A question about this scary face recognition software:
A photograph has no information about who is in it, on what basis then the face recognition software 'recognizes' the picture?
For the software to ID the person in the photograph it must have a database and a picture database already, otherwise it cannot just 'guess'.
Where will it get this picture database and perosnal information database? The government? But then almost every government in the west at least have privacy laws that strictly forbids that.
So what the heck are we really on about in this thread?
That is a good question, the answer to which has been pointed out in prior posts. You and others have not read closely if at all. I don't mean that as a put down, but indeed that has been answered.
To answer it again in different terms, consider; sites like facebook, do have identifying data. You can place your photo, name, and as much as you wish about your location. Utilities and commercial businesses have other information, including street addresses. Your friends and acquaintances will be listed in facebook or similar sites.
Facebook has your facial photo. It can be linked to any other photo of you. Any of those photos that have GPS data tell where you are in relation to your residence. You post photos of yourself and family on vacation in Cancun, and a theif can check photos in facebook or wherever that you took in your back yard (possibly with GPS info). He knows you are in Cancun with your house now empty. He may exploit that.
Given the above information about you in various databases: You have just obtained good-coverage medical insurance. Two months later, you report to your doctor with symptoms of heart artery blockage, and are so diagnosed. Expensive surgery and treatment will be needed. Your insurance company does the (now) standard check and finds a "street photo" of you on RFF, where you are seen entering a cardiac specialist's office 5 months ago. There is no mention in you application. They now cancel your insurance for you being untruthful about prior existing conditions. Now no other company wants you either. The doctor has retired and is variously reported as having retired to Puerto Rico, or Costa Rica, or being on an extended world cruise. He is unavailable to confirm he gave you a clean bill of health, or that you were simply doing research, with no suspicion you were ill.
You post cell phone photos of your daughter playing with her friends at your local playground. She is caught unintentionally in a pose that some might consider provocative. Even though the photo provides no visual clues as to the location, the GPS data does. A sexual offender conspires with another sexual offender and they show up at the playground. While one distracts you and others nearby, the other kidnaps your daughter.
A very paranoid president is elected in the USA (couldn't happen, right?). He appoints heads of critical departments that think like him and are loyal to him. He learns he has at his disposal, databases containing all types of personal information, including photos posted on RFF, some of which may be used against individuals. 1984 looms on the horizon.
The first scenario has been reported as happening. The other three are plausible. They are not far fetched. Does that mean we should stop doing street photography? Does it mean that street photography should be illegal or so morally reprehensible that most of us would shudder at the thought of engaging in it?
Actually, I don't think so. But I think discussions like this are valid so we can consider the implications of what we are doing, and if some kind of law should be enacted. Also so we know what is prudent to protect ourselves.
