One year ago I wrote an article discussing the issues associated with Google Glass’ and Augmented Reality Devices’ (ARD) inevitable facial recognition capability. It is a short read, I highly recommend it. Recently, I learned about NameTag, an application with about half of the functionality I postulated. Namely, capture and run the face through the criminal records and — from the NameTag website — “a user can simply glance at someone nearby and instantly see that person’s name, occupation and even visit their Facebook, Instagram or Twitter profiles in real-time.” NameTag currently allows individuals to opt-out of the service. Let’s forget about NameTag, which aims to be a legitimate business entirely at the mercy of Google, and treat it as proof of concept:
- ARDs are capable of aiding facial recognition.
- Despite any restrictions imposed by the ARD manufacturers, they can and will be hacked for the worst.
- A wearer of an ARD can, in some cases, look at you and learn your name against your will and/or communicate with unregulated databases to learn much more.
One might argue that your identity/age/marital status, etc. are known to at least few others. All I have to do is find and persuade them to talk. If that does not concern you, why would a device on my head? That’s a good point, except it will not stand up in court. In a ruling against a similar argument, the courts have decided that placing a GPS tracker on a vehicle [by the police] without a warrant is illegal, while merely following a vehicle is not. The sheer magnitude of increased surveillance in both cases renders such arguments invalid.
One may submit that you are walking on a public street where you can be legally photographed sans your consent, and that you have voluntarily posted your photo and name on the Internet making it available for facial recognition bots. True, except one can hardly avoid public streets, and not posting pictures of oneself on the Internet partially defeats the purpose of the Internet. Many companies, for example, require their employees to maintain public profiles.
Consider websites like http://www.exgfpics.com, where images are uploaded without the subjects’ knowledge to servers located outside of every jurisdiction that cares.
Yelp-like human rating databases are of even greater concern. Smart-off to a barista, cut in line, dispense a less-than-appropriate tip… your rating is now two and half stars. Who cares about your name if thirty-seven people have rated your face as Douche Extraordinaire.
It Gets Worse…
A group of ARD wearers can connect to the same database thus creating a hive mind, much like a series of CCTV cameras except in the private hands. Individuals’ and vehicles’ locations are tracked in real time: where they went, with whom they have spoken, etc. A member of the arXiveMind (dibs on the name) can get alerts like these:
- “This individual visited three gun stores today.”
- “This individual has not been seen before — new to the city.”
- “This individual has visited a bank, an attorney, and a realtor in the past two days. Divorce?”
- “Your spouse visited three gun stores today.”
It has been suggested that the witness protection program in its current form will be rendered ineffective with the proliferation of such technology.
We are monitored in real time by our cell phone providers and by pretty much anyone who can afford a cheap tracking device. The difference is that you can leave your phone at home, you cannot leave your face at home. And while many of us are slowly learning to live with less privacy than our parents, few will be pleased to be under their neighbor’s watchful eye.
What is The Next Step?
The question is how to deal with this inevitability. Do we redefine privacy? Stop posting our photos? Outlaw third party upload of personal data, create an <optout></optout> HTML tag, legally obligate bots to respect it, create a national out-out registry, legally obligate all facial recognition services to respect it, and… legislate against illicit database access? Completely outlaw public access to personal data? Create a wearable opt-out device? Wear Lucha Libre masks in public? Neither of these solutions by themselves are compatible with our understanding of privacy, freedom, and Internet. What is known for sure is that the public and the lawmakers must be throughly educated on the issue. Everyone from Pat Robertson to Jon Stewart should be debating it.
To date, there have been a few encouraging legislative and judicial steps and a minimal public outcry but, not nearly enough to address the assured rebellion of the masses against an impending de facto requirement of wearing name tags. The industry’s response to the concerns of the lawmakers typically sounds like this: “Don’t worry, we got this. Hakuna matata. Here’s a free ARD.”
From my previous article: The law is not ready for this technology, and neither are we ready to give up the last sliver of privacy we have. Without an active collaboration legal, legislative, and technology professionals we may one day find ourselves playing out one of Philip K. Dick’s short stories, and we will not like it.
False Metrics 