German Minister Wants Facial Recognition Software At Airports and Train Stations (www.rte.ie) 111
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a surprising report from Ireland's National Public Service Broadcaster (based on a report in the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag):
Germany's Interior Minister wants to introduce facial recognition software at train stations and airports to help identify terror suspects following two Islamist attacks in the country last month... "Then, if a suspect appears and is recognised, it will show up in the system," he told the paper. He said a similar system was already being tested for unattended luggage, which the camera reports after a certain number of minutes.
The article reports that other countries are also considering the technology.
And so it begins. (Score:4, Insightful)
Germany has managed to carry enough post-Nazi guilt to respect privacy, but their underlying culture is fairly authoritarian. While those with a good memory haven't all died off yet, the country does stand a good chance of going from 0 to 100 with a couple large scale attacks.
Which is exactly what the terrorists want, but people are fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
West Germany had a lot of this as well,
Just look at the Spiegel-Scandal, Rasterfahndung, especially after the RAF had a couple of hits. Not to the extend of the Stasi, but sometimes not far off. And then there is still the scandals around the Verfassungschutz and the BND.
It's not the first time, that Interior Minister put measures like that on the agenda, but most likely it wont proceed. Some very intelligent people put a lot of thought in Human Rights Conventions and our courts honor them most of the time,
Re: (Score:2)
That gave people democratic expression in to any West German mainstream political party that was gov approved.
Anything political that was not allowed in the West was hunted down with ruthless efficiency as been a cult, fascist or communist.
After the 1990's, East Germany was exposed for its vast databases, informants, total domestic and creative internation
Re: (Score:2)
Yes West Germany had interesting laws to ensure no cult, far left or right political party could ever endanger democracy again put in place after ww2.
Except Islam, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
As that is not a political party, I'd say you need to revisit your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And so it begins. (Score:1)
I would say people want safety. They want it so bad that they will believe almost anything if it will make them feel more safe (see cryogenics and bomb shelters). We need leaders who refuse to pander to those that believe destroying freedom is the road to safety.
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to take another World War to make that happen. To either wake them up, or wipe them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy will not get those people into power, the purveyors of simple recipes make it every time, due to fundamental stupidity of most voters. Now, despite being an atrociously bad and dangerous system of government, Democracy is still the best known one. Which basically shows that the human race as a whole is not much more advanced better than cave-men.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I would say people want safety. They want it so bad that they will believe almost anything if it will make them feel more safe
That's Trump's tactic in a nutshell.
Mexicans, ISIS...etc. He's the only one who can keep you safe. He'll build the walls, he's the only one that can keep them out.
Look at how well he's doing in the polls based on that.
Re:Germany, authoritarian and Hobbes. (Score:1)
We live under a government created under principles that Hobbes came up with and while others views of man were too optimistic, Hobbes view of Man in nature reflected his poor home life growing up and he had no sense of how families actually work. I have said that I will be family for anyone who will be family for me, and that simply does not fit into Hobbes' philosophy. The Hamilt
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly what the terrorists want, but people are fucking stupid.
How is it that people always think they know what the terrorists want ?
Re: (Score:3)
Because they frequently tell us. That's the entire point of terrorism - to have goals, and to use force or the threat of force to politically coerce people into achieving those goals. You being ignorant of this doesn't change anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has managed to carry enough post-Nazi guilt to respect privacy, but their underlying culture is fairly authoritarian
That is an interesting thought; If I'm not entirely mistaken, the Germanic culture is what dominates most of Northern Europe - including the UK, not to mention the Scandinavian countries - and in fact was transported to the US as well. I seem to recall that there was some point where the States weren't quite sure whether to choose German or English as the national language, or is that an urban myth?
The point is that making sweeping statements about this or that culture is most of the time meaningless. For e
At least they'll announce it in public... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
What if your service provider, out of their good will, provides the TLAs with all your communications data? Because you, after all, agreed to that when you voluntarily signed the contract. And before you say you'd switch the operator/provider, they all do the same. Will you start your own telco?
Re: (Score:2)
What if your service provider, out of their good will, provides the TLAs with all your communications data?
What the fuck does that have to do with 'privacy *in public*'?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you read his post. He said:
Just don't tap my phone or hack into my e-mail/messaging without a warrant and we're all good.
I'm sure you can piece the puzzle together with that in mind and in relation to his privacy-in-public statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
....these systems are probably already deployed in American train stations and airports, and they won't bother telling us about it. It'll take years just to get details about it through FOIA.
What you've got to remember is that those cameras are owned by private organisations (same as every nightclub, shopping centre, car dealer, so on and so forth) and not subject to FOIA for the most part. Also remember the mantra Private == Good, Government == Baaaad.
All Your Expression Are Mine. (Score:2)
Nein.
Not a good idea (Score:2)
Security camera resolution is always horrible, so I LOL at who thinks this is even possible. Either it won't work or they will waste money and time tracking false positives. Hey at least the minister's proxy shares in the facial recognition software company will pay off. That oughta count for something.
Re: (Score:3)
Scotland Yard, for one, has a bunch of specialists [newyorker.com] with a talent for grainy security footage [npr.org]. It's taken a while, but now that super-recognizers [bbc.com] are actually looking through all that footage, it looks like the cameras in London are starting to put people in jail.
Where I live, it seems cameras have at least convinced crooks to put on ski-masks before they rob a bank teller or a convenience store. I've got mixed feelings about a world gone all Minority Report, but if you live in a neighborhood where this kind
Re: (Score:1)
First they import foreigners to commit crime, then they implement the surveillance society to prevent crime and lock in their power.
Smooth.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live, it seems cameras have at least convinced crooks to put on ski-masks before they rob a bank teller or a convenience store.
Are you implying that where you lived, before there were security cameras people didn't put on a mask before they robbed a bank? What did they do, shoot all the witnesses? Was it better back then?
Re: (Score:2)
A type is of facial recognition system is already deployed in quite few major airports in the uk, but for the most part it used by the airports themselves and not tied into a government database:
Heck, they've been doing that in casinos for a decade now - to catch card counters and other dangerous criminals. We can't have governments actually preventing harmless terrorist attacks that way - that goes too far.
Re:Not a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not actually a problem. Because if they actually knew what terror-suspects look like, they could get them by other means. Fact is, this is not about terrorism at all, this is about getting the public used to Big Brother.
Re: (Score:2)
It is more about spotting people of interest acting in very interesting ways. Yes, they know who the terror suspects are (hence them being terror suspects), but they need to be able to build up cases to charge these people. Collection of evidence is a large step in this direction. Don't be so quick to dismiss evidence and substitute your own explanation - it only serves to show us how little you value truth in your arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, bullshit and an unsophisticated insult. You must _want_ a surveillance state. Probably also some concentration and extermination camps as long-term plans?
Re: (Score:2)
That is not actually a problem. Because if they actually knew what terror-suspects look like, they could get them by other means.
Yeah, when I was young, these things [www.ebay.de] were hanging in most public places - facial recognizing terrorists was everybody's duty back then. Hey, they even caught a few.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the contractors hardware, over time, undercover security teams of 6-10 people in shifts needed to follow up on every interesting person.
Its win win win. From the software upgrades, networks needed to work on every frame, trying to get a face from the side, top.
Sharing the faces with the wider EU, other nations.
As a second and third generation grows up in a host nation they are undetectable as they are on all databases by default and will pass freely.
If people are wo
Re: (Score:2)
Bild is not a newspaper (Score:1)
Disregard anything they publish and find a reliable source that isn't citing them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I wear a hoodie everywhere I go.
Watch out to not look black, or nobody will recognize your face after you've been shot into it in self defence.
Create Facebook accounts for all of them (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is way better at facial recognition.
It sure seems good a finding faces in Mariposa lilies [wikipedia.org]
Excellent Idea, good first step towards ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As everybody is a terror suspect these days, your condition is acceptable.
Need Even more (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that also allows really bad people to get away with all kinds of crimes.
When a powerful entity has the ability to track everyone everywhere they go the above statement literally also applies.
Re: (Score:2)
So, make it all public. Then, the only people with a problem will be criminals. And people cheating on their spouses. And your boss might see you interviewing for a better job. And your GF may catch you sneaking into a movie you swore you hadn't seen, just as you watch your GF getting into a car with your best friend. And your boss spending a really long time at the massage parlor, your mom heading to the casino (that ain't no bingo parlor), the minister with the politician at the roach motel, and your
Re: (Score:2)
I have no way to judge what would happen in a world where everything that happened in public was public knowledge. It actually wouldn't do much to me, since all my iniquities are conducted in private (further details not available on request), unless you count minor traffic violations. People with less savory public habits would have problems. The husband that hits the strip club one night a week. The guy that makes an illicit drug purchase. The woman that meets a male friend at "that" motel. Many pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Asimov ended the story just before everything was going to be made public. He never explored the consequences.
How well will it recognize faces under a Burqa? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For real fun, wear a burqa while male. After all, gender equality and religious freedom must support this.
Re: (Score:2)
The same people proposing the facial recognition very recently rejected proposals to ban Burqas.
Actually De Maizière was the one speaking out for the ban the loudest. [aljazeera.com]
But please don't let facts get in the way of your "Lügenpresse" rants.Are you on that picture by chance?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually De Maizière was the one speaking out for the ban the loudest.
But please don't let facts get in the way of your "Lügenpresse" rants.
Your so called "facts" are just the opposite of the truth - it was indeed Thomas "Die Misere", Germany's minister of interior, who spoke out against the Burqa ban. [spiegel.de]
So I guess as you chide others for blaming the press, you're part of the "Lügenpresse", right?
These systems do not work and never will (Score:3)
Due to the base rate fallacy, systems like this don't work, and never will.
There just aren't enough terrorists to make this worthwhile. Let's assume that one person in a million is a terrorist (probably a high number), and let's furthermore assume that the system get's it right every time it actually sees a terrorist. Let's also assume that it only get it wrong once in a thousand when it sees a non-terrorist, i.e. once in a thousand the system will say "terrorist" when it's not.
With these figures, you will have one thousand false alarms for every one terrorist you catch! I.e. a completely unusable system, that will drown their users in false alarms.
Note that these figures are also completely unrealistically good. Real facial recognition systems that work with willing subjects, are in the high nineties when it comes to true positives, and in the single digit (or low double digit) percent when it comes to false positives. Not 1/1000 that we assumed above.
Now, in relative terms of course a system like this helps. We've increased our certainty from 1 per million to 1 per thousand. That's a thousand fold increase. But in absolute terms it's still unusably bad.
And this is incidentally why we don't screen for most/many diseases in the population. Even with a good test we'll drown in false positives. And the math works the same way for many other situations as well.
Re: (Score:2)
With these figures, you will have one thousand false alarms for every one terrorist you catch! I.e. a completely unusable system, that will drown their users in false alarms.
If they did this in the US, there would be no false alarms because all of the suspect would resist arrest and most would be killed while resisting arrest.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, just see the headlines when TSA gropes grandmas and small kids today. Many of these false alarms will be in the same categories, so I'm betting the system will take the fall.
No islamist attacks (Score:2, Informative)
Those were neither islamist attacks nor terrorist attacks, but rampages of two indiduals.
The proposed technique won't help with that.
My car window was smashed yesterday at (Score:2)
If necessary make an agreement with Russian Federation to un-mothball detention camps beyond the Arctic Circle and send the unrepentant recidivists up there.
nope (Score:4, Informative)
b) in the past there have been tests in germany with systems like this, can be fooled easily without much technical effort
c) that guy is a complete tool, he has no cluen what to do. all he suggests is shit others allready failed with (good thing he hasnt heard about rfid yet)
d) there is no way any government agency in germany could impletement and run a system like this (not even with private companies as partner)
What comes after tricking this system by masking? (Score:2)
After a few years of terrorists tricking the system with their face alterations, what is it that will come? Can you guess?
Can you say 'chip'?
Chipping will be mandatory then, and everyone not accepting it will be labelled as a terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
After a few years of terrorists tricking the system with their face alterations, what is it that will come?
I'm thinking that we should all start walking around in public wearing Groucho Goggles: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
What's the point ? (Score:1)
What's the point? The Germans invited the jihadis into their country. When jihadis attack in Europe they are always "known to the police", but the Europeans lack the sanity required to either prevent them from entering Europe in the first place or to kick them out once they show signs of following Mohammed's call to wage war on the hated unbelievers (Koran 9:5, Koran 9:29 and about a hundred other verses that abrogate all other verses based on the doctrine of abrogation).
The State already knows who are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And people who have lived in Europe for centuries. Terrorism happens where people are. There is no singular cause or common trait.
Re: (Score:1)
ARE YOU FSCKING BLIND ? there is a common trait that you are specifically indoctrinated not to see. The media try and hide it. As to the Soros-paid elites. There is a totalitarian ideology that is tearing up the World. In EVERY country where this ideology either is or neighbors there is violence - following the example of Mohammed (even if he was mythological) exactly. ISIS is following Sharia EXACTLY as it is supposed to be followed. Stop lying to us, and wo
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing new here (Score:3)
Face recognition in train stations has been in evaluation ~10 years ago.
And even if we assume that 10 years later they may even be able to find terror suspects in a crowd there, there is still the elephant in the room that they need to be KNOWN terror suspects to begin with!
And whoever touts this as an effective measure against "terrorist attacks" as the ones we had lately, has to completly and willingly ignore that these haven't been carried out by any known "suspects" but some random gullible teenagers have been talked into bringing a knive and stab a few random people. None of these attackers have been connected to islamist/terrorist organisations before their attack, so even working face recognition systems would be useless here.
The German security service tried this years ago (Score:4, Informative)
The size of the problem space made it impossible. Any margin of error whatsoever, multiplied by the (number of people you're looking for + the number of people passing through the airport) leads to insane number of false positives. The German Federal Security Service did a trial with Siemens' recognizer many moons back, loved the technology, hoped the number of false positives would be small... and were disappointed. Even with an unreachably high efficiency, it kept tagging grandma as a terrorist.
It's like the birthday paradox: with only one chance in 365 of two people having the same birthday, it turns out that with 23 people in a room, you have a 50% chance of two birthdays matching. A 99% chance if there are 75 people. See http://danteslab-eng.blogspot.... [blogspot.ca] As he notes, if you have a system that is 0.999999 accurate (one in a million), we have a 50% chance of a false positive or false negative as soon as we have scanned 1178 people... meaning for about each 1000 people we either arrest grandma or let Osaman Bin Laden stroll through.
They've probably reported that already, and been told "don't worry about mere mathematics, this is politics" (;-))
the movie was: (Score:1)