Path of Least Surveillance

alewando writes: "iSee is a service provided by the Institute for Applied Autonomy and is intended to allow New York City pedestrians to map out routes in Manhattan that avoid as many surveillance cameras as possible. Their data encompass nearly 2,400 cameras in Manhattan, and plans are in the works to bring the service to Seattle, Chicago, and London. Read the Wired article." This is a great hack - a useful service and a political statement at the same time.

A useful services?!

Yeah, right! So now all the muggers will know exactly where to lay in wait while you happily stroll along without being filmed. Yeah, thats really going to help improve your life isn't it. As dumb ideas go, this is on my top 10.

Re:A useful services?!

Dunno if it reduces your legal rights, but putting cameras in public places has more of an impact than just catching more criminals.

One-way observation is an expression of control; it is a social communication. People demonstrate dominion over others through observational dominance. Cameras in public places are continuous reminders that you are a subject of the state, and subservient to its whims. There's a reason why most people associate continuous surveillance with totalitarianism.

Most people do things they'd rather not have others see. Not all of these can be done in the home. Note that while it is possible that even without cameras you are observed at almost any point outside, it is less likely, and the audience is certain to be far smaller.

Beyond embarassing actions, it is difficult to live without breaking one law or another at some time. Surely you've jay-walked? Littered? Walked home intoxicated? Put our your garbage before 5pm? Expect a court summons in the mail...

Potential for abuse is great. Ever seen how security guards use the cameras at malls? Do you enjoy being stalked? Once you've scared away all the pickpockets and muggers, what 'criminals' do you target in order to justify your cameras?

Ever had a stranger stare at you for a significant length of time? Uncomfortable isn't it? Whether it affects their 'rights' or not, people do not like to be continually observed---it is fundamentally irritating and hostile.

These are all quality of life kinds of things. How regulated do you want your life to be?

On the bright side, perhaps they could identify police/government abuses, ala Rodney King --- oh, wait, guess who'll own the videotapes...

Re:A useful services?!

I remember seeing somewhere that it is the legal right of the filmee to have access to any recording made of them, for a small fee to cover the costs...so perhaps you could build up a nice collection: "here is me walking down the highstreet..", "and this is me looking at a sign..", "ooh, ohh, this is good! this is me going in a shop!" ;) -dan

Re:A useful services?!

I *really* fail to see why it's a reduction in freedom. What can you not do in front of a camera, that you couldn't do before? Apart from commit a crime and get away with it? If you really object to being filmed, then don't live in the city.

If there were a few hundred laws, and 99% of the population agreed on those laws and their consequences, and if those laws were enforced evenly with no hypocracy or exceptions for the rich/powerful/politicians/children of politicians, and if the people making and enforcing the laws were truely pure of heart, with no emotions, personal agendas, desire for their own gain, or desire for power for its own sake, then you might be right (I would still disagree on pure philosophical grounds, but you might be).

In fact, there are millions of laws and hunderds of millions of pages of executive branch interpretation of those laws, people become politicians/police/Attorneys General because they enjoy power and think they know better than others how the others should live their lives, hypocrisy and self-righteousness are rampant among the powerful. Always has been that way in human history.

So for that reason, it is better not to be watched all the time, even at the cost of some safety.

sPh

Re:A useful services?!

Where do you live? Have you been mugged recently?

I live in campberwell (near Brixton), South London. It has a high crime rate - especially muggings. It has alot of CCTV cameras. AFAIK, i am filmed by at least 12 cameras on my 5 minute walk to/from work.

I have been mugged on my way home from work. Alot of the people I work with have been mugged (perhaps 1/4 - and yes, there is a tendancy for WASPs and/or foreign nationals to be targetted). However, despite the cameras, not one single culprit for the muggings I know of have been caught.

Why not?

1. The muggers already know where the cameras are. I was mugged on my own resedential street, perhaps the only place on my way home where I am not under servaillance. A friend was mugged in a park.

2. The muggers tend to wear baseball caps and hooded tops at the same time, pretty much obscuring their face altogethor - especially at night, with there heads held down, looking towards the ground (remeber where most cameras are mounted...)

3. The police are severely underfunded (perhaps too much money on cameras eh?). I would much rather see (as would a large majority of people) patrolling police officers, which offers a much better detternt than any camera. Also, the police dont have the money/resources to chase up many muggings.

Anyway, perhaps if you read the applied autonomy README:

http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info.html

This may provide a few other points of the problems with CCTV, and why what they are doing is a good idea.

How dull...

What if you are agressed ?
OK, say it an other way : Are the people who want to avoid the cameras the same that carry a cellular phone ?

My prognosis

It won't be long before this service is outlawed under the DMCA as "security circumvention" or banned by our new Office of Homeland Security as a "possible tool for use by terrorists". After all, these days, just mentioning terrorism will cause any silly law to be passed.

That's too complicated.

That is far too complicated. Just do what I do...whenever you venture outside, dress like CarrotTop.

Re:That's too complicated.

If you want to avoid surveillance, the optimal strategy is to walk six feet behind someone dressed like Carrot Top.

similar story

I heard about a guy who robbed banks years ago before they had cameras. He would wear plain clothes, but have a garrish colored necktie. After slipping the cashier a note informing that this was a holdup and that he had a pistol in his pocket, he walked right out with the money. Afterwards when police would ask what he looked like, few could remember. All they remembered was that he wore a very loud necktie.

Well... it wouldn't help much in the age of cameras, but blending in to the surroundings or getting overshadowed by something more interesting can be a good way of avoiding detection. Not perfect, but it helps.

2,400 cameras?

What your needing is a good map of the sewers and pair of water tight boots!

Let us be really paranoid

Who wants to bet that the FBI is logging all connections to the iSee web site ?

(And what will the slashdot effect do to that logging ?)

Why?

Could someone explain how this service will be useful?

I gain comfort from the presence of a camera. Not a lot, but a little.

London?

I was under the impression that there were far more surveillance cameras in London than those other cities mentioned. Would this work there?

Almost like in former communist countries

Back in school, once my whole class was visiting Berlin (long before East and West Germany got united again). We also did a bus trip through East Berlin, and were feeling happy to live in a free country when we noticed the many surveillance cameras there. Little did we know then ...

Not a statement, but a total waste of time

Sorry, but there are just too many surveillance cameras to make this useful. Cameras are small, and are set up by many (perhaps most) private firms. If you want to travel and not be seen in NYC, knowing where a few video cameras are is not the trick.

The way to stay anonymous is to stop using your EZ-Pass, carry no proximity-type cards, use no credit/debit cards, travel by walking, bike, bus, or taxi.

Finally, even my apartment building has a video camera looking out the front and back access ways right now. Hum, and it doesn't seem to be on the list.

Spare time.

In order to get from A to B, if somebody wants to log onto a website, type in their start and finish addresses (and possibly any sites they want to take in along the way), log off, shut down, put their shoes on and then walk the long way round, then they have got A LOT more spare time than me!

Or they have something very serious to hide. these camera's don't have that this rediculous face-recognition software, do they?

Matt

Re: Path of Least Surveillance

I have to wonder if people would be this uptight if the 2400 cameras were replaced with 2400 police officers. Would you still try to avoid going near them?

Pickpockets and Surveilance....

City Centre London, especially Oxford Road is notorius for pickpockets, the Metropolitan Police have been using cameras to combat the pickpockets to great effect for some time. The Police can get hard evidence that will lead to the prosecution of individuals for their crimes.

iSee is a tool that can be used to aid criminals who potentially could be identified by security camera pictures.

I can't see that it has any other use, unless you are actually doing something wrong, do you have anything to fear from the cameras?

goes both ways

This works both ways. Sure, you can find a route that avoids security cameras. But if you're the "bad guys" you now know where you need to install more security cameras. And -- at least if it was me -- you'd install those cameras in such a way that people don't know they're there and everyone still thinks they're on a "safe" route.

This is just for the paranoid, though. And I'm not paranoid. They really are out to get me.

Right...

My overactive sense of paranoia likes this...but then again...this is just too stupid. Avoiding a few security cameras won't do much to help your anonymity, so why go through the trouble? Someone out there is either a lot more paranoid than I am...or just has way too much spare time, or both.

Good intentions but...

I wonder how long this site will be around if a terrorist uses it to avoid security cameras and plant a bomb...

I wish...

..they would set up this service in Virginia Beach, VA , seeing that the local government approved [fcw.com] the use of facial recognition software at the oceanfront, making it the second city in the whole US to use it...

What useful?

That map covers known, visible cameras. Including red light cams. Oooooooooo!

I'm going to hide a QuickCam up my ass, run around Manhattan, and see if I can make lyin' bitches out of them!

"The demonstrated tendency of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) operators to single out ethnic minorities for observation and to voyeuristically focus on women's breasts and buttocks provides the majority of the population ample legitimate reasons to avoid public surveillance cameras."

CCTV DPA WTF

The excellent Mark Thomas [channel4.com] Product, a show on c4 [channel4.com] in the UK had a pop at "the Data Protection Act and in particular its sections covering Closed Circuit Television".

Essentially, in the UK, if a CCTV camera records your image you just have to write to the owner of the camera with a £10 cheque asking for a copy of all information they hold on you. By law under the DPA they have to provide you with a copy. If they don't they can go to jail.

He went into a McDonalds with a troup of tumblers and jugglers and asked for a copy of the tape. He went a bunch of other places aswell, get him on video, very funny!

Lots of info starting here [mtcp.co.uk], at his own FAQ [channel4.com], and if you get hooked check out google directory [google.com] for stacks of links.

This is trigger happy TV [triggerhappytv.com] for the broadsheet reader [guardian.co.uk]!

If theres so many cameras...

..if there are so many cameras, why has no-one filmed the pentagon crash, the queens crash, got anymore shots of the others? i am a sick, sick person who wants to see these...

I live in Times Square

Just about where that iSee introductory flash animation zooms in on.

Based on the iSee map... I have the distinct joy to tell you that it appears I can't so much as scratch my ass without 3 different Federal and State agencies knowing about it, much less go outside and walk anywhere.

Hey? Is that a casino bubble camera just outside my window? Is that another one over there under that pigeon?

They don't need no Magic Lantern to intercept my keystrokes.

Grumble, grumble... thanks for the link Slashdot, thanks for the map IAA: ignorance really is bliss after all. ;-P

I would like to see more surveillance cameras

I live in central Barcelona in Spain. The petty crime here - bag-snatching, pick-pocketing etc. - is terrible. I wish they would fill the streets with surveillance cameras - that would be much preferable to the damn thieves.

Someone on the city council has a sense of humor. They are doing a trial of surveillance cameras in George Orwell Square.

What's the world coming to ...

What's the world coming to when paranoia represents a business opportunity ?

so they'll know where to put new cameras.

great.

Face it

This website is really owned by Microsoft. It started as a way for Bill Gates to plot a course thru towns he visits without getting beated down by mobs of people dressed as chubby penguins. Who leaked this?

aren't we over-reacting?

Who CARES? People watch other people when they are in PUBLIC places. Who cares if they're watching them in person or on VCR. Someone taping me walking down the street doesn't bother me a lick. Someone taping me in the shower does. It's a simple public space/private space issue.

But then you say...Oh but they could all get together and track you and keep track of everyplace you go! OH NO! Someone is going to keep a log of my dreary day to day activities. I don't even remember stuff I do on a day to day basis, if someone else wants to, go for it.

And this face recognition stuff. This *ALL* hinges on the software working correctly. If it can be proven that it works, and that innocents aren't being persecuted why the hell would you NOT want criminals picked up? If you don't like what we've defined as 'criminal' then by a democratic process (in most nations) you go through the process of changing those laws. That is all there is to it.

Everyone gets on this freedom schtick and doesn't take the time to think about the problems logically.

Re:aren't we over-reacting?

But then you say...Oh but they could all get together and track you and keep track of everyplace you go! OH NO! Someone is going to keep a log of my dreary day to day activities. I don't even remember stuff I do on a day to day basis, if someone else wants to, go for it.

With all due respect, I'm not sure you're really aware of what exploitation of such data might do to your life.

Everyone finds themselves under scrutiny at some time - job interviews, court proceedings (think divorces, civil suits, subpoenas to testify as witnesses, etc., not just criminal acts). Should a prospective employer be able to purchase information on your movements? Do you want them to know you're, e.g., being treated for a medical condition not relevant to your ability to do the job? Or what about your current employer - should they be able to keep tabs on you outside of work, to see if you're interviewing somewhere else?

What if you witness a crime and are asked to testify in court? Should the adverse party have access to your day-to-day movements, they will certainly attempt to use them to undermine your credibility, with potentially embarrasing results. Involved in a divorce or custody case? Lawsuit with your insurer? Expect this info, if available, to be used against you in the most prejudicial way.

Everyone eventually rubs someone else the wrong way at some time. Do you want the unstable guy you cut off on the freeway this morning to have access to your day-to-day movements?

There really aren't any regulations or statutes pertaining to the sale of this type of information; only very narrow classes of information are protected at all by law (medical records, the privacy rights to which you waive if you have insurance; video rental records, explicitly protected by Congress after the Bork confirmation hearings; student records, also protected from disclosure by statute). Everythign else is pretty much fair game.

I think your apathy belies serious naivete.

-Isaac

this might have the opposite effect

besides how usefull this camera and vcr taping stuff is, this map shows anyone who wants which cameras a person HAS to pass to reach the target.

So wouldn't it be better to pass more "less polpulated" cameras than the "main route" iSee suggests?

a useful service....

... for planting explosive devices
... for working out where the best place to mug someone is
... ensuring that when a crime is carried out by someone who's description matches you, you're not on tape as being somewhere else at the time

Need I go on?
The entire "CCTV cameras are evil" thing has just reared it's ugly head again. If you live in "the land of the free" and all that why the hell do you need to fear CCTV?

Try the London Underground at the dead of night... then remove the CCTV, make a big noise about how it's being done for freedom, and try paying the tube a visit at night again :-P The number of people surviving the Tube unscathed at night would drop dramatically.

Also CCTV isnt just used for security. A large number of the major motorways and road interchanges in the UK have full CCTV coverage which is monitored constantly to ensure traffic flow is uninterrupted. The control centre that watches the cameras has control over the electronic information boards by the sides of roads to allow them to impose temporary speed limits, and give warnings about hazards such as fog at a moment's notice. More info can be found in what I think is the original proposal (dating back to 1997) http://www.highways.gov.uk/info/tcc/rtcc/index.htm

Finally dont underestimate the power of CCTV for making the masses feel safe. It's a cheap way to make people feel safer, and also does a fair job at discouraging crime.

Just wondering

Are there any laws against walking around with a mask on in these areas?

Yeah...

let's all start fscking about privacy until they find someone arab with flight plans on such a camera. Then everybody finds it the best thing in the world. These things aren't put there to watch your girlfriend, but to find filth.

Marko No. 5
-- grow yourself some brains

Cameras should be a benefit

The problelm with surveillance isn't the act itself, but the limited access to it.

The video on all those cameras should be made available to the public.

Besides the obvious crime deterrents mentioned above:

Imagine pulling up mapquest with your route to work and being able to get a live video feed from those cameras that lie along your route. Now you can avoid traffic.

Imagine your walking down a dark street, unsure of the neighborhood. You don't know whats around the corner, but you pull out your wireless handheld and get the video feed of that upcoming corner.

That information being available to everyone, not just the authorities is what draws the line between a police state and a utopia.

Version 911

Heh. Anyone else notice that at the top of the page [appliedautonomy.com] it says version "v.911" and the tagline "now more than ever"? Obviously no coincince about the timing of this tool.

When did it launch originally?

Definately great for meeting paranoid chicks...

I think iSee's plan is great...where else can you meet girls as paranoid as you...you see the same girl over and over again on your extended long walks...nice conversation starter...just be careful approaching her!

If you have done nothing, you have nothing to fear

I've read a lot of comments stating more or less "f you have done nothing, you have nothing to fear". The problems with the cameras have nothing to do with criminals getting caught (thats a good thing imho), or someone who shouldn't have seen it, accidentally whatching you and your lover kissing... It has to do with demonstrations. In A free country, you are allowed to walk in a demonstration to show your political standpoint, without the police recording your personal presence! Such recording is in e.g. Sweden called opinion registration, and is forbidden by our constitution!

Useful?

I can't see how this is a useful service. It seems that everyone here is under the assumption that there are people actually watching the stuff fed from the cameras. Assuming the 2400 number is correct, I seriously doubt that the NYPD, FBI, CIA, or any other Black Helicopter organization would have the manpower to watch the 57000 hours of tape collected per day!

OTOH, these cameras are useful in reconstruction of events after the fact. Mugged with no witnesses? If there is a camera recording what is going on, it doesn't matter. What irks me the most about this is that (outside of Slashdot) the people that whine the most about the cameras are the ones that they are there for in the first place. Recently there has been a lot of talk about traffic light cameras to catch people who run red lights. All of the interviewees that I have seen that are against it say something to the effect of "Yeah, I do it" and then give some lame excuse. Guess what buddy -- its AGAINST THE F*CKING LAW. If you get caught breaking the law then I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.

What's wrong with CCTV?

I read through http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info.html and yet I still don't see what's wrong with being recorded as I walk down the street. This webpage even has a section on "But what's the harm?", but the section doesn't actually do any more than reiterating that you can be recorded. So what if I'm recorded?

I mean really: if you're not doing anything wrong and the law is on your side then you have nothing to worry about. If you're not doing anything wrong and the law is not on your side, work to change the law. If you're doing something wrong then cut it out.

I only see cameras as a positive thing generating more information (which geeks should love). They are not repressive in and of themselves. Some structures exist that can use cameras to be oppressive, but these are a seperate issue from the cameras themselves. Fight them, not the cameras.

Abuse of CCTV cameras is NOT a given.

Far from oppression, cameras actually spell empowerment for people if they're accepted and used properly!

you miss the point

Sure, cameras may help nab a few pickpockets that otherwise wouldn't be prosecuted. Ask yourself how many people are pickpockets? Maybe 1% of people are willful criminals? That's probably very high.

That means that 99% of the people that are spied on by cameras are doing nothing wrong. "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." That's a joke. We all have something to hide...our private lives. I'm not willing to surrender the freedom and privacy of 99% of people just so that 1% may (or may not!) have a better chance of being prosecuted.

There's too much potential for abuse. We already know this. Security guards in malls stalk/ogle women. They make their own copies and pass them around to buddies. If the gov't gets involved in this, you can bet this information will be available "as a public service." Do you want potential employers getting tapes of you walking into a bar every night? It's none of their business how you relax on your private time, but they might get the impression that you'd be a less reliable employee.

The question you should be asking yourself with any proposed legislation is not, "What effect will this have if properly enforced," but, "What effect will this have if it's abused?"

Being able to monitor someone is a control issue. Are you comfortable with someone staring at you? Didn't think so. So why are you comfortable with cameras watching your every move?

Being monitored is a statement that gov't doesn't trust us. I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in the US. Now we're all presumed guilty, and Big Brother is just waiting to catch it. Where's the probable cause for this evidence collection? This isn't simply "happening" to catch someone in the act of a crime, this is purposeful evidence collection without just cause.

Any other cities?

I live in Virginia Beach, VA, and the city council is trying their asses off to get cameras installed at the beach, not just cameras, but cameras armed with facial recognition software, you think Manhattan is bad, try having your face scanned.

"You're going to jail"
"Why?"
"Because the computer said you're Carlos the Jackal."
"But I'm not."
"Well, computers don't lie son, I mean, Carlos, lets load him in the Paddy Wagon next to Osama, Manuel Noriega, and the Olsen twins."

WORMCAMS / THE PATH OF MOST SURVEILLANCE

Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter have written one of my favorite science fiction books

• The Light Of Other Days

which addresses the question "What would the world be like if anyone could open up a little wormhole connected to anywhere at anytime and peek in?". The end of all privacy. Some answers: The end of crime, exhibitionists for future viewers, and toms peeping on Jesus. IMHO, this is a first rate book and as usual, Clarke follows up with why years from now it might be for real.

The publisher has some sample reading from this book at www.tor.com/lood.html [tor.com].

I personally would find a map of the path of most surveillance more comforting.

Why not just get a Cloak of Invisibility?

It would be easier.

And if I go to a sports game, I'm on camera.

And if I drive on the freeway, I'm on camera.

And if I go to a govt agency, I'm on camera.

-

Read Brin

If you are at all interested in the issues brought about by introducing one-way cameras to public places, I strongly recommend David Brin's Transparent Society [kithrup.com] .

He sees (and I agree) that these technologies will become more and more prevalent, and that all we can do to prevent their abuse by police and the government is to carefully monitor the people that are monitoring us.

It's a fascinating book, and covers a wide range of topics, from Internet censorship and toxicity of ideas, to the need for a society to criticize its leaders in order to remain healthy and free.

Not that anyone will read this

So I'll keep it brief. After comment #200, nobody pays attention.

The problems with cameras is not that they are an invasion of privacy in the same sense as, say, police entering your home without a warrant.

The problem with them is that they require you to place absolute trust in your government. In the states, at least, that seems to run completely counter to the ideas of the founding fathers.

Whoever is in power has access to tapes of everything you do -- including who you spent time with. (Right to associate freely), including what placard you were holding (free speech), your religious dress / ornamentation(freedom of religion).

So whoever is in power, with some simple cross referencing, could isolate dissidents/undesirables pretty quickly, assuming they bothered to maintain an index of the tapes.

Too much information possessed by a government regarding its citizenry is a very very bad thing. Film showing everything a citizen does in a public place is certainly too much information.

-l

iWouldChangeTheName

iSeeThatAppleHasACopyrightOnAllThingsThatBeginWith A-
LowercaseLetter'I'AndGoOnLikeThisCapitalizingEachW ordAsThey-
Go.

iAmAboutToGetSuedByAppleForThisLetter,
iTakeIt?

iAlsoGuessThatAppleWillSueThePeopleWhoMakeTheProdu ct
iSee

iWillDieNowIf
iDontStopWritingPostsLikeThisOrAtLeastMyWalletWill

iSayByeByeNow,
P-iGuy...

a WHAT?

Useful service? What the hell?
Can anyone tell me how this would be a useful service?

A great political statement.

Completely useless as a "service" to anyone.
Just fuck off if you have nothing to say, dont try to make yourself sound good.

Washington, DC

You can't cross from Washington, DC into Virginia without passing through the eyes of a camera. On the DC side of each bridge over the Potomac is a camera that takes your picture if you go too fast, or run the light at the end of the bridge (it might be on all the time, and only record your image, if you break the law). Also, if you are a pedestrian, and you take the Metro, there are cameras _everywhere_. Outside that, there are probably many, many cameras elsewhere in this city.

Re:first post

first post

Yes, but you've obviously taken a route that is quite heavily surveilled...

Re:first post

This is great... I can't wait until they have something like this for Rochester, NH!!!

Troll, link is bad, do not click

Someone mod this guy into oblivion. The link logs you out of /., there is no such story.

Re:Here's a thought...

Right, I can just picture it now.

Evil Terrorist Type : I must destroy the (infidels/capitalist opressors/alien invasion force)* for the glory of (allah/jahweh/the big purple dinosaur/elvis told me to do it)*!

ETT: Oh, hang on, they might have some CCTV cameras, and find out it was me. Best not then, that's me really deterred. It's not like I'm on a holy crusade or anything.

*Delete as appropriate to denote your own favourite demon de jour.

CCTV is about as much use against a terrorist threat as a man with a pointed stick.
At best it's useful for tracking known troublemakers (petty criminals, subversives, etc) and producing lots of nice footage to show on 'Americas Crimiest Crimes XII', but I can't really say that the constant feeling of being watched makes me feel particularly safe.

Great point! I have some other ideas.

How about we require everyone to carry digital ID, and to present it when entering/leaving any building or public transportation device. We could use a big wireless network to database all this information. That way, everyone automatically has an alibi.

We could even go one step further, out of convenience, and require people to carry location transmitters, so we can track who goes where in the city, after all.. those who aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to fear, right?

It goes without saying that anyone who has a fake pass or refuses to wear a location transmitter must have something to hide, and should therefore be detained and questioned.

Also, all telephone calls, and all conversations (everyone should have to wear a mic), should be taped and databased (with strict privacy laws, of course, only law enforcement officials would be permitted to listen to this stuff in order to protect us). In the case where people use an alternate communication method, that should be recorded as well. Any communication that circumvents these recording devices would be evidence that someone was up to no good, after all, if they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide.

As for having many laws... laws DO have meaning, even if not enforced. THey become dangerous laws; tools of those in power to get their way. You see, the more laws there are, the higher the chances are that you broke one or two along the way. And when everyone is guilty of something, it's rather easy for a corrupt system to use that to its advantage.

Re:Other ways not to be recognized

Actually, next-gen facial recognition software can hook up with an infrared camera and figure out who you are even if you're wearing a mask.