Comment by thw_9a83c
7 months ago
> The band deployed live facial recognition technology that captured and analyzed attendees during their recent performance.
I think more drama has been created around this than is necessary. Based on the video, the real-time projected visitor's faces were not analyzed. They were simply shown with a random description flag attached, such as "energetic," "compassionate," "inspiring," "fitness influencer," or "cloud watcher." It seems to be an artistic provocation showing what a real people analysis could look like.
The fact that people were uncomfortable with simply having their pictures taken and shown without their knowledge gives lie to the idea that "You're in a public place—of course you have no right to privacy." It's great to be given the chance to face your principles.
Public photography is not a crime, nor should it be. However, that doesn't mean your likeness can be used for just any purpose.
The laws for this were written when "public photography" was someone with a film camera. It was maybe valid in the digital camera era.
But now I can point a camera at a crowd and It will:
All this with consumer gear I can carry with me, no government level spy gadgets needed. All live at 2-20fps depending on how much hardware I throw at it.
With some extra work I can then find each of them on social media, grab their real names and other information from public sources and now I have a surveillance database. (Illegal where I live, but who's gonna check?)
This makes "public photography" a whole different thing from what it used to be.
6 replies →
> Public photography is not a crime, nor should it be.
IDK about shouldn't. Public photography not being a crime comes from a time where one could still be generally expected to remain anonymous despite being photographed. Just like how you can be seen by strangers in the street while walking and still remain anonymous. Yet stalking is a crime, and facial recognition seems to be the digital equivalent. Facial recognition is something that can be done at any point by someone with your picture in their hand.
9 replies →
In Switzerland, you have the right to privacy including in public.
This means you can not make a photo/video of a person in public without their consent if they are the focus of your image. They also have the right to revoke consent anytime in the future.
The only exception is at large gatherings like for example the Street Parade where the expectation of privacy can not be expected especially since the event is televised.
This is also why you can not put cameras on your home that film public streets etc. They need to be blocked off or facing the other way.
6 replies →
This is an erroneous blanket statement. Photographing people in public is illegal in plenty of places, depending on what exactly you're doing. Taking a picture of a big crowd is usually fine. Singling out individuals sometimes isn't.
IIRC some countries recently started experimenting with automagically granting copyright to people for their own likeness, I think it was aimed at AI generates fakes, but it's probably more widely applicable.
Anyway, don't be a dick, don't take pictures of people without their consent.
Public photography that focusses specifically on a person requires permission in some jurisdictions, notably France.
See https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/law-regarding-photogra...
1 reply →
Well sure but all this is doing is displaying the audience on screens and drawing squares around their faces. I seriously doubt this breaks any law, I saw them in summer last year and they were already doing this, given that the article is about it happening rather than them getting sued, I think it's probably fine.
[dead]
I didn't see a location stated in TFA.
Where I live, a concert is not considered "public", unless it's a government-run event on government property.
Otherwise, a concert is a private event, in which case you have no right to privacy. Just like going into a store.
Well, in the US, in a "right to work state", an employer could say "We don't support the views of this band. We saw that you were there and are going to let you go."
Or
"Data shows you hang out in low income areas, we don't think that aligns with our companies goals."
So the "face your principals" is completely fucking arbitrary. That's the fear.
What on earth are you talking about. An employer can do that in any state, not just the "right to work" ones.
7 replies →
Oh so it isn't even recognition, in that it doesn't identify the people. Just face detection.
Drama? They were making a point. And it seems like it was taken. "If this outrages you, this isn't even the tip of the iceberg compared to what governments are doing."
Not only governments, all of surveillance capitalism is based on that, not only through your pictures being analysed but across all of your behaviour they can gather and trace back to you online.
The article is deliberately inflammatory by labelling this as biometric data capture without consent.
It’s incredibly common for tickets to big gigs to have fine print along the lines of “by attending you consent to being recorded”. This has been the case for decades. If you’ve ever watched an official recording of a live performance, you’ve seen this in action.
This is just a novel presentation of what is already commonplace recording. And it’s great and it makes a point, but the article is bad.
> It seems to be an artistic provocation showing what a real people analysis could look like.
I that case they should have used descriptions like "gay", "muslim", "poor", "bipolar", "twice divorced", "low quality hire", "easy to scam", "both parents dead", "rude to staff", "convicted felon", "not sexually active", "takes Metformin", "spends > $60 on alcohol a month", "dishonest", etc.
None of the people who actually take advantage of you or manipulate you using surveillance capitalism cares if you're a "cloud watcher" or "inspiring"
> I that case they should have used descriptions like "gay", "muslim", "poor", "bipolar"...
That would certainly better demonstrate the scary dimension of mass video surveillance and face recognition. However, not many people would buy tickets for the next Massive Attack show after being lectured like this.
such as "energetic," "compassionate," "inspiring," "fitness influencer," or "cloud watcher."
One season Saturday Night Live did this with its studio audience as a recurring gag.
The one that stuck with me was the couple labeled "Pregnant two hours."
Apparently this was an artistic interpretation of what airports are doing in reality today.
Saturday Night Live used to do this with their studio audience in the 1970s.The captions were silly but could have been considered insulting sometimes.
Their pictures were used in a commercial, for-profit setting without consent.
Being "used in a commercial, for-profit setting" is not a thing.
Their images were not being sold, nor were they being used to promote the concert. Plus, nearly everyone who goes to a concert these days agrees that their image will be captured and possibly used in future promotional material.
That's what caused the "outrage" (perhaps more "discussion", "introspection", ...). And without that, there is no art.