NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Social Media and the Face (Recognition) of a Riot
Social Media and the Face (Recognition) of a Riot
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000870.html
I'll admit it, I've never been a sports fan. Many, many moons ago,
back in the 60s when Sandy Koufax was with the Dodgers here in L.A.,
the World Series actually managed to attract a wee bit of my
attention. In 1984, when the Olympics came to town, I went out to
observe the spectacle of the global media spotlight pass directly in
front of me down the center of familiar streets.
That's about it.
So it's difficult for me to fathom the rationale for sports riots,
especially when you're wrecking your own home town. Even more
remarkable is the fact that these riots can occur both when local
teams lose *or* win major games!
My suspicion is that much of the time the riots themselves are simply
convenient excuses for looting and other mayhem, but I've never
studied the topic, so perhaps there are deep psychological reasons for
such abominable mob behavior, of which I'm unaware.
The recent riot in Vancouver, Canada following a Stanley Cup loss has
now triggered a number of controversies relating to social media and
facial recognition systems.
Word is that law enforcement personnel are using social media like
Twitter and Facebook to try identify rioters, and now we've heard that
The Insurance Corporation of B.C. is offering the use of its facial
recognition software to try match looters via a database of driver's
license and ID card photos ( http://j.mp/ijOfbm [CBC] ).
Recently, in "Weiner, Whiners, and Social: Public Means Public!"
( http://j.mp/iOHEA4 [Lauren's Blog] ), I suggested that attempting to
restrict access to data that is already publicly online just doesn't
usually make sense. In "More on Google 'Search by Image' and Facial
Recognition Realities" ( http://j.mp/j4uZ5O [NNSquad] ), I addressed
some other related issues.
When it comes to which photos or data are reasonable fair game for
authorities to use in situations such as that in Vancouver, it can
help to break the matter down into several categories.
Photos and such that are already public seem like (if you'll excuse
the sports metaphor) a slam dunk. This is clearly the case when the
parties involved posted the images themselves. From a functional
standpoint, if someone else posts relevant photos publicly, the bottom
line seems pretty much the same. Public is public.
The legal situation seems hazier when photos are restricted to
particular "friend" groups and similar circles. If authorities
interested in seeing such photos request to become a "friend" for that
reason alone and misrepresent themselves, the legal issues could
become quite significant, and possible violations of sites' Terms of
Service agreements would also come into play. On the other hand,
since any "friend" with access to the photos could turn around and
re-post them publicly (whether legally or not), what was once
restricted could easily undergo a status change that might be
difficult to fight in a practical sense once it's out there.
As always when it comes to social media, the best rule of thumb is not
to post materials -- even to a restricted group -- that you'd be
uncomfortable having go public if someone in your group purposely or
accidentally leaked it.
And let's face it, sometimes there are photos that probably should not
exist in the first place. If you think you're going to be concerned
some day by that party shot of you tied naked to the bed next to a
bottle of Woolite, perhaps the camera shouldn't have been brought out
at all that night.
The controversy over the use of driver's license/ID databases in
conjunction with facial recognition systems in Vancouver would seem to
revolve almost entirely around the specific laws in place controlling
access to and use of that specific data for broad identification
scanning purposes. The taking and filing of these images are not
"optional" in any normal sense for the population of Vancouver, and
would hopefully have been gathered within a detailed context of
legitimate uses.
As facial recognition technology improves, and authorities seek to
employ these systems in much the same way they would treat crime scene
fingerprints and fingerprint databases, it is crucial that all rules
be strictly followed, rights respected, and citizens be made aware
ahead of time if their facial imagery has morphed into the same law
enforcement league as fingerprints or DNA.
Facial recognition systems haven't reached the level of accuracy
generally associated with "physical contact" biometrics usually used
by authorities today -- at least not yet. But some advanced facial
recognition systems and related technologies are already considerably
more accurate than most people realize, and they will be getting even
better -- much better.
This entire spectrum of systems, including facial recognition, will be
engendering an array of complexities that go far beyond the sports
riots in Vancouver. We can be sure that these technologies -- all of
which have legitimate, worthwhile uses -- will not be successfully
suppressed. So we really do need to learn not only how to live with
them, but how to use them wisely and appropriately. And the sooner
that we can come to terms with that, the better.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com