> Incidentally, James Meek 'tested' the software - and
> it didn't work.
Which backs up what Clive Norris found (also quoted by Rosen in the New York
Times last year). The problem for Visionics (who make FaceIt ARGUS) is that
it was really designed to work in controlled environments (airport
check-ins, corporate entranceways etc.) and has been promoted by a rather
over-enthusiastic PR department as being workable in much more difficult
evironmental condiditions. The failure of FaceIT is at least a negative
rather than a false positive, which is one very limited sense, a good thing.
If you have a system which constantly misidentifies people as those needed
scrutiny or arrest, that is a potentially more difficult situation.
However arguments about technical limitations ('it doesn't work') only go so
far, and as far as the makers and installers are concerned merely act as a
spur to further R&D ('it will work soon') and a falling back on old
arguments about deterrance ('criminals think it works')and fear of crime
('the public think it works').
David.
////////////////////////////////////////////
Dr David Wood
Managing Editor
Surveillance & Society
www.surveillance-and-society.org
+44 (0)191 222 7801
[log in to unmask]
////////////////////////////////////////////
|