In USA, the $how Watches You
December 15, 2018 7:28 AM Subscribe
Why Taylor Swift Is Using Facial Recognition at Concerts — Swift’s security team has used the cutting-edge technology at recent shows to keep her safe from stalkers [Rolling Stone, 12/13/2018]. Taylor Swift fans mesmerized by rehearsal clips on a kiosk at her May 18th Rose Bowl show were unaware of one crucial detail: A facial-recognition camera inside the display was taking their photos. The images were being transferred to a Nashville “command post,” where they were cross-referenced with a database of hundreds of the pop star’s known stalkers, according to Mike Downing, chief security officer of Oak View Group, an advisory board for concert venues including Madison Square Garden and the Forum in Los Angeles.
A lot of the responses I've seen related to this don't seem to acknowledge the safety factor here.
I don't like this but I need to know more about if the photos are going to be stored in a database.
posted by k8t at 7:49 AM on December 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
I don't like this but I need to know more about if the photos are going to be stored in a database.
posted by k8t at 7:49 AM on December 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
Oh, they will absolutely be stored in a database and be used for any purpose for which Blink Identity can get paid.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:53 AM on December 15, 2018 [43 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:53 AM on December 15, 2018 [43 favorites]
I’d bet this stalker IDing has been happening for major pop stars for quite some time, just with trained humans rather than machines. Pop stars’ entire job description is to play on people’s emotions for profit. Whether the fan ends up feeling exuberance, love, or even love-to-hate, it’s the power of their emotions that keeps them coming back and buying merch. Which is great, since touring is where all the money is in today’s music business, until it goes over the top and puts the pop star at risk.
At the end of the day, if someone has caused trouble in the past, the odds of them causing trouble again are pretty high. It’s not like the security team is going to sit down and try to negotiate some sense into them. The venue is private property, after all.
The article didn’t go into how people get onto the stalker list in the first place, and what happens if one of them shows up at a concert.
posted by mantecol at 8:19 AM on December 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
At the end of the day, if someone has caused trouble in the past, the odds of them causing trouble again are pretty high. It’s not like the security team is going to sit down and try to negotiate some sense into them. The venue is private property, after all.
The article didn’t go into how people get onto the stalker list in the first place, and what happens if one of them shows up at a concert.
posted by mantecol at 8:19 AM on December 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
Hundreds of her known stalkers. Hundreds? I could imagine one. Or maybe even two. But hundreds?
posted by notreally at 8:20 AM on December 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by notreally at 8:20 AM on December 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
It's only common sense that you should use every available technology to keep track of your stalkers, so you can know where they are at all times and watch them while they sleep.
posted by sfenders at 8:22 AM on December 15, 2018 [76 favorites]
posted by sfenders at 8:22 AM on December 15, 2018 [76 favorites]
Considering that it's a pop concert, people should just start showing up with CV Dazzle makeup and hair. It's retro New Wave!
posted by slkinsey at 8:23 AM on December 15, 2018 [17 favorites]
posted by slkinsey at 8:23 AM on December 15, 2018 [17 favorites]
Hundreds of the pop star’s known stalkers.
Hundreds of the pop star’s known stalkers.
Hundreds of the pop star’s known stalkers.
Wow.
posted by me3dia at 8:27 AM on December 15, 2018 [65 favorites]
Hundreds of the pop star’s known stalkers.
Hundreds of the pop star’s known stalkers.
Wow.
posted by me3dia at 8:27 AM on December 15, 2018 [65 favorites]
So...because a number of her fans are stalkers, she's decided to stalk all of them?
posted by sexyrobot at 8:36 AM on December 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by sexyrobot at 8:36 AM on December 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
Hundreds of her known stalkers. Hundreds? I could imagine one. Or maybe even two. But hundreds?
I’m sure most are online. Remember, she interacts with her fans online a lot. She used to, not sure if she still does, stalk her own fans online, and track down and give real life gifts or exclusive invites to the ones she liked. So I’m betting, while trolling for “true fans” she’s come across lots of creepy behavior and now has a way to catalog those people. And flag them if they show up to her gigs.
posted by greermahoney at 8:42 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
I’m sure most are online. Remember, she interacts with her fans online a lot. She used to, not sure if she still does, stalk her own fans online, and track down and give real life gifts or exclusive invites to the ones she liked. So I’m betting, while trolling for “true fans” she’s come across lots of creepy behavior and now has a way to catalog those people. And flag them if they show up to her gigs.
posted by greermahoney at 8:42 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
The article doesn't seem to answer my questions. Did they catch any? And, what happened to the stalker if they did?
posted by DaddyNewt at 8:43 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by DaddyNewt at 8:43 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Trolling for true fans? I’m not even a fan but that is some seriously biased language give her experiences with stalkers and women’s experience in general online.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:44 AM on December 15, 2018 [24 favorites]
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:44 AM on December 15, 2018 [24 favorites]
Hundreds of her known stalkers. Hundreds? I could imagine one. Or maybe even two. But hundreds?I mean, this is very much a known phenomenon. Young, female stars have stalkers. Sometimes they get killed by their stalkers. I would not be surprised at all if Taylor Swift had hundreds of stalkers. I would be a little surprised if she didn't.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:46 AM on December 15, 2018 [101 favorites]
For a look into a celebrity stalker's mind, watch the documentary I Think We're Alone Now, about Jeff Turner, who has been stalking the 80s pop star Tiffany for decades. The whole thing seems to be on YouTube.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:53 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:53 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Why is it that Taylor Swift of all pop stars has become so cyberpunk?
posted by JamesBay at 8:55 AM on December 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by JamesBay at 8:55 AM on December 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
Trolling for true fans? I’m not even a fan but that is some seriously biased language
Well, I am a fan of some of her music. I also find it a little creepy that she openly admits to internet stalking her fans to see if they’re enough of fans to be worthy of the gifts she wants to give. I’m sure she does have many real-life and online stalkers, it’s a large problem for her, and I don’t dispute that at all.
posted by greermahoney at 8:59 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Well, I am a fan of some of her music. I also find it a little creepy that she openly admits to internet stalking her fans to see if they’re enough of fans to be worthy of the gifts she wants to give. I’m sure she does have many real-life and online stalkers, it’s a large problem for her, and I don’t dispute that at all.
posted by greermahoney at 8:59 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Years ago, one of my coworkers got call from someone looking to have our company build their law firm's website. They had a conversation for a few minutes about what's involved, talked about potential cost, and then it took a hard turn for the weird: "I'm sorry, does Leviathant work there? DO YOU KNOW HE USES TWITTER DURING THE DAY? I'm taking my business elsewhere!" My colleague thought I was punking him.
You see, I run a Nine Inch Nails fansite (which is just a Twitter account but it will be an artfuck fansite in 2019 again). This same woman had been harassing Trent Reznor's extended family in rural Pennsylvania. She was surprisingly good at covering her tracks, and I don't want to say it took years to get her to stop because I honestly forget, but I know several private investigators and lawyers eventually came into the picture before this behavior stopped. I often say I wouldn't wish fame on my worst enemies. If a dude in his 40s (at the time) in a popular but relatively niche band has trouble keeping weirdos from calling his great uncle living outside Pittsburgh, I cannot even fathom what Taylor Swift is up against.
I don't think I'm offering this up as an excuse for even more casual surveillance, although I'm not sure how you can put that genie back in the bottle at this point. My hyper-liberal socially forward thinking neighborhood's Facebook page is full of Nestcam (i.e. Google) videos of people stealing packages off stoops - but those cameras are always-on, always sending video to a central service. Everyone's got stories about having conversations about things that show up as ads on Facebook later that day. And while I absolutely forbid dedicated in-home a/v recorders like Google Home or Amazon Alexa in theory, I definitely carry the same equipment in my pocket every day no matter where I go in the form of my smartphone. Centralizing all this information invites abuse most people can't even imagine from future bad actors.
I sometimes wonder what part the early internet played in all this, culturally. When I got my own web server, I was fascinated with server log analysis tools that gave me a peek into who visited what, and when. Along comes Google Analytics, which gave you even more information - in quiet exchange for them having access and control over all of that. Facebook and LinkedIn come around with even more bold strategies - give us your email password and we'll help you socialize! (I'm 99% sure this is why I received and accepted a LinkedIn connect request from Martin Atkins) - no wonder Facebook became an advertising powerhouse. You're not filling out and mailing a survey, Nielsen ratings style, you're creating a social profile so you can temper your loneliness. At this point, if you're not actively using these tools as part of whatever your internet identity is, you're background noise, and any protest you might lodge against creeping surveillance isn't even registering against the noise floor.
I knew the 21st century was going to be weird, but I didn't think it was going to be Trump is President levels of weird.
posted by Leviathant at 9:05 AM on December 15, 2018 [92 favorites]
You see, I run a Nine Inch Nails fansite (which is just a Twitter account but it will be an artfuck fansite in 2019 again). This same woman had been harassing Trent Reznor's extended family in rural Pennsylvania. She was surprisingly good at covering her tracks, and I don't want to say it took years to get her to stop because I honestly forget, but I know several private investigators and lawyers eventually came into the picture before this behavior stopped. I often say I wouldn't wish fame on my worst enemies. If a dude in his 40s (at the time) in a popular but relatively niche band has trouble keeping weirdos from calling his great uncle living outside Pittsburgh, I cannot even fathom what Taylor Swift is up against.
I don't think I'm offering this up as an excuse for even more casual surveillance, although I'm not sure how you can put that genie back in the bottle at this point. My hyper-liberal socially forward thinking neighborhood's Facebook page is full of Nestcam (i.e. Google) videos of people stealing packages off stoops - but those cameras are always-on, always sending video to a central service. Everyone's got stories about having conversations about things that show up as ads on Facebook later that day. And while I absolutely forbid dedicated in-home a/v recorders like Google Home or Amazon Alexa in theory, I definitely carry the same equipment in my pocket every day no matter where I go in the form of my smartphone. Centralizing all this information invites abuse most people can't even imagine from future bad actors.
I sometimes wonder what part the early internet played in all this, culturally. When I got my own web server, I was fascinated with server log analysis tools that gave me a peek into who visited what, and when. Along comes Google Analytics, which gave you even more information - in quiet exchange for them having access and control over all of that. Facebook and LinkedIn come around with even more bold strategies - give us your email password and we'll help you socialize! (I'm 99% sure this is why I received and accepted a LinkedIn connect request from Martin Atkins) - no wonder Facebook became an advertising powerhouse. You're not filling out and mailing a survey, Nielsen ratings style, you're creating a social profile so you can temper your loneliness. At this point, if you're not actively using these tools as part of whatever your internet identity is, you're background noise, and any protest you might lodge against creeping surveillance isn't even registering against the noise floor.
I knew the 21st century was going to be weird, but I didn't think it was going to be Trump is President levels of weird.
posted by Leviathant at 9:05 AM on December 15, 2018 [92 favorites]
I also find it a little creepy that she openly admits to internet stalking her fans to see if they’re enough of fans to be worthy of the gifts she wants to give.
I happen to find it creepy that you think it's creepy when a person with very limited time on their hands does some due diligence in seeking out people to whom they'd like to surprise with a gift. Yeah, I'm sure it's in no small part for PR, but sometimes this kind of PR boils down to "I'd like to do something nice for my fans, and it would be even more awesome for someone to get this who is a really big fan."
Unless someone has evidence that what she's doing is ACTUAL stalking, maybe stop trying to draw equivalence between her and the people who want to find her and stab her in the face.
Not everything a celebrity does has to be a conspiracy against the public.
posted by tclark at 9:17 AM on December 15, 2018 [53 favorites]
I happen to find it creepy that you think it's creepy when a person with very limited time on their hands does some due diligence in seeking out people to whom they'd like to surprise with a gift. Yeah, I'm sure it's in no small part for PR, but sometimes this kind of PR boils down to "I'd like to do something nice for my fans, and it would be even more awesome for someone to get this who is a really big fan."
Unless someone has evidence that what she's doing is ACTUAL stalking, maybe stop trying to draw equivalence between her and the people who want to find her and stab her in the face.
Not everything a celebrity does has to be a conspiracy against the public.
posted by tclark at 9:17 AM on December 15, 2018 [53 favorites]
I apologize that my comments created a derail in this thread. I was attempting to point out that she probably came across a lot of disturbing behavior whole she was, ok, “researching” her fans, and is taking precautions. As a woman online, I do know what that looks like.
posted by greermahoney at 9:30 AM on December 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by greermahoney at 9:30 AM on December 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
Hundreds of her known stalkers. Hundreds? I could imagine one. Or maybe even two. But hundreds?
I can't believe one of the most famous celebrities in the world may have a large amount of people obsessed with her. I'm shocked, shocked!
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of this technology but it exists and it's already available to anyone who can pay. Can we really blame Taylor Swift using it to improve her chances of not getting killed by a fan? It has pretty heavy privacy implications considering the company that provides the information is 100% keeping all that data. But on the other hand getting murdered is somewhat of a bummer.
posted by Memo at 9:32 AM on December 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
I can't believe one of the most famous celebrities in the world may have a large amount of people obsessed with her. I'm shocked, shocked!
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of this technology but it exists and it's already available to anyone who can pay. Can we really blame Taylor Swift using it to improve her chances of not getting killed by a fan? It has pretty heavy privacy implications considering the company that provides the information is 100% keeping all that data. But on the other hand getting murdered is somewhat of a bummer.
posted by Memo at 9:32 AM on December 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
I wouldn't assume she's got hundreds of dangerous fans, but rather hundreds of enraged incels who have given her death threats for not letting her sexual assualt go.
posted by Catblack at 9:43 AM on December 15, 2018 [55 favorites]
posted by Catblack at 9:43 AM on December 15, 2018 [55 favorites]
...but rather hundreds of enraged incels who have given her death threats for not letting her sexual assualt go.
Pretty much this.
Creepy though it may be, I can't say I blame her (or her management) one bit.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:47 AM on December 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
Pretty much this.
Creepy though it may be, I can't say I blame her (or her management) one bit.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:47 AM on December 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
Hundreds of her known stalkers. Hundreds? I could imagine one. Or maybe even two. But hundreds?
Uhh, yeah. That seems believable. And that's probably only the known subset of the much larger list of people who send her death threats on the regular.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:47 AM on December 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
Uhh, yeah. That seems believable. And that's probably only the known subset of the much larger list of people who send her death threats on the regular.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:47 AM on December 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
You see, I run a Nine Inch Nails fansite (which is just a Twitter account but it will be an artfuck fansite in 2019 again). This same woman had been harassing Trent Reznor's extended family in rural Pennsylvania.
So she was stalking you as well?
That reminds me that I too used to run a fan forum for a band with a loyal fan base. It was before Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, and we had slightly laxer rules than the band’s official forum, so it was a pretty happening place for a while. 99% of the people who posted there were totally cool, but there was always that 1% that necessitated the existence of a multi-person moderator team.
When someone did something problematic (generally, this consisted of post-flooding or picking fights with other fans), I’d write them a nicely-worded note asking them to stop. If it was an innocent mistake they would stop, but with that 1% of people, I quickly learned that there was no such thing as negotiating. If I let them off of a suspension on the condition that they’d change their behavior, they’d quickly be right back at it.
Took me a while to accept that no matter how many chances I gave them, and no matter how much they pleaded and promised to change their behavior, they were not going to change. It wasn’t through any fault of my moderation skills or forum rules, it was them. And anyway, it wasn’t my job to provide them with psychological services, it was my job to keep the peace on the forum and protect the rest of the members from harassment. Sometimes, the only thing you can do is ban. And then keep an eye out for them returning under new identities.
posted by mantecol at 9:49 AM on December 15, 2018 [28 favorites]
So she was stalking you as well?
That reminds me that I too used to run a fan forum for a band with a loyal fan base. It was before Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, and we had slightly laxer rules than the band’s official forum, so it was a pretty happening place for a while. 99% of the people who posted there were totally cool, but there was always that 1% that necessitated the existence of a multi-person moderator team.
When someone did something problematic (generally, this consisted of post-flooding or picking fights with other fans), I’d write them a nicely-worded note asking them to stop. If it was an innocent mistake they would stop, but with that 1% of people, I quickly learned that there was no such thing as negotiating. If I let them off of a suspension on the condition that they’d change their behavior, they’d quickly be right back at it.
Took me a while to accept that no matter how many chances I gave them, and no matter how much they pleaded and promised to change their behavior, they were not going to change. It wasn’t through any fault of my moderation skills or forum rules, it was them. And anyway, it wasn’t my job to provide them with psychological services, it was my job to keep the peace on the forum and protect the rest of the members from harassment. Sometimes, the only thing you can do is ban. And then keep an eye out for them returning under new identities.
posted by mantecol at 9:49 AM on December 15, 2018 [28 favorites]
The snark made me press post too soon but what I wanted to say is that pushing for regulation against these technologies is a much better response than blaming a woman for trying to protect herself with every possible method available.
posted by Memo at 9:58 AM on December 15, 2018 [10 favorites]
posted by Memo at 9:58 AM on December 15, 2018 [10 favorites]
There was also the whole thing where Taylor Swift was an idol for alt-right dudes who thought she was the perfect Aryan specimen and were convinced that she secretly agreed with them, and then they all went berserk when she posted on Instagram calling out Republicans for their homophobia and racism.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:02 AM on December 15, 2018 [47 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:02 AM on December 15, 2018 [47 favorites]
Trolling for true fans? I’m not even a fan but that is some seriously biased language
I assumed the intended world was trawling: to sift through as part of a search. I think that on the internet trolling and trawling are blending together as people who don't go fishing wouldn't have much occasion to encounter the later.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 10:04 AM on December 15, 2018 [22 favorites]
I assumed the intended world was trawling: to sift through as part of a search. I think that on the internet trolling and trawling are blending together as people who don't go fishing wouldn't have much occasion to encounter the later.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 10:04 AM on December 15, 2018 [22 favorites]
From cenoxo's link above, RE surveillance in China: "An estimated 170 million CCTV cameras are already in place and some 400 million new ones are expected be installed in the next three years."
mind.blown.
posted by Gorgik at 10:06 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
mind.blown.
posted by Gorgik at 10:06 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
The stalkers gonna stalk stalk stalk stalk stalk...
This isn't anything that isn't already happening at stadiums, airports, casinos, retail, etc. The only difference seems to be that Taylor Swift's security team has rolled their own implementation that can travel with her instead of trying to interoperate with the dozens of venues she visits every year.
posted by peeedro at 10:06 AM on December 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
This isn't anything that isn't already happening at stadiums, airports, casinos, retail, etc. The only difference seems to be that Taylor Swift's security team has rolled their own implementation that can travel with her instead of trying to interoperate with the dozens of venues she visits every year.
posted by peeedro at 10:06 AM on December 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
...people who don't go fishing wouldn't have much occasion to encounter the later.
posted by paper chromatographologist
Historically, eponysterical.
posted by clavdivs at 10:09 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by paper chromatographologist
Historically, eponysterical.
posted by clavdivs at 10:09 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Taylor Swift Said to Use Facial Recognition to Identify Stalkers [NYT, 12/13/2018]:
posted by cenoxo at 10:43 AM on December 15, 2018 [14 favorites]
[Photo — Fans arriving at Madison Square Garden last week for the Big East Conference men’s basketball tournament. The Garden has used facial-recognition technology to identify people entering the building. Benjamin Norman for The New York Times]When is the price of fame too high?
...
Facial recognition is proliferating both as a technology to help law enforcement identify criminals and as a convenient feature to help consumers unlock their phones, among other functions. Its use is also growing in the entertainment realm: Madison Square Garden is among the venues employing it.
The Swift security team’s reported use of facial recognition, however, could represent a new tactic: luring people to step in front of the camera, rather than just scanning a crowd or waiting for fans to pass by. It was not clear which company designed the kiosk, whether it was used at other concerts, whether any potential stalkers were identified and, if so, what was done about them. The Oak View Group and Swift’s representatives did not respond to requests for comment.
...
Microsoft has called on Congress to regulate facial recognition. In a blog post on Dec. 6, Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, went further, saying that such a law should require companies to “place conspicuous notice” where the technology is being used. That way people who don’t want to be subjected to facial recognition might avoid it.
...
Swift has had several documented instances of stalkers. Just this month, Roger Alvarado agreed to a plea deal that included six months’ imprisonment in connection with a break-in at Swift’s New York City townhouse. The police said he had been asleep in her bed.
In 2014, Swift discussed her need for a security detail in an interview with Esquire [link]. She spoke of “the sheer number of men we have in a file who have showed up at my house, showed up at my mom’s house, threatened to either kill me, kidnap me, or marry me.”
“This is the strange and sad part of my life that I try not to think about,” she said. “I try to be lighthearted about it, because I don’t ever want to be scared. I don’t want to be walking down the street scared. And when I have security, I don’t have to be scared.”
posted by cenoxo at 10:43 AM on December 15, 2018 [14 favorites]
If I were her, I would do this. She's young, pretty, talented, successful, rich, popular, and not a friend of the lunatics on the right (who mistakenly thought she was one of them). There are millions of people who would be nice to her if given the opportunity, but there are thousands (including some of those millions) who would do awful things given the same opportunity.
posted by pracowity at 10:43 AM on December 15, 2018 [24 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 10:43 AM on December 15, 2018 [24 favorites]
Also from the same NYT article:
posted by cenoxo at 10:51 AM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
The use of facial recognition technology puts the arena in the vanguard of professional sports facilities. At least two other arenas have experimented with the technology, but teams and leagues are generally unwilling to discuss security protocols, so it is difficult to know for sure how widespread it is.Welcome, sports fans!
“Nothing is more important to us than the safety and security of the fans, players, team and arena staff at our games,” said Mike Bass, a spokesman for the N.B.A. “The league and our teams are exploring the use of all state-of-the-art technology, including facial recognition, to ensure that we have industry-best security measures to protect all those in our arenas.”
The N.H.L. declined to comment.
posted by cenoxo at 10:51 AM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Welcome, sports fans!
Facial recognition software was used to scan attendees of Super Bowl XXXV in 2001.
posted by peeedro at 10:56 AM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Facial recognition software was used to scan attendees of Super Bowl XXXV in 2001.
posted by peeedro at 10:56 AM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of this technology but it exists and it's already available to anyone who can pay.
A hobby of mine is messing around with open source home automation stuff. I have a couple of cameras in my house and use (free) machine learning software to analyze the video feeds. I have trained it to recognize my face, and whether my car is in the parking lot or not. Right now I am training it to track my dog and robot vacuum.
I'm not even a techie, my day job is in the analog arts. I don't think people understand the future that is coming, really it's already here. The police in my ultra-liberal American town record protests and analyze the videos with similar software. If you get arrested they run your mugshot through the database to see if you were at any other protests in the past.
People pretend this is a Chinese only thing. It's not.
posted by bradbane at 11:01 AM on December 15, 2018 [40 favorites]
A hobby of mine is messing around with open source home automation stuff. I have a couple of cameras in my house and use (free) machine learning software to analyze the video feeds. I have trained it to recognize my face, and whether my car is in the parking lot or not. Right now I am training it to track my dog and robot vacuum.
I'm not even a techie, my day job is in the analog arts. I don't think people understand the future that is coming, really it's already here. The police in my ultra-liberal American town record protests and analyze the videos with similar software. If you get arrested they run your mugshot through the database to see if you were at any other protests in the past.
People pretend this is a Chinese only thing. It's not.
posted by bradbane at 11:01 AM on December 15, 2018 [40 favorites]
Why is it that Taylor Swift of all pop stars has become so cyberpunk?
Well, other than not being Japanese or computer-generated, she's a lot closer to a pop star in a mid-period William Gibson novel than any artists self-consciously referencing cyberpunk or similar things.
posted by acb at 11:06 AM on December 15, 2018 [13 favorites]
Well, other than not being Japanese or computer-generated, she's a lot closer to a pop star in a mid-period William Gibson novel than any artists self-consciously referencing cyberpunk or similar things.
posted by acb at 11:06 AM on December 15, 2018 [13 favorites]
The N.H.L. declined to comment.
The N.H.L. has it easy. The most violent people in the arena all have their names and numbers on their shirts.
posted by pracowity at 11:10 AM on December 15, 2018 [15 favorites]
The N.H.L. has it easy. The most violent people in the arena all have their names and numbers on their shirts.
posted by pracowity at 11:10 AM on December 15, 2018 [15 favorites]
I’ve finally gotten around to reading The Gift of Fear this past year and had a chapter about high profile stalkers. All low tech techniques for the circa late 90s time that the book was written: tracking threats made by fan mail, checking the papers for news about stalkers that were on their radar, and even placing plainclothes security in the seats surrounding a known stalker who had tickets to the show. You’d have to figure that the Gavin DeBeckers of the world would be using any and all new technology to stay one step ahead of the creeps.
Facial recognition, data mining, social media, etc.; what would have taken a team of investigators hours to do could be accomplished much faster with fewer staff.
posted by dr_dank at 11:13 AM on December 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
Facial recognition, data mining, social media, etc.; what would have taken a team of investigators hours to do could be accomplished much faster with fewer staff.
posted by dr_dank at 11:13 AM on December 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
Tired: Ticketmaster sucks
Wired: We need to give our biometric data to Ticketmaster
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:14 AM on December 15, 2018 [12 favorites]
Wired: We need to give our biometric data to Ticketmaster
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:14 AM on December 15, 2018 [12 favorites]
Hundreds of her known stalkers. Hundreds? I could imagine one. Or maybe even two. But hundreds?
Believe women, except when it's not convenient to do so.
Remember when people here were so approve of the shit Kanye was doing over Taylor Swift? How it was dismissed as a silly feud? That was just one step away from stealing. But, because she was a girl who committed the crime of being famous, well...
posted by happyroach at 11:26 AM on December 15, 2018 [13 favorites]
Believe women, except when it's not convenient to do so.
Remember when people here were so approve of the shit Kanye was doing over Taylor Swift? How it was dismissed as a silly feud? That was just one step away from stealing. But, because she was a girl who committed the crime of being famous, well...
posted by happyroach at 11:26 AM on December 15, 2018 [13 favorites]
I’m pulled in multiple directions by this.
shorstenbach
posted by shorstenbach at 11:29 AM on December 15, 2018 [18 favorites]
- I absolutely agree with her right to protect herself using this technology. Given the intractability of the stalker problem on the internet, I’d probably do the same if I were her.
- It will be kept forever and sold to marketing. They will use it for lord knows what, but recognizing you on the street or in your home and advertising to you specifically springs to mind, and that’s about the least creepy thing I can think of.
- ALL COMPANIES are absolutely horrible with private information, especially when it belongs to someone else.
- Here’s my biggest concern. All of these technologies I’ve read about are lousy with false-positives. Let’s say that it’s so amazingly good that the false positive rate is down around 1%. It’s believable to assume that she’s got a few thousand stalkers and hundreds of dangerous ones. With just a million fans, there could be around 10,000 false positives per stalker, right? Multiply that by just the dangerous ones and....? (Is there a statistician in the house?)
- How many millions of fans does she have?
- YIKES! What happens to you if you’re “recognized” as a dangerous stalker at a performance?
shorstenbach
posted by shorstenbach at 11:29 AM on December 15, 2018 [18 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. If you find yourself typing the phrase "she's asking for it", that's a good time to close the tab and go do something else.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:59 AM on December 15, 2018 [61 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:59 AM on December 15, 2018 [61 favorites]
I think the internet has changed things to such a degree that I can hardly tell the difference between normal fandom and stalker behavior. People don't want to just own Swift's albums or dress like her. They want to see what she eats for breakfast every morning.
posted by xammerboy at 12:16 PM on December 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 12:16 PM on December 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
After reading this thread, this tweet resonated with me:
Don't forget: the Cardi B we know and love was the product of relentless A/B testing, and outperforming Cardi A.
posted by JamesBay at 12:16 PM on December 15, 2018 [36 favorites]
Don't forget: the Cardi B we know and love was the product of relentless A/B testing, and outperforming Cardi A.
posted by JamesBay at 12:16 PM on December 15, 2018 [36 favorites]
YOU HUNGRY THIRSTY? BUY MORE BEER NACHOS SODAS HOT DOGS POPCORN PIZZA YOU BIG FAN? BE HAPPY BUY JERSEYS TSHIRTS HATS JACKETS SOUVENIRS...
Facial recognition can also increase sport venues' bottom line. The article NEC’s NeoFace Technology Creates Unique Fan Experience [SportTechie 10/16/2018] gives venue owners some helpful facial recognition examples and tips, including the following PDF brochure:
posted by cenoxo at 12:38 PM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Facial recognition can also increase sport venues' bottom line. The article NEC’s NeoFace Technology Creates Unique Fan Experience [SportTechie 10/16/2018] gives venue owners some helpful facial recognition examples and tips, including the following PDF brochure:
NEC How To Guide..they're orchestrating a brighter world.
Three Pillars to Enhance the Guest Experience at Your Venue
posted by cenoxo at 12:38 PM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
False positives are a problem for any decision-making heuristic. Just earlier today, I was reading a story about a woman who can't get life insurance because she carries Naxalone - it makes her look like an addict to insurance companies, although she really carries it because she's a nurse who works with addicts.
Plus, Tumblr is still busy flagging dunes as nudes.
I mean, I don't want to downplay the dangers of false positives, especially in a world increasingly governed by algorithmic decision-making... but ... the problem isn't the false positive itself. It's how you deal with positive results. Does it cause significant problems for the person who's being evaluated? Is the positive result evaluated or trusted blindly? Is there recourse for a false result?
I'd be a lot less worried about false positives in a world where there wasn't pressure to do this kind of thing as cheaply as possible - where sensible procedures of review weren't cut in favor of saving some money.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:41 PM on December 15, 2018 [14 favorites]
Plus, Tumblr is still busy flagging dunes as nudes.
I mean, I don't want to downplay the dangers of false positives, especially in a world increasingly governed by algorithmic decision-making... but ... the problem isn't the false positive itself. It's how you deal with positive results. Does it cause significant problems for the person who's being evaluated? Is the positive result evaluated or trusted blindly? Is there recourse for a false result?
I'd be a lot less worried about false positives in a world where there wasn't pressure to do this kind of thing as cheaply as possible - where sensible procedures of review weren't cut in favor of saving some money.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:41 PM on December 15, 2018 [14 favorites]
This story came up on my Facebook feed from a newspaper I am linked to. In the time-honoured tradition of very stable geniuses who can at a glance come up with a solution that no one has ever thought of, one fellow commented, “don’t go to her concerts. Problem solved.”
Thanks.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:35 PM on December 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
Thanks.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:35 PM on December 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
She has one very determined fan who wrote a self-published book about his attempts to sue her.
posted by Ideefixe at 2:04 PM on December 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 2:04 PM on December 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
>OP...according to Mike Downing, chief security officer of Oak View Group, an advisory board for concert venues including Madison Square Garden and the Forum in Los Angeles.
More about the Oak View Group:
posted by cenoxo at 2:46 PM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
More about the Oak View Group:
• Website: http://www.oakviewgroup.com/It's mainly about your money, boys and girls.
• CEO: Tim Leiweke
• Scope: OVG International
• Bloomberg Profile: Oak View Group LLC
• Security Group: Prevent Advisors — "Reinventing Security & Counterterrorism in Today's Dynamic Public Assembly Spaces..."
Recent News:
• Seattle City Council OKs $700 million KeyArena redevelopment deal
Puget Sound Business Journal, 9/24/2018
• With lessons learned, Oak View Group’s Tim Leiweke is doing it his way
Seattle Times, 9/12/2018
• Irving Azoff and Tim Lieweke’s Oak View Group Scores $100 Million Investment From Silver Lake
Variety, 3/12/2018
posted by cenoxo at 2:46 PM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Taken from NEC's how-to guide Three Pillars to Enhance the Guest Experience at Your Venue, here's a brief description of their FR project in Colombia:
posted by cenoxo at 4:30 PM on December 15, 2018
• USE CASE: Colombia - Medellin Atanasio Girardot Stadium [WP with Concerts list, seats +40,000]If a system like this works in Columbia, it would probably work in the USA if necessary, but at what cost to individual privacy and human rights?
• CHALLENGE: To protect fans against violent and aggressive guests in venue.
• SOLUTION: In collaboration with ROBOTEC [see Girardot Stadium Success Case*], NEC integrated 50 cameras with facial recognition at entrances, and these were added to 25 high resolution in the stands to reach 170 cameras in total connected to the control room operated by the police.*The implementation of a robust CCTV system with over 150 high-definition cameras and a biometric recognition system in Medellin’s Atanasio Girardot Stadium, which together help to monitor, control and track people in all areas of the Stadium, reducing dangerous situations, facilitating the creation of blacklists, generating alarms, and forwarding information to the appropriate authorities.• RESULT: In operation since 2015, NEC’s NeoFace software has been protecting families and fans alike. Today, fans can have fun without concern of violent incidents at Atanasio Girardot Stadium
posted by cenoxo at 4:30 PM on December 15, 2018
They will use it for lord knows what, but recognizing you on the street or in your home and advertising to you specifically springs to mind, and that’s about the least creepy thing I can think of.
BRB, going to watch Minority Report again and remember how seemingly-benign it is.
posted by bendy at 4:34 PM on December 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
BRB, going to watch Minority Report again and remember how seemingly-benign it is.
posted by bendy at 4:34 PM on December 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
If I were Swift I would do this, too. Of fucking course I would. So would you. (Anyone who wants to argue that point: congratulations on your gender, I guess?)
But I would also perhaps negotiate for a contract that limited how the company could use or save the data they harvested from my events. Swift is probably one of the only people in the world with the juice to do that. I hope she did.
posted by schadenfrau at 5:00 PM on December 15, 2018 [14 favorites]
But I would also perhaps negotiate for a contract that limited how the company could use or save the data they harvested from my events. Swift is probably one of the only people in the world with the juice to do that. I hope she did.
posted by schadenfrau at 5:00 PM on December 15, 2018 [14 favorites]
Anyone who wants to argue that point: congratulations on your gender, I guess?
That didn't help Dimebag
posted by thelonius at 5:07 PM on December 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
That didn't help Dimebag
posted by thelonius at 5:07 PM on December 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
It feels like it might be worth mentioning that people have started making glasses frames that are reflective in the infrared spectrum, washing out common cameras in the area of the face of the wearer.
posted by Quackles at 5:48 PM on December 15, 2018 [16 favorites]
posted by Quackles at 5:48 PM on December 15, 2018 [16 favorites]
In addition to the data retention issue, I think something that squicks me a little is the issue of consent; namely, do the people being scanned and stored know it's happening. Also, along that vein, how many of the scanned concert goers were minors and so would not be able to legally consent? (IANAL--I'm assuming minors generally can't enter contracts and that any EULA-type notice would be treated as a contract.)
posted by MikeKD at 6:07 PM on December 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by MikeKD at 6:07 PM on December 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
OMG, I so want those glasses, Quackles! But now that I’ve clicked thru, I feel like I lost the game.
posted by valkane at 7:15 PM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by valkane at 7:15 PM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Nearly all events like this now have a notice in front saying that by entering you consent to being recorded on video/film (originally so they don't have to get consent forms from everyone at a concert where they're getting footage for a concert movie or music/promo video). I don't think that was intended to cover for this particular variant, but I would expect this to fall under that umbrella.
posted by tclark at 8:16 PM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by tclark at 8:16 PM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
I think something that squicks me a little is the issue of consent; namely, do the people being scanned and stored know it's happening.
I think this is a common misunderstanding... there is no issue of consent in making a photograph. Making photos is a first amendment activity, the person who makes the image owns it. If you're in public or on someone else's private property, people can record whatever they want.
You do have a right to how your likeness is used, but only in a commercial context (ie. an advertisement, a commercial video production of the concert, etc.). That doesn't cover this kind of private surveillance or collecting data in a private venue, though.
Think about how many security cameras you walk past every day. They're everywhere, you are being recorded constantly without your consent.
posted by bradbane at 9:16 PM on December 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
I think this is a common misunderstanding... there is no issue of consent in making a photograph. Making photos is a first amendment activity, the person who makes the image owns it. If you're in public or on someone else's private property, people can record whatever they want.
You do have a right to how your likeness is used, but only in a commercial context (ie. an advertisement, a commercial video production of the concert, etc.). That doesn't cover this kind of private surveillance or collecting data in a private venue, though.
Think about how many security cameras you walk past every day. They're everywhere, you are being recorded constantly without your consent.
posted by bradbane at 9:16 PM on December 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
"You do have a right to how your likeness is used, but only in a commercial context (ie. an advertisement, a commercial video production of the concert, etc.)."
Yeah, and that's what those signs are there to tell you, that you gave up rights in those regards. I've been to multiple VR arcades and had to sign waivers that said they could use images of me however they wanted. When I pressed them on it they told me it was for promotional purposes. Holy shit, no one has any dignity in a VR helmet engaging with their environment.
Certainly celebrities should be able to take steps to protect themselves against stalkers. Even aggressive (although legal steps). The thing is, this only helps protect against known stalkers; physical security (people around her) protect against known and unknown stalkers.
And if no one knows what happens to this data, who it will be sold to, how many people could get access to it in the future... Won't that just be enabling
posted by el io at 9:56 PM on December 15, 2018
Yeah, and that's what those signs are there to tell you, that you gave up rights in those regards. I've been to multiple VR arcades and had to sign waivers that said they could use images of me however they wanted. When I pressed them on it they told me it was for promotional purposes. Holy shit, no one has any dignity in a VR helmet engaging with their environment.
Certainly celebrities should be able to take steps to protect themselves against stalkers. Even aggressive (although legal steps). The thing is, this only helps protect against known stalkers; physical security (people around her) protect against known and unknown stalkers.
And if no one knows what happens to this data, who it will be sold to, how many people could get access to it in the future... Won't that just be enabling
posted by el io at 9:56 PM on December 15, 2018
It never won’t be weird to me that the empathy expressed in cases like this is always in favor of the one extremely wealthy and powerful person as opposed to the people (many of whom are white women too, if that’s the locus of your concern) who will be targeted by the surveillance machine the powerful person is bolstering and benefitting from.
posted by invitapriore at 10:21 PM on December 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by invitapriore at 10:21 PM on December 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
The odd wrinkle here to me is that they only scanned the people they could trick into looking at these booths, instead of just scanning everyone in the damn concert. The only obvious reason I can think of is that their systems was actually significantly less "cutting edge" than something like the Chinese systems (which I assume could handle the entire crowd?), and was reporting images back to this command centre where perhaps a significant amount of the matching was being done by humans, the cheaper AI.
This all might jive with the fact the source for this story seems to be an enthusiastic exec from the security company making the most of the publicity and puffing up the system, rather than an outraged whistleblower... of course its unlikely we'll ever know for sure.
posted by ominous_paws at 10:40 PM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
This all might jive with the fact the source for this story seems to be an enthusiastic exec from the security company making the most of the publicity and puffing up the system, rather than an outraged whistleblower... of course its unlikely we'll ever know for sure.
posted by ominous_paws at 10:40 PM on December 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Facial recognition is certainly a controversial technology, and can help prevent crime if individual human rights are preserved and their data is protected against theft and abuse. One can always hope..
However, considering the large number of news articles generated about this story — and that her security team has apparently been using the facial recognition kiosk for months — she's also reaping much sympathetic PR from it.
That's not a bad thing when Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour [WP] "...became the highest grossing of all time in United States history, grossing $266.1 million in just 38 dates, besting The Rolling Stones' $245 million gross from their A Bigger Bang Tour in 2005-07. It also sold a whopping 2,068,399 tickets in the country." Big money and big show biz must go on, so build the brand and all that.
Now that the word's out, legitimate fans may mob this FR booth at her next concert, just to get their faces recorded in the secret 'fan club'.
posted by cenoxo at 12:06 AM on December 16, 2018
However, considering the large number of news articles generated about this story — and that her security team has apparently been using the facial recognition kiosk for months — she's also reaping much sympathetic PR from it.
That's not a bad thing when Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour [WP] "...became the highest grossing of all time in United States history, grossing $266.1 million in just 38 dates, besting The Rolling Stones' $245 million gross from their A Bigger Bang Tour in 2005-07. It also sold a whopping 2,068,399 tickets in the country." Big money and big show biz must go on, so build the brand and all that.
Now that the word's out, legitimate fans may mob this FR booth at her next concert, just to get their faces recorded in the secret 'fan club'.
posted by cenoxo at 12:06 AM on December 16, 2018
On the privacy/consent question, here is the fine print on the back of a recent concert ticket (Ticketfly boilerplate):
“You consent to our use of your image, likeness, actions and statements in connection with any live or recorded audio or photograph or other transmission or publication of the event or the promotion of any future event.”
The language gets pretty broad towards the end there! Most anything could be considered an “event.” I’d be interested to see the fine print from the back of a Taylor Swift ticket.
posted by mantecol at 12:14 AM on December 16, 2018
“You consent to our use of your image, likeness, actions and statements in connection with any live or recorded audio or photograph or other transmission or publication of the event or the promotion of any future event.”
The language gets pretty broad towards the end there! Most anything could be considered an “event.” I’d be interested to see the fine print from the back of a Taylor Swift ticket.
posted by mantecol at 12:14 AM on December 16, 2018
It never won’t be weird to me that the empathy expressed in cases like this is always in favor of the one extremely wealthy and powerful person as opposed to the people (many of whom are white women too, if that’s the locus of your concern) who will be targeted by the surveillance machine the powerful person is bolstering and benefitting from.
Perhaps because it is trivially easy to simply never go to a Taylor Swift concert? I have managed it without even trying.
It will never be not weird to me that when you’re upset about the “surveillance state” you nonetheless manage to make it about the wealthy individual who happens to be a woman, with some passive aggressive “also white women are affected too” bullshit thrown in. You do not, for example, appear to have the same invective for every other place or event or institution that uses this tech, even though for most of them it will not be about their personal safety. Just the white woman pisses you off?
That bit of utter bullshit aside, I find myself wondering how insurance works in these cases. If you have hundreds of credible threats to your life, can you even get a public event insured without tech like this anymore? Serious question. That will be much more insidious.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:09 AM on December 16, 2018 [13 favorites]
Perhaps because it is trivially easy to simply never go to a Taylor Swift concert? I have managed it without even trying.
It will never be not weird to me that when you’re upset about the “surveillance state” you nonetheless manage to make it about the wealthy individual who happens to be a woman, with some passive aggressive “also white women are affected too” bullshit thrown in. You do not, for example, appear to have the same invective for every other place or event or institution that uses this tech, even though for most of them it will not be about their personal safety. Just the white woman pisses you off?
That bit of utter bullshit aside, I find myself wondering how insurance works in these cases. If you have hundreds of credible threats to your life, can you even get a public event insured without tech like this anymore? Serious question. That will be much more insidious.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:09 AM on December 16, 2018 [13 favorites]
Further: those threats are almost certainly not all solely threats to Swift’s life. It’s incredible to me that no one has mentioned that an Ariana Grande concert was literally bombed and many fans died. And that the subset of the populace who appears to have the greatest obsessive problem with Swift is also the subset who has recently shown a propensity for trying to kill large amounts of women.
If Swift is going to appear in public, what obligation does she have to those same fans to make sure a known incel doesn’t try to kill as many of them as he can? Yeah, I’d use facial recognition too. I’d still insist on a contract that did not allow outside use of the data, but I’d damn well use whatever tools I had at my disposal to make sure a bunch of women weren’t murdered at one of my events.
Of course if your counterargument is “don’t appear in public, then” you can go do many creative things with various hazardous materials for all I care.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:42 AM on December 16, 2018 [22 favorites]
If Swift is going to appear in public, what obligation does she have to those same fans to make sure a known incel doesn’t try to kill as many of them as he can? Yeah, I’d use facial recognition too. I’d still insist on a contract that did not allow outside use of the data, but I’d damn well use whatever tools I had at my disposal to make sure a bunch of women weren’t murdered at one of my events.
Of course if your counterargument is “don’t appear in public, then” you can go do many creative things with various hazardous materials for all I care.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:42 AM on December 16, 2018 [22 favorites]
In other "the watchers are always watching" news, it has been suggested that the DEA and ICE are hiding cameras in streetlights. No word on how good their facial recognition software is.
posted by sfenders at 5:14 AM on December 16, 2018
posted by sfenders at 5:14 AM on December 16, 2018
Think about how many security cameras you walk past every day. They're everywhere, you are being recorded constantly without your consent.
Person of Interest opening narration: "You are being watched. The government has a secret system: a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it. I designed the machine to detect acts of terror, but it sees everything. "
And of course the lesson learned is: "It depends on the goals and ethics of the person using it." The same feeds, used by The Machine and Samaritan resulted in very different action orders.
posted by mikelieman at 7:58 AM on December 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
Person of Interest opening narration: "You are being watched. The government has a secret system: a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it. I designed the machine to detect acts of terror, but it sees everything. "
And of course the lesson learned is: "It depends on the goals and ethics of the person using it." The same feeds, used by The Machine and Samaritan resulted in very different action orders.
posted by mikelieman at 7:58 AM on December 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
Being Taylor Swift sounds awful.
posted by smelendez at 9:05 AM on December 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by smelendez at 9:05 AM on December 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
Weaponized AI and facial recognition enter the hacking world
Your face could trigger a DeepLocker AI-powered malware attack or be used by Social Mapper to track you across social media sites. [CSO, 8/8/2018]:
Your face could trigger a DeepLocker AI-powered malware attack or be used by Social Mapper to track you across social media sites. [CSO, 8/8/2018]:
AI is being used to automatically detect and fight malware, but IBM Research decided to flip that and came up with a game changer – a “highly evasive new breed of malware, which conceals its malicious intent until it reached a specific victim.” The researchers explained that DeepLocker “unleashes its malicious action as soon as the AI model identifies the target through indicators like facial recognition, geolocation and voice recognition.”posted by cenoxo at 9:15 AM on December 16, 2018 [6 favorites]You can think of this capability as similar to a sniper attack, in contrast to the “spray and pray” approach of traditional malware. DeepLocker is designed to be stealthy. It flies under the radar, avoiding detection until the precise moment it recognizes a specific target. This AI-powered malware is particularly dangerous because, like nation-state malware, it could infect millions of systems without being detected. But, unlike nation-state malware, it is feasible in the civilian and commercial realms.To show off DeepLocker’s capabilities, the researchers camouflaged WannaCry ransomware in a video conferencing app. Going undetected by security tools, DeepLocker did not unlock and execute the ransomware until it recognized the face of the target.
The only obvious reason I can think of is that their systems was actually significantly less "cutting edge" than something like the Chinese systems (which I assume could handle the entire crowd?)
Or the Chinese system isn't any better, its capabilities are just being puffed up. They have every reason to want people to think it can scan and recognize every face in a stadium with total accuracy, because that belief helps achieve social compliance; the machinery really only needs to be good enough to make people think it's going to catch them. And the psychology of behavior modification being what it is—your odds of getting caught are much more important than the severity of the punishment, contrary to... well, the entire US system—it's probably quite effective. (Creepy, but effective.)
It's also very difficult to determine, unless there's a very clear nothing-up-my-sleeve effort, how much of the intelligence in an AI/ML system is artificial and how much is potentially a lot of low-paid humans. Palantir, onetime darling of the US intelligence community, got accused of that a while back. (Though in fairness I don't think their humans were that "low paid" really.) It's problematic in the field.
Anyway, there's no reason to think that these private-sector efforts aren't doing a bit of the same thing. If creepy stalker fans know there are face-recognition cameras at Swift's concerts, and believe that if they go there they'll be stopped by some hulking Security Dude, chances are they won't go try it out. The database could be incomplete, the system could barely work, etc., and it could still accomplish its objectives of discouraging bad behavior. At least among those whose bad behavior is semi-rational; someone who is just flat-out manifesting their mental illness and isn't in touch with the same reality as the rest of us, probably isn't going to care, I suppose.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:27 AM on December 16, 2018 [5 favorites]
Or the Chinese system isn't any better, its capabilities are just being puffed up. They have every reason to want people to think it can scan and recognize every face in a stadium with total accuracy, because that belief helps achieve social compliance; the machinery really only needs to be good enough to make people think it's going to catch them. And the psychology of behavior modification being what it is—your odds of getting caught are much more important than the severity of the punishment, contrary to... well, the entire US system—it's probably quite effective. (Creepy, but effective.)
It's also very difficult to determine, unless there's a very clear nothing-up-my-sleeve effort, how much of the intelligence in an AI/ML system is artificial and how much is potentially a lot of low-paid humans. Palantir, onetime darling of the US intelligence community, got accused of that a while back. (Though in fairness I don't think their humans were that "low paid" really.) It's problematic in the field.
Anyway, there's no reason to think that these private-sector efforts aren't doing a bit of the same thing. If creepy stalker fans know there are face-recognition cameras at Swift's concerts, and believe that if they go there they'll be stopped by some hulking Security Dude, chances are they won't go try it out. The database could be incomplete, the system could barely work, etc., and it could still accomplish its objectives of discouraging bad behavior. At least among those whose bad behavior is semi-rational; someone who is just flat-out manifesting their mental illness and isn't in touch with the same reality as the rest of us, probably isn't going to care, I suppose.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:27 AM on December 16, 2018 [5 favorites]
Systems like this will keep tabs on the liars and the dirty dirty cheats of the world so that Ms Swift can focus on getting down with THIS. SICK. BEAT.
posted by dr_dank at 11:43 AM on December 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by dr_dank at 11:43 AM on December 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
I mean, I don't want to downplay the dangers of false positives, especially in a world increasingly governed by algorithmic decision-making... but ... the problem isn't the false positive itself. It's how you deal with positive results. Does it cause significant problems for the person who's being evaluated? Is the positive result evaluated or trusted blindly? Is there recourse for a false result?
AKA the Minority Report problem.
posted by subdee at 11:52 AM on December 16, 2018
AKA the Minority Report problem.
posted by subdee at 11:52 AM on December 16, 2018
Systems like this will keep tabs on the liars and the dirty dirty cheats of the world so that Ms Swift can focus on getting down with THIS. SICK. BEAT.You all realize, right, that is possible to disapprove of this without arguing that women are doing something wrong when we think we're entitled to exist in public? Like, you could argue against this without resorting to misogyny! I know it's hard, but it's possible! You could accept the fact that Taylor Swift is entitled to exist, to make music (even if you don't like that music), to be attractive while not currently wanting to fuck you... you could accept all that stuff while still thinking that her team shouldn't use facial recognition technology to track potential threats. You could take her at her word that she faces threats, something that I think will seem really fucking obvious to most women, while still thinking that this is not a good way to address those threats.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:06 PM on December 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
Yeah but there doesn't seem to be a particularly strong argument for why she shouldn't use facial recognition technology to protect herself, taking on premise that:
1) The technology exists.
2) The technology will be used, because it exists, and we as a species have zero self-control and a dismal track record in this area.
3) The technology will largely be used to entrench existing power structures and for generally creepy William-Gibson-meets-Black-Mirror shit.
4) In a generation nobody will notice or care anymore and this will just be how life is.
Given those premises, which I think are basically self-evident because we live in, if not the shittiest of all possible worlds, at least one of the really low-rent ones, it seems rather unfair to go after Swift for using a FR system. Saying that she shouldn't is holding her to a standard that banks, sporting arenas, police at every level, prisons, giant multinational corporations, and the People's Republic of China, among others, are never going to be held to. It's asking her to shoot herself in the foot for what amounts to ideological purity, which won't affect or curtail the creepier ways the same technology will be used.
Heck, maybe her use of a FR system will make more people aware that they exist and speed along meaningful regulations and data protection laws including holding operators of such systems liable for contributory negligence in data breachahahha... ha. Ha. Sorry, I kid.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:19 PM on December 16, 2018 [5 favorites]
1) The technology exists.
2) The technology will be used, because it exists, and we as a species have zero self-control and a dismal track record in this area.
3) The technology will largely be used to entrench existing power structures and for generally creepy William-Gibson-meets-Black-Mirror shit.
4) In a generation nobody will notice or care anymore and this will just be how life is.
Given those premises, which I think are basically self-evident because we live in, if not the shittiest of all possible worlds, at least one of the really low-rent ones, it seems rather unfair to go after Swift for using a FR system. Saying that she shouldn't is holding her to a standard that banks, sporting arenas, police at every level, prisons, giant multinational corporations, and the People's Republic of China, among others, are never going to be held to. It's asking her to shoot herself in the foot for what amounts to ideological purity, which won't affect or curtail the creepier ways the same technology will be used.
Heck, maybe her use of a FR system will make more people aware that they exist and speed along meaningful regulations and data protection laws including holding operators of such systems liable for contributory negligence in data breachahahha... ha. Ha. Sorry, I kid.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:19 PM on December 16, 2018 [5 favorites]
Saying that she shouldn't is holding her to a standard that banks, sporting arenas, police at every level, prisons, giant multinational corporations, and the People's Republic of China, among others, are never going to be held to.
yeah but guess what she is that they aren't
posted by schadenfrau at 1:21 PM on December 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
yeah but guess what she is that they aren't
posted by schadenfrau at 1:21 PM on December 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
yeah but guess what she is that they aren't
A person. Although, despite what the headline says, it's a bit weird how many people are assuming that Taylor Swift is personally responsible for everything that happens at a Taylor Swift concert.
posted by sfenders at 2:02 PM on December 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
A person. Although, despite what the headline says, it's a bit weird how many people are assuming that Taylor Swift is personally responsible for everything that happens at a Taylor Swift concert.
posted by sfenders at 2:02 PM on December 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
You could take her at her word that she faces threats, something that I think will seem really fucking obvious to most women, while still thinking that this is not a good way to address those threats.
OK then, so what SHOULD she do to ensure her safety and the safety of the audience? Since you know what she's doing wrong, you should know what the right thing to do is.
Note: hiring Kevin Costner is right out.
posted by happyroach at 3:19 PM on December 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
OK then, so what SHOULD she do to ensure her safety and the safety of the audience? Since you know what she's doing wrong, you should know what the right thing to do is.
Note: hiring Kevin Costner is right out.
posted by happyroach at 3:19 PM on December 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
Per the first link in elgilito’s MeFi post today: Cats resist attempts at being randomly generated > None of these faces are real, would 3D masks of neural network-generated human faces fool facial recognition systems?
posted by cenoxo at 4:30 AM on December 17, 2018
posted by cenoxo at 4:30 AM on December 17, 2018
Without being too much of a difficult prick, nobody (mainly) is not mad that corporations and governments are also doing this, right? We're discussing Swift here because rolling stone published this weird advertorial for her security firm.
(not to endorse the weird sass above or whatever)
posted by ominous_paws at 7:05 AM on December 17, 2018
(not to endorse the weird sass above or whatever)
posted by ominous_paws at 7:05 AM on December 17, 2018
TAYLOR SWIFT throws the last GPU into the vat of molten iron, and turns, relieved, to her CHIEF BODYGUARD.
TAYLOR: It's over.
BODYGUARD: No, there is one more facial recognition system.
He taps the back of his skull.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:08 AM on December 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
TAYLOR: It's over.
BODYGUARD: No, there is one more facial recognition system.
He taps the back of his skull.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:08 AM on December 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
No need to pay big bucks to test facial recognition technologies: Central Londoners to be subjected to facial recognition test this week -- Met Police: No worries—if you decline to be scanned, it won't be suspicious at all! (Cyrus Farivar for Ars Technica, Dec. 17, 2018)
posted by filthy light thief at 7:54 AM on December 17, 2018
posted by filthy light thief at 7:54 AM on December 17, 2018
So anyway, anyone want to crowdfund a 'Scanner Darkly'-style scramble suit?
posted by GallonOfAlan at 8:27 AM on December 17, 2018
posted by GallonOfAlan at 8:27 AM on December 17, 2018
I'd be much more interested in a conversation about healthy regulation of this technology than some sort of weird broad-strokes conversation about whether we can bottle up this particular genie. Are there countries that have made any particularly interesting progress with that? The above-linked Microsoft piece seems more than sensible as a starting point.
posted by mosst at 9:30 AM on December 17, 2018
posted by mosst at 9:30 AM on December 17, 2018
Why is it that Taylor Swift of all pop stars has become so cyberpunk
Because she is the queen of forthcoming cyberwar.
'Machines are going to take you job, then they're going to take your life' - InfoSec TaylorSwift
posted by Damienmce at 10:29 AM on December 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
Perhaps because it is trivially easy to simply never go to a Taylor Swift concert? I have managed it without even trying.
Wait, so how is this different from the (rightful) opprobrium directed at the notion that you shouldn't appear in public if you don't want to deal with stalkers? I think her fans should be able to go to her concerts without fear of being profiled and recorded this way. I've got plenty of invective directed against other people and institutions that abuse this technology, much more than I'd bother to direct at Taylor Swift. I just don't think it's suddenly something that should be apologized for in this context, even as I acknowledge that it's fucking terrible that Taylor Swift should have to deal with stalkers and threats to her safety or her life. Empathy isn't zero sum, but it's pretty fucked to give a business as large as Swift's a pass for doing this, and it's pretty fucked to do so on the basis of her being a woman, and furthermore giving the corporate apparatus around her the benefit of the doubt with regards to the potential for abuse of the information they're collecting, without considering the potential harm being done to her concert attendees, many of whom are subject just as much to the horrors of the patriarchy without the benefit of vast sums of money in their name.
posted by invitapriore at 5:26 PM on December 17, 2018
Wait, so how is this different from the (rightful) opprobrium directed at the notion that you shouldn't appear in public if you don't want to deal with stalkers? I think her fans should be able to go to her concerts without fear of being profiled and recorded this way. I've got plenty of invective directed against other people and institutions that abuse this technology, much more than I'd bother to direct at Taylor Swift. I just don't think it's suddenly something that should be apologized for in this context, even as I acknowledge that it's fucking terrible that Taylor Swift should have to deal with stalkers and threats to her safety or her life. Empathy isn't zero sum, but it's pretty fucked to give a business as large as Swift's a pass for doing this, and it's pretty fucked to do so on the basis of her being a woman, and furthermore giving the corporate apparatus around her the benefit of the doubt with regards to the potential for abuse of the information they're collecting, without considering the potential harm being done to her concert attendees, many of whom are subject just as much to the horrors of the patriarchy without the benefit of vast sums of money in their name.
posted by invitapriore at 5:26 PM on December 17, 2018
I mean, right, that's the legal difference, but... there's just no way the vast majority of people have a clue that the law lies this way, or have any expectation that hidden cameras could be running this sort of stuff on them; even if they've read the small print what this used to mean was concert photography being used for promo materials which is just WAY different to this, and I'm at least comfortable myself saying that I'd like some sort of legislation against this as much as I'd like the police and state not to, idk
posted by ominous_paws at 9:36 AM on December 18, 2018
posted by ominous_paws at 9:36 AM on December 18, 2018
Because a Taylor Swift concert is a private event and appearing in public is... appearing in public. That’s the main difference, I’d say, the difference between private and public.
The sense of appearing in public that's being discussed here, though, is the sense in which Taylor Swift appears in public, e.g. at concerts, not the sense in which you or I head to the town square to get a sandwich. I don't want the answer to Taylor Swift appearing in those contexts to be "well, just don't do that," since she has the right to put on huge concerts without stalkers threatening her safety. I also don't want the answer to her fans showing up in those same contexts to be "well, just don't do that," since I believe they have the right to attend huge concerts without their likenesses being recorded and put towards who knows what ends. I'm not sure what's controversial about this.
posted by invitapriore at 9:38 PM on December 18, 2018
The sense of appearing in public that's being discussed here, though, is the sense in which Taylor Swift appears in public, e.g. at concerts, not the sense in which you or I head to the town square to get a sandwich. I don't want the answer to Taylor Swift appearing in those contexts to be "well, just don't do that," since she has the right to put on huge concerts without stalkers threatening her safety. I also don't want the answer to her fans showing up in those same contexts to be "well, just don't do that," since I believe they have the right to attend huge concerts without their likenesses being recorded and put towards who knows what ends. I'm not sure what's controversial about this.
posted by invitapriore at 9:38 PM on December 18, 2018
The sense of appearing in public that's being discussed here, though, is the sense in which Taylor Swift appears in public, e.g. at concerts
Which is yet another iteration of "Women don't have the right to control what happens in their space." If a woman puts on a conference, he has a right to barge into it and heckle her. If she's on a private email list, he has a right to join it. If she invites people to her penthouse, he has a right to spy through a telescope. If she tells the police that she's being stalked, then thats an unforgivable infringement on his liberty.
The practical safety of a women will always take second place to the abstract rights of men.
I'm not sure what's controversial about this.
Because I'm seeing the usual male narrative of "Oh of course a woman can take steps to protect herself", and then when she does so, the response is "No, she can't do that. That infringes on my rights. Oh sorry, not my rights, the rights of some other, hypothetical men."
Again, the real and practical need for safety of women will always be trumped by the abstract rights of men.
So again, the ball is in your court. I ask again: what actions will the males gracioiusly allow Taylor Swift to take to secure her safety?
Come on. You said she has a right to security. WHAT security? Tell us how she's allowed to protect herself?
posted by happyroach at 12:16 AM on December 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
Which is yet another iteration of "Women don't have the right to control what happens in their space." If a woman puts on a conference, he has a right to barge into it and heckle her. If she's on a private email list, he has a right to join it. If she invites people to her penthouse, he has a right to spy through a telescope. If she tells the police that she's being stalked, then thats an unforgivable infringement on his liberty.
The practical safety of a women will always take second place to the abstract rights of men.
I'm not sure what's controversial about this.
Because I'm seeing the usual male narrative of "Oh of course a woman can take steps to protect herself", and then when she does so, the response is "No, she can't do that. That infringes on my rights. Oh sorry, not my rights, the rights of some other, hypothetical men."
Again, the real and practical need for safety of women will always be trumped by the abstract rights of men.
So again, the ball is in your court. I ask again: what actions will the males gracioiusly allow Taylor Swift to take to secure her safety?
Come on. You said she has a right to security. WHAT security? Tell us how she's allowed to protect herself?
posted by happyroach at 12:16 AM on December 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
Good to learn no women attend Taylor Swift concerts, at least.
posted by ominous_paws at 3:42 AM on December 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by ominous_paws at 3:42 AM on December 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
I believe they have the right to attend huge concerts without their likenesses being recorded and put towards who knows what ends.
That is not an uncontroversial stance. You want to extend "public space" and the rules covering public-space conduct into a private venue, basically. But only in this one particular aspect? I mean, there are lots of things that we allow in public but we allow to be regulated or curtailed in private spaces, including concert venues—most specifically, the right to exclude people who don't have tickets. They are intrinsically different situations.
I don't think that there's even close to a consensus opinion against things like facial recognition in private spaces where someone has chosen, purchased a ticket, and gone past what I'd imagine has to be a bunch of warning signs that they're being photographed and recorded. That's very close to the argument that gets made by people claiming that being banned on Reddit (a private space, which people treat occasionally as though it's public) is infringing their right to free speech. It's not the same, and the fact that a bunch of misguided people believe that they have some particular right in a private space doesn't mean they actually do, particularly when they plan to use that right to be shitty, whether that be in-person stalking or general online shitbaggery. We shouldn't (and typically don't) just allow people to wish rights into existence when it's convenient.
There is an abstract argument to be had over the use of recording devices and facial recognition in public spaces, where people have a clearly defined right to be, there's no private right to exclude them or impose other conditions on their presence, and where telling them to "just not go" if they don't like the conditions is unreasonable. But in the US, there's an uphill battle if you want to make that argument, because there are long-established rights on the other side, allowing you to photograph people when they're in public, and erasing that right would have some pretty nasty side-effects. (Most notably: this right is basically the thing that lets you photograph and record the police.) I'm not sure, for entirely practical reasons, that in the current political environment we really want to open the hood and start wrenching on that bit of law. A panopticon where we can all photograph each other as we walk down the street might well be better and safer than a world where nobody can, just because of the really ugly stuff that will happen when the public's view is obscured.
But as to Swift, if she wants to employ facial recognition at her concerts, and throw people out for heckling, or ban bags over a certain size, or lots of other things, that's her (and the venue's) prerogative. I'd have more sideeye if it was being done for purely commercial reasons (e.g. prohibiting bottles of water to sell more drinks), but even that is pretty clearly legal. That she's doing it to protect herself from what I can only imagine is a staggering amount of harassment and threatening behavior (which would also affect the enjoyment of other participants) makes it a pretty clearcut case.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:38 PM on December 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
That is not an uncontroversial stance. You want to extend "public space" and the rules covering public-space conduct into a private venue, basically. But only in this one particular aspect? I mean, there are lots of things that we allow in public but we allow to be regulated or curtailed in private spaces, including concert venues—most specifically, the right to exclude people who don't have tickets. They are intrinsically different situations.
I don't think that there's even close to a consensus opinion against things like facial recognition in private spaces where someone has chosen, purchased a ticket, and gone past what I'd imagine has to be a bunch of warning signs that they're being photographed and recorded. That's very close to the argument that gets made by people claiming that being banned on Reddit (a private space, which people treat occasionally as though it's public) is infringing their right to free speech. It's not the same, and the fact that a bunch of misguided people believe that they have some particular right in a private space doesn't mean they actually do, particularly when they plan to use that right to be shitty, whether that be in-person stalking or general online shitbaggery. We shouldn't (and typically don't) just allow people to wish rights into existence when it's convenient.
There is an abstract argument to be had over the use of recording devices and facial recognition in public spaces, where people have a clearly defined right to be, there's no private right to exclude them or impose other conditions on their presence, and where telling them to "just not go" if they don't like the conditions is unreasonable. But in the US, there's an uphill battle if you want to make that argument, because there are long-established rights on the other side, allowing you to photograph people when they're in public, and erasing that right would have some pretty nasty side-effects. (Most notably: this right is basically the thing that lets you photograph and record the police.) I'm not sure, for entirely practical reasons, that in the current political environment we really want to open the hood and start wrenching on that bit of law. A panopticon where we can all photograph each other as we walk down the street might well be better and safer than a world where nobody can, just because of the really ugly stuff that will happen when the public's view is obscured.
But as to Swift, if she wants to employ facial recognition at her concerts, and throw people out for heckling, or ban bags over a certain size, or lots of other things, that's her (and the venue's) prerogative. I'd have more sideeye if it was being done for purely commercial reasons (e.g. prohibiting bottles of water to sell more drinks), but even that is pretty clearly legal. That she's doing it to protect herself from what I can only imagine is a staggering amount of harassment and threatening behavior (which would also affect the enjoyment of other participants) makes it a pretty clearcut case.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:38 PM on December 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older My dad and Charles Barkley | “Simply put, Gris is absolutely gorgeous.” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by cenoxo at 7:42 AM on December 15, 2018 [2 favorites]