It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Private Face Recognition Security Makes the Scene in New York

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:28 PM
Patrons at several Long Island nightclubs will be greeted by another layer of security at the door - a digital camera and face-recognition software. Everybody gets their picture taken at the door, and the profile of troublemakers is retained and shared amongst the proprietors of businesses in the area. This is designed to prevent repeat incidents with unruly customers. The system promises to delete the information of cooperative club-goers; only the people caught starting trouble have their information stored and shared.
New York City nightclubs might employ the world's first "biometric bouncer" - which uses facial-recognition technology to finger bad guys - after the high-tech security system debuts next month at five Long Island hot spots.

BioBouncer begins work on Memorial Day at the Bridgeview Yacht Club, Paddy McGee's, Coyote Grill and other South Shore watering holes. Sources say several Manhattan clubs recently raided for drugs are also eyeing the system.

The device - a fixed metal pole with a digital video camera inside - automatically captures facial images of patrons at the doorway, while human bouncers check IDs and collect cover charges.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I suspect this is only a whisper of things to come. Private security databases, backed up by private muscle on one side, and law enforcement databases on the other. Federal buildings are obvious candidates, as well as schools, airports, hospitals, and on, and on, and on, until you can't turn around in an urban area without being photographed and compared to known and suspected criminals from here to Tibet. These are the iniitial rumblings, small databases, isolated systems. Their nature will bring them together, for profit, or for principle, it doesnt matter. The end result will be the same.

Our government is so out-source happy, I'm surprised we don't have Blackwater walking every beat in the nation, monitoring video feeds, and flying assault hovercraft down Madison Ave. Nothing against the mercenaries, you find a job, you work it, support your family, but do your best not to become a villain.

Point being, when you have a private company with private interests responsible for the public needs, there is a serious conflict of interest. It can't be mitigated, except by the influence of honorable men in high office, and those are scarce, to say the least. Or, another way of putting it would be: if you're not already in the security business, now's a good time to transition. Business is booming in both the private and public sectors.

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:58 PM
Ohmyohmy. Good find.

Actually - Vegas and other big casino ops probably had this technology for a long time. Now it's hitting the street.

Privacy is the last luxury.

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:05 PM
Now THAT is scary...
That has such abuse potential, that even if regulated will be misused.

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:10 PM
The perfect remedy--stop patronizing bars in that district. Bars are a lousy place to meet people, anyway. The booze is way overpriced, the noise levels can cause permanent hearing damage and the people are cognitively impaired. Technology like this could make church socials all the rage again.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:33 PM
Funnily enough Grady, I agree with you. I don't frequent clubs or bars, so personally I have nothing to worry about. Indeed, the surveillance creep is only really observable in urban areas, densely populated places I wouldn't want to live anyway.

There is no consent issue, if you go to those bars you consent to have your image recorded and possibly stored, possibly used against you in a courtroom, possible traded, who knows what else?

Ideally, this idea would turn people off to such a degree that merchants wouldn't be able to afford the loss of business. Unfortunately, there seems to be no real opposition to this system, or any of the other systems like it already in use, in places like Vegas and Atlantic City (as Soficrow mentioned).

People are content with this new, heightened level of surveillance. They feel it makes them safer, and in reality, in the venues first to adopt it, it probably does a great deal to protect people and their property. My worry is not where we find ourselves today, but where we will likely be in ten or twenty years as a result.

There's no logical reason (perhaps an ethical concern) why disparate databases should not be combined in the spirit of cooperation and efficiency, but of course the slippery slope is clear. Overtones of 1984, and so on...

There is one obvious problem with using cameras in only certain areas, it means only a certain kind (or color, as the case may be) of criminal will be caught. I just left Chicago not too long ago, as they were putting up cameras in predominantly black neighborhoods. The reasoning is sound, in that the areas were high crime, and required additional monitoring. But of course, if you only have cameras in black neighborhoods, the cameras are only going to capture black criminals. There's a serious issue there, but I doubt the point needs to be belabored.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:45 PM

This is yet more shades of Orwell's 1984.

What next, the "Thought Police"?

new topics

top topics

log in