Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti-Surveillance Mask Lets You Pass As Someone Else

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the I-thik-I've-seen-you-before dept.

Privacy 196

SonicSpike (242293) points out this article about a mask that can foil surveillance cameras and provide fuel for nightmares. "If the world starts looking like a scene from Matrix 3 where everyone has Agent Smith's face, you can thank Leo Selvaggio. His rubber mask aimed at foiling surveillance cameras features his visage, and if he has his way, plenty of people will be sporting the Personal Surveillance Identity Prosthetic in public. It's one of three products made by the Chicago-based artist's URME Surveillance, a venture dedicated to 'protecting the public from surveillance and creating a safe space to explore our digital identities.' 'Our world is becoming increasingly surveilled. For example, Chicago has over 25,000 cameras networked to a single facial recognition hub,' reads the URME (pronounced U R Me) site. 'We don't believe you should be tracked just because you want to walk outside and you shouldn't have to hide either. Instead, use one of our products to present an alternative identity when in public.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sure, give that a try (5, Interesting)

mlookaba (2802163) | about 5 months ago | (#46972865)

Wearing a mask in public is already considered "probable cause" for detain and search. While I agree with the reasons, this product will go nowhere except Halloween parties.

Re:Sure, give that a try (5, Insightful)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 5 months ago | (#46972947)

Isn't it funny (or sad) how the government is increasingly using mass surveillance in public places, and yet when you attempt to thwart their efforts at tracking you by doing something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?

The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has many places that ban the act of wearing masks in public places. Free? Brave? To drones, maybe.

Re:Sure, give that a try (3, Informative)

RNLockwood (224353) | about 5 months ago | (#46973171)

California has had a mask law on the books long before photo recognition, CCTV, etc. The purpose was to attempt to prevent masked people on the streets as this was (reasonably IMHO) seen as a probable precursor to some sort of in-your-face crime.

Re:Sure, give that a try (4, Insightful)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 5 months ago | (#46973221)

California has had a mask law on the books long before photo recognition, CCTV, etc.

When the laws were created is irrelevant to the reality that protecting your privacy is made impossible in many places by government thugs.

reasonably IMHO

Again? [slashdot.org]

Come on. I shouldn't have to tell people in "the land of the free" that banning things like this merely because criminals could abuse them is disgusting. Even if the safety is real, it's not something any truly free country would do, just like we shouldn't have the TSA, the NSA mass surveillance, or any of the other nonsense that's happening right now.

What's with all these people who claim to want a free country, and yet support policies that take us in the opposite direction? It's just an eyesore.

Re:Sure, give that a try (5, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 5 months ago | (#46973685)

When the laws were created is irrelevant to the reality that protecting your privacy is made impossible in many places by government thugs.

Wearing masks in public is not a protection of your privacy: you're in *public*: everyone can see you, and what you are doing. That's part of the whole concept of a public place. No, wearing masks preserves *anonymity*, which is different from privacy. As is, you have and should have limited rights to privacy in public (can't force people not to look at you, for example). You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public.

Re:Sure, give that a try (4, Insightful)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 5 months ago | (#46973849)

Actually, it provides privacy from mass public surveillance. There are different kinds of privacy, and some (i.e. privacy from having people take upskirt pictures) exist even in public places.

And this is about the government, not random people looking at you.

You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public.

Anyone who tries to say I shouldn't is an authoritarian scumbag.

This is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," so you can damn well bet I'm going to claim such a right.

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973763)

Justice systems in open societies rely on the ability to identify
people in public places. You close down open societies
by withholding identity from your fellow citizens. The laws
against anonymity in public were passed by your fellow
citizens in a democratic society because they wanted
an open society, not by government thugs.

Re:Sure, give that a try (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#46973359)

The first mask laws were about 100 years ago against the KKK

Re:Sure, give that a try (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 5 months ago | (#46973489)

Lots of places have had such laws for decades.

They were often used against the KKK. If they wanted to march, they had to do it without masks.

LK

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

wealthychef (584778) | about 5 months ago | (#46973639)

"in your face crime?" LOL unintentional puns are the funniest

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 5 months ago | (#46973185)

and yet when you attempt to thwart their efforts at tracking you by doing something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?

First do research as to why wearing masks is illegal in many US states, and then spout your opinions.

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 5 months ago | (#46973231)

First read my post. I did not state *why* it is illegal. I was aware that it has been illegal before any of this nonsense.

But regardless of the reason it's illegal, the fact remains that wearing masks in public is illegal in many places.

Since a few people interpreted it that way, it must be in the wording, but that is not how I intended it.

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 5 months ago | (#46973405)

the fact remains that wearing masks in public is illegal in many places.

And darned few people were upset that such ordinances were passed.

IMNSHO, the bottom line is that too few people want the actual responsibility of actually living in a free society. A large population, a too-low need for employment plus two undereducated, angry and rightly aggrieved minorities bears that out, I think.

Re:Sure, give that a try (4, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#46973197)

...something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?

You can thank the Klan for that in many places. Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?

The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has many places that ban the act of wearing masks in public places. Free? Brave? To drones, maybe.

Blacks, Jews, and Catholics do live more freely since few in the Klan were brave enough to make their allegiance known openly and commit their foul deeds without anonymity. Do you resent that? Do you think that America is less free or brave because the Klan finds it more difficult to hide itself to harass or kill blacks, Jews, and Catholics?

Re:Sure, give that a try (1, Insightful)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 5 months ago | (#46973285)

You can thank the Klan for that in many places.

No, the Klan did not create the law. I blame the government and its supporters.

Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?

I'm in favor of rolling back anti-Klan laws that make it illegal to wear masks in public places, regardless of what the mask looks like. Opposing the Klan is all well and good, but when you ban masks in public places, you're anti-freedom.

Do you think that America is less free or brave because the Klan finds it more difficult to hide itself to harass or kill blacks, Jews, and Catholics?

I think America is less free and less brave because we (i.e. authoritarian idiots like you) continually sacrifice freedom for security (both real and imaginary). I do not think innocent people should be harassed by government thugs merely for wearing masks, trying to get on a plane, participating in a protest (protest permits), trying to get their voices heard (free speech zones), etc.

It's always funny how you come when there is a topic about surveillance, and you're nearly always pro-surveillance and anti-privacy. I say "funny," but I don't really expect anything more from the likes of you. As I've suggested to you before, I really think North Korea would be more to your liking.

Re:Sure, give that a try (0)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 5 months ago | (#46973711)

You can thank the Klan for that in many places.

No, the Klan did not create the law. I blame the government and its supporters.

You can blame it on the Great Pumpkin and be just as wrong as blaming it "on the government and it's supporters". The grandparent is correct, the anti-mask laws go back decades and have nothing to do with the current conditions.
 

Opposing the Klan is all well and good, but when you ban masks in public places, you're anti-freedom.

There's a wide variety of limits to our freedoms that are generally and widely agreed are a good idea (such as the (in)famous "the freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater") because they provide for the greater good. You're going to have to make a better case than "anti-freedom" I'm afraid.

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 5 months ago | (#46973863)

You can blame it on the Great Pumpkin and be just as wrong as blaming it "on the government and it's supporters".

Question: Who created the law? The government. Therefore, the government and those who supported it are at fault for the existence of the law. This is not difficult.

The grandparent is correct, the anti-mask laws go back decades and have nothing to do with the current conditions.

There's a wide variety of limits to our freedoms that are generally and widely agreed are a good idea

Many things were widely believed to be a good idea, but were horrendous. I do not care about popularity; I care about individual liberties.

(such as the (in)famous "the freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater")

I disagree with such a restriction, but that is neither here nor there. Wearing a mask does not itself do any harm, and shouldn't be banned merely because wearing a mask is something that a criminal might decide to do. This is not something that "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would do, but I can see you despise freedom, so it's not like you care.

If you want to catch more criminals, why not just allow the police to break into any house they please for any reason? You seem to have an absolute trust in the government to suggest that this would be for "the greater good" (an excuse to violate fundamental liberties).

Now, go get molested at an airport, and then fly off to North Korea, you scumbag. You might have trouble finding the right transportation, but I'm sure you'll find some authoritarian asshole who will be glad to take you.

Re:Sure, give that a try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973239)

Unlawful flight to avoid arrest / avoiding arrest / resisting arrest.

How many times have we seen it to where that or similar was the only charge placed on someone? Even when there was no charges etc out for/placed on the person to start with?

With masks such as these you can expect the incidence of that requently bogus charge to skyrocket, along with the number of Elvis sightings.

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

hodet (620484) | about 5 months ago | (#46973369)

..because....turrists. now pick up that can citizen!

Re:Sure, give that a try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973443)

Who needs to be anonymous when you can use your own username to troll about rape fantasies on the internet? http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46973069)

Right. And how long before it become illegal outright?

Plus, try going inside a store with it on, you will be bounced faster than you can blink. And if you DO take it off, zap, you are on camera. Once you are ID'd in one spot, its pretty painless to follow you around, even after you put your mask back on.

Re:Sure, give that a try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973145)

Right. And how long before it become illegal outright?

Has been in Florida since 1951, and there are plenty of other states that have similar laws on the books. Mostly they stem from efforts to deal with the KKK.

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#46973155)

Right. And how long before it become illegal outright?

It is already illegal in many places [wikipedia.org] . Many European countries have laws against covering or obscuring your face in public. Many of these laws were originally aimed at Muslims, but apply to anyone. Many US states and localities also have bans, some originally aimed at the KKK. Anti-mask laws were used against protesters at "Occupy Wall Street".

This is not a slippery slope. We are already at the bottom.

Re:Sure, give that a try (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 5 months ago | (#46973261)

The laws where not aimed at muslims but demonstrants and rioters.

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 months ago | (#46973397)

Quite. Muslims were given an exemption from them.

Re:Sure, give that a try (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#46973733)

Quite. Muslims were given an exemption from them.

I believe that is only true in Britain. In other countries, such as France and Belgium, Muslims were the target. When the mask ban was signed in France, President Sarkozy explicitly stated that a primary purpose of the law was to "uphold secular values".

Reverse it (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46973071)

Don't wear a mask. Get a mask of your face done. And when the feds show up, well, that wasn't me, just someone wearing my mask. I hate that as much as you do, officer, and if I just could stop it, believe me, I would... but people are bad, ya know?

Re:Reverse it (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 5 months ago | (#46973379)

You are responsible for whatever people using your face do.

Re:Reverse it (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 5 months ago | (#46973525)

Yeah, it seems to me the main thing this mask would accomplish is helping Leo Selvaggio hide himself from surveillance, not the rest of us - unless we're willing to wear it 100% of the time we go out in public.

Re:Sure, give that a try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973165)

Wearing a mask in public is already considered "probable cause" for detain and search..

Reasonable suspicion for detainment. Get it right.

Re:Sure, give that a try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973311)

Bullshit, otherwise every single person walking down the street in winter with a scarf wrapped around their face would be getting stopped. The same goes for people wearing oversized sunglasses in the summer.

Re:Sure, give that a try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973343)

Not to mention people going to costume parties or out for Halloween. Even people who wear masks due to poor air quality. If one was charged with a crime for the latter, they could easily press charges against everyone involved for attempted murder for FORCING them to breath polluted air and thereby trying to kill them.

Re:Sure, give that a try (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46973587)

Wearing a mask in public is already considered "probable cause" for detain and search. While I agree with the reasons, this product will go nowhere except Halloween parties.

Now, I don't normally say this, because this is not Wikipedia. But [citation needed]. I do not believe this is true.

Wearing a mask in a bank might be probable cause (and pretty stupid). But in public? I don't know of a single case in the United States in which wearing a mask was by itself considered probable cause for a search. If it were, Mardi Gras would no longer exist.

I'm not claiming you're wrong, but I think you are. I would like to see some evidence before I'm convinced otherwise.

Re:Sure, give that a try (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46973641)

I just looked it up. [anapsid.org]

8 States and DC have laws against wearing masks. That is a small minority. In general, they are either very Leftist states, or states in which KKK was known to operate in the past.

Further, in almost all of those states, it is only unlawful to wear masks for the purpose of committing a crime or evading the authorities.

So, NO. In general, wearing a mask is not "probable cause" in itself, nor illegal in itself, unless it is done in order to commit a crime.

There are a few exceptions, in a few places. That is all.

By they way: I prefer the Guy Fawkes mask, myself.

Happy Mothers Day (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46972877)

Lets all be thankful for some fine ass MILFs on this special day

wait until someone is caught doing something nasty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46972887)

this "artist" will learn real quick that his actions will have consequences.

How convenient for him... (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 5 months ago | (#46972891)

If he gets others to wear his face mask, he can go around without one and be hidden in the crowd. He should be paying others to wear these.

Re:How convenient for him... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46972965)

Please explain how you are hidden in the crowd when the tracking scanner can recognise you.

Re:How convenient for him... (1)

Slick_W1lly (778565) | about 5 months ago | (#46973123)

Plausible deniability.

If a bunch of others are wandering around with your face, you can reasonably say 'It wasn't me Guv, it were one o' them folks wearin' my mask..."

In techy terms - It's a bit like having an open hotspot. "It weren't *my* computer guv, it were one o' my neighbours connecting to my freely accessible SSID."

Re:How convenient for him... (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 months ago | (#46973609)

Come on. This is Slashdot. Nobody is going around wearing our faces. Not even us, if we could help it.

Re:How convenient for him... (1)

deathguppie (768263) | about 5 months ago | (#46973575)

I can see this guy robbing a lot of banks if he's successful. Or at least getting pulled in for questioning a lot.

wtf? either this guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46972909)

is unnecessarily willing to get into some real trouble, or he is preparing to cover up something he will do in the future...

either way, it is pretty stupid he is using his face for the purpose. we could prove the same point using a computer generated face.

Re:wtf? either this guy (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46973101)

Looking back through history, it was people who were willing to sacrifice their safety who gained and protected our freedoms.

Re:wtf? either this guy (2)

Nutria (679911) | about 5 months ago | (#46973205)

Looking back through history, it was people who were willing to sacrifice their safety who gained and protected our freedoms.

Sadly, looking back through history, there have been just as many -- if not more -- willing to sacrifice their safety so as to illegally take other people's stuff.

Should Be Illegal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46972911)

There is really no legitimate or conceivable use for these things other than for aiding and facilitating criminal activities. I am not a fan of the surveillance state either, but this goes too far. No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded. They should be banned lest criminals use these.

Re: Should Be Illegal (1)

russotto (537200) | about 5 months ago | (#46972933)

Thank you, Dick Cheney. BTW it's your face I'll be using.

Re: Should Be Illegal (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#46973187)

here you go [amzn.com] .

Re:Should Be Illegal (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 5 months ago | (#46972975)

They should be banned lest criminals use these.

Criminals use oxygen.

--
BMO

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#46973139)

Everyone uses oxygen.

Not everyone wears masks in public.

In many places, it's illegal to walk around naked in public too... so apparently there's plenty of precedent for making laws which might prohibit a certain fashion from being utilized in public, unless explicit exemptions are made for specific events.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973161)

Not everyone wears masks in public.

And wearing a mask is not something that should by itself be illegal.

In many places, it's illegal to walk around naked in public too

Which just shows that we in the "land of the free" need to start caring about the principles we claim to aspire to, rather than attempting to ban anything we don't like.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#46973201)

There is a decided difference between what some may believe "should" happen and what actually does.

Bitching about it won't change a thing.

Re:Should Be Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973317)

That depends on who you're bitching to, doesn't it? I don't expect bitching about it on Slashdot to accomplish much, but who says that's all I do? I vote accordingly, routinely write letters to my representatives in an effort to get them to change their ways, attempt to persuade those around me, and have participated in protests.

I don't expect things to change anytime soon, but the point is, it's not like I'm doing nothing.

Re:Should Be Illegal (2)

FudRucker (866063) | about 5 months ago | (#46973267)

body must be clothed, face must be naked

maybe make a holiday where everyone reverses that role, and everyone goes naked while wearing a mask

Re:Should Be Illegal (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 months ago | (#46973411)

I know someone who does that, but she charges $20 extra.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 5 months ago | (#46972979)

In a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," banning something as simple as this merely because criminals could abuse them is cowardly, intolerable, and anti-freedom.

I am not a fan of the surveillance state either

From your post, that is clearly not the case. This is the sort of government cheerleading that leads to the loss of our freedoms.

No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded.

No person in their right mind--especially not one living in "the land of the free"--would stand by and do nothing while government thugs are tracking their location.

Re:Should Be Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46972995)

There is really no legitimate or conceivable use for these things other than for aiding and facilitating criminal activities. I am not a fan of the surveillance state either, but this goes too far. No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded. They should be banned lest criminals use these.

You should be neutered so you cannot reproduce.

Re:Should Be Illegal (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | about 5 months ago | (#46973033)

No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded.

Under underestimate the power of fashion. People walk around "in their right minds" with bits of metal or ink in their skin, or (just to show it's not just those crazy kids today) codpieces or monocles. Who knows what the future may hold, perhaps it will come to be considered stylish to stick it to the surveillance state.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 months ago | (#46973421)

Under underestimate the power of fashion.

That means overestimate.

Or am I being "prescriptivist" there?

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 months ago | (#46973643)

This. Come up with some makeup that screws up CCD cameras (different spectral characteristics?) and / or screws up the algorithms. Weave them into this year's fashion statement. Keep reiterating the process as the Panopticon tries to adjust. Extra points if it works to hide your own imperfections.

Could be some real money here folks.

Re:Should Be Illegal (3, Interesting)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#46973149)

it's a way to protest the surveillance state, and protest is a form of speech. so it's constitutionally protected.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 5 months ago | (#46973195)

No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded.

No person in their right mind would expect to be recorded everywhere they go (unless they were being chased by paparazzi), sadly "reasonable expectation" isn't defined by people in their right minds.

Re:Should Be Illegal (5, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | about 5 months ago | (#46973747)

[sarcasm]
I notice you posted anonymously. Doesn't that seem inconsistent with your views? Or are you currently perpetrating a crime? Or are you only planning one?

Come on, admit it. You're being an Anonymous Coward because you're committing a crime.
[/sarcasm]

How long before ... (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 5 months ago | (#46972925)

How long before wearing one of these makes you a potential terrorist in the eyes of the police, FBI, etc.?

Re:How long before ... (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#46973003)

How long before wearing one of these makes you a potential terrorist in the eyes of the police, FBI, etc.?

Haven't you heard? We all already are.

Don't be silly, citizen... (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 5 months ago | (#46973131)

Labeling is so... 20th century.
Why would they ever need to label you in any way, if they can simply know who you are and where you are at any given time?

http://slashdot.org/story/11/0... [slashdot.org]

It's just a matter of picking a law you've certainly already broken. Or taking you in for "acting in a suspicious manner".

Besides... that mask is useless without appropriate clown shoes, big blow-up clown gloves and clown pants to hide your gait.
http://slashdot.org/submission... [slashdot.org]

Re:How long before ... (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 5 months ago | (#46973257)

How long before wearing one of these makes you a potential terrorist in the eyes of the police, FBI, etc.?

They wouldn't arrest Batman, would they?

http://www.instructables.com/i... [instructables.com]

Yeah, it's illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46972977)

It has long been illegal in most municipalities to wear masks in public to obscure your identity (Halloween & Mardi Gras unofficially excempted).

Re:Yeah, it's illegal (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#46973087)

That could logically extend to the use of make-up, you realize.

You don't need this mask (5, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 5 months ago | (#46972987)

All you need is make up. These recognition algorithms work by looking at the corners of mouth, centers of eyes and the tip of the nose. You should be able to take a picture of your mortal enemy load it up to Picassa or some such thing. Then use make up to add/subtract edges to your mouths, add a contrast point to the tip of the nose, take a selfie and see of Picassa matches your made up face to your patsy. Adjust it till you fool it. Then you can go commit serious crime in full view of the cameras, and tip off the police and point them to the guy who stole your girlfriend in high school. In security terms, the automatic face recognition systems hash your face to a checksum, but without a salt. Spoofing will be trivial.

Pretty soon contact lenses will be available where you could color part of it white and some part black to change the distance between eye centers. After that the automatic face recognition system for surveillance will get their well deserved death.

Re:You don't need this mask (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 5 months ago | (#46973057)

The automatic system will flag the mistake first, but if you commit a serious crime with that, the next step will be for a human investigator to compare the faces, and realize the automatic system had a false positive.

Re:You don't need this mask (2)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 5 months ago | (#46973553)

Have you SEEN CCD cameras? VGA images where they turn the contrast up to 100 in grainy black and white?

If you take into account any height difference, and choose a suitable subject, the defense may argue that it could have been someone with make up, but they won't find you by a long shot.

UNLESS facial recognition cameras are being installed with ridiculously high resolutions and then downgraded before releasing to the media so that people don't realize they're downgraded.

Scary thought? Maybe. But unlikely. Mostly security cameras are just a scarecrow to ward off the bad guys....

Re:You don't need this mask (4, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about 5 months ago | (#46973059)

Even easier, large dark glasses. Cameras can't see your eyes and locate the centers. Or wear a pair of these [cvcdn.com] .

Sunglasses are your best bet, as law enforcement isn't going to be able to use them as probable cause for anything.

Re:You don't need this mask (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973561)

Even easier, large dark glasses. Cameras can't see your eyes and locate the centers. Or wear a pair of these [cvcdn.com] .

Sunglasses are your best bet, as law enforcement isn't going to be able to use them as probable cause for anything.

Except if you wear them at night. Oh and they don't need that. Pigs can smell weed everywhere even when there is none.

Re:You don't need this mask (2)

PPH (736903) | about 5 months ago | (#46973811)

Elwood: "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses."

Jake: "Hit it."

Re:You don't need this mask (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 5 months ago | (#46973579)

In Asia, where light skinned is beautiful, people literally cover themselves voluntarily head to toe (including mask for pollution + hat + trendy glasses).

Literally you can't see who a person is. I've literally gone up to another girl outside my girlfriends house because she had a similar scooter / build / mask. Fortunately I was waving when I was coming up, otherwise I might have kissed some random girl on the street.

In secure areas (read: airports, banks, etc.) there's typically a sign at the front telling you to remove all facial obstructions.

Re:You don't need this mask (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973091)

you wish

Re:You don't need this mask (4, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | about 5 months ago | (#46973189)

Don't forget your clown shoes, pants and gloves to hide your gait. [ibtimes.co.uk]

Also, a wig might be useful. A bright orange or green one.
You'd be practically invisible in a crowd.

As long as that crowd is at a clown convention. An Apple store might do in a pinch too.
Hey... it worked for Captain America and Black Widow.

Re:You don't need this mask (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973689)

Pretty soon contact lenses will be available where you could color part of it white and some part black to change the distance between eye centers.

Don't need anything that fancy. Just wear one white contact, you can buy that today. Maybe I should get one for my next driver's license photo.

Irony... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#46973041)

'We don't believe you should be tracked just because you want to walk outside and you shouldn't have to hide either. Instead, use one of our products to present an alternative identity when in public.'

So they don't want you to have to hide, and they propose as an alleged alternative (re: "instead") a product that they sell for precisely that purpose.

Re:Irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973067)

When they say "hide," I'm guessing they mean "become a shut-in and never leave your house." Rather than be tracked or never go outside, they've presented what they believe is another solution.

Re:Irony... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#46973125)

But look at what they said...

We don't believe you should be tracked just because you want to walk outside and you shouldn't have to hide either.

This wording suggests (because of the usage of the words 'and' and 'either') that not hiding isn't merely a clarification of the previous statement about walking outside,but that some form of not hiding is in some way an alternative to not walking outside.

Your interpretation is certainly plausible, but I'm just going on what they actually said.

Stopgap measure (4, Interesting)

CODiNE (27417) | about 5 months ago | (#46973047)

Welcome to a new cat and mouse game.

With a sufficient number of people successfully using this technique the detection methods will keep getting smarter.

Sizing a person based on the distance between joints.
Solution: elbow and knee extender prosthetics. Strap it on the upper limb and add a few inches before the joint is visible through clothing.

Recognizing a person through their walking styles.
Solution: Joining the ministry of silly walks and becoming and expert at switching gaits by choice.

Heuristics based on tracking bodies and the likelihood of people doing switcheroos while off camera.
At this point you would end up being a high profile target that gets human eyes overseeing your tracking.

Infrared lights can be filtered...
Errr...
Looks like the mouse always loses this one.

Re:Stopgap measure (2)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 5 months ago | (#46973089)

Yep, things like this are just a temporary measure before the surveillance state gets too advanced. It's better to just limit the government's powers from the very beginning, but many people would rather have safety (or the illusion of safety) than have freedom.

Boo Hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973097)

Cry me a river. The "government" is taking away my rights. You asked for it. You voted them in and now you have exactly the government you deserve. Come on people - we all need to step up and take back the country! And don't be crying some more about how that can't be done. It can be done, it should be done.

Re:Boo Hoo (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 5 months ago | (#46973327)

It can be done, it should be done.

By whom? The people who voted in the big spenders?

They want surveillance, MOVE TO NORTH KOREA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973117)

Problem can be easily solved. If members of government, police and agencies love surveillance so much, move to North Korea. Your Wet Dream will be fulfilled. 24hr surveillance, drones, live ammunition, no demonstrations, censorship, whatever you wish

Let's start crowdfounding for all politicians and members of 3 letter agencies who want to have North Korea in USA and buy them one way ticket there.

Felony in Virginia (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about 5 months ago | (#46973163)

There is no religious exception that I can see. I am wondering why people are not arrested for wearing burqas.

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs... [anapsid.org]

Re:Felony in Virginia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973387)

Acording to that law, wearing a hoodie at your friend's house without permission in writing would be a Class 6 felony, which could get you up to 5 years in prison. Land of the free, indeed.

Re:Felony in Virginia (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 5 months ago | (#46973785)

wearing a hoodie at your friend's house

A hoodie [wikipedia.org] and a hood [wikipedia.org] are different things.

What about....? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#46973301)

What about the niqab, a scarf worn that completely obscured the entire face except for the eyes, most commonly worn by women who are Muslim? Are they proposing to eliminate religious freedom?

What about people who wear surgical-like masks in public when they have a mild cold, permitting them to freely go in public without significantly increasing the chance of spreading the illness? Are they going to make laws requiring people who are ill to stay at home, even if they are well enough to otherwise do their job, and compensate them for any wages that they lose?

What about wearing a scarf because it's cold outside? With a bad enough windchill in the wintertime, you need to completely cover up your face unless you want frostbite. Are they going to make laws prohibiting cold weather?

Re:What about....? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 5 months ago | (#46973823)

Those are all valid reasons to wear masks and laws take that into consideration. There are also exceptions made for holidays such as Halloween and Mardi Gras. The laws are designed to decrease the ability of people to hide their identity. If someone commits a street crime with their identity hidden it is almost impossible to catch them.

Wouldn't a scarf work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973341)

It is not mission impossible.

Astroturf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973419)

I'm pretty sure this is viral marketing for watch dogs, a console game.

Form of (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973469)

William Shatner!

mask laws are for KKK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973597)

Because most folks consider the KKK undesirable so they made wearing hoods or masks illegal. If the bigots want to harass folks then they have to show their faces.
Yes the government wants to see you and the penalties seems stiff. The law isn't meant to track everyone all the time and should be modified for privacy.

privacy is a right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46973599)

I believe privacy is a human right and while it may take awhile for privacy laws to be strengthened, I believe they will come eventually.

The Walking Dead (1)

westlake (615356) | about 5 months ago | (#46973765)

or call it the "uncanny valley" if you like.

You may fool the camera but you won't fool the eye and masks weird people out. It's too much like having a chance encounter with The Joker. In a concealed carry state I wouldn't be caught wearing one of these things if you paid me.

A gang of men threatening people in Duston and demanding cash while wearing 'Jason' style masks from the Friday the 13th films is being linked to another knifepoint robbery [northamptonchron.co.uk]

Woman in Darth Vader mask arrested for early morning armed robbery [globalnews.ca]

Would-be rapist wearing Scream mask jailed for 13 months, Attorney-General might appeal [theaustralian.com.au]

Point Break (2)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#46973813)

This has already been done.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01... [imdb.com]
The 1991 movie "Point Break" featured a gang of surfers who robbed banks wearing masks of presidents.
Pretty good movie.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?