Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment • Hacker News Board

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#151

Post by acdha » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 12:43 PM UTC

piva00 wrote: post #116

jolmg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public photography is not a crime, nor should it be. IDK about shouldn't. Public photography not being a crime comes from a time where one could still be generally expected to remain anonymous despite being photographed. Just like how you can be seen by strangers in the street while walking and still remain anonymous. Yet stalking is a crime, and facial recognition seems to be the digital equivalent. Facial recogni…

It shouldn't, you wouldn't be able to photograph candid moments in public of your own family/group of friends if anyone's else face showed up in the picture, that's not a world I want to live in. It would also completely kill any form of street photography, even if you don't appreciate the art it would kill documenting times and places for posterity, for what benefit exactly?

Laws have non-binary options - for example, most countries have laws controlling industrial-scale air pollution which do not prevent you from grilling at home.

In this case, I think it would be interesting to think about the most concerning area: linking a person in a photo to their real-world identity. It seems like there could be restrictions on how face-recognition databases are built and accessed, possibly incorporating intent to harass or intimidate as an aggravating factor, and possibly linking across time and place. If I take a picture of some guys playing basketball or chess as I walk around town, I don’t need to identify them in my art exhibit entry and I certainly don’t need to link one of them to a different time and place without their permission.

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#152

Post by alkonaut » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 1:13 PM UTC

ahoka wrote: post #143

thw_9a83c wrote: post #11

> The band deployed live facial recognition technology that captured and analyzed attendees during their recent performance. I think more drama has been created around this than is necessary. Based on the video, the real-time projected visitor's faces were not analyzed. They were simply shown with a random description flag attached, such as "energetic," "compassionate," "inspiring," "fitness influencer," or "cloud wa…

Their pictures were used in a commercial, for-profit setting without consent.

That's what caused the "outrage" (perhaps more "discussion", "introspection", ...). And without that, there is no art.

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#153

Post by alkonaut » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 1:19 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #5

Neat and all, but I'd be even happier if they flirted with the experiment of actually touring a new album, rather than serving as trip-hop's answer to Roger Waters, touring forever on the same 12 songs.

I love the Spotify era where artists actually want, and some times need, to go on tour again. And while some artists might be capable of producing new good music, the sad fact is that the music we enjoy most was the one from our youth. So if bands from 20 or 30 years ago tour now, I always pray they haven't made anything new. Also, in the old days when bands made money from records not tours, the tour was usually "album promo" and you could some times tell the band was forced by the record company to do it to begin with.

The best concerts are breakthrough concerts for new bands (first or second album), and then the greatest-hits type concerts that are 10 years after the last album. Every concert that is a tour with album 3-4-5 is usually pretty meh.

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#154

Post by sschueller » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 1:33 PM UTC

anal_reactor wrote: post #144

sschueller wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Switzerland, you have the right to privacy including in public. This means you can not make a photo/video of a person in public without their consent if they are the focus of your image. They also have the right to revoke consent anytime in the future. The only exception is at large gatherings like for example the Street Parade where the expectation of privacy can not be expected especially since the event is tele…

Eh. These laws exist in DACH area but the result is that when someone's committing a crime, you can't film them in order to create evidence, because that would breach their right to privacy. Someone stole shit from your front porch? Someone broke into your car? Someone pulled an insurance scam on you? Well, tough luck, it's illegal for you to provide film evidence. In more sensible countries the law says that it's le…

You can record your own property and you can submit this to the police. However you need to put up notice on your property that you are recording.

Dash-cam footage is a gray area since the video is generally deleted automatically and not publicized. If the crime is severe enough the footage is permitted in court.

Criminals do not just get away just like that. There is a lot of public cameras run by for example the SBB (national train company). These cameras have strict rules as to how long the footage is stored and who has access. The footage will not be posted publicly unless in very very rare cases where the severity of the crime outweighs the privacy of the criminal.

How many innocent people have faced the wrath of the public because of false identification in the US when some grand event occurs? Does anyone remember Richard Jewell[1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#155

Post by AlecSchueler » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 1:35 PM UTC

anal_reactor wrote: post #144

sschueller wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Switzerland, you have the right to privacy including in public. This means you can not make a photo/video of a person in public without their consent if they are the focus of your image. They also have the right to revoke consent anytime in the future. The only exception is at large gatherings like for example the Street Parade where the expectation of privacy can not be expected especially since the event is tele…

Eh. These laws exist in DACH area but the result is that when someone's committing a crime, you can't film them in order to create evidence, because that would breach their right to privacy. Someone stole shit from your front porch? Someone broke into your car? Someone pulled an insurance scam on you? Well, tough luck, it's illegal for you to provide film evidence. In more sensible countries the law says that it's le…

There are explicit exemptions in Swiss law for the kind of situations you're describing.

https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/24/233_245_233/en#art_28

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#156

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

fmbb wrote: post #105

jolmg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public photography is not a crime, nor should it be. IDK about shouldn't. Public photography not being a crime comes from a time where one could still be generally expected to remain anonymous despite being photographed. Just like how you can be seen by strangers in the street while walking and still remain anonymous. Yet stalking is a crime, and facial recognition seems to be the digital equivalent. Facial recogni…

Private persons snapping a few shots here and there in public capturing someone’s likeness is a drop in the bucket compared to all the automated surveillance photography and video out there. Let’s address that first so we are not straining out gnats but swallowing camels.

[deleted]

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#157

Post by ninalanyon » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 3:49 PM UTC

anal_reactor wrote: post #144

sschueller wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Switzerland, you have the right to privacy including in public. This means you can not make a photo/video of a person in public without their consent if they are the focus of your image. They also have the right to revoke consent anytime in the future. The only exception is at large gatherings like for example the Street Parade where the expectation of privacy can not be expected especially since the event is tele…

Eh. These laws exist in DACH area but the result is that when someone's committing a crime, you can't film them in order to create evidence, because that would breach their right to privacy. Someone stole shit from your front porch? Someone broke into your car? Someone pulled an insurance scam on you? Well, tough luck, it's illegal for you to provide film evidence. In more sensible countries the law says that it's le…

> Someone pulled an insurance scam on you? Well, tough luck, it's illegal for you to provide film evidence.

Are you looking at this from a US perspective where illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in court (fruit of the poisoned tree)? At least in Norway this is not the case, nor is it absolutely forbidden in the UK.

See, for instance, https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/fruit-fr...

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#158

Post by antonvs » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 4:41 PM UTC

bongodongobob wrote: post #110

antonvs wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re pointing out that we’re having this discussion on a site funded by a company that also funds a company that makes software to monitor factory worker performance, because it might make some money. Quasi-fascist leanings here shouldn’t be too much of a surprise.

Yeah, I mean obviously discourse is worthless unless it's GNU self hosted in an air gapped Faraday cage fed by sneakernet.

No, the point is those tendencies shouldn't be a surprise. But I'm starting to see where the real issue lies here.

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#159

Post by piva00 » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 6:09 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #149

piva00 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't, you wouldn't be able to photograph candid moments in public of your own family/group of friends if anyone's else face showed up in the picture, that's not a world I want to live in. It would also completely kill any form of street photography, even if you don't appreciate the art it would kill documenting times and places for posterity, for what benefit exactly?

Strengthening of your right to privacy against an entirely new paradigm of state and individual surveillance. It is a new world. I actually don't find it hard to sacrifice the recreational photography of strangers, but I do have a hard time balancing it with the need to photograph crime and government entities overstepping their authorities. I don't have a good answer for it all.

> I actually don't find it hard to sacrifice the recreational photography of strangers, but I do have a hard time balancing it with the need to photograph crime and government entities overstepping their authorities.

We would not only lose an art form but also the recording of the past, a candid photo of today has a lot more value in 50-100 years, rather absurd to lose this. It wouldn't even guarantee anything, bad actors would continue to do so covertly.

I find it pretty hard to sacrifice it, it's a freedom, making society at large less free to fight tyranny doesn't seem the way to solve anything, e.g.: EU Chat Control bullshit.

I don't have a good answer either but I lean on the camp of seeking solutions that are smarter than a sledgehammer.

Re: Massive Attack turns concert into facial recognition surveillance experiment

#160

Post by const_cast » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 7:54 PM UTC

piva00 wrote: post #116

jolmg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public photography is not a crime, nor should it be. IDK about shouldn't. Public photography not being a crime comes from a time where one could still be generally expected to remain anonymous despite being photographed. Just like how you can be seen by strangers in the street while walking and still remain anonymous. Yet stalking is a crime, and facial recognition seems to be the digital equivalent. Facial recogni…

It shouldn't, you wouldn't be able to photograph candid moments in public of your own family/group of friends if anyone's else face showed up in the picture, that's not a world I want to live in. It would also completely kill any form of street photography, even if you don't appreciate the art it would kill documenting times and places for posterity, for what benefit exactly?

This is programmer thinking, laws aren't algorithms.

The laws regardless this almost always make a distinction between intentionally surveillance and by chance background noise. Taking a picture of the street with people on it doesn't matter, recording the street 24/7 probably does, and purposefully singling someone out and photographing them definitely matters.

We already kind of have this. Think about it - stalking is illegal, but you've walked behind people right? You've glanced into someone's window before, right? You've taken a picture of a random person before, right?

So why aren't you in jail? Because laws aren't algorithms