Facial recognitian CCTV developed that can scan 36 million frames per second

Run_to_da_hills

36 million images per second would be the equivalent of scanning the entire population of the USA in 8.3 seconds or Europe in 20.2 seconds

"A new camera technology from Hitachi Hokusai Electric can scan days of camera footage instantly, and find any face which has EVER walked past it.

The ‘trick’ is that the camera ‘processes’ faces as it records, so that all faces which pass in front of it are recorded and stored instantly. Faces are stored as a searchable ‘biometric’ record, storing the unique.

* camera stores details of everyone who walks past it
* Stores ‘library’ of face info
* Can scan through 36 million faces per second searching for people
* Will be on sale to governments within next year".


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2119386/Could-governments-recognise-ANYONE-instantly-CCTV-Japanese-camera-scan-36-million-faces-second.html

Jonny7

Bad news for shoplifters and criminals.

Daithi 1

Great news for gullibles..

My name is URL

Jonny7 wrote: »

Bad news for shoplifters and criminals.

People willing to trade their freedoms for some temporary security; deserve neither, and will lose both.

Jonny7

My name is URL wrote: »

People willing to trade their freedoms for some temporary security; deserve neither, and will lose both.

Which freedoms will people lose from this?

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

People willing to trade their freedoms for some temporary security; deserve neither, and will lose both.

What freedoms are being given up exactly? How precisely is this a bad thing?

Cause it seems to be exactly the same as all the things Rtdh tells you to be afraid of. Some new technology and vague nebulous warnings about stuff that never comes true.

My name is URL

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which freedoms will people lose from this?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1098449_code249137.pdf?abstractid=998565&mirid=3 (PDF)

Have a proper read of that.. it's worth it.

The argument of 'only the guilty need be worried' is one of the silliest made in topics such as this.

TaosHum

When I worked in a casino they had a type of system like this (obviously on a lower scale).

Worked very well, the door would not open until it got full facial recognition (which means no hats, etc).

Think banks and the like would jump all over that type of equipment.

Jonny7

My name is URL wrote: »

The argument of 'only the guilty need be worried' is one of the silliest made in topics such as this.

You answer the question with a 28 page PDF file?

How in Ireland would this new CCTV technology affect my freedoms?

I am struggling to think of any situation.

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

You answer the question with a 28 page PDF file?

How in Ireland would this new CCTV technology affect my freedoms?

I am struggling to think of any situation.

Me : "I don't want to be on a database".

Government : "Tough sh!t".

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Me : "I don't want to be on a database".

Government : "Tough sh!t".

Bank/school/university/social services/doctor/credit card company/etc : "you're already on a database, deal with it"

My name is URL

Jonny7 wrote: »

You answer the question with a 28 page PDF file?

How in Ireland would this new CCTV technology affect my freedoms?

I am struggling to think of any situation.

What's your real name? You've nothing to hide, right?

Jonny7

My name is URL wrote: »

What's your real name? You've nothing to hide, right?

More slippery than a politician

I'll try again, how does this new CCTV affect my "freedoms"?

Its a genuine question. Your own details ranging from mildly personal to deeply private/personal are already stored on in a myriad of databases already. You are captured dozens, if not hundreds of times on CCTV every time you take a trip into any populated area.

If that's the case, then why would this new tech be alarming?

Here's a quote from the article - "We think this system is suitable for customers that have a relatively large-scale surveillance system, such as railways, power companies, law enforcement, and large stores,' says the company.".

Little Alex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu-NJA4Y1RI

But sure if you've done nothing and have nothing to hide then you've nothing to be afraid of.

humanji

The assumption that this technology can only be used to suppress the masses is as moronic as the assumption that it's completely harmless.

There's a possibility that it could be abused. I can see plenty of advantages for the system, with the only disadvantage being that I don't like being on a database that I know nothing about. But considering we're all already on thousands of databases we know nothing about, there's nothing new there. I'm not keen on the idea, but this is the way humanity is moving.

Also, the funny thing about the article is that it doesn't do anything new. It just does it faster.

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

Also, the funny thing about the article is that it doesn't do anything new. It just does it faster.

That's the scary part. A person who had a simple class A or C possession charge could get red flagged and hauled in on the spot and grilled at any random checkpoint using this technology. There is also the prospect of someone being found guilty by association if he is unknowingly redflagged along with someone who has / had a record of subversive activity.

humanji

Sadly, that's been happening since before CCTV was invented. Ironically now, the difference is that there's a higher chance of the right suspect being caught, but that's not much comfort.

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Bank/school/university/social services/doctor/credit card company/etc : "you're already on a database, deal with it"

You asked how it affects ones freedoms and I told you. What's your problem ?

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

How in Ireland would this new CCTV technology affect my freedoms?
I am struggling to think of any situation.

I wonder if anyone thinks this kind of technology will affect their freedoms..

I mean, by the time this comes into practice, we'll already be in a gazillion databases already, right ?

So who gives a funk....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO5_Yv3vKVs

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You asked how it affects ones freedoms and I told you. What's your problem ?

All CCTV does in 99.99% of situations is catch shoplifters, criminals, etc and aids in security.

I'm trying to understand how the Spar down the road getting this new tech will suddenly affect my freedom?

I'll be on CCTV slightly more than I am already?

As much as people want to fantasize about it, Ireland is not East Germany in the 80's

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

As much as people want to fantasize about it, Ireland is not East Germany in the 80's

And that's the way we'd like to keep it.

It creeps in, bit by bit, through peoples acquiescence.

edit:

And it gets pushed in by people who think it's no harm. Such as yourself.

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

All CCTV does in 99.99% of situations is catch shoplifters, criminals, etc and aids in security.

I'm trying to understand how the Spar down the road getting this new tech will suddenly affect my freedom?

I'll be on CCTV slightly more than I am already?

As much as people want to fantasize about it, Ireland is not East Germany in the 80's

The customers for this technology will be government agencies using both fixed and mobile surveylance systems and not supermarkets or shopping malls.

The system could be set up on main thoroughfares, ports of entry, at demonstrations and football matches to pinpoint immediately, identify and log all those that are present or passing through .

We will more than likely get legislation in the near banning the use of head gear such as hoodies, facial scarfs, motorcycle helmets etc in public places to compliment this potential invasive technology. The banning of Islamic shawls is just the start of it.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The customers for this technology will be government agencies using both fixed and mobile surveylance systems and not supermarkets or shopping malls.

Where are you getting that information from? it clearly says in the article..

"We think this system is suitable for customers that have a relatively large-scale surveillance system, such as railways, power companies, law enforcement, and large stores,' says the company."

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

it clearly says in the article..

"We think this system is suitable for customers that have a relatively large-scale surveillance system, such as railways, power companies, law enforcement, and large stores,' says the company."

Case closed then. :pac::pac::pac:

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The customers for this technology will be government agencies using both fixed and mobile surveylance systems and not supermarkets or shopping malls.

The system could be set up on main thoroughfares, ports of entry, at demonstrations and football matches to pinpoint immediately, identify and log all those that are present or passing through .

We will more than likely get legislation in the near banning the use of head gear such as hoodies, facial scarfs, motorcycle helmets etc in public places to compliment this potential invasive technology. The banning of Islamic shawls is just the start of it.

But again, this is all already in place with CCTV.
And even then it was already in place with shopkeepers just remembering who you are and having the right to refuse admission.

Like all of the new scary technology you post about, there's nothing you can point to that's actually wrong with it, just vague warnings and claims about laws that are about to come into force, yet never arrive.

Jeboa Safari

As has been said, the article is somewhat sensationalist, its just doing things faster. I was looking at a documentary from 2001 which shows the system which then could process up to 15m faces a minute (21 mins in here for anyone interested). There are advantages, particularly in catching criminals which I fully support, but like others have said, it is a bit worrying way that things are going. Privacy is being eroded with the advance of technology

Run_to_da_hills

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

but like others have said, it is a bit worrying way that things are going. Privacy is being eroded with the advance of technology

More worrying when the price of this technology drops further and starts to appear live across public transport systems.

espinolman

The solution would be if someone developed a mask that looks like a real face , that you just slip over your face , but it would look like a real face . Like in the film Total Recall !
They probably already exist .:rolleyes:
Where can i buy one .

wexie

None of this is new technology, there is nothing new about this at all.

So really this is an announcement of a 'new' piece of software that can do what a number of different pieces of software can already do.

This software is still limited by the underlying hardware the same as the software currently already in existence.

So at worst they might be able to do slightly faster what the current software can already do. Ever flown to the US? Ever wondered what the cameras are for when you're going through preboarding? Well now you know.

(if it's any consolation, the current generation of facial recognition software is (allegedly) notoriously unreliable and quite easily fooled. Both due to the way it 'recognises' faces and the limitations in most CCTV systems)

JJJJNR

Skynet will love this when it goes live and self aware.

Jonny7

Here's something that's much more intrusive (UK only)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

"The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon."

Sounds similar to the monitoring program Bush and Blair had going, I forget the name, bound to cause controversy anyway.

Jeboa Safari

Jonny7 wrote: »

Here's something that's much more intrusive (UK only)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

"The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon."

Sounds similar to the monitoring program Bush and Blair had going, I forget the name, bound to cause controversy anyway.

TheJournal says it might affect Irish users too. Seems very intrusive
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/plans-for-uk-web-monitoring-could-affect-irish-users-403691-Apr2012/

hooradiation

wexie wrote: »

(if it's any consolation, the current generation of facial recognition software is (allegedly) notoriously unreliable and quite easily fooled. Both due to the way it 'recognises' faces and the limitations in most CCTV systems)

by the way of some anecdotal conformation of the above, I worked on a facial recognition system for replacing the usual username/password log-in screen for a computer a few years ago.
After a while we realised that the heuristics for recognising faces plus, as you said, the low quality of cameras, made it pretty sub-optimal. Our favourite was where we could log on as an admin by placing a teddy bear in front of the camera at a certain distance.

The technology is pretty cool in an of itself, and improving constantly, but it needs a great deal of human oversight in order to be really accurate.
At their best things like this are just tools for making trawling through reams of CCTV data something that can actually be done without driving the person doing it insane.

Run_to_da_hills

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

TheJournal says it might affect Irish users too. Seems very intrusive
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/plans-for-uk-web-monitoring-could-affect-irish-users-403691-Apr2012/

It will only be a matter of time before the EU buys and it becomes European wide

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Here's something that's much more intrusive (UK only)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

"The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon."

Sounds similar to the monitoring program Bush and Blair had going, I forget the name, bound to cause controversy anyway.

And when someone start a thread about it, I wonder who will be the first in line defending it. :rolleyes:

wexie

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sounds similar to the monitoring program Bush and Blair had going, I forget the name, bound to cause controversy anyway.

It's Echelon you're thinking of

wexie

hooradiation wrote: »

bAfter a while we realised that the heuristics for recognising faces plus, as you said, the low quality of cameras, made it pretty sub-optimal. Our favourite was where we could log on as an admin by placing a teddy bear in front of the camera at a certain distance.

Teddy bear as a hacking tool, I like it, that's even better than jellybabies

SNAKEDOC

why does anybody think that cctv that can recognize a face and store it on a database is wrong. look at the applications. airport passport control could be electronic from now on simply by a face scan. missing persons, ie maddie Mc Cain could have been found if she was in public, missing children in large shops or cities. preventing criminal activity. people trying to evade capture by police. at any one time there are huge numbers of people which should be behind bars cus they failed to return after temporary release from prison. do you want those people walking around the streets. the system could track movements of known criminals making the streets safer. this would free up more gardai for other duties. the system could also provide evidence in courts where alabi's are needed. if someone was wrongfully arrested for a crime. the system would do 100 times more good than bad. yea some people might not like been on a database but like it or not you already are. you were born. beginning the recording process. get over yourselves the police are not interested in stupid details that you find important about yourself, 12,000 to police 4.5 million they need all the help they can get.

Daithi 1

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

missing persons, ie maddie Mc Cain could have been found if she was in public

Now that's just prefect.

This is exactly they type of reason maddie went missing in the first place.

wexie

Daithi 1 wrote: »

This is exactly they type of reason maddie went missing in the first place.

waaah????

Daithi 1

What I mean is... terrible things happen all the time, to pave the way for new laws. Children go missing every day, the media hardy blink an eyelid most of the time, unless they want to push an agenda (facial recognition cctv). And when they are pushing the agenda they say things like..


Will somebody please think of the children.....

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

, ie maddie Mc Cain could have been found if she was in public, missing children in large shops or cities.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

What I mean is... terrible things happen all the time, to pave the way for new laws. Children go missing every day, the media hardy blink an eyelid most of the time, unless they want to push an agenda (facial recognition cctv). And when they are pushing the agenda they say things like..

???????

Explain how this works...

SNAKEDOC

first of i didnot say will somebody think of the children, stop exaggeration what i said. in my post i pointed out a few examples of how this system would be beneficial to society. you know god help you if something happens to one of your kids or a family member or friend where cctv could have been useful. watch the news and see how many stories of assaults or missing persons or shop lifters or bank robbers have cctv shots on screen, they are all crap shots but improve it and everybody goes mad. but if it your car stolen or your kid missing then its ok. there are so many hypocritical people on this forum its unbelievable.
did you ever hear the saying whats good for the goose is good for the gander. laws are there to protect everyone, and unfortunately the idiots on this forum are included in that.

Daithi 1

First of all, given the scenario of Maddie, it's probable that she got stuffed into a suitcase and disappeared. So these new cctv crap wouldn't do a bloody thing to help her and had the new cctv been available at the time, it's almost a certainty that that's what would have happened. So this technology wouldn't have helped a god damn bit so don't try to use this emotional attachment Maddie ****e that half the world got brainwashed with because it didn't frucking work on me.

Maybe in the future we'd all be a lot safer if we stayed in our house and have a iris scanner on our doors ? we have to state out destination before we leave and intended duration ?? Or the micro chip inserted in us ? or a tracking device ??

Just imagine how many Maddies we could save then eah !! wouldnt the world be frucking beautiful, and we'd all be so safe and secure.... and it would be retard bliss !!! ****s sake lol

wexie

Daithi 1 wrote: »

.... and it would be retard bliss !!!

You make a pretty convincing case it's already retard bliss to be honest

SNAKEDOC

daithi are you listening to yourself. your on about microchips in humans and crap about what computers running the world. get a grip on reality. look at it this way. forget the words facial recognition. the world is in 1940's tv mode as regards cctv now. its grainy very low resolution and generally poor quality due in part that it is over networks and through lower frequencies and such. tv is better quality because of digital software. now put the digital software on the cctv and what have you, CCTV that actually does exactly what it should. sees a face and recognises it. i want to have cctv and look at it and say to myself oh look i can see i know that man he lives a few doors down from me or look here come such and such. not, is that a human or a silver back gorilla cus the cctv is Sh**e. what good is it to anyone in the state its in today. thats all. do you give out about improvements in tv or cars or medicine no because it improves a standard of life for ordinary folk like us. well cctv will do the same so crawl out of the basement your sitting in try to imagine there is noone with a remote control telling you what to do and think take your tinfoil hat off and live your life for gods sake man.

Daithi 1

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

take your tinfoil hat off and live your life for gods sake man.

No !!

humanji

Snakedoc, be civil!

Daithi 1

Why shouldn't I talk about such things snakdoc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrXCFEzuHCA

You seem a little bit rowdy... I wonder what your brain scan tests will reveal...

hooradiation

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Why shouldn't I talk about such things snakdoc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrXCFEzuHCA

You seem a little bit rowdy... I wonder what your brain scan tests will reveal...

I am always amazed at the leaps people make when creating these youtube videos.

Then senator Biden (not Biben) using hyperbole during the confirmation hearing of John Roberts becomes "Biden plans to Microchip the U.S!".
It's almost beautiful, in a way.

Of course if you actually want to know why Biden was saying that kind of nonsense to Roberts, you just have to know a bit about american politics and then it quickly becomes clear.

Though Biden might have been a bit more clairvoyant if he'd told Roberts that he'd need to deal with "are corporations people" and "is a healthcare mandate unconstitutional" you know, actual decisions Roberts has has to decide on. Granted that wouldn't have been as exciting as the prospect of Joe Biden extracting his foot from his mouth long enough to microchip 311 million people.

SNAKEDOC

i'm just trying to reason with anybody who sees this new system as wrong. if someone could give me just one reason why its wrong i'd be happy. saying it infringes on civil rights is a load of crap when you set foot out in public your in a public place so hence you have no civil liberty except your right to freedom. this system does not infringe on that. the law states that cctv operated by a private person or business must not view public property to stay within the law. the gardai operate cctv in public areas. now for this system to work obviously it needs to be networked to maybe the garda pulse or another such system which is beyond any private firm in this country so only gardai will be seeing the information and also for a face to be "recognized" it needs a base line and private bio metric info such as a passport which only gardai immigration have. so further on from my other posts about the positive notes of this the cctv view will improve while allowing gardai to identify culprits in crime by scanning the footage on the system but not allow the public access. this system could dramatically increase crime detection and prevention in the long run and remember, more people caught means more people in court more fines more money in the kitty and less need for outrageous taxing. it is a win win situation. i am shockedd that anybody could pick negatives out of it. surely somebody could back me up here