Face Recognition Cameras Stir 'Big Brother' Fears Sun Jan 12 By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (Reuters) - Police in this popular resort city recently began operating video surveillance cameras with controversial face recognition technology that critics say brings the United States one step closer to becoming a society where "Big Brother is watching you." Virginia Beach, along with Tampa, Florida, is one of only two cities in the United States to acquire the technology, which cost it $197,000. The system went live last September, at the tail end of the summer vacation period when the city was crowded with visitors. "Before we switched it on, we went through an extensive public education process with hearings and the involvement of citizen groups and minority groups, who helped write the policies we are using," said deputy police chief Greg Mullen. As a result, the cameras may only be used for two narrowly defined purposes: to catch some 1,500 people wanted by the city on outstanding felony warrant, and to find runaway children or missing persons. All the images picked up by the cameras are immediately deleted from the system if there is no match. A citizens' auditing committee has the right to perform unannounced spot checks on police headquarters to make sure the technology is not being misused. Virginia Beach has had video surveillance cameras watching over its beachfront area since 1993. Three of the city's 13 cameras are linked full-time to the face recognition system, though the others can be activated as needed. The database of wanted people is updated every day. So far, the system has failed to produce a single arrest, though it has generated a few false alarms. In September, it was sending some 8,000 images a day to the computer at police headquarters. Each camera has the capacity to generate six pictures a minute. It works by analyzing faces based on a series of measurements, such as the distance from the tip of the nose to the chin or the space between the eyes. Critics say it is highly inaccurate and can be easily fooled. Mullen, who sees the system eventually being linked to the databases of other city, state and federal law enforcement agencies to track criminals and suspected terrorists, said: "The system doesn't look at skin color or your hair or your gender. It takes human prejudices out of the equation." Civil liberties groups are hardly reassured. They fear an erosion of personal privacy and evoke the dark vision of British author George Orwell's novel "1984," in which he imagined a totalitarian society with a "Big Brother" who kept all its citizens under constant surveillance.
We keep losing our personal freedoms. Our president keeps saying that the government "...should let it's citizens control their own lives and the Federal Government should stay out of their business... they can run things better without having Washington and Big Government interfering"... while taking away more of those rights from the people and interfering with their business. Substitute "the states" for citizens and the people and the same thing is happening there as well. I heard on a news program yesterday, or the day before, a question put to a government spokesperson about how the Bush Administration would require the states to do the testing of students that Bush wants done throughout the country. After all, education is supposed to be the purview of the states. The reply was "...we can withhold highway funds to those states that don't meet those requirements." That sure sounds like what the administration was running AGAINST. So "federal blackmail" is wrong if practiced by Democrats and fine if done by Republicans. Presumably this means whatever states rights, personal freedoms and privacy we lose is OK as long as it's defined by a THIS administration. Politics as usual? I guess it depends on your point of view. Right. Hey, Orwell's great imagination was off in some respects, but not as much as one might think.
Wait....I'm normally the one on these boards using the word "orwellian" and crying about government trouncing on the 4th amendment. But I don't see it here...you're out in public...your face is not hidden...what expectation of privacy do you have for your face when you're walking out in public??? If someone could recognize you walking down the street, how is this any different??? I don't want this stuff installed in my home...but when I walk down the street I have ZERO expectation of privacy.
While this system could be abused I see nothing wrong with it. If they use it for its intended purpose of taking some felons off the street and letting some little kids get back home, then I'm all for it. Besides, Las Vegas casinos have been using systems like these for years to catch cheaters and banning from the casino. Americans should be careful about losing freedom, but a better way to protect it in this situation would be to have checks on the abuse of the system, not so much the system itself. And maybe this system will put away a rapist or two so some women in this town have the freedom to walk down the street and not get raped...or you have the freedom to not get carjacked.
Isn't this just stupid? If you are looking for individuals on file, what possible reason could there be not to use as many criteria as possible to actually find them. If I am robbed by a chinese woman with a mullet, I don't think they should be on the lookout for a white guy with an afro.
