Orwell Could Never Have Predicted This...

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Mark Nestmann via Nestmann.com,

I love technology. I can’t imagine life without modern conveniences like telephones, email, and the Internet. Not to mention running water, air conditioning, and automobiles.

But sometimes, technology gets… well, creepy.

And the creepier the technology, the more likely your friendly Big Brother will use it to keep tabs on you. A case in point is the increasing sophistication of face recognition technology.

Face recognition combines digital images of faces with -software that creates a unique “faceprint” of each one, along with a database of images against which “faceprints” can be compared.

A few years ago, face recognition systems were almost laughably inaccurate. I have an article in my archives from 2003, in which two Japanese tourists visiting Australia fooled an early version of the technology simply by swapping passports.

However, this strategy wouldn’t fool today’s face recognition software.

In the US, you generally have no right to privacy with respect to your facial features. And no federal law regulates the collection of biometric data. If you’re in a public place, the courts have concluded you have a greatly reduced expectation of privacy. Anyone with a camera can legally take your picture in a public space.

But the rules for face recognition are beginning to change, thanks to laws in a handful of states and a court decision involving one of the largest collections of faceprints in existence, compiled by Facebook. Earlier this month, a federal judge in California refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit against Facebook brought by residents of Illinois. The lawsuit alleged Facebook collected, stored, and used faceprints in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The law is intended to protect the privacy of Illinois residents in their personal biometric data. Regulated biometric identifiers can include a scan of “face geometry.”

Facebook uses face recognition technology to match photographs users have uploaded to subsequently present “tag suggestions” for digitized images uploaded later. Subscribers can then “tag” friends or family members. At first glance, it seems completely harmless, especially since you can turn off “tagging” in your Facebook settings. But the Illinois plaintiffs didn’t see it that way at all.

And the fact is Facebook has the largest single collection of images ever assembled. More than one billion Facebook users had uploaded more than 250 billion pictures by 2013, and the total number today is undoubtedly much higher. Of course, not all the photos are of faces, but many – perhaps most – are.

But what’s the real harm in allowing companies like Facebook to assemble vast face databases to make “tag suggestions”?

Consider FindFace, a face recognition app now taking Russia by storm. FindFace allows users to photograph people on the street, in a bar, or anywhere else and identify them by matching the photos to digital images uploaded to VK, a Russian social networking site. VK has about 200 million users – large, but not nearly as big as Facebook. The developers claim the system is 70% reliable in identifying the right person, with each version of the app improving accuracy. Apparently, FindFace can’t match photos posted on Facebook, at least not yet.

The really creepy part is the way the app has already been used – and abused. FindFace makes it possible for stalkers to harass individuals on the street who have VK profiles. The founders – 20-something males – envision being able to take a photo of an attractive woman, match her photo to a VK profile, and then ask her out on a date. But they believe the real breakthrough for their company will come when law enforcement authorities adopt it. They claim police have already used FindFace to locate criminal suspects who had seemingly disappeared.

It turns out that something similar and even creepier is already underway in the US. But instead of Facebook, authorities are using a database you can’t opt out of or turn off – archives of state driver’s license photos. State and local police and the FBI all use face recognition software to scan state driver’s license records to track down fugitives. And as part of the “Real ID Act,” states must digitize driver’s license photos, making it possible for face recognition software to sift through millions of photos in search of a match.

Several companies have developed systems that allow police to search these facial archives. The systems consist of a handheld face recognition device that plugs into a smart phone, and they’re being used by an increasing number of police departments nationwide.

It’s easy to see how this technology could be abused, and not just by stalkers. Let’s say you’re in a public demonstration against the ruling party that gets out of hand. Police identify the participants with face recognition and then arrest them at their leisure. Not to mention whistleblowers and those who support political causes or social issues that aren’t approved of by most Americans.

It’s not easy to protect your privacy against this technology, but I do have a few suggestions.

  • Don’t renew your driver’s license until it expires. Photos taken more than a decade or so for driver’s licenses aren’t necessarily in digital form and are harder to match. A few states even allow you to cite your religious beliefs to avoid having a photo appear on your driver’s license at all.
  • Unsubscribe from Facebook and other social networks. If you use these networks, don’t post photos of yourself.
  • Wear head coverings. A hat will prevent a camera above you from capturing a clear image of your face, unless you look at it. If you’re a Muslim woman or don’t mind dressing as one, a burqa will obscure your entire face.
  • If you’re a man, grow a beard. Like hats or other head coverings, a beard – at least a full one – hides enough of your face to make face recognition more difficult.

One thing is for certain. The technology underpinning face recognition will only improve. Be ready for it by acting proactively.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
BustainMovealota's picture

"A few years ago, face recognition systems were almost laughably inaccurate." I have personal experience that statement is incorrect. They were highly accurate 15 years ago, maybe more. What they have today I am sure is mind blowing shit.
Go to just about any intersection in any bullshit city and count the video cameras (not only the redlight cameras).
You really think those cameras are there to watch for accidents,, nope.

Eirik Magnus Larssen's picture

Personally, I am far more concerned about the advent of Blockchain technology. The ramifications that Blockchain technology will have for privacy are drastic.

It doesn't help that it is being developed by Blythe Masters: the very same woman who came up with the idea of junk bonds, which caused the 2007 crisis that cost countless people their jobs & livelihoods.

Manthong's picture

That's just the banker blockchain.
There are others like Bitcoin that have nothing to do with that twat.
Do a little reading and try to understand the technology.

Eirik Magnus Larssen's picture

"That's just the banker blockchain."

Which is precisely why it will have the greatest impact on people's lives.

nmewn's picture

Well actually, in the "regulated" world of "high finance" to people who can't afford to pay shit back, you only have the .gov's of this world to thank...or blame.

Or are you saying regulators were "tricked" by the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act of the Stasi-US-of-A? And if you are, please enlighten me on how these incompetent boobs can "save the fucking planet" ;-)

peddling-fiction's picture

EML, put a black turtleneck on and tell us more about technology.
*chuckle*

Jubal Early's picture

Please explain how blockchain "technology" threatens our privacy? I just don't see it.

Grandad Grumps's picture

Why does Big Brother fear the people?

peddling-fiction's picture

Maybe they have something to hide?

Jeffersonian Liberal's picture

We'll just have to make it fashionable to start wearing war paint or camouflage on our faces and to change it every day.

Or everyone in the country could start wearing the Groucho Marx fake nose and glasses and fright wigs.

Who knows, maybe the Islamofascists have something with the burqas for the women and guys all wearing nearly identical beards and hair, etc.

Damn sad it's come down to this.

BlindMonkey's picture

The FBI are the ultimate stalkers.

Manthong's picture

No.. it's the NSA / CIA.
And then again...
So I was looking to add a radio streaming app to the Android.
The goddam app wanted access to my picture gallery.
Whatever the F does a radio app need access to my pictures for?
F them all.

Investment Grade's picture

Not just pictures...it wants to access all your contacts as well. Try using a fitbit or similar device. If you want to track your progress on your smartphone, same thing -- it demands access to everything. The Matrix is soon upon us. Refuse to allow access.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Orwell could not have predicted it, but Huxley was not far off. Most importantly, the majority of people don't seem to care because it's apparently fun to post everything about yourself, friends and family on Facebook. The problem is that most people just don't care about privacy or how it impacts personal freedom. If they did, Snowden would have high schools named after him, and Zuckerberg would not be a household name.

SixIsNinE's picture

time to start adding the "Truman Show" movie to these 1984 & Orwell/Huxley musings

reader2010's picture

"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us."

ich1baN's picture

Thank you for posting this reader. That was a splendid analysis and insight that I most cherish.

reader2010's picture

That was from Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death (1986). Roger Waters was so impressed by Neil Postman's analysis so he wrote a song for it: https://youtu.be/uVSBawXaoT4

SixIsNinE's picture

the DailyMail.co.uk is the best at this over indulgence of the senses - something of everything, little of this, lot of that, more of this, more of that - the onslaughtof the human zoo ... huffpo & nypost are similar US versions -

DuneCreature's picture

When the Internet kill switch is thrown suicides will spike lasting for weeks, maybe months.

I smile every time I think of that.

Call it Techno Darwinism.

~ DC v 2.0

smacker's picture

Yes, Orwell predicted a future based upon similar events that had happened in the past. IOW, history repeating itself, albeit on a grander and all-embracing scale.
.
Huxley saw it slightly differently, predicting a new model of the future based upon what he saw going on with technology and the progressive human slide towards trivialisation and oblivion.
.
To an extent, both were right. In 2016 we have a combination of both of these horrific new worlds.

ISEEIT's picture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uleldtc-cJE

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=John+claude+van+dam+illulimatti&&vie...

No, I'm not presenting this as being the 'truth'.
Just as an 'other' point of view, one which is only considered ignorant if you're a fucking tool for the State.

Just sayin'.

ItsAllBollocks's picture

... and if you're a two faced politician?

ich1baN's picture

Just curious, how many people here have deleted their FB? I'm seriously contemplating it.

Nobody For President's picture

About two weeks after I cranked it up - some 8 years ago - I realized how creepy it was. All those pitiful assholes wanting to 'friend' me that I'd never met. WTF?

Commodore Decker's picture

Got my driver license renewed yesterday. The useless DMV fuckwit instructed me not to smile in the photo because of facial recognition tech. Big Brother has us all by the short hairs.

SixIsNinE's picture

did you comply ? if they try that on me i'll just act like i'm trying not to smile yet can't keep from laughing as i recall this post and will do my best to get a big grin in the photo

57-71's picture

This technology will only work for those who have their faces uncovered.
Next up, laws to force Muslims to uncover at checkpoints.
In Canada, they already don't have to remove the face covering at the citizenship ceremony.
Too many stupid fucking liberal socialists here for sanity to prevail.

I guess we need to all cover up like a Bedouin camel jockey and call it religion.

Ms No's picture

Well, on the bright side of things I am pretty sure this Phoenix area guy who just stabbed his wife for refusing to sleep in a closet won't get past any of this tech. This guy's appearance is a great representation of how completely screwed our culture is. You know damn well we are paying his rent too.
http://www.abc15.com/news/crime/glendale-man-arrested-for-stabbing-wife-...

robnume's picture

Where's the home page button? Archives? What's up Tyler? Biometrics will be the end of us as human beings, We will become "human capital." Oh, wait...

HRH of Aquitaine's picture

ZH icon on the top right and three lines icon on the top left.

Watch Bird 1's picture

The buttons aren't visible if you have javascript disabled.

Amicus Curiae's picture

bless you:-)
umm err?
so where is the ratings bitty?
or has that been wiped out?

I removed java ages ago cos its buggy wares

Jackagain's picture

Or you could tell a Muslim that Mohammad was a child molester and let him cut off your head....(sarc)

ArmaG3don's picture

Read Neal Stephenson and William Gibson they have much better vision. More fresh at least.

. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Police can't legally ask for your id without arresting you.
Unless you were caught in the act, police can't legally arrest you unless they can identify you.
This technology throws those legal protections out the window.
So the same laws that protect paparazzi inviolate the laws which protect your privacy and your right not to be arrested arbitrarily.
America claims to be a land of laws. Yes, contradictory and meaningless, but lotsa' laws, indeed.

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.
Tacitus - Book III, 27