Slashback: Counterstrike, Identification, Patenxtortion 357
False negatives, false positives, anda false sense of assurance. coryboehne writes: "TechNews has a report on the face recognition system installed at the Palm Beach Internation Airport early results of face-recognition surveillance suggest the technology is proving once again to be unreliable.
The ACLU said the first four weeks of testing at the Palm Beach airport showed the technology was "less accurate than a coin toss." The system matched the faces of the volunteers just 455 out of 958 times, or about 47 percent of the time.
Seems to me that this is a controlled environment for the most part, and still they have problems this big? I wonder if this technology will ever be accurate enough to work properly. I suppose the biggest problem is the size of the database that would be necessary to hold the high quality pictures necessary for accurate identification.
However I must admit that I am rather glad that this is'nt working yet as I'm not too sure I even like the idea of being able to digitally locate and track anyone within range of a camera."
This is what's meant by "repeat offender." Audent writes: "Following on from this story on Slashdot about PanIP's nasty habits, InfoWorld is running a story about it all.
To quote from the story about PanIP's boss:
He's since had a bunch of patents disallowed. He's obviously learned from his earlier 'mistake' and is only going for the smaller companies.'These lawsuits aren't the first time that PanIP principal Lawrence Lockwood has initiated legal proceedings against companies he felt were infringing his patents. Lockwood filed a lawsuit against American Airlines in 1994, claiming that American's SABREvision airline reservation system infringed on other patents he holds. Lockwood lost the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and then lost again on appeal in 1997.'
Kick his ass I say. Disclaimer: I work for IDG Comms in New Zealand)."
Temporary sanity. CyberQ writes: "Some news from Germany on the censorship front: Despite demands from prominent politicians the responsible Federal Authority decided today not to ban the sale of Counterstrike to minors [Link in German, use the fish]. This came after weeks of public discussion following a school shooting by a student who apparently trained by playing CS."
bans don't work (Score:5, Interesting)
Bans don't work in the long run
Fro example the ban on nazism in Germany forced everything underground in which the German police have to expend more hours than otherwise to keep track and monitor theri actions..if they weren't banned everyone woudl know what they are doing due to the fact that they woudl be out in the open in public view..
Re:German Inconsistency? (Score:2, Interesting)
odds.. (Score:2, Interesting)
What the facial recognition software did was run approximately 1 in 1000 odds almost 50% of the time. If a medicine cut risks by 1000 times for half the people who took it, it would be a sensation.
Of course, what people really care about is not inconveniencing innocents.. I think it is a bad tactical move for the ACLU to pick on these points. Eventually, computers will be so much faster that we will have a pretty good recognition system and they will be up a creek.
Dumb patent question (Score:3, Interesting)
1) In exchange for patent rights, the company must make public the details of the design it wants to patent.
1.1) In a software patent case, this may consist of example code.
2) It is legal for any person to obtain the patent application for a succesful patent.
2.1) In a software patent case, this means you may posess the example code.
3) It is illegal to implement the patent without the patentholder's express consent.
3.1) This means it is illegal to compile and execute the example code.
So now: suppose someone takes the patent application form and translates it into a different language. That definately has to be legal.
Since code is speech, this may be a computer language.
Add a bit of embellishments and you have a full-fledged application that incorporates the patent. Still legal to posess, but illegal to compile or run.
Assume it's legal to publish this (free speech and all that), and furthermore assume that US citizens may download it.
I would assume some form of system needs to be in place that prevents US citizens from compiling and executing the code, otherwise it violates the patent.
Therefore, code anything you want, make one deliberate error, publish the code and allow downloads. Citizens of a country that's stupid enough to allow patents on software must therefore be stupid enough not to be able to compile and execute broken code! (No flames please, my <sarcastic> tags don't work!)
Please, shoot holes in my argument! Where'm I going wrong? It can't be this simple!
Time to get creative (Score:4, Interesting)
So, what we should do is keep our eyes out for companies that are violating his "patents" (e.g., get a phone book) and start notifying them that they appear to be in violation. Copy PanIP on the notice, and see what happens. If enough people (hundreds? thousands?) do this to enough companies, it should surely stir up some dust.
Foe good measure, 1) pick companies that look big enough to fight him (or obvious sympathy cases), 2) also copy the patent office on the message, and 3) send a copy to the journalists who have covered the story.
Smirk. One good way to kill things that live under rocks is to expose them to daylight.
-- MarkusQ
Re:bans don't work (Score:2, Interesting)
The banning of computer games is in no way anywhere close to the banning of nazism.
The banning of games is handled by an institution called BPjS/BPjM. If they think a game is too brutal, violent shows too much blood etc, it will be banned from sale to minors, banned from advertisement, and banned from being displayed in shops. It is then more or less dead, and all the minors download a copy from the net or order it abroad. So yes. Stupid institution.
2) As for nazism. This is a Law in Germany, and this law was actually imposed by the USA after WWII. So whether banning nazism works or not, it was the decision of the USA.
now... you would think by now the USA would know better...
coin flip != 50% accuracy (Score:3, Interesting)
What will they come up with next? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:bans don't work (Score:5, Interesting)
you would think by now germany would know better..
Bans don't work in the long run
Fro example the ban on nazism in Germany forced everything underground in which the German police have to expend more hours than otherwise to keep track and monitor theri actions..if they weren't banned everyone woudl know what they are doing due to the fact that they woudl be out in the open in public view..
I'm not sure how much you know about Germany; for all I know, you may be German yourself. Whilst I am German, and whilst I don't support bans on violent games, I honestly believe that banning the open display of Nazi symbols, the Hitler salute, and the organization of radical fascist parties is a good thing.
Right now, 20 people will jump on that statement and scream that bans don't help, that you need to have everything out in the open, that it's great and fabulous to have radicals integrated into society, etc.
And that's all fabulous. And wrong. The Nazis in Germany came to power through democratic means. Although behind-the-scenes wrangling happened that ultimately allowed Hitler to become Chancellor without a genuine popular mandate, the NSDAP was one of the most, if not the most popular party in 1933. Through democratic means. They then used the democratic mandate they'd gained without illegal means to dismantle the Weimar Republic. (France allowed the National Front to enter local governments here and there, and local councils in certain regions of France have already seen an alarming rise in incidents where radical right-wingers successfully removed a variety of critical works from public libraries, critical newspapers from circulation, etc. Critical of their neo-fascist tactics that restrict democratic expression, mind you. Of course someone will go on about how ironic it is that it is those very fascist who are banning things, just like Germany is banning stuff, but they need a serious reality check.)
That's why radical groups are banned. That's why they have to operate underground. That's why Germany is quite keen to ban 'ideas' (I can hear the flames already) and things that are 'dangerous'.
Because people in general are easily seduced by things that make them feel good about themselves. Hitler told Germans that they were special and superior.
Thus, you want to make sure that radical groups that want to dismantle democracy are not allowed a popular mandate. You do not want to legitimize them by allowing them to exist in the public sphere. You do not want to allow them to become coalition partners, to enter local governments, and to slowly subvert and destroy freedom, tolerance, and democracy.
Because that's what they want.
And they're not going to get it. We've been there, we're not going back. We like democracy, we like freedom, we like being able to say whatever we want without being locked up, we don't want to be herded into camps because of our racial distinctions or religious beliefs, and we sure as fuck don't want to let radicals who want to destroy all of that back into the limelight.
So go on all you want about 'bans are bad!' and 'information wants to be free!'. Naivety will only get you so far, and jackbooted thugs will exploit all of it quite happily while you sit there letting them take away everything you hold dear.
Alex
St Andrews
See also my earlier comments at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23633&ci
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23633&ci
Re:bans don't work (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a funny issue and I'm not sure where I stand on it. It's also seriously off-topic. I'm not trying to make an argument for one side or the other, just stating a few (weird) facts.
Guns are indeed banned in most countries of Europe. Here in Scotland, hand guns are totally banned following the Dunblane school massacre [cybersurf.co.uk], and licences for sporting guns (shotguns and rifles) are extremely difficult to obtain. Carrying knives is also banned, even quite small pocket knives. Nevertheless, we still have a pretty serious problem with street violence and particularly with domestic violence, compared to other European countries.
In the US, of course, guns are not banned, and lots of people have them; and, not very surprisingly, the US has more gun crime than anywhere else in the developed world.
So, hey, more guns in people's hands means more gun crime? More weapons in people's hand means more violence?
Errr, no.
Right across the border from Germany there's Switzerland, and it's a very odd place populated by very odd people. Not saying anything against them... but they're odd. Every man is required to keep an automatic weapon in the house. You walk down a high street and there's weapon shop after weapon shop: not just firearms, but also swords, knives, crossbows, longbows, battle-axes - battle axes, I kid you not - Japanese ninja type things, armour, you name it they've got it. You could easily equip an expedition to Mordor in the streets of Geneva.
So do they have a problem with violence? Well sort of. They have more violence than they used to, more shootings than they used to. And they're getting worried about it. But they still have not only less violence but even less shootings than practically anywhere else in Europe.
Very odd.
Re:bans don't work (Score:5, Interesting)
This is insightful?
Are you responsible for the slave trade? Are you responsible for the genocide against Native Americans? What is the moral distinction between genocide against Native Americans and genocide against Jews?
Every nation has in its history events of shocking and unforgivable inhumanity. But no-one now posting on Slashdot took part in the massacre at Wounded Knee [ibiscom.com]; no-one now posting on Slashdot guarded the camp at Balsen [auschwitz.dk].
The United States is guilty of genocide, yes. Germany is guilty of genocide, yes. Individual Americans and Germans posting to Slashdot today are not guilty of genocide.So it is not his fault.
Re:German Inconsistency? (Score:2, Interesting)