i'm kinda screwed.
My favorite local example is red light cameras racking up 100k in fines against police cars without their lights on. They were all forgiven.
On the flip side, that stuff will only work for a little while. President Bush came just shy of admitting use of cocaine. Obama flat out admitted it, and it was no big deal. Clinton more or less ended the pot stigma. Drug use (in the past) has been more or less eliminated as a shaming tactic. I'm not saying some people won't scream moral outrage, it's just that no one else will really care.
So maybe i get caught picking my nose. Me and 300 million other people. shrug.
Sure it's easy to think that you basically anonymous when 300 million others are doing it, but when a potential date looks you up and sees a lot of vids of you picking your nose, maybe you're not so attractive anymore.
> but when a potential date looks you up and sees a lot of vids of you picking your nose, maybe you're not so attractive anymore.
Congratulations. An unreasonable person that you wouldn't like anyway has self-selected themselves out of your dating pool. I'd personally call it a win.
Outrage is mostly a sign of immature character. People get away with it today because it's not easy to call them out on their hypocrisy.
That's just the thing, maybe nose-picking isn't a big issue after you get to know each other. Many people are very risk-averse when it comes to romantic relationships and the tiniest thing may cause someone to pass on you if they haven't had the time to see your other qualities.
IMHO this doesn't necessarily make a person unreasonable, just cautious or someone with other options.
That they don't consider 300 million other people (themselves quite likely included) doing the same thing before passing a moral judgement only show how immature they are. You're better off without that person.
Exactly, even if you have nothing to hide you can be embarrassed by things out of your control (maybe you caught a bug and throw up on a stranger).
Also there are things you may not be embarrassed about but unsure how it may affect your future career/love/etc (I'm thinking public demonstrations etc).
On a less serious note, maybe mask culture will re-emerge, in response to constant identification. Personally I would love to break out my decorative gas mask, I'd love to see a computer ID me wearing that!
Then the tattoos would have to be generated in a truly random way as well. Otherwise, an AI like AlphaGo would quickly "learn" which are the tattoos on people's faces, especially if there's a limited selection of designs of say a few hundred or thousand.
How many years do you suppose it will be before "My own car" is about as meaningless as "my book" or "my album"?
Bootlegging ROMs will, without doubt, be attacked with DMCA style laws (if that's not happening already - I hope "your car" isn't made by John Deere - or General Motors...
In Ken MacLeod's novel "The Execution Game", which featured some amateur espionage and OPSEC tactics as plot elements, there was a specific marque of makeup that was known to throw off the facial recognition algorithms in play. I have no idea if such a thing actually exists or not, but if so, it's probably a lot less "Look at me hiding from The Man" than walking around as Guy Fawkes all day.
Yeah, it's funny how people think they can work around facial recognition and yay, they've beaten the system. Facial recognition is not "special". Anything that makes you distinct from other people can be used to recognize you, pretty much by definition. Which feature is being used in practice is mostly a matter of cost-effectiveness.
Indeed, and at this point in time, facial recognition is the most cost-effective and practical way to implement such wide spread identity tracking, which in this case can be defeated with a facial covering such as a gas mask, balaclava, handkerchief etc.
Yes, and the moment it starts being defeated this way on a large scale, another method will become the most cost-effective. The point being, this phenomenon of people wearing stuff to fool facial recognition is not effective or helping in anything at a larger scale.
(And in the meantime, "defeating" facial recognition on a small scale makes you stand out even more as an individual. Normal people don't wear masks while walking outside. Also, there's the XKCD/1105 effect[0].)
Even if people start hacking or otherwise defeating cameras, you'd be able to at least track the blackouts. Hiding from anyone is going to become a real exercise in subterranean travel.
Reminds me of the somewhat heated debates in the halls of Sun Microsystems back in the 90s when Caller ID was just being introduced. It was seen largely as an erosion of privacy since you'd not want the person you are calling to be able to screen your call so easily. Of course, over time, it became standard to the point that I am no longer surprised when services I am calling have my records up without asking who I am.
Those arguments seem quaint today, scarcely 20 years later. So it makes me think that 20 years from now, facial recognition in public places will be similarly integrated and we'll just stop noticing.
The difference with caller ID is, of course, that you need to deliberately initiate an action (calling someone you don't trust) for it to "erode" your privacy. Facial recognition can be done to you on the street by anybody, without you being able to opt out or even know it's happening. It's not even remotely the same thing.
Those apps rely on data harvested from social networks. Or outright exported through their APIs.
A solution is to not make that kind of data publicly available. Either by not using a social network account at all or by using one that respects your privacy settings, e.g. by not tagging your face on other people's image uploads.
I can't be the only person here who's never uploaded a photo of themselves to social media, or frankly anywhere else. People always seem to be so shocked when an antisocial teenager doxxes them, but there is a reason that happened. For years I just shrugged when people called me paranoid about sharing pictures, and now, not so much.
The problem is, I can only speak for photos I took, and that I uploaded. That's what I can reasonably control, and beyond that, I'm not going to smack a camera out of a friend's hand on a vacation. If that happens, it happens.
The other issue is that with the UK leading the way in CCTV usage, it's possible (although not necessarily inevitable) that our own social media usage will not be the major factor in the near future. At that point, I suppose it's either adapt as a society, or attack the infrastructure.
If all my social media pics are me with a shaved head, face, and glasses, will I be safe if I grow long hair and facial hair and start wearing contacts?
Probably not. From what I understand facial recognition software relies heavily on things you can't change, like the distance between your pupils and the ratio of your facial features to each other. You can certainly obscure your face, but if you were forced to remove sunglasses and such, say, at a security checkpoint you'd probably get ID'd.
IMHO: Facial recognition, along with other software and analysis techniques, have already ended anonymity. We're just waiting for the world to catch up. Anonymity may still exist in this world, but those are outliers, no longer the rule.
I have this funny vision in my head where people start practicing strange contortions of their faces in photos designed to counter current facial recognition algorithms. Then the software writers adjust their algorithms to compensate. Then new silly faces are invented. Rinse and repeat. Although I suppose in the end the algorithms win because they can easily just try each past variation and choose the best one.
This assumes you are only photographed willingly or knowingly. I think that case is an exception, and not a rule. I'm not afraid of Facebook, Mastercard probably has a more intimate database on more people. Think CCTV.
I am nearsighted, but for a long time I did not wear glasses. I could recognize a lot of my friends by gait and posture from a huge(for me) distance, long before I could see their faces. My cat knows who's coming before the door opens - she can tell the steps. I don't think privacy will last, given how data collection improve.
I suggest a compromise: all data can be collected, but it has to be locked up until a court order is issued to unlock it. A real court, not one of those courts. A fourth branch of the government will be in charge of safekeeping, to avoid the pressure from executive. Kind of like BBC in the UK.
So the algorithms for this kind of recognition already exist in your head (and your cat's). How do you propose we lock that kind of information down? Do you really believe we can lock that kind of information down? How would a Fourth branch of government fall into the checks and balances of the current system?
Also, your system assumes some kind of World Government? I would really love to be wrong here...
FYI, the targeted advertising in Minority Report used retinal scanning, not face recognition. Automated face recognition would have totally changed the movie, as fooling such tech requires more than swapping eyeballs.
Patent invalidation is executed lazily. If somebody ever challenges Microsoft on this patent, then the prior art from Minority Report could be brought up, but until then it stays on the books.
>> Soon anybody with a high-resolution camera and the right software will be able to determine your identity.
No. Software cannot do that. You need software PLUS access to some data set.
>> Tracking people in the real world might start to look more like it does online, causing changes to our behavior.
Ok. Stopped reading there. There is no comparison to online. I've got my VPN on atm and my user-agent spoofer just notified me that it was changing to some other random fib. I'll believe such statements when someone explains to me how Tor can be implemented in meatspace. Online and realworld are not the same.
(When we all have google glass nailed to our faces, will adblockers be a thing? I hate billboards.)
It's cool in VR goggles, but logo-detection has been a thing in the film/tv industry for a long time. For instance, up until a couple years ago US shows had to edit out corporate logos when broadcast into the UK due to advertising rules.
That data set is going to have to be networked to tons of devices all over the place, it's going to be hacked, intercepted, and generally compromised, just like everything else.
See Bob Gale's view on privacy here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/21/how-back-to...
Facial obfuscation can and will be a thing. Choosing coverings that provide some anonymity but don't scare people will be interesting.
Movement gait can also be analyzed but harder to collect and analyze so it will come later.
Edit: You might enjoy The Private Eye, a graphic novel that has some facial recognition / obfuscation leanings: http://panelsyndicate.com/comics/tpeye