Privacy

Cyborg Cops: Dubai Detectives To Wear Google Glass with Facial Recognition Software

Just what every police state needs!

|

I'm not sure I'd even heard of this movie before today; I just was pretty sure that if I Googled "cyborg cop" something like this would come up.
Lions Gate

Reuters has seen the future, and its cops can commune with a database that tells them whether a wanted man is within their line of sight:

Dubai police plan to issue detectives with Google Glass hands-free eyewear to help them fight crime using facial recognition technology, a police spokesman in the wealthy Gulf Arab emirate said.

The wearable device consists of a tiny computer screen mounted in the corner of an eyeglass frame and is capable of taking photos, recording video and playing sound.

The spokesman confirmed a report in Dubai's 7 Days newspaper that software developed by Dubai police would enable a connection between the wearer and a database of wanted people.

Once the device "recognized" a suspect based on a face print, it would alert the officer wearing the gadget.

Just what every police state needs! If you'd like to spin a dystopian scenario, imagine a story about hackers wreaking havoc with the system, or offer another science-fiction vision, the comment thread is open. While you're there, you can debate which is creepier, the prospect of the system returning false positives or the prospect of the system running smoothly. 

Advertisement

NEXT: "Their Kinky College Romance Ended Badly. So Did the School's Sexual-Assault Investigation."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m OK with this, since

    1) There’s ZERO chance that the system would issue a false positive and identify and non-criminal as a criminal and
    2) It’s happening in a country I will never, ever visit. Ever.

    I’m sure it’s coming to a town near you me, at which point I will care a great deal.

    1. 3) There’s absolutely no risk in obscuring a cop’s view with an expensive gadget he’s tasked to keep track of. No, really, cops are already marksmen with those pistols, what’s a little more visual clutter?

      1. Excellent addition

      2. You just need to sell the cops an add-on for their guns that will display a projected point of impact on their Google glasses. Then you just need to hope it is properly calibrated, doesn’t crash at inopportune times, isn’t just used by them to shoot from the hip, if it’s bluetooth you need to make sure it isn’t hacked, etc.

  2. WOw… just wow. I wonder if- with the stereotypes of Dubai- it will automatically think all black people and asians are probably guilty of something so they’ll just bring them in for “questioning”.

    For $X your brother in law’s picture can be accidentally uploaded in the database as a cop killer- think of what a fun birthday prank that will be!

    1. In their defense, they will now be able to distinguish between Cambodians and Laotians more reliably.

    2. Is it racist if Google Glass thinks they all look alike?

  3. capable of taking photos, recording video and playing sound

    I work for Dick Jones! DICK JONES! He’s the number two guy at OCP!

  4. Give me your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle

  5. License plate scanners may as well be facial recognition tech. Glorious idiot Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine proves this point aptly. I’m incensed by all of it. Fuck technology when it goes government- and all tech either starts or ends there.

    1. I’d be okay if police agencies stayed well behind the curve like most bureaucracies. Imagine if our men in blue were only just now discovering Angry Birds and internet hoo-ha.

      1. I don’t even want them ON the curve, bro. They can never ever be trusted with tools that reveal the nature of man.

    2. It’s not the technology itself but the toxic combination of ignorance and blind faith in technology that’s the problem.

      1. Climate models…

      2. I said fuck technology ‘when it goes government’; when tech is utilized by immense power that cleverly promises safety, security, and convenience as it belligerently plunders the open society and individual liberty.

        As the filthy bag of smashed dicks called Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine sez, “Not adopting such an important new law-enforcement technology would be a dereliction of duty.”

        Tech will always go gov. Always. And in most cases society has no say in its ultimate application. Therefore, it might be useful to question the future role of tech in the modern society.

  6. What could possibly go wrong?

    Especially in a country where stoning and flogging are judicial options?

  7. They’re just using it to determine that every gender that should be is wearing a niqab.

  8. My issue with this is not that the cops are embracing new technology. I’m very much in favor of cops bringing true criminals to justice. That means someone who has violated someone else’s rights.

    The problems are:

    1. Since the laws are bad, cops will be able to enforce bad law to a higher degree.

    and

    2. Since cops have absolutely ZERO accountability, it will allow the (many) bad ones to infringe upon the rights of the citizenry to an even higher degree than they do now.

    It’s not the technology that’s the problem. If used within the framework of just laws and accountable cops it would be a good thing. It’s 1&2 above that we need to be bitching about.

    1. Unjust laws being enforced by people who face no consequences for their actions! What could possibly go wrong?

    2. One hundred percent naivety, pure and unadulterated as the wind-driven snow spoke from the very hands of Jesus onto the first mountain thrust from beneath shocked Mammoths in a very old Siberia.

    3. It’s not the technology that’s the problem. If used within the framework of just laws and accountable cops it would be a good thing. It’s 1&2 above that we need to be bitching about.

      Any system of law reliant on a legislature to produce law, will without fail, produce bad law.

      1. Without any incentives to repeal bad legislation when it has bad consequence, bad legislation will beget more bad legislation which will beget more bad legislation … With the logical conclusion being legislation governing every nuance of daily life.

        (Notice I used the word legislation, not law. They are not the same thing.)

        1. (Notice I used the word legislation, not law. They are not the same thing.)

          I assure you that statutory law is a real thing, albeit illegitimate and unnatural, it’s still considered the most legitimate source of law in every state monopolized legal system. Which sucks.

          1. You missed my point. When you have time, I’d suggest you check this out.

            1. You need to get the hell off Youtube and get some damn work done around there.

              1. I’d be happy to if the feckless government committee that controls what I’m allowed to do would let me. Unauthorized work is punished, and at the moment no work has been authorized. So I literally have nothing to do.

                1. I authorize your return to Youtube as long as the dishes have been washed and the cat’s been fed.

                  1. the dishes have been washed and the cat’s been fed

                    *snort*

                    I let the wife to that shit.

                    1. Fucking cokehead.

  9. I’m not sure I’d even heard of this movie before today; I just was pretty sure that if I Googled “cyborg cop” something like this would come up.

    This would have been a much better movie poster to use. Get your shit together, Tuccille.

    1. You are absolutely correct, except I’m not Tuccille.

      1. That ain’t my finger, neither!

        /wrong old joke punchline

      2. Sorry Jesse, you people all look alike to me.

    2. Tuccille fail, nigga.

      1. It’s not a cyborg cop AND it doesn’t feature some sort of ocular augmentation. Fail Susan, you failed harder than Jesse Tuccille.

        1. van Damme is the European version of Chuck Norris. He does not fail.

        2. I think Susan is the one who needs ocular augmentation. Just sayin’, dear.

  10. Since it’s in a Islamic country does it come with gaydar?

    1. No, but it probably is able to quickly switch off Hotrussianbabes.com when the cops need to punish women for showing their ankles (the hussies).

  11. “Not adopting such an important new law-enforcement technology would be a dereliction of duty.”

    This makes perfect sense to the sort of sociopath who thinks his job is to round up as many people as possible and lock them in cages.

    1. But, but… he’s just a kind old white-boy Republican from Yellow Springs who carezabout Ohio fambilies.

  12. The interesting thing is that no sci-fi comic book superhero that I know of ever had a power like this. Hey, Superman, you may have X-ray vision, you may have telescopic vision, but do you have any idea who you’re looking at? I didn’t think so.

    1. Professor Xavier could do it if he wanted to know who he was dealing with.

  13. I would expect this kind of absurd handwringing from people who don’t understand the first thing about privacy

    If you are walking around you have zero expectation of privacy as to somebody recognising you as a wanted person

    Somebody recognising you from a wanted poster or because they recognise you having arrested you before And knowing you are wanted or whatever has never been a privacy issue under US law

    This is completely different then a DUI checkpoint or a STOP AND FRISK program like NYPD’s that involves violation of privacy

    stops without reasonable suspicion are unconstitutional in my not so humble opinion and that of many legal scholars

    Stops based on reasonable suspicion are always Constitutional

    1. Why do you refuse to post under your old handle?

      Could it be because you are not who you claim?

    2. Stops based on reasonable suspicion are always Constitutional

      The term ‘reasonable’ is loaded and always will be, especially when dealing with the mindset and nature of the average cop who likely understands ‘reasonable’ like the wart on his/her ass.

      The law may be something of a final arbiter but it has clearly proven itself to contain plenty of questionable ethics and the law regarding stops clearly favors law enforcement which hardly benefits a constitutional republic.

      Cars being stopped for dark windows, cracked windshields, dice hanging from the mirror, a light out, and so on should never under any circumstance lead to police pushing the envelope of their authority which is exactly what often happens next.

    3. If you are walking around you have zero expectation of privacy as to somebody recognising you as a wanted person

      You’re presuming that the db will be made up of 100% wanted persons. Odds are it will contain former criminals, and I wouldn’t bet against including gun owners, people on the no-fly list, and anyone else the PtB wants to keep an eye on.

      And if officers can add entries, attractive members of the desired gender.

  14. Assuming the facial recognition technology software is as accurate as the average Joe recognising you from a wanted poster in other words reasonable suspicion the program is not violative of privacy

    And I am certain that actual legal scholars such as we see At volokh or scotusblog will agree

    I am 100% confident that there is not a single person here who will come up with any precedent based on caselaw that will show how this program would be unconstitutional here

    Compare it to completely constitutional programs that use license plate recognition software to detect wanted cars

    Like it or not if you are wanted criminal you have zero expectation that somebody or something will not recognise you in public.

    It is an essential function of law-enforcement to apprehend people Who are wanted whether by bench warrant or indictment or whatever

    And a substantial number of cases we catch wanted criminals it is based on recognition by an average person from a wanted poster or a police press release or whatever

    Consider the program America’s most wanted which several reviews have shown is remarkably effective in increasing the apprehension rate of criminals that are broadcast on that programme

    That is a good not a bad thing that bad guys are apprehended without violations of privacy such DUI checkpoint

    Feel free to cite any legal precedent or any case law that would make such stops unconstitutional

    1. Assuming the facial recognition technology software is as accurate as the average Joe recognising you from a wanted poster in other words reasonable suspicion the program is not violative of privacy

      Of course it’s an invasion of privacy. Only the most sycophantic lover of all that is law enforcement would posit such horrid drivel.

      Even in public people can look at you and draw barely ANY personal/private information from your appearance which is exactly the way it should be. Police should have no more authority to know anything about me than the average person unless I’ve committed a serious crime.

      However with facial recognition tech the mere glance goes way beyond what is normally experienced in public and coupled with additional mining tech can develop an instant profile of my entire life from education to medical conditions to past crimes/misdemeanors and other private data few should know about.

      Hell, this is about to become a basic app for google glass. Imagine what your average dimwit cop will have access to when walking through the mall and glancing at random faces. It is going to far. Period.

  15. Again that is assuming arguendo that the program is robust enough to establish reasonable suspicion which is the standard for a stop under US law

    Technology has two huge advantages in the CJ system

    Better ability to detect and convict the guilty

    E.g. DNA fingering Ridgway as the Green River Killer years later after an investigator went over case evidence with new technology

    Better ability to free the innocent from further suspicion whether pretrial, or post thanks to heroic work by The Innocence Project

    Again you’re free to instead of using emotional handwringing and science fiction references feel free to cite an actual legal precedent that would show how this program would not be Constitutional

    Smooches!

    1. Again that is assuming arguendo that the program is robust enough to establish reasonable suspicion which is the standard for a stop under US law

      No reasonable suspicion is required to capture my license plate data. None. And if that license has even old data associated with it you can and will be stopped for even the most mundane bullshit and in several cases I know personally people have been stopped for doing NOTHING and only because their plates registered an old DUI charge.

      This is a pathetic use of the law.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.