I'm wondering if the system can track people with face masks (like one in the article picture)? And if they can track people who were recognized and later put on the mask and vice versa. That would be really scary.
Since it came up here the other week China is able to track people based on the way they walk, my guess is a mask may help but unless you can change your mannerisms while you have the mask on it won't help long.
"Yes we can so this", technically, facial recognition is now there.
"Why are we doing this?" Singapore is an already incredibly safe place with pride in the effectiveness of the rule of law.
The screenshot, as captioned:
> SenseTime surveillance software identifying details about people and vehicles runs as a demonstration at the company's office in Beijing, China, October 11, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas Peter/File Photo
Improve people's lives how?
> plan to use cutting-edge technology to improve people’s lives and has pledged to be sensitive to privacy
All of this is possible without using personally identifiable information.
> The government also hopes to use other sensors on the lamp posts to monitor air quality and water levels, count electric scooters in public places, and collect footfall data to aid urban and transport planning, GovTech said.
Should a European citizen visit Singapore, would this be GDPR compliant?
>Should a European citizen visit Singapore, would this be GDPR compliant?
I’m sure Singapore doesn’t care. The truth about Singapore is that it pretty much is a police state, which has pretty extensive restrictions on individual freedoms. But... they do actually deliver on the supposed benefits of organising a society in that manner. Singapore is safe, clean and orderly. I wouldn’t say that’s the best way to run a country, but Singapore does mostly make it work.
Malays can be denied permanent residency permits even if they are married to a Singaporean citizen.
My ex is Singaporean and I (white American) was denied work permit, so I researched it intently. We were considering marriage until we saw the thousands of Malays who were unsuccessful despite marriage.
Really hidden and heartbreaking. And that's just one example of Han Chinese racism
I mean, why should hard cash have anything to do with the right to live and work in Singapore?
The US isn't the most awesome country in the world but marrying a foreigner at least conveys them basic rights like residency and work permit. I mean, residency! What is a marriage without residency?
That's the way they run Singapore. Marrying a local gives you extra weight but money comes first. It's their fizz buzz. I'm not sure why you mention what the US does? Its irrelevant. Singapore is a full blown corporatist state. The rules and way they do things reflect that.
I agree that that is definitely how they run Singapore, corporatism combined with "Anti-Non-Chinese" identity.
When I think of what the USA does in terms of preventing migration, I say to myself, "wow, it probably can't be much worse than this". But then I think of Singapore, and realize I'm wrong-- wow, it can be worse than this!
At least in the USA and indeed many countries all over the world, marriage = right to reside. But not in Singapore.
If you are Malay, then the government sees you as a threat to the "delicate harmonious balance of races" in Singapore, and they will do a lot to prevent you from permanently residing and working.
Sorry, you are totally right! I was actually meaning to imply that they are heavily influenced by the People's Republic of China, or at least, "Pan-Chinese" identity or "Anti-Non-Chinese" identity.
EDIT: upon consulting Wikipedia, it would appear that Hakka is a subset of Han, and that Singaporeans are considered Han despite ancestral migrations. It's a lot like ethnic Irish living in Ireland vs ethnic Irish living in America
On the other hand, same-sex sexual activity is literally illegal in Singapore. That’s not something that I think I am willing to adopt a “difference of opinion” view on - it’s objectively offensive to my moral system, and supporting that idea is not acceptable to me.
There is too much “whataboutism” going on here. Criticism of Singapore’s pseudo-police-state doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t have a crippling racism problem, or that the UK’s surveillance state is okay.
Alcohol and caffeine both appear to be legal in Singapore. Perhaps we should criminalize it and sentence anyone who uses both of those to prison time. They're drugs, after all!
Or we could recognize people's personal freedoms and understand that sacrificing them to achieve a dystopic police state is not worth it.
I vehemently disagree with people like you that public order and compliance is such an important end that all means to get there are justified.
My position has always been and will always be against anyone that wants almost total control over what other people can do. Authoritarianism is never worth it.
If you're in favor of Singapore's draconian restrictions on free speech and criminal justice system among other issues combined with blanket public surveillance, you're approaching "total control".
Where did I say any of that? Because it’s GOOD that drugs are banned? If that’s what qualifies as total control in your world then you live in a pretty small narrow world.
The contexts of my reply were about your reply to the other poster's comment. You seemed dismissive of legitimate points brought up about the inability to make many choices freely, as if it were something you didn't care about.
You also said in the reply that you'd prefer to live in any Asian country before any Western country.
I think my interpretation was fair given the context.
It wasn't about the legality of drugs, though the draconian criminal justice system surrounding it was more of my point.
Edit: Removed sentence fragment I forgot to delete.
Asia has a Long way to go in regards to things like gay marriage. So does the western world. My point is there are many openly gay people in Singapore. While the law is against gay/anal sex (if I remember correctly anal sex is against the law too) and gay marriage is not allowed. It doesn’t mean people are forbidden to be gay in Singapore.
I’m against drugs outright. Weed included. The laws are strict in Asia. Not just singapore. However singapore has stated that if the overwhelming scientific conclusion is that weed is ok. Then they are open for allowing it in Singapore for Medical purposes. However since there is still a lot of conflicting science (despite there being positive benefits to weed) singapore wants it to remain banned. Alcohol consumption is only a real issue with foreigners in Singapore. It’s taxed so high here no one drinks other than foreigners.
Lol. I live in Singapore. But my statement still stands. I would pick any country in Asia over a country in the west. I like Swedish people but the country isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, it’s not somewhere I would want to live.
> I would quite literally live in any Chinese city before chosing Singapore. At least China would be cheaper.
No you won't. However bad you imagine Singapore's police state to be, China's is several order of magnitudes worse. Singapore doesn't block most Western social network, media and file sharing sites. Singapore doesn't ban memes from social networks because they make their leader look bad. Singapore doesn't demand foreign internet companies to host content locally so that the government can crackdown on said content if it doesn't agree with them. Singapore doesn't kidnap dissidents from neighbouring countries, or put entire minority races into concentration camps.
And major Chinese cities aren't cheaper either. Surprise - if you want Western standard of living, then you have to pay Western prices.
I was shacked up with a girl in Harbin for 250 a month for the two of us, which is like an 87% discount compared to Shanghai and NY, I definitely agree.
But, I didn't go to Harbin for a squeaky clean experience. I went there for its grime and cheapness, and I felt the surveillance was tolerable for the price.
Singapore is like a Chinese Miami. For the price, I'd just go to Miami or Brisbane.
Compared to other countries, in the region, but even in the west, very little.
>and lifestyle choices are severely punished by jail, death, loss of career and loss of residency.
Well, the US used to send you to prison for some marijuana just a few years ago. Some states still do. It's also quite punishable still in countries like Sweden. And all the others used to be problems not that long ago (maybe not being Malay, but "walking while black" still is). So it's not like Singapore is this nightmare outlier place.
Of course it does. 0% crime rate is impossible. The point is that Singapore is measurably far safer than most other places in the world.
>And by lifestyle choices I mean being gay, smoking weed, or being Malay.
There’s plenty of reasons to criticise Singapore, but you don’t seem to be familiar with them. If you want to have a lifestyle where you smoke weed, then Singapore is certainly not the right place to live. But being gay or Malay is not a threat to your freedom, life, career or residency.
Also, if you’re looking for cheap living, then Singapore’s a terrible place to start. It’s very expensive to live there, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with their laws or how they enforce them.
Am European citizen, I don’t care for Singapore and I won’t plan to visit it any time soon because 1) they’re too expensive for what they’re offering as a tourist destination and 2) they’re a police State. At the same time one of my closest friends has included it as part of his “potential places to emigrate as an IT professional”, so it looks like some people plain don’t care about the type of stuff described in this article.
I met an IT professional when I was in Singapore last year. He wanted to convince me it's a brilliant place to live, citing the advantage of very cheap labor. He told me they (he was married with 2 kids) have an Indian woman working in their household. He provides her food and shelter; she does the cooking, dishes, cleaning, etc., and makes enough money to send it home. But: she's only allowed in the state as long as she's employed by him. Her family in India is dependent on her income, and so she works really hard because she can't afford to get fired. She gets one day per week off, at least on paper - she often (voluntarily, he noted) works 7 days a week. He tried to sell this setup as a positive, though I left quite alienated.
I have friend in singapore and been visiting singapore for few times, it's true at least for me singapore seem like a good place to live. Perfect blend of asian culture and western culture. The cheap maid service is also nice to have.
Also European, this year at any rate. I rather like Singapore. 1) yeah sure, it's #3 in the world by per capita PPP GDP hence not cheap, though it's a good travel hub if you want to hang out in Asia. It's also probably the only country in the world where the leader wrote a Sudoku solver in C++ 2) It's not a police state in the usual sense of the term. See https://www.quora.com/How-do-Singaporeans-feel-about-living-... for example or talk to anyone who lives there.
Depending on coverage, this might not be enough. People with masks can be tracked as well. E.g.: At some point, persons A, B and C enter an area without surveillance; Person B and C come out, A remains unseen but new person X comes out, wearing a mask. Even if they all don't leave during the period when X is out destroying government property, the problem is reduced from finding the needle in a haystack to identifying a ~1.75m lean person with a brisk walk, blue Sneakers and specific political views out of a relatively small set of individuals.
Someone that does not want to be tracked by facial or gait recognition, either because he's a criminal or a political activist, will always be able to do that. There might be a race between the recognition software and the circumvention technology, but a dedicated individual will always be able to avoid that. Normal people without any criminal, terrorist or activist intentions will be victims of this massive surveillance. I would actually hazard the guess that it will be easier for a dedicated individual to circumvent automated surveillance than the current status quo, being observed by individuals. A smart circumvention device will not be identified as such by a surveillance system, however, a human observer will.
Regardless of circumvention possibilities, the ultimate aim of these ubiquitous surveillance systems isn't really reducing crime, but social engineering: create a panopticon, an all-observing system, and the population that knows this will avoid potentially incriminating behavior in the first place. A system designed to make people censor themselves and self-reduce their social degrees of freedom.
>Someone that does not want to be tracked by facial or gait recognition, either because he's a criminal or a political activist, will always be able to do that.
Tons of political activists (and of course tons of criminals too) have been caught by way simpler and easier to trick methods.
> Someone that does not want to be tracked by facial or gait recognition, either because he's a criminal or a political activist, will always be able to do that
I wouldn't be so sure. How well can you control your stance or manner of walking for example?
Someone (human) trained to differentiate authors of handwritten text can often still do so even if an author is actively trying to write differently.
I think ML is great for comparing these highly subtle traits.
Admittedly haven't explored this myself, but I would expect some insert in my shoes to significantly alter my gait. When I received orthopedic soles, these changed my whole stance and gait. Heck, if there's some twist in my socks, my stance and gait are changed as well. Curious to learn more how well gait recognition algorithms can remove these effects from their prediction.
Quite "easy". Put a pebble in your shoe, or some scotch tape on your skin. You'll behave differently
> Someone (human) trained to differentiate authors of handwritten text can often still do so even if an author is actively trying to write differently.
That was never proven. Please cite a (good) source or I'll take it to be false
I can't, though I think you could argue about it deductively.
> That was never proven.
I guess you can't provide a source either :)
> Put a pebble in your shoe, or some scotch tape on your skin.
If someone you know well did that, would you be able to differentiate his limp from someone else's? I am sure you could. I think it's intuitive that our "limp" betrays features of our normal behaviour.
> Someone that does not want to be tracked by facial or gait recognition, either because he's a criminal or a political activist, will always be able to do that.
But if the system is not able to assign a face to a specific identity, it might immediately mark them as "suspicious". You'd have to bypass the system by really putting on the appearance of a face within the database.
> There might be a race between the recognition software and the circumvention technology
I wanna see someone successfully circumvent scent-based tracking. A dog has a sense of smell a million times more sensitive than a human and can track people over miles, even when a trail is days old. Imagine a network of 100,000 passive scent trackers as sensitive as dog noses, hooked up to the same centralized AI and recognition system.
With a single high-confidence hit, they can localize you. If you're on foot, you're not getting very far in any reasonable time frame.
We don't stand a chance. Sitting ducks, as it were.
You just better hope to God (or the AI, apparently) you're never a target of this system, inadvertently or intentionally, because that race is over, and humans lost.
"In fact, Adam found that it was basically impossible to throw off the scent of a Bloodhound. He crossed a 100 foot wide, waist high river. He changed clothes, poured cologne and coffee on himself, threw smelly fish along the trail and used scent enzyme erasers to try to eliminate his scent.")
You can also classically condition a bee with food rewards to extend its mouthparts whenever it detects a specific odor. You then put the plastic bee cartridge into a device such that when the mouthparts extend, an LED illuminates.
Cheaper than dog noses, but requires a sample of the target odor and some training time. It is conceivable that the "most wanted" could each have thousands of bees trained on their scents, and then those swarms could be divided up onto plastic cassettes, which would each be loaded onto a lamppost. If the targets go near any lamppost, their bee in it tattles its location in real time. The disadvantage is, of course, that you have to go around swapping out old and dead bees for live, fresh ones all the time.
An electronic nose can just report its odor profile, and a central processing server can attempt to match and track targets. All that needs is a bit more bandwidth. But it is likely slower and lacking specificity. You could likely smell explosives or bomb making residues or gunshots or narcotics, but not specifically track Suspect X across the city. That kind of precision would require that people line up at the lamppost to be swabbed, and their swab vaporized and run through a gas chromatograph for a minute or two, which I don't see happening, even in authoritarian Singapore.
> I'd like to see your tricks for dealing with 100,000 such sensors, one on every street corner.
Misdirection and decoys. How much use are those sensors if they're all detecting you at the same time?
If they become prevalent enough, I could imagine the development of "scent bombs" that would spew out so much of your odor that the sensors for miles around would all detect "you."
It may happen that the approaches usable against automatic facial detectors would be pretty noticeable for humans around [1], thus rendering them pretty hard to use in practice, and also a target of anti-facial-recognition-paint recognition algorithms.
> Someone that does not want to be tracked by facial or gait recognition, either because he's a criminal or a political activist, will always be able to do that. There might be a race between the recognition software and the circumvention technology, but a dedicated individual will always be able to avoid that.
One issue is disseminating the knowledge needed to defeat such systems. I'm sure the CIA and KGB have manuals and training programs to teach those skills [1], but I'm not sure if the information is publicly available in a readily accessible form (e.g. not spread in small pieces among 100 books).
Genuine question, what is a terrorist ? It seems to be a very fluid definition these days. Anybody can be deemed a terrorist by any establishment. Also, this kind of thinking reinforces the whole "Well, I don't mind being watched by government agencies because I have nothing to hide" reaction, and it's quite frankly worriying.
The generally accepted definitions center around the use of violence to incite political change or polticial pressure by nonstate actors. Word in varies but that's the general gist.
I know that the word gets thrown around a bunch, but it's a pretty simple idea. There is some controversy about if a state can be a terrorist, but typically we just call it state sponsored terrorism and move on.
2000 definition: someone who blows things up for political reasons.
2018 definition: someone who makes angry posts on social media.
I'm exaggerating a bit, but it's headed in that direction. If you want to see something truly worrying, look up the handful of idiots trying to promote the notion of "stochastic terrorism". The gist is that non-illegal statements which somehow get interpreted by lone nuts as incitement to violence should be categorized as a form of terrorism. Basically, they're hoping to criminalize angry rhetoric that stops well short of calls to violence. The good news is that they've been flogging this idea for a long time (pre-2016) and it still isn't really gaining ground.
>the ultimate aim of these ubiquitous surveillance systems isn't really reducing crime, but social engineering
In the UK we've had fairly ubiquitous surveillance systems for a while. In practice the uses have been reducing crime and doing people for minor traffic offences, including me - they uploaded a nice video of me turning right in spite of a no right turn sign, rather to my surprise. I've noticed no social engineering - maybe that's to come?
Technology to produce fairly convincing fake videos is already mainstream, and will only get better. For how much longer will video "evidence" be considered proof of anything?
I guess most evidence can be tampered. A lot of CCTV footage is no good as evidence because it's too fuzzy but if you can figure who did it then you can get other kinds of evidence, stolen goods etc.
1. The correlation between surveillance increase and crime decrease does not prove causation.
2. As noted in the article video survelliance is not the same as facial recognition. The latter is far more powerful.
It doesn’t matter if it works or not. What matters is that the presence of surveillance creates an impression that you are in some sort of danger, and the syphoning of public money in the name of security is justified and can continue to happen with minimal scrutiny
Black-box attacks using specially crafted glasses that can mess up the facial recognition software already exist, leading to invisibility and/or misclassification.
"In this work, we show how to perform invisibility attacks
while attempting to maintain plausible deniability through
the use of facial accessories. We defer the examination of the physical realizability of these attacks to future work."
"In this paper, we demonstrated techniques for generating accessories in the form of eyeglass frames that, when printed and worn, can effectively fool state-of-the-art face-recognition systems."
101 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 193 ms ] thread(sorry could not resist)
"Why are we doing this?" Singapore is an already incredibly safe place with pride in the effectiveness of the rule of law.
The screenshot, as captioned:
> SenseTime surveillance software identifying details about people and vehicles runs as a demonstration at the company's office in Beijing, China, October 11, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas Peter/File Photo
Improve people's lives how?
> plan to use cutting-edge technology to improve people’s lives and has pledged to be sensitive to privacy
All of this is possible without using personally identifiable information.
> The government also hopes to use other sensors on the lamp posts to monitor air quality and water levels, count electric scooters in public places, and collect footfall data to aid urban and transport planning, GovTech said.
Should a European citizen visit Singapore, would this be GDPR compliant?
I’m sure Singapore doesn’t care. The truth about Singapore is that it pretty much is a police state, which has pretty extensive restrictions on individual freedoms. But... they do actually deliver on the supposed benefits of organising a society in that manner. Singapore is safe, clean and orderly. I wouldn’t say that’s the best way to run a country, but Singapore does mostly make it work.
And by lifestyle choices I mean being gay, smoking weed, or being Malay.
I would quite literally live in any Chinese city before chosing Singapore. At least China would be cheaper.
My ex is Singaporean and I (white American) was denied work permit, so I researched it intently. We were considering marriage until we saw the thousands of Malays who were unsuccessful despite marriage.
Really hidden and heartbreaking. And that's just one example of Han Chinese racism
The US isn't the most awesome country in the world but marrying a foreigner at least conveys them basic rights like residency and work permit. I mean, residency! What is a marriage without residency?
When I think of what the USA does in terms of preventing migration, I say to myself, "wow, it probably can't be much worse than this". But then I think of Singapore, and realize I'm wrong-- wow, it can be worse than this!
At least in the USA and indeed many countries all over the world, marriage = right to reside. But not in Singapore.
If you are Malay, then the government sees you as a threat to the "delicate harmonious balance of races" in Singapore, and they will do a lot to prevent you from permanently residing and working.
EDIT: upon consulting Wikipedia, it would appear that Hakka is a subset of Han, and that Singaporeans are considered Han despite ancestral migrations. It's a lot like ethnic Irish living in Ireland vs ethnic Irish living in America
I would quite literally live in any Asian country before choosing any Western country.
But hey, each to their own right?
Alcohol and tobacco are banned in Singapore?!
There is too much “whataboutism” going on here. Criticism of Singapore’s pseudo-police-state doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t have a crippling racism problem, or that the UK’s surveillance state is okay.
Or we could recognize people's personal freedoms and understand that sacrificing them to achieve a dystopic police state is not worth it.
I vehemently disagree with people like you that public order and compliance is such an important end that all means to get there are justified.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore was a link I thought to be at least tangentially related.
My position has always been and will always be against anyone that wants almost total control over what other people can do. Authoritarianism is never worth it.
You also said in the reply that you'd prefer to live in any Asian country before any Western country.
I think my interpretation was fair given the context.
It wasn't about the legality of drugs, though the draconian criminal justice system surrounding it was more of my point.
Edit: Removed sentence fragment I forgot to delete.
I’m against drugs outright. Weed included. The laws are strict in Asia. Not just singapore. However singapore has stated that if the overwhelming scientific conclusion is that weed is ok. Then they are open for allowing it in Singapore for Medical purposes. However since there is still a lot of conflicting science (despite there being positive benefits to weed) singapore wants it to remain banned. Alcohol consumption is only a real issue with foreigners in Singapore. It’s taxed so high here no one drinks other than foreigners.
(About to board a plane so have to stop)
You'd choose North Korea over Sweden?
No you won't. However bad you imagine Singapore's police state to be, China's is several order of magnitudes worse. Singapore doesn't block most Western social network, media and file sharing sites. Singapore doesn't ban memes from social networks because they make their leader look bad. Singapore doesn't demand foreign internet companies to host content locally so that the government can crackdown on said content if it doesn't agree with them. Singapore doesn't kidnap dissidents from neighbouring countries, or put entire minority races into concentration camps.
And major Chinese cities aren't cheaper either. Surprise - if you want Western standard of living, then you have to pay Western prices.
But, I didn't go to Harbin for a squeaky clean experience. I went there for its grime and cheapness, and I felt the surveillance was tolerable for the price.
Singapore is like a Chinese Miami. For the price, I'd just go to Miami or Brisbane.
Compared to other countries, in the region, but even in the west, very little.
>and lifestyle choices are severely punished by jail, death, loss of career and loss of residency.
Well, the US used to send you to prison for some marijuana just a few years ago. Some states still do. It's also quite punishable still in countries like Sweden. And all the others used to be problems not that long ago (maybe not being Malay, but "walking while black" still is). So it's not like Singapore is this nightmare outlier place.
https://queerintheworld.com/gay-singapore-travel-guide/
Of course it does. 0% crime rate is impossible. The point is that Singapore is measurably far safer than most other places in the world.
>And by lifestyle choices I mean being gay, smoking weed, or being Malay.
There’s plenty of reasons to criticise Singapore, but you don’t seem to be familiar with them. If you want to have a lifestyle where you smoke weed, then Singapore is certainly not the right place to live. But being gay or Malay is not a threat to your freedom, life, career or residency.
Also, if you’re looking for cheap living, then Singapore’s a terrible place to start. It’s very expensive to live there, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with their laws or how they enforce them.
Has the GDPR self-pleasuring circle gone too far now?
After sites blocking themselves (lol) now we have that questioning. People are just out of their minds.
Yes, the GDPR doesn't apply based on citizenship, it applies to people in the Union (even if they're foreign).
I would also pay kids that tend to like kicking lampposts.
Regardless of circumvention possibilities, the ultimate aim of these ubiquitous surveillance systems isn't really reducing crime, but social engineering: create a panopticon, an all-observing system, and the population that knows this will avoid potentially incriminating behavior in the first place. A system designed to make people censor themselves and self-reduce their social degrees of freedom.
Tons of political activists (and of course tons of criminals too) have been caught by way simpler and easier to trick methods.
I wouldn't be so sure. How well can you control your stance or manner of walking for example?
Someone (human) trained to differentiate authors of handwritten text can often still do so even if an author is actively trying to write differently.
I think ML is great for comparing these highly subtle traits.
There are lots of options
Quite "easy". Put a pebble in your shoe, or some scotch tape on your skin. You'll behave differently
> Someone (human) trained to differentiate authors of handwritten text can often still do so even if an author is actively trying to write differently.
That was never proven. Please cite a (good) source or I'll take it to be false
I can't, though I think you could argue about it deductively.
> That was never proven.
I guess you can't provide a source either :)
> Put a pebble in your shoe, or some scotch tape on your skin.
If someone you know well did that, would you be able to differentiate his limp from someone else's? I am sure you could. I think it's intuitive that our "limp" betrays features of our normal behaviour.
But if the system is not able to assign a face to a specific identity, it might immediately mark them as "suspicious". You'd have to bypass the system by really putting on the appearance of a face within the database.
State actors or suitably competent criminals may be able to use fake personas though.
I wanna see someone successfully circumvent scent-based tracking. A dog has a sense of smell a million times more sensitive than a human and can track people over miles, even when a trail is days old. Imagine a network of 100,000 passive scent trackers as sensitive as dog noses, hooked up to the same centralized AI and recognition system.
With a single high-confidence hit, they can localize you. If you're on foot, you're not getting very far in any reasonable time frame.
We don't stand a chance. Sitting ducks, as it were.
You just better hope to God (or the AI, apparently) you're never a target of this system, inadvertently or intentionally, because that race is over, and humans lost.
Dogs don't work very well in urban areas and there's plenty of tricks to throw dogs off your trail.
I'd like to see your tricks for dealing with 100,000 such sensors, one on every street corner.
(also: https://www.canidae.com/blog/2015/10/can-you-throw-off-a-tra...
"In fact, Adam found that it was basically impossible to throw off the scent of a Bloodhound. He crossed a 100 foot wide, waist high river. He changed clothes, poured cologne and coffee on himself, threw smelly fish along the trail and used scent enzyme erasers to try to eliminate his scent.")
May the odds be ever in your favor!
Cheaper than dog noses, but requires a sample of the target odor and some training time. It is conceivable that the "most wanted" could each have thousands of bees trained on their scents, and then those swarms could be divided up onto plastic cassettes, which would each be loaded onto a lamppost. If the targets go near any lamppost, their bee in it tattles its location in real time. The disadvantage is, of course, that you have to go around swapping out old and dead bees for live, fresh ones all the time.
An electronic nose can just report its odor profile, and a central processing server can attempt to match and track targets. All that needs is a bit more bandwidth. But it is likely slower and lacking specificity. You could likely smell explosives or bomb making residues or gunshots or narcotics, but not specifically track Suspect X across the city. That kind of precision would require that people line up at the lamppost to be swabbed, and their swab vaporized and run through a gas chromatograph for a minute or two, which I don't see happening, even in authoritarian Singapore.
Misdirection and decoys. How much use are those sensors if they're all detecting you at the same time?
If they become prevalent enough, I could imagine the development of "scent bombs" that would spew out so much of your odor that the sensors for miles around would all detect "you."
Or just someone that doesnt want to be tracked by everyone..
Like hats, glasses and beards?
[1] https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=dazzle+paint+face+f...
One issue is disseminating the knowledge needed to defeat such systems. I'm sure the CIA and KGB have manuals and training programs to teach those skills [1], but I'm not sure if the information is publicly available in a readily accessible form (e.g. not spread in small pieces among 100 books).
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASUsVY5YJ8
I'm open to discuss this further though
I know that the word gets thrown around a bunch, but it's a pretty simple idea. There is some controversy about if a state can be a terrorist, but typically we just call it state sponsored terrorism and move on.
2018 definition: someone who makes angry posts on social media.
I'm exaggerating a bit, but it's headed in that direction. If you want to see something truly worrying, look up the handful of idiots trying to promote the notion of "stochastic terrorism". The gist is that non-illegal statements which somehow get interpreted by lone nuts as incitement to violence should be categorized as a form of terrorism. Basically, they're hoping to criminalize angry rhetoric that stops well short of calls to violence. The good news is that they've been flogging this idea for a long time (pre-2016) and it still isn't really gaining ground.
I'm sure the Russians doing the Sailsbury attacks didn't want to be tracked by cameras but they were. If top Russian agents can be then probably most other people can be too. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/salisbury-novich...
>the ultimate aim of these ubiquitous surveillance systems isn't really reducing crime, but social engineering
In the UK we've had fairly ubiquitous surveillance systems for a while. In practice the uses have been reducing crime and doing people for minor traffic offences, including me - they uploaded a nice video of me turning right in spite of a no right turn sign, rather to my surprise. I've noticed no social engineering - maybe that's to come?
We live in an increasingly cyberpunk future; I wonder how many other predictions will turn true soon.
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sbhagava/papers/face-rec-ccs16.pdf
"In this work, we show how to perform invisibility attacks while attempting to maintain plausible deniability through the use of facial accessories. We defer the examination of the physical realizability of these attacks to future work."
"In this paper, we demonstrated techniques for generating accessories in the form of eyeglass frames that, when printed and worn, can effectively fool state-of-the-art face-recognition systems."