[PerryinCA]

I hope I am not the only one that this worries. Funny, just finished reading 1984 for the 5 time last night. Seems I read it every year to keep my "eyes open." So yesterday I finish the book, and today this article pops up. If they ever try to pull this crap in my town, the halloween mask comes out, and camera's get broken.


Rep. Armey Blasts Tampa Over Face-Recognition System



WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 2001 JUL 2 (NB) -- By David McGuire, Newsbytes.

The City of Tampa, Fla., is facing national criticism today following revelations that its police department is using automated cameras equipped with face-recognition technology to identify suspected criminals in Tampa's downtown area.

"I'm not sure there's been a case so perfectly Orwellian because this is government watching your every move in public places," Richard Diamond, an aide to House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said earlier today.

Armey issued a statement today blasting the Tampa face-recognition program. "Contact between the police and the community is essential, Armey said. "Placing police officers in a remote control booth to watch the every move of honest citizens isn't going to make us safer."

Using technology developed by New Jersey-based Visionics Corp., the City of Tampa has enabled 36 street-level cameras with face-recognition capability in the city's newly renovated entertainment district.

The technology automatically compares the faces in the crowd to a database of known and suspected criminals - alerting law enforcers if it discovers a match, Visionics spokesperson Frances Zelazny said today.

The technology is similar to the system used by law enforcers to scan for criminals and terrorists in the crowds at the most recent Super Bowl, which was also held in Tampa.

Diamond said that Tampa officials held no public hearings on the face-recognition program, which went live a few days ago.

"We're trying to raise awareness about the privacy issues involved because there are a lot of people ignoring them," Diamond said. "The more people know about this, the less they'll like it and the more they'll demand it to be shut down."

Diamond said that the use of face-recognition technology is not ripe for legislation, but he urged local governments not to use the tools simply because they are available.

"Everybody knows that we are pro-law enforcement," Diamond said. "When we get out there and say 'this is bad' and the (American Civil Liberties Union) is out there saying 'this is bad,' we want it to resonate."

Zelazny said that Visionics is aware of the public concerns surrounding its face-recognition technology, but argued that the company goes to pains to make sure that its systems are not misused.

"This is a powerful technology that requires responsible use," Zelazny said.


-Perry

[ranaman]

First they will ban lap dancing. The minds that say for health reasons you must stay 6' from a naked girl at a strip club came up with this idea. The funny thing is all the tampa city council says they had no idea they voted for this. So 1984 isn't the proper comparison this is more like BRAZIL. Just remember, "WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER."

[saltjunkie]

Well, my parents live in / around tampa, and I lie the idea. Even though it is geritol city, tampa has pretty high crime rate. Also an area known as Ybor (E-bore) City is very high in crime. tr is a tiny area that is very populated at knight because of the night clubd and resturaunts. There are stsbbings and robberies on a nightly basis. So when your on the street, and not doing wrong, or a criminal hiding out, then why care? The protection is there for you and your community.
Although I do agree that it is essentially, invasion of privacy, but I would feel much more comfortable knowing that if the guy next to me walking down the street is a known/ convicted, axe weilding murder, that the police and other authorites are going to be notified?
That just my .02 though.
I can see the reasoning on th other side of the fence also...
Rick

[PerryinCA]

look at this:

Floridans Protest Street Cameras
The Associated Press
Sunday, July 15, 2001; 5:30 p.m. EDT

TAMPA, Fla. Wearing masks and making obscene gestures at police cameras, about
100 people protested a new security system that scans faces in the city's district to search for wanted persons.

"Being watched on a public street is just plain wrong," said May Becker, wearing a bar code sticker on her forehead.

Becker joined demonstrators in the Ybor City district Saturday night, wearing a sign reading: "We're under house arrest in the land of the free."

One protester walked by a camera, gestured obscenely and shouted, "Digitize this!"

Others wore gas masks, Groucho Marx glasses and other items to protest the FaceIt scanning system police are using in a neighborhood that attracts 75,000 to 150,000 people on weekend nights.

The video cameras snap pictures of faces in the crowd and compare them to a database of 30,000 people. It
works by analyzing 80 facial points between the nose, cheekbones and eyes.

Tampa is the only American city where police use the face-recognition technology for routine surveillance.

So far, police say the system has not led to any arrests although it has been used in Ybor the past two weekends.


even as a law abiding citizen, I feel that being able to be traced is a complete invasion of privacy. We let this one slide "for the protection of the masses", then what comes next? cameras in the house to protect those who might get in a domestic dispute?

Our government wants total control, and we're giving it to them little by little. The masses think that its for "our" protection, but its not.

this was posted by someone in another forum I watch:

What my fear (call me paranoid) on all this is...

1. The street outside my house is public, right?? Yep, so they put a camera out there. This camera photos me getting in to the G-ride and snaps a picture of my tag.

2. The street light adjacent to Albertson's is public, say it has a camera on it that points to the front entrance of the Liquor that is attached to Albertson's (all our Albertson's have them here, some states do not).

3. This "public camera" photos me walking out with an armful of beer/wine/liqour/intoxicating elixirs. Now the police have my face, my armful of goodies and my license plate.

4. Later that evening, I am driving and I get pulled over by a law enforcement officer for "suspicion" of driving intoxicated, based on the information they have obtained "legally" and "publicly"

[Salty Dog]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What my fear (call me paranoid) on all this is...

1. The street outside my house is public, right?? Yep, so they put a camera out there. This camera photos me getting in to the G-ride and snaps a picture of my tag.

2. The street light adjacent to Albertson's is public, say it has a camera on it that points to the front entrance of the Liquor that is attached to Albertson's (all our Albertson's have them here, some states do not).

3. This "public camera" photos me walking out with an armful of beer/wine/liqour/intoxicating elixirs. Now the police have my face, my armful of goodies and my license plate.

4. Later that evening, I am driving and I get pulled over by a law enforcement officer for "suspicion" of driving intoxicated, based on the information they have obtained "legally" and "publicly"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't see the problem..........unless he is drunk, the he's in trouble and rightfully so.

Solution??.......Don't drive drunk, or live like a criminal and you have no worries right?? I always felt like the people who are afraid to be watched or checked up on are mostly the ones we NEED to watch!! Kinda like all the crying over random drug tests at work...........if someone wants to look at my pi$$ all day what do I care?? I have nothing to hide.

Now if it were shown that people were being wrongly accused or even convicted by these "face matches" then you got a problem. I do see the point behind the views expressed but how can it be an invasion of privacy when it is done in public?? The cameras are not in your home.

How come no one complains about being filmed when you go to the bank?? Same thing.........you are being filmed in case you are a dirtbag doing something wrong. Most of us aren't so we don't care.

You are filmed all the time in department stores, casinos, gas stations and convienient stores...........the only difference I see here is that instead of looking for your face in a stack of mugshot books by hand after the crime is over a computer will be doing the searching in hopes of a match before the damage is done.

BTW I highly doubt anyone in Tampa would be crying if those cameras found and stopped a terrorist with a bomb at the Super Bowl held at Raymond James last year..............which coincidentally would be a great platform for them to get these on every pole in the USA as the "technology that saved the day at the Super Bowl" Talk about publicity without the usual Super Bowl fee

[ccull]

a person willing to trade a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserves neither. the "if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" doesn't do it for me. if these 2 things are true 1)i'm innocent until proven guilty 2)i have been charged with no crime then 3)i have every right to not be subjected to surveillance by my government.

[Salty Dog]

I know what you are saying but how are you giving up liberty?? You are just another speck on the screen unless you are a wanted person. How does this effect the lives of John Q Public?? It may make you uneasy and feel watched but like I said no one seems to mind getting filmed in a bank, casino, or stores...........so why all the fuss when it happens on the street??

If...........and this is a BIG if!! They started using this footage to keep track of you and what you do all day everyday and you are NOT a crook then again we have a problem.

I really do think that paranoia has set in to A LOT of people(not directed at anyone here).

If the Govt really did watch every detail of some average Joe's life all they would be is bored to death!!!

I just don't think they sit in the Pentagon like mad scientists and plot to take away your guns, put a camera in your house, plant a chip in your head and form a New World Order.....Just my opinion

People cook up these elaborate evil plots because they are more interesting then believing no one really cares what you do unless you are a threat to the masses.


I have to go now...........I just heard a click and I think someone is monitoring this post

[WowAFish]

Salty, I think you missed the point. The person was not pulled over for driving drunk, simply for buying products earlier that if consumed would cause him to be. Big difference. In this case the person was not just a speck on the screen. They were presumed guilty until proven innocent.

[hcp28]

Well since we are all speculating here I think the real issue the writer was trying to point out in the article about being pulled over is that, what if they pulled everyone over? What if police just started pulling everyone over because of suspicion of, for example, DUI.
Here's an example:
I walk into a grocery store, a camera takes my picture getting into a car. Five minutes later I'm pulled over for suspicion of drinking and driving. Why because I had what looked like a six pack of beer in my hand when I walked into the car? What are the stop law enforcement from doing this? What is the public going to cry? You can't pull us over for suspicion... well sorry they can. Now the police have an excuse to pull anyone and everything over and search your car for suspicion, of well anything. Can you imagine how easy it would be for the police to make your life a living hell? How would it look to your boss if he somehow found out you were pulled over for suspicion of posessing narcotics?
This of course is only an example of what could happen, emphasis on could, maybe this is all they would do, just put up cameras in streets to look for baddies. Then again what if they didn't stop there? Give them an inch they take another and before you know it you've gone so far you have forgotten what your fighting about in the first place. I really think we should think this through before it goes any further. I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather have an angry postal worker roaming hte streets, than have a camera on every street corner watching me scratch my a$$ while someone is getting mugged two blocks away.
Sometimes we aren't paranoid enough.
Just my thoughts.

Henry

[ranaman]

Just some more thoughts how things can spread. When I lived on a fish farm in Miami I got visited by a "black helicopter". It was a black hawk that flew at zero altitude (under 100feet) and slowly flew along the property line. It had no markings, Hey this is Miami and we had a large windowless building and pumps really used alot of power so just wave at the nice DEA agents. So the supreme court says it is ok if you see evil doing from the air. About a year later another helicopter flies the perimeter of the farm with people taking photos out of the side door. Turns out this was from zoning. The owner of the property was informed the county determined that only half the property was being used for agricultural use, so we are going to revoke the grandfather clause for that part of the property and increase the property tax. Just remember violating zoning laws is a criminal offense, but we don't mind we are only punishing criminals. Just remember VOTE FASCIST, FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS OF TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

[organicreefer]

big brother is here.buy youre guns/ammo while you can.

[Ninong]

Perry ~

I agree with your objection to face-recognition technology coupled with surveillance cameras. But, having said that, I find that I have difficulty deciding where to draw the line.

Let me give you an example. Three or four years ago a woman was killed in her home about 2 a.m. She lived in one of the suburban communities in the East Bay. The house was at the end of a cul-de-sac. The dozen or so homeowners living in that cul-de-sac chipped in and purchased a video camera security system that ran 24/7. When the police reviewed the tapes, they were able to pinpoint the perpetrator, his vehicle, and the exact time of the crime. Further investigation determined that the vehicle and perpetrator resembled a former boyfriend of the victim's granddaughter. After a search warrant was obtained and executed, the crime was solved within a matter of days.

Now the question is, was that a "good" use or a "bad" use of video surveillance technology? I believe it was a good use, especially since it was not state sponsored. But then I have to ask myself why I find this example "good." It is a difficult question.

Shopping malls, department stores, fast food joints, 7-11's, banks--you name it--all have video surveillance cameras. I believe they are within their rights in protecting their property and securing the safety of their employees.

Some municipalities have installed video surveillance cameras at known trouble spots on the street. OK, I'm not sure how I feel about this one. This is a difficult question. But is it any different that installing cameras at dangerous intersections to record red light runners? Another difficult question. Cutting down on red light runners saves lives.

Video camera surveillance is extremely widespread in Europe at the present time. Many cities have cameras virtually everywhere on the streets. The areas with the cameras have seen a very large drop in crime. You decide this one, I still haven't made up my mind.

There are a lot of other things that we tolerate that I find more threatening to personal liberty. For example, many police departments target cars as they leave the parking lots of bars at closing time (2 a.m. in Calif.). They lay in wait and then stop as many of those cars as they can to check for drunk driving. They have no probable cause other than the fact that they saw the person driving out from that lot. In other words, they did not observe erratic driving behavior. This is a common practice in Hayward and in Monterey. Probably common other places, too, but I happen to know about those two. I was pulled over in Hayward about 15 years ago even though I had not been to a bar and had not had anything to drink and was not driving erractically. I just happened to be mixed in with traffic exiting that lot at the wrong time. I was allowed to go on my way after presenting my driver's license, but the explanation that I had been stopped because I was observed "driving erratically" was total BS. To make matters even worse, many cops target specific bars for this extraordinary attention.

Sometimes they even target specific individuals. Recently, Roger Clinton, half-brother of the former president, was targeted walking down the street in southern California. He had been observed leaving a bar. They trailed him for three blocks until he got into his parked car and then they stopped him one block later and busted him for DUI. Was he drunk? Yes. Well, it was a close call--he tested at exactly .08 on the breathalizer. It just so happens that his attorney was able to get the recordings of the police radio conversations that verified that they knew exactly who he was prior to him even reaching his car. One officer asked another one in a different cruiser if it was possible he might have secret service protection with him and the second officer responded, "No, but his brother does." I don't know how things turned out for Roger. He reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter's brother, Billy. OK, did the cops cross any lines there? You be the judge.

I would hate to repeat some of the things that I know based on my personal friendship with several Oakland cops and a couple of SF cops. They might not be typical of most police officers, so it might not be fair to judge the entire department based on the actions of a few. I can tell you that they believe they are protecting the "good" people of the community. They have an attitude of "us vs. them." They have their own code of conduct and their own ideas about civil rights. Carrying a "drop knife" just in case they happen to shoot someone who turns out not to be armed is common practice with the Oakland cops I know. They are all basically nice guys who just happen to believe that the streets are tough and that the courts are too soft, therefore they feel they are doing the right thing. Kinda like selling guns to the Contras even though the United States Congress had passed a law specifically outlawing it.

So... getting back to the topic of video surveillance. Where do we draw the line???

Ninong

[Salty Dog]

Originally posted by WowAFish
Salty, I think you missed the point. The person was not pulled over for driving drunk, simply for buying products earlier that if consumed would cause him to be.

I understand the point made, just don't agree. If you are pulled over and you are not drunk all you do is show your license and go about your business. If you are drunk then you are screwed and you deserve it.

It is 5 minutes out of your life.........and if that is all I have to do to know that some low life regular at the corner bar is not gonna kill my wife on her way home from work, I'm OK with that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna put up with being pulled over 5 times a day to be checked but that is not even possible due to shear numbers so why worry about it?

Ninong got pulled over for being in the "bar" crowd. Couple minutes later he is back on the road........sure it was a lame excuse he got but how many potential lives are saved (including his) by the people that are wasted and should not be driving that they also pull over?

I just don't feel sorry for people who get nailed for driving drunk or breaking the law in any way I guess. Live a normal life within the laws or don't cry when someone pulls you over or you get arrested for whatever reason.

I was born and raised in Western NY and if you guys wanna see it bad..........be in a car full of young guys crossing the Canadian border when the Tragically Hip or Phish are playing at a festival. You want rights??? You have NONE at that weird midway point that isn't exactly canada and isn't exactly USA...........and you don't even GET an explanation as to why the contents of your car are all over the ground..............you just get to pick them up

[PerryinCA]

IMO the cameras themselves aren't the problem. Its the ideology. Ninong, I see what you are talking about with the cul de sac. I think that is completely different. The only people who are going to be taped would be trespassing, and the homeowners obviously approved. But, tracking people walking on public property is ridiculous.

Where do you draw the line? Right here. Something that extreme AT LEAST needs the vote of the populace. To me the scary thing is that this is just the tip of the iceburg. What happens when these cameras are everywhere across the country, connected to a central computer? What happens when hackers for private corporations hack into this system and do all they want? Thieves? Is the is the effect of this cost efficient?

Thats my damned tax money that is gonna pay for it, and I think there are millions of things that the money could be better spent on. How about giving money for job training to the criminals that commit crime to put food on the table? What about housing for those that can't afford it? Shelters for battered women? All these things are far more important than camera's that won't do a damn thing to prevent crime. You already read in the article of people using masks...

There are so many reasons to not support this type of thing that its hard to know what to argue against. The state of Virginia is testing the equipment as well?!

Being pulled over isn't the bad part, just a simple example that people can relate to. The system is spiraling out of control of the taxpayers, and into the hands of government, and corporate america. WTO is going to make it even worse.

Guns tie right into this, its a matter of liberty. Assault weapons are banned because they aren't needed for sporting or plinking....guess what, the amendment wasn't put in place to protect our hunting rights, or right to shoot clay pigeons. It was put there to protect US (that includes everyone) from the tyranny of a controlling government. Then it was the king...how much longer until its "appointed" government? Once the US populace is unarmed, whats to stop the government and military from taking over? Try to rebel, they'll track you down with their fancy camera's and jail you, kill you, or brainwash you to love the "Party".

Gotta go, I'll be back-

-Perry

[Salty Dog]

Originally posted by PerryinCA
Once the US populace is unarmed, whats to stop the government and military from taking over? Try to rebel, they'll track you down with their fancy camera's and jail you, kill you, or brainwash you to love the "Party".

-Perry

What possible good would that do the Govt.?? Turn against the very people that allow them to live like fat cats off our sweat and hard work.........talk bout biting the hand that feeds you.

A rebellion is not what would ruin that plan...........it would not work because everyone would stop working and reaching for that "American Dream" even if it is an illusion. This country comes to a grinding halt without a working population.........what are they gonna do kill all of us?? That would do a lot of good.

Does anyone really think that if the Govt wants to come get you that your 357 Mag is gonna stop them?? If they want in they are comin' in!! Just ask the people in Waco........he had a freakin arsenal of weapons and they rolled over his burning corpse with no problem except the Media coverage. Hate to be the one to break this to anyone but the Govt isn't watching you 24/7, they don't give a rats fat one what you do as long as it isn't a threat to daily life. All they care about is you cough up your share of taxes and go to work everyday.

We have the most prosperous, powerful nation in the world but people think the govt wants to give all that up so they can turn the US into a prison state?............Yes that has worked so well all through history I can see why they would want that

BTW I agree that if it is a govt action of putting the cameras on streets then like anything else it should be voted on.

[Salty Dog]

This is a list of the winners of the 2001 Big Brother awards

Most Invasive Proposal
The FBI's Carnivore privacy-eating snooper program.

Runners Up

Content Protection for Recordable Media for wanting to put an id number on every hard drive and memory stick and make every persons PC useless to stop MP3s

HHS's Medical Privacy Regs for allowing marketing of medical information and then stopping the regs to further weaken them.

Greatest Corporate Invader
ChoicePoint
for massive selling of records, accurate and inaccurate to cops, direct marketers
and election officials.

Runners Up

Network Solutions for selling the Whois database

Northern Telecomm for its "Personal Intenet" program.

Worst Public Official
City of Tampa
for spying on all of the Superbowl attendies.

Runners Up

Tussey Mountain, Penn Cambria & Lower Merion School Districts, Pennsylvania for using fingerprints on children for school lunches
US Department of Justice for the Cyber-crime convention, defending Carnivore and too many other privacy-invasive initiatives to count.

Lifetime Menace

National Security Agency
for Clipper, Echelon and 50 years of spying.

Runners Up

IBM for years of selling computers to developing countries that are used to suppress populations and for lobbying against privacy laws and standards wordlwide
Direct Marketing Association for ensuring that your junk mail is correctly delivered to you.

This is the "Orwell" they were all awarded.....kinda funny....kinda not

[saltjunkie]

I can understand most of the reasons for not wanting the cameras. But in places lice ybor city....
People from Tampa, help me here.
Ybor City is not a city, it is like 3 or 4 city blocks, on arond 2 cross streets. It is as stated above, There are 75,000, to whatever huge number of people you choose. There are stabbings, crimes, and alot of othe stuff that go on around there. Dont get me wrong its not hell by any means, thats the reason for the popularity, clubs, clubs, clubs, and basically a good time for all! Whatever you like, pretty much young and old.
The problem arises from the amount of people looking to do crimes, steal, rape, kill, etc. Now if there are convicted felons looking for easy targets and easy get away, by blending in, this is the place to go. Now with the cameras, they now know that they are being watched, just like people at a casino trying to have a good time, or shopping safely at the mall.
What is being left out of these articles by the media, is that it is not really too much of a city, although people live around this area. Ybor city (the area under question) Is basically an outside , Side walk, Stip mall, but instead of shops, it is clubs, diners, resturaunts, cigar clubs, party rooms, gift shops, tatto artists, and street vendors of all types. etc. The only difference is you walk down a regular street, which they close off to traffic because of people, to get to each and every different different location.
All this has been left out of the media articles. Now if the cameras were on my pole out front, then I would be in the fight with the rest of you guys.... But as stated above, nobody complains when they go to the casino, grocery store, or werever. This is the same case, just being reported differently to those who have never been there. This is the meda, and certain govt, officialsa,causing trouble, taking up a cause and just trying to make a story out of nothing. f you do not want cameras in yboe city, hen call your representitive and ask him to remove cameras from all casinos, stores, banks, jails, courthouses, and all govt buildings.
These places are no different, but since the media hasnt told you what ybor city is, then there is only one conclusion that you can come to, and it is understandable. But until the media and govt officials report the whole story, how will any one know.
Do a search and see if you can find the crime rate in ybor city. I dont even have a clue as to what it is, but i am willing to bet that it is pretty high???
Again, jmho, and .02
Rick
Here, check this out
http://www.ybortimes.com/

[saltjunkie]

This will help ....
http://www.ybortimes.com/what-is-ybor.html

[Salty Dog]

You are right Junkie and make a good point. I lived just over the bridge in St Petersburg for almost a year so I am very familar with the Ybor scene This place is what had all the Super Bowl team coaches losing sleep over what kind of trouble the players would get into. It is a very fun place but also it can be a very dangerous place if you are in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

It is NOT a city........just a name of a local gathering spot with a very high crime rate and lots of trouble every weekend. That is why I brought up banks, stores, casinos and stuff because I would be willing to bet that the local clubs and shop keepers are in full support of this as a way to cut down on crime because people will not continue to go there to have fun if every weekend is a bloodbath.

BTW if you are in the Tampa area find a morning radio host named Bubba The Love Sponge.........He is Hilarious!!!!!!!!!

[saltjunkie]

Yeah, I used to listen to Bubba in Orlando, he was the night time DJ then, hes cool.... and freakin funny! lol