Chinese Police Using Surveillance Sunglasses to Catch Criminals

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by DooKey, Feb 8, 2018.

  1. DooKey

    DooKey [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,139
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    China has begun using facial-recogniton sunglasses connected to an internal database to catch criminals that otherwise might escape detection in crowds. This technology supposedly identifies individuals in a 10K person database in a tenth of a second. Of course we should expect this kind of technology to proliferate in China because they plan to install 400M CCTV cameras in the next three years to help them build a nice large database of Chinese citizens. How long before this starts here in the US?

    The glasses are connected to tablets that contain an offline database that can match passengers with suspected criminals. Unlike fixed cameras with facial-recognition capability, the wearable allows police to act more swiftly before their targets disappear into the crowd.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
  2. Z3r0k3wl

    Z3r0k3wl [H]Lite

    Messages:
    124
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    lostin3d and Chunder like this.
  3. ruffbytes

    ruffbytes Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    447
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2015
    The cyberpunk dystopian future is now!
     
  4. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    It's just inevitable. There was a russian app called findface (https://findface.ru/) which uses facial recognition on smart phones to find out who the person is. This was released to the public back in 2016 i believe.
     
  5. Cyraxx

    Cyraxx 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    4,060
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    but...but... arr rook same!
     
  6. Nunu

    Nunu Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    257
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    Creepy, but you know, I remember reading a few months back about some designer in london making scan proof makeup and clothing for people.
     
  7. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,033
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Already done.

    Plus they scan your license plates automatically at some intersections now and alert the police of your whereabouts.
     
    Chunder likes this.
  8. BiH115

    BiH115 Gif Guy

    Messages:
    9,351
    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    [​IMG]

    Anyway, hey, if this helps, all for it.
     
  9. bugleyman

    bugleyman [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,227
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    I am annoyed at myself for finding this amusing. ;)
     
    prtzlboy likes this.
  10. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,033
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Doesnt help. Just annoys.
     
    mynamehere likes this.
  11. BiH115

    BiH115 Gif Guy

    Messages:
    9,351
    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Catching criminals using sunglasses that show information only the officer sees? How is that annoying to you? Are we just picking on anything to bitch about now on here?
     
    Chunder likes this.
  12. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,033
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
  13. BiH115

    BiH115 Gif Guy

    Messages:
    9,351
    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    I get what you're saying, but: "The devices have already helped nab seven fugitives related to major criminal cases such as human trafficking and hit-and-runs, and 26 others who were traveling with fake identities." I'd be curious to see how it works with as densely packed as China is over the course of the next year after some sample data.
     
    Chunder likes this.
  14. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    How does it violate the 4th amendment? Illegal searches and seizures? In the public, you don't have the right to privacy. If someone sees your face and recognizes you, how is that against the law? If police use technology to scan your face in public, there's no searches or seizures occurring.
    If they stop you because they detected a warrant out for your arrest and asked you to give them your papers/license/whatever, how is that against the law? I just assume in the past they used their brains to memorized wanted lists and carried with them print outs. Eventually that crap got on their laptops and phones which they still need to use their brains to do a visual comparison. Now they have a program that does the comparison for them. If anything this should eliminate the guess work.

    And technically you don't have the same rights when you pass through immigration inspections as you do when you're in this country.
     
    PaulP likes this.
  15. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,033
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    All of which could have been caught using traditional methods. I am not a fan of giving the government extra powers or ability to invade my privacy just so its a little easier for them to catch criminals. I would rather pay more in taxes to hire more police if necessary than to lose privacy. I dont have anything to hide but at the same time I dont want the government putting its nose in my business.

    Let me put it to you this way: If you werent ok with the perception that NSA was listening to your phone calls then why are you ok with the government collecting this data and running searches against it with YOUR data assuming YOU did something wrong. The ability for scope creep on this is just too much.

    Not entirely correct. We arent talking about someone or recognition from a memory here. We are talking about creating data from your person and running it against a national database. That constitutes a search - without a warrant. Also many of these systems KEEP that data, with no privacy controls on it. No way for me to object to MY biometric data being taken without my consent and kept without my consent in a government database. With biometrics becoming used for authentication more I have even more of a reason to want to keep control of who has my biometric data... Click this link if you trust the government with your biometric data.

    Even the Supreme Court is expressing reservations about these types of things. This is from a case on warrantless GPS tracking by Justice Sotomayer:

    How does this not scare the shit out of you?

    I am not Muslim and I *shudder* at the thought of this.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
    mynamehere, Rahh and WhoMe like this.
  16. mygreeneggsandham

    mygreeneggsandham n00b

    Messages:
    41
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    If the state could be trusted not to become socialist oppressors who single out groups based on their ethnicity or convictions but only look for purse snatchers, then I could be for this. However given that the Communist Chinese state is the moral heir to the german national socialists, just with much more blood on their hands, I fear for the Chinese citizens and eventually for us too.
     
  17. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,728
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    The "lets hope the everyday beat cop has his own mental facial recognition in play and studied really hard the pictures of every criminal out there" method... gotcha.
     
    BiH115 likes this.
  18. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    I think you're mistaken on what constitutes as a search. A search is basically asking to search your car for contraband or checking what's in your pockets/bags/backpack/suitcase.
    Stopping someone for no reason and asking for papers is against the law, but if there's a reason (hey, you look like someone who's wanted for example is good enough, or hey, you're face matches with a wanted criminal, i'd like to check your papers to see if the name/address matches as well is pretty much the same thing).
    Checking a database for outstanding warrants is done all the time. Checking a database for a license plate is done all the time. The only biometric data that the police have is a criminal database. Felons to not have the same rights as non-felons (can't own guns, can't vote, etc) and i have no problem with police having a database of known/wanted criminals.

    I do have an issue with police building their own database full of normal citizens when going out in public and collecting data just from doing their job. That can be abused at a later time and there should be laws regulating how long they can hold on to that incidental data and be audited at regular internals to make sure each department is complying with privacy laws, but it really doesn't sound like that's what you're talking about.
     
    PaulP likes this.
  19. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Also, i could be wrong, but don't they have a problem with terrorism in that area? Doesn't it make sense to capture known terrorists in the most benign way possible?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China
     
  20. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,033
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Did you read the aritcle in the one link? Thats not all they have. They keep the facial scans for normal citizens also.

    The license plate scanners also retain your data. You might get a ticket or warrant next week after all and the police think it would be useful for finding you when that happens...

    The courts have ruled that electronic surveillance is a search under the 4th. Taking your picture is a form of electronic surveillance https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance
     
    prtzlboy likes this.
  21. WhoMe

    WhoMe Gawd

    Messages:
    827
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Well, hell, I give up, just chip me and be done with it.
     
  22. GNUse_the_force

    GNUse_the_force Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    419
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    I want an early Pentium chip so i can keep my head warm in winter.
     
    RogueTadhg, BiH115 and WhoMe like this.
  23. BiH115

    BiH115 Gif Guy

    Messages:
    9,351
    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    I understand what the implications are of housing information on everyone, at all times. It's a tough conundrum when it comes to good vs. bad. There are pros and cons to both sides.
     
  24. GNUse_the_force

    GNUse_the_force Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    419
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Problem is most decent people know what 'Bad' is. But if the country itself is a Bad actor then all of a sudden what might be considered simply taboo or even normal in a free society becomes the target. Everything is a fine balance, that's why checks, balances and oversight is required. To do that you kind of need a free'ish society to begin with otherwise when the checks fail then nobody can speak out against it.

    But that's obvious isn't it.
     
  25. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    The link you posted says this right from the get go "Electronic surveillance is defined in federal law as the nonconsensual acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or electronic communication, under circumstances in which a party to the communication has a reasonable expectation of privacy".

    No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in public.

    Yes, it's a ability that in the past (with dragnet surveillance) has been determined to be illegal. However with all new things, that kind of accountability isn't thought of at first. I'm sure there'll be cases of abuse then new laws will come into place to prevent them from abusing that kind of power/information in the future.
     
    PaulP likes this.
  26. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,033
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    You are splitting hairs the law is not that black and white - the courts have long held that you cant just be stopped in public and asked to be searched without a probable cause. Regardless of if you have an expectation of privacy.

    So if I wear a had or a scarf that covers my face I expect privacy even in public.
     
  27. otherweeb

    otherweeb Gawd

    Messages:
    860
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Can I haz magic pleeez?
     
  28. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    The law is clear. You cannot expect privacy in public. If you go at lengths to cover your face or wear a mask (depending if wearing a mask in public is legal or not) then sure, you can gain some privacy in doing so. However most people will not do this and when they're not trying to hide their face, they can be seen and recorded in public by anyone (public or private).

    I can record police in the public, i can record people without their permission in public, i can set up cameras on my property and record the streets, banks can set up cameras to record their atms, shop owners can record everything inside and outside of their stores. I will also stand by police can record anything in public they want to as well (with body cameras for example, or dash cams).

    There is no privacy in public. Being stopped for no reason is an illegal search. However all they need is one simple reason and they can do it (you were driving erratically, your car had some mechanical problem, ran your tags and it came up in a search, you were acting suspicious is yet another bs reason that is legal, etc). They can come up with just made up stuff at times, as long as they have a reason.

    Another probable cause is that you look like someone on a wanted list. Yet another is that facial recognition matched your face to the wanted list. I don't see the difference between the two.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
    dangerouseddy and PaulP like this.
  29. Inacurate

    Inacurate Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    491
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    This is a natural extension of technology already in place - facial recognition.

    With the advent of more computing power (Thanks AMD! :):D:p:ROFLMAO:) being available in a truly mobile package, it's inevitable that real-time facial recognition is going to be drastically slimmed down to the point where we see in television and movies - instantly available to the LEO with boots on the ground, and not just your standard static locales like high-value targets.

    Existing laws and policies should be written accordingly with this in mind, and there's no effective difference between static facial recognition and mobile versions - except for those who feel their rights are being infringed.

    They're not, you're in public.
    Get over it. :)
     
  30. bugleyman

    bugleyman [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,227
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    The problem with this technology, and others like it, is that no matter how good the reasons for putting it in place, it is subject to abuse. Given that this genie is out of the bottle, we should be thinking very carefully about setting up safeguards and mechanisms for accountability NOW, rather than later.
     
  31. atarione

    atarione [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,976
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    pfft criminals... in china this is likely being used to catch criminals vile like civil rights protesters and democracy activists..
     
  32. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Sounds nice, but if you live in China soon enough, just not being recognized will become a stop and frisk and a "who the fuck are you?" from people who will have no sense of humor.

    Much better is faking your identity, but that will probably become a bigger crime of it's own, in China.
     
  33. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    I don't agree myself.

    First off let me say, I have worked in a war zone supporting a biometrics effort used to support military operations in Iraq. There is something comforting knowing that you are working on better methods for accurately identifying who people are. As any of you should realize, being unidentified and anonymous is one thing, but being misidentified as someone who is wanted is a whole other problem set with a whole other level of risks to one's life and liberty.

    With that out of the way, I don't see being able to identify people accurately as a threat to privacy. I also don't see facial recognition as a scariest part of these biometric technologies. I never saw anyone lift a face print off part of an IED before. It all comes down to how you implement and leverage the technology.

    Here is what I like and what I don't like about this article.

    One, I like that they were using a database set of targets, know people they want to locate. This is doing it right.

    I don't like the idea of collecting from cameras throughout a city. I don't mind a target list and using city cameras to do what these cops are using the sunglasses for. Checking people to see if you are the guy I am looking for isn't the problem people should fear. Creating a database of the entire population ..... yes that's more of a problem.
     
  34. jacuzz1

    jacuzz1 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,867
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
     
  35. bugleyman

    bugleyman [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,227
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Well, technically speaking, if what they are doing is against the law...
     
  36. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    That's fine if there is a flash, but if the camera doesn't emit a flash, nophoto won't trigger right?

    Besides, what if you are crossing the border, your in line waiting your tern with the CBP, and they see your nophotot, and have a picture of it, and they decide that since they didn't get a shot of your plate to check, that they will have to manually screen your trip to Mexico so you sit at the checkpoint for the next couple of hours and of course they still record your plate and enter it into the database.
     
  37. Todd Walter

    Todd Walter Gawd

    Messages:
    609
    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    This. I'm pretty sure the newer red light cameras are infrared so they don't blind people at night. The toll road cameras are for post-facto reviews, the automated tolling system uses a laser reader to grab the plate numbers. This would've been more useful in the '90s than now, I'm afraid.
     
  38. otherweeb

    otherweeb Gawd

    Messages:
    860
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    I believe in most places with cameras to capture your license plate it is also illegal to obscure your plate.
     
    lcpiper likes this.
  39. Unexploded

    Unexploded Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    264
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
  40. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,897
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011