principal. Partly because I know that the companies selling cameras to
governments are working on / with both facial and "behavioral"
recognition software... I know someone personally who works for a
company that's working on the software... So at some point you could
theoretically be arrested for picking your nose in a suspicious way.
Which _is_ the thought police from Blair's 1984 no matter how much the
people working on it (or trying to acquire it) want to rationalize it
away. I do object to cameras where I wouldn't object to a police
officer because they're impersonal. The rule is that when you give
human beings an impersonal device they do bad things with it. When you
give them TV they stop talking to each other. When you give them
microwave ovens they stop eating together. When you give them email
they produce spam. When you give them cameras with behavioral
recognition software they'll do bad things with that also.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
> It definitely is possible that it works for the camera
> types it claims to.
> of course actual visible light cameras won't be affected
> at all. Anything
> that could affect them would affect normal readability as
> well. I'm not
> sure that this really does work, but it does seem
> possible.
> I wouldn't be surprised to find this challenged and
> covered under the
> current obfuscation of license plate laws. Or, at the
> very least, to find
> those laws updated to cover this.
> In any case I don't personally find this a privacy issue.
> They cameras are
> outside looking at your behavior in public. My rule of
> thumb is I don't
> mind automated systems (well. tested automated systems)
> where I wouldn't
> mind a cop. In short since I wouldn't mind
> (philosophically, of course)
> getting caught speeding by a cop standing on the corner I
> wouldn't mind
> getting caught by a camera on the corner.
> Jim Davis
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 10:22 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: photo-blocker
> there's another born every minute.
> any proof that it works?
> I've got better things to spend my money on.
> larry
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
