Big Brother Is Watching You: Chinese ‘Gait Recognition’ Tech IDs People By How They Walk

[Epic + 390]

11 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Oh, my friend, the time is near....

It's a short 05:19 video, and it's worth watching:

China: "the world's biggest camera surveillance network" - BBC News

"The idea is not only to prevent criminal behavior, but to predict it."

Now where have I heard that idea before...

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, Danial Gable said:

 

  And im curious what people are trying to hide from. Generally when i go out, im either going to do something super peaceful and fun, or else just going out to buy useless goods. Like what are people trying to hide from, you dont want to be identified buying cookies from Walmart.  

OK, so in Germany you have these teenage girls that insist on sunbathing in the nude in the public parks.  Hey, if they want to do that, then who is the govt to go "recording them"?  And no, those girls don't want to be recorded, they simply demand the right to go nude in the park.  So then I ask you:  on what basis does some bureaucrat decide to make a permanent image of the nude girls?  Because he thinks it is a good idea?  Who is he to make that decision?  He is a bureaucrat, by definition someone lethargic, phlegmatic, and dull.  I don't see how you get from "being identified" to this insipidly dull fellow deciding he is going to point his remote camera on your body and record you.  That offends me.  The public has a certain right to anonymity even when in public spaces. 

9 hours ago, Danial Gable said:

technically you are not being watched, but only recorded, and there for if you decide to rob a bank at some point, well then the data can be used. Just remember everyone, you are all irrelevant to the surveillance system until you cause violence, or harm, or private property destruction- this is when the system is utilized. 

Nope.  The govt is not interested in crime - either detection or prevention.  Govts only pay lip service to that.  The govt is interested in suppressing dissent, and especially any expression of opposition to whomever is or has seized political control.  So your fancy camera and recording system will be used to identify, and arrest and sequester (in places like Guantanamo, where you are helpless to ask for redress from the courts) anybody and everybody who crosses the govt bureaucrats.  Whether it is MbS ordering a hit on some expat or Putin ordering a hit on some ex-KGB agent or Trump ordering a hit on his own Attorney General, the purpose of surveillance is to dispose of those who oppose the government and its bureaucrats.  That is why those cameras are developed.  And that is why nobody in China says one peep about the clique of communists that run the place.  Passivity is created by fear, and fear is institutionalized by surveillance (and the ability to murder dissidents). 

Now, people, do try to let that sink in.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/9/2018 at 12:11 AM, Epic said:

^Good tips.  You might be thinking that Jan is half-sarcastically saying these things, especially about the FAA, but I've actually seen that one work in an airport (no joke).  

^Thanks Dan!  I've been busy with work lately, and so I've missed out on a lot of good discussions!

...

@Danial Gable

So, luckily, I've am actually privy to some info concerning the topics in this post, and I hope that I can help to clarify somethings on this thread. 

So, Danial Gable is right about this, and he is wrong...depending on the definitions we are using.  So, lets start with definitions. 

How one defines 'privacy' is important, because there are many types of privacy, and in order to ensure justice, some types of privacy must be violated, and some types must not be violated.  So first, the type of privacy that cannot be violated under any circumstance is privacy that is needed in order to protect something of value.  So, for instance, I have a right to keep my bank account password private.  Such information should never become public because if it would become public, then all of my money would soon be sent to an off-shore Swiss account belonging to someone else (which would cause me much harm!).  Also, there is certain information that must be kept private because that information fosters relationships.  In other words, when one can entrust a close group of people with certain personal information, that sharing of personal information helps to foster relationships between those people, bringing them closer together.  Making such info public would thus disrupt that beneficial effect of bringing those people into stronger and healthier relationships.  The most obvious example of such private information would be that shared between a man and his wife.

So, to sum up the first type of privacy: there is information that must be kept private because releasing such information into the public would result in harm to someone.  

Secondly, the opposite is also true: there is information that must NOT be kept private because keeping it private could end up hurting someone.  For instance, withholding knowledge about STDs with potential intimate partners could result in serious harm to those partners.  Or also, in Danial's case, if you are a rapist and you successfully keep your identity private, then the victim loses out on seeing justice served.  Or another way of thinking of this is to imagine that every human interaction functions like a written contract.  Withholding material information during the writing of a contract could cause the contract to become void since it unfairly prevents people from free-willed decision-making, and when failure to disclose material info results in harm to one party, it can lead to punitive damages in court (and possibly jail time).  Moreover, there is no real difference between a written contractual situation and the same situation with an unwritten contract (proving the unwritten contract is harder to do in court, but both are equally upheld in court).  If one fails to disclose material information by keeping it private, then the other party may become unjustly harmed.  So, in order to protect both parties during any human interaction, all material information ought to be disclosed when such information exists. 

When Danial mentions the benefits of releasing private data, he is here speaking about this second type of information.   Namely (and as silly as this may sound), when it comes to criminal actions, the private data of which Danial is speaking is it is simply the name and address of the criminal.  For instance, how many rapists leave a business card with their victim?  None.  Why?  Because the criminal is attempting to keep information (their name and address) private so that they can avoid being brought to justice.  Avoiding being brought to justice leads to additional harm for the victim (and to future victims since the criminal is not jailed); thus, according to the rules provided above (that material information must be disclosed if that info would protect people), the rapist ought to disclose his identity to the victim.  A surveillance system could ensure such disclosure occurs.  Moreover, knowing that such information is guaranteed to be disclosed to the victim by the surveillance system, the system would act to prevent any sane person from performing that illegal act in the first place, thereby protecting the victim from even becoming a victim.  Hence: Danial is right.

So, to sum up: in order to protect people, some info must be kept private, and some must be disclosed.  In this sense, when Danial says that everything must be made public, he is wrong, because there is some info that must be kept private in order to protect people.  However, Danial is actually right if we are talking only about that second type of info, since failing to disclose such information results in harm to people. 

So, the point Danial is making is that technology can be used to ensure that victims (and more importantly: law enforcement officers) will always be provided the name and address of every criminal.  Moreover, when any act is in question as to whether or not such an act constitutes a crime, that act will be recorded and forwarded to a grand jury so that there will be no question.  

Thus, crime ends, thanks to technology (well, cold-blooded crimes will end).  

But now for the real trick.  Once this surveillance system has collected name and addresses of all parties, as well as video/audio recording of the entire event, how do you know if this particular information should be kept privatized or disclosed?  Remember, only some info is supposed to be disclosed by the system...not all info!  Moreover, some info is supposed to be protected by the system so that it cannot be disclosed.  So how do we determine what is to be safely disclosed and what is to be safely protected?  Should we entrust that decision to the government?  Obviously not, because governments can (and often do) become corrupted.  In fact, there is no reason to believe that even a democratic Republic cannot become corrupted, and once corrupted, how does one know that it will not use this system to cause harm rather than to protect? 

So, should we instead entrust to social media conglomerates that decision to disclose/protect that info?  Again, they will decide based upon what generates the most revenue, not what is just and good.  Moreover, even if those corporations are regulated by governments, those government which do the regulating can still be corrupted (plus regulations can fail even if the governments are not corrupted).  ...and before we know it, some guy in Nigeria will have your bank account password and your wife will become a star on pornhub.  

So, since these surveillance systems can be used to do so much harm, should we simply eliminate them altogether?  

Of course not. 

Danial is absolutely correct in the sense that this technology can create safety and peace wherever they are implemented.  Fighting against this tech is like declaring war on peace (think about that for a minute).  Surveillance technology does work to create justice, fairness and peace, and it has worked to create these things for a long time.  After all, if audio/video surveillance does not work, then why are police officers required to wear body mics and body cams?  Who does the body cam protect?  Think about it...it protect both parties!  The police officer is protected against false accusations from the person he is interacting with, and that same person is protected against false accusations from the police officer.  You see, surveillance prevents falsehood, no matter who is creating that falsehood!  It keeps people honest...all of them.  Do you really think those surveillance cameras at the banks are there to stop bank robbers?  Actually, they are there primarily to stop the clerks from theft.  Sane people don't commit crimes if they know they will get caught, but if a teller knows a few thousand dollars will go unnoticed...well.... 

So, if a proper surveillance system is put in place, then all cold-blooded crimes will end.  In this sense, at least, Danial is right, except for one small detail: Danial is willing to put all of the power of that system into the hands of a government (which can be corrupted).  Although such a surveillance system (in the hands of an non-corrupted government) would stop citizens from harming other citizens, if that government was to become corrupted (or anyone working in the government was to become corrupted), then rather than protecting the citizens from each other, it would actually place those citizens at the mercy of their corrupted government and its officials, who could now do anything they so pleased, including rigging elections so they don't lose power, running sex trafficking rings, drug cartels, stock manipulations, Epstein Temples...you name it.  In other words, everyone under surveillance becomes a slave to those who control the surveillance system.  ...bad news,which is why Danial is not only right, he is wrong!  He is right that the technology can save us, but if it is put into the hands of corruptible people, he is wrong because it won't be used to save us...it will be used to enslave us.  (three little letters can make a BIG difference)

So, Danial is right because the technology he espouses is good, but he is wrong because he is willing to trust the control of that tech to corruptible things, such as governments and corporations.  The answer to this dilemma is actually quite simple: you put the surveillance system into the hands of something that can be trusted.  If the surveillance systems was controlled by an artificial intelligence retrieval system that was, in turn, protected by distributed ledger technology acting as a gatekeeper, then we would not need to trust corruptible people for the surveillance system to work properly.  As a result, we could trust math to ensure that the surveillance system is used only to protect us and never to harm anyone ever.   ...and last time I checked, 2 + 2 has always and will always equal 4 (or am I wrong to trust math?)  

To put it simply: if we incorporate the proper safeguards into the surveillance system, then Danial is correct: the surveillance system could be used to end cold-blooded crimes without imposing any risk to our personal freedoms. 

End crime.

It is that simple.   

You can rest assured, however, there are people working right now to create this system without such safeguards.  And they are doing this with the intent of placing that system into the hands of a government that is most likely already corrupted.  Unless we first create that same system WITH the safeguards built into it, then their corrupted system will be implemented instead, and then it will be used to enslave us.  Those of you who say, "No way will I allow such a surveillance system to be used on me," are like the people who once said, "No way am I going to allow Mr. Ford's little machine to put my 'Horse and Buggy Shop' out of business."  I'm sorry, but it's too late.  You are going to be surveilled one way or the other, and Jan's techniques will only get you so far as that surveillance system is continually updated to prevent such tactics.  So, you better make yourself aware of how these safeguards operate and how they can be implemented so you can work to ensure the right system is put in place where you live.  

Because you don't want to live where the wrong system gets put in place.

 

 

What we need are more eyes on the government and criminals. Fewer eyes on the average citizen. What we now have is a system where the highest levels of our "intelligence" and "justice" systems have already been corrupted by the prior administration and others who allowed mass surveillance of the general public. They also were incompetent in protecting some of America's most vital secrets. Millions of ordinary Americans, veterans, and government workers also lost private information. I was one of those. 

Citizens are denied access to far more governmental information than they should be. Judicial Watch and many other organizations have to sue the federal bureaucracies frequently and often to no avail. The "Deep State" maintains too much control through secretive methods, destroying records, spying on Congress etc. Local police forces work far too closely with the federal government, thus losing their independence and endangering civil liberties and privacy. Our biggest concern should be with governmental openness and preserving our constitutional rights at every level of government. 

Privacy, Big Brother, and Spying https://docs.google.com/document/d/180xMs2bPaqtbPGo0HHRzhO1U6lsED1XEvO9R_tX3BqE/edit

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

What we need are more eyes on the government and criminals. Fewer eyes on the average citizen. What we now have is a system where the highest levels of our "intelligence" and "justice" systems have already been corrupted by the prior administration and others who allowed mass surveillance of the general public. They also were incompetent in protecting some of America's most vital secrets. Millions of ordinary Americans, veterans, and government workers also lost private information. I was one of those. 

Citizens are denied access to far more governmental information than they should be. Judicial Watch and many other organizations have to sue the federal bureaucracies frequently and often to no avail. The "Deep State" maintains too much control through secretive methods, destroying records, spying on Congress etc. Local police forces work far too closely with the federal government, thus losing their independence and endangering civil liberties and privacy. Our biggest concern should be with governmental openness and preserving our constitutional rights at every level of government. 

Privacy, Big Brother, and Spying https://docs.google.com/document/d/180xMs2bPaqtbPGo0HHRzhO1U6lsED1XEvO9R_tX3BqE/edit

If you met this couple on the front porch of a country store in Vermont, would you give them a second glance?  Hey, they are out in plain sight enjoying a soft ice-cream cone, same as everybody else.  Do they stand out?  Would surveillance look twice?  Nope; they are hiding in plain sight.   Can you, can anybody, tell me who they are?  OK, the Harvard shirt gives it away,but other than that sloppiness, would you really have a clue?

The moral is: you hide best when you are in plain sight, under the noses of the surveillance State. Cheers.

[TXPower + 643]

On 11/6/2018 at 9:34 AM, Danial Gable said:

in actuality, its this type of technology that will allow people to flourish peacefully amongst  one another. And although this may be chinese technology, this will be used in the most violent and abhorrent places on the planet, which is along long ways from where china is. 

You mentioned you’ve lived in China.  I have not.  I wonder though, how does your theory of peaceful living for all under the watchful eye of surveillance (government) work out for anyone Beijing views negatively whether from an ethnic, political, thought or religious point?  The Chinese Government has a well established violent proclivity toward its own when one doesn’t hold to the party line.  Will broader surveillance put an end to this?  I think not.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

You mentioned you’ve lived in China.  I have not.  I wonder though, how does your theory of peaceful living for all under the watchful eye of surveillance (government) work out for anyone Beijing views negatively whether from an ethnic, political, thought or religious point?  The Chinese Government has a well established violent proclivity toward its own when one doesn’t hold to the party line.  Will broader surveillance put an end to this?  I think not.

This was a line in Danial's comments: "In china, i believe, contrary to what chinese friends of mine have told me".  That struck me as odd. 

Another thing that struck me as odd was saying that he/she (sorry, I don't know which yet) didn't really figure it out until returning to Canada and studying their history more.  I'm sure the scholars in Canada tried their best, but the best place to study Chinese culture and history might be in China.  There's another problem with history books, as such:  They ultimately hold the viewpoints of the authors, whether they be well intentioned Canadians, or commercially or politically motivated Chinese immigrants.

I lived, continuously, in China for 9 years and was married for most of that time to a Chinese (2 actually).  A large portion of what Danial saw as togetherness, to condense Danial's answer, and family and stick togetherness and we're all in this together, etc. could also be explained by the futility and even danger of fighting back against the State. 

I have also live for 1 year in India and studied the written history, but that was not enough time or information to figure out the real story there.  I could make a fair amount of assumptions by the end of the year, but many of them were probably off the mark to some extent.  I have now lived in Thailand for the last 7 years and my wife and I have a son and have been married for 14 years.  I'm just about in a good place to say I'm starting to truly understand Thais and Thailand.  We lived for 5 years in Germany, and that was an education in ways that I never thought about prior to going there.  Point is: it takes a long time to get under the surface of a country and its people.  What simmers there is not at all easy to figure out, but it comes to you after time and study.  Maybe Danial's time and study was enough given what he/she was exposed to.  Maybe not.

Surveillance in China is to control the people.  My opinion, yes.  But what government leader or lacky would tell you I'm right?  I could sit with you all evening, all day for that matter, and regale you with stories of how surveillance affected my life and the lives of those around me during my years in China.  Not one of those stories would be about how it helped any of us.  I don't know, but I feel I can safely assume, that for every feel good piece of news about how surveillance has been a blessing for the people, one can find (if you can find them) another 1,000 instances of how it was used to quell opposition to the State or to discourage people from getting out of line with the State.  And that is for every instance, reported or not, of how good surveillance is for the people.  It may be good for the people as many on here have pointed out, but that is not the primary or secondary or even the third reason they have it.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

If you met this couple on the front porch of a country store in Vermont, would you give them a second glance?  Hey, they are out in plain sight enjoying a soft ice-cream cone, same as everybody else.  Do they stand out?  Would surveillance look twice?  Nope; they are hiding in plain sight.   Can you, can anybody, tell me who they are?  OK, the Harvard shirt gives it away,but other than that sloppiness, would you really have a clue?

The moral is: you hide best when you are in plain sight, under the noses of the surveillance State. Cheers.

So, Jan, is that you?  The one that looks like a man, I mean?  The Harvard shirt comment threw me and I thought you might be the lady in disguise, but then I remembered you said you went to Yale.  Or are you the long haired lady in the background?  Just trying to put a face to a name....

I could just send the photo to my old Chinese PSB handlers (Public Security Bureau) and ask them to run it through their system!  LOL!

Edited November 11, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

So, Jan, is that you?  The one that looks like a man, I mean?  The Harvard shirt comment threw me and I thought you might be the lady in disguise, but then I remembered you said you went to Yale.  Or are you the long haired lady in the background?  Just trying to put a face to a name....

See?  This couple is a "power couple," with vast amounts of money and influence, a "mover and shaker," adulated by millions. 

And there they are, just out enjoying the afternoon at some country store, having ice cream - and nobody knows who they are.  Even a highly aware and astute fellow like you!   

Hiding in plain sight and not even making an effort to do so. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 11/11/2018 at 11:27 AM, Dan Warnick said:

So, Jan, is that you?  The one that looks like a man, I mean?  The Harvard shirt comment threw me and I thought you might be the lady in disguise, but then I remembered you said you went to Yale.  Or are you the long haired lady in the background?  Just trying to put a face to a name....

And P.S.:  There is no possible way that could be me, I am vastly better looking than this fellow. 

That said, the woman in the background is not so shabby, either!  I'll bet she gets a lot more attention than the power-couple up front!

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

See?  This couple is a "power couple," with vast amounts of money and influence, a "mover and shaker," adulated by millions. 

And there they are, just out enjoying the afternoon at some country store, having ice cream - and nobody knows who they are.  Even a highly aware and astute fellow like you!   

Hiding in plain sight and not even making an effort to do so. 

Who are they?  I'm not AI, I am Dan and I'm afraid I don't know everyone.  🙃

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Who are they?  I'm not AI, I am Dan and I'm afraid I don't know everyone.  🙃

This is a capitalist forum, so nothing is free!  Only socialists do "free."  Costs you an up-vote before I spill the beans.  (Since you're Canadian, it costs you TWO up-votes!  Hah!)

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

This is a capitalist forum, so nothing is free!  Only socialists do "free."  Costs you an up-vote before I spill the beans.  (Since you're Canadian, it costs you TWO up-votes!  Hah!)

I'm American.  Your blunder makes us even.  I'll give you an up-vote, though, since I just forgot to anyway.  Do tell.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I'm American.  Your blunder makes us even.  I'll give you an up-vote, though, since I just forgot to anyway.  Do tell.

Fair enough!  That is your next President of the United States, and his First Lady, assuming that the Democrats continue to fail to come up with a viable candidate for the job (and I predict they will continue to fail).  That is the former Congressman, Governor of Indiana, and the current Vice President, Mike Pence, and his wife (I think her name is Martha, not totally sure), on a little holiday from D.C., staying at a vacation house on a quiet lake West of Rutland, Vermont this late summer.  The locals (and this is hard-left Vermont) were totally hospitable.  Then again, the Pence's had this contingent of secret service guys with machine guns following them around, and lots of State Police, but basically nobody much paid any mind.  And that is the nice thing about Vermont:  it is laid-back to the point of being insular.

Interestingly, Vermont has no gun laws.  Anybody can "carry."  You have to assume that at least half the people you see anywhere are carrying, either open or concealed.  It is a totally peaceful State, with the lowest crime rate in the USA.  Even though the locals were armed to the teeth, nobody would even dream of being verbally hostile to the Pence's.  Then again, nobody knew who they were, so that helps. 

Even Jared Kushner and Mr. Trump's daughter came to Vermont for a little R&R.  Nobody knew who they were, either, although that big helicopter with the name TRUMP painted on both sides kinda gave it away.  They definitely do not hide in plain sight. 

And just to be a good sport, I shall post a picture of me here in a bit, so you can go judge for yourself! 

Cheers.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

I did not know that was Mike Pence.  He does casual well!

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 11/11/2018 at 12:06 PM, Dan Warnick said:

I did not know that was Mike Pence.  He does casual well!

Then again, so do I:

 

[portrait deleted by Order of Rodent the Moderator]

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jan van Eck
Angry Moderator

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Fair enough!  That is your next President of the United States, and his First Lady, assuming that the Democrats continue to fail to come up with a viable candidate for the job (and I predict they will continue to fail).  That is the former Congressman, Governor of Indiana, and the current Vice President, Mike Pence, and his wife (I think her name is Martha, not totally sure), on a little holiday from D.C., staying at a vacation house on a quiet lake West of Rutland, Vermont this late summer.  The locals (and this is hard-left Vermont) were totally hospitable.  Then again, the Pence's had this contingent of secret service guys with machine guns following them around, and lots of State Police, but basically nobody much paid any mind.  And that is the nice thing about Vermont:  it is laid-back to the point of being insular.

Interestingly, Vermont has no gun laws.  Anybody can "carry."  You have to assume that at least half the people you see anywhere are carrying, either open or concealed.  It is a totally peaceful State, with the lowest crime rate in the USA.  Even though the locals were armed to the teeth, nobody would even dream of being verbally hostile to the Pence's.  Then again, nobody knew who they were, so that helps. 

Even Jared Kushner and Mr. Trump's daughter came to Vermont for a little R&R.  Nobody knew who they were, either, although that big helicopter with the name TRUMP painted on both sides kinda gave it away.  They definitely do not hide in plain sight. 

And just to be a good sport, I shall post a picture of me here in a bit, so you can go judge for yourself! 

Cheers.

It took me about ten seconds to recognize V.P. Mike Pence. I assumed he was with his wife. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

It took me about ten seconds to recognize V.P. Mike Pence. I assumed he was with his wife. 

Bragger.     He looks so utterly uptight when he's suited up and fulfilling his role in government (what I see on the news these days, never knew anything about him before Trump).

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

18 hours ago, ronwagn said:

It took me about ten seconds to recognize V.P. Mike Pence. I assumed he was with his wife. 

Congratulations!  You pass the Chinese surveillance keeper test!

 

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Rodent + 1,424]

@Jan van Eck

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Actually, Rodi, she was a bit of a free spirit in her life.  After 40 years, I should know. She thought it was rather elegant and classically stylish, in a Michelangelo sort of way.  Honeymoon shot.  All rather painful today, to be sure. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jan van Eck