Search the World's Smartphone Photos 67
mikejuk writes "Researchers have devised and tested a system called Theia that can perform an efficient parallel search of mobile phones to track down a target photo. It could be used to perform a realtime search for a missing child accidently caught in a photo you have just taken or the location of a criminal or political activist. You might think that the security and privacy aspects were so terrible that you just wouldn't install the app. However exceptional photos of a sporting or news incidents are worth money and the profit motive might be enough for you to install it."
Profit motive is questionable (Score:5, Insightful)
Every sporting event I've been to recently is pretty strict on where photos may be taken from.
I don't see the average iPhone user beating those people on the field with the lenses on monopods.
Now, shooting celebs as they come out of the tanning salon, maybe.
Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they can search it, odds are they can access it, so what's preventing them just taking the damn photo and not paying you a dime?
Jesus, when did people get so fucking naive when it comes to business and government, especially businesses like tabloids and whatever government agencies would be checking your pics for whatever the hell they feel like whenever they feel like it? So many people just ready to torpedo any rights of privacy we have left...what the hell is wrong with this country?
The description tells the tale (Score:4, Insightful)
It comes right out and says "political activist". That's very timely, all things considered, By "political activist" they mean protesters or those holding demonstrations outside of the designated free speech zones.
Just right for quickly identifying those who would dare to threaten the established order. Can you think of any reason why you might not want to take part in this system?
Re:What about security cameras? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those images of publicly viewable should be subject to automated searching for criminal evidence. If a billion cops could legitimately stand there watching and writing down notes, it's legit to replace them with sensors, networks, and AI.
But a billion cops would do more than stand there watching and writing down notes. Replacing them with sensors, networks and AI doesn't eliminate all the problems with using real cops. Many prohibitive problems of comprehensive public surveillance still remain when the cops are automated. Primarily the abuse potential of compiling all that info, crosstabbed and logged. A higher probability of abuses committed, a higher amount of damage doable by abuse, a higher probability that abuse will never be caught, a higher probability that abuse will not be corrected, remedied, or abusers punished. Therefore more abuses.
Until the US reforms privacy laws to comply with the Fourth Amendment [cornell.edu], the right of the people to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects (AKA "privacy"), against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be frequently violated. All data collection that touches our private information must be subject to open review for abuse, must be required to aggregate and anonymize data wherever possible, must prevent crossreference except under legitimate court order, must report collection or crossreference events to the person measured, and must truly delete any data identified with any specific person or small group after the immediate justification for its collection has passed. The people doing the collection, crossreferencing and retention, whether directly or by either setting policy or implementing it (including programmers and legislators), must be quickly subject to stiff penalties for any abuses.
Unless there is a bright and easily defensible line kept between public and private, the public will always invade the private - typically in the interests of some favored private interest attacking the others. We are already far down this road, but not too far to back out of it.
I read a book once (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about security cameras? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those images of publicly viewable should be subject to automated searching for criminal evidence. If a billion cops could legitimately stand there watching and writing down notes, it's legit to replace them with sensors, networks, and AI.
There are two assumptions here. Firstly that anything you do in public is fair game, and secondly any activity that we accept when it's done the old-fashioned (and tedious) way is equally legitimate when it's done in a high-speed, automated manner.
Some- myself included- disagree with both these general premises. A hundred years ago, if you did something in public, people could see you and talk about you, but there wasn't the chance of some video of you doing something stupid hanging around forever, or someone in power easily being able to see you doing that.
In short, the implications of doing something in public have changed a lot, even in the past 30 years, and the social rules surrounding that date back to before this time. Even then, you generally couldn't have got away with (e.g.) stalking someone, even if they were doing it "in public", so it's not like there was ever *no* level of "privacy" towards people in public spaces.
Secondly, doing some surveillance activity in the old-fashioned, tedious manner by definition limited it to people the police had a reason to focus on. Doing it in an automated manner makes it possible to gather information on and track people in general, regardless of whether or not there is a fair reason to do this, and makes a police state or "surveillance society" possible in a way that doing it by hand doesn't.
In short, this is a case where a quantitative change in how much something can be done makes a *qualitative* change to its effects, i.e. it is *not* simply a case of letting the police do their old job faster- it fundamentally changes it. And this is why (IMHO) doing it the new way should *not* get a free pass because it's always been like that.... because it hasn't.
Re:What about security cameras? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about security cameras? (Score:5, Insightful)
All those examples you gave require the user to opt in. For instance, I have older uncles in my family that absolutely refuse to have a credit card. Flat out refuse. They've literally never had one in their entire life. Everything they own they've paid for cash, even their homes (this is, of course, back when someone could more reasonably do such a thing, but it is still possible. Ditto with cell-phones, bank accounts...it is increasingly difficult to imagine life without these things, but people do it.
However, people not wanting to be tracked via networks of security cameras and cell phone cameras have what recourse? Stay in their home and never come out? That's ridiculous. At some point we need to draw a line and leave people their anonymity. The way it seems now, all the people that refuse to live in this "we know what you're doing 24/7" society are going to have no recourse but go live in the woods like Ted Kacynski (sp?). I think the line can be drawn a little more close to home than that. One shouldn't have to live at a 3rd world level to have some privacy in their lives in a 1st world country.
Sound like a slow boil to me ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the one blurb we have "think of the childred", catch "criminals and political activists" (the two belonging to the same category) and also "make money".
What we provide is our photos with our GPS and our timing location where we took them as well as the subject being our choice!!