Skip to content

‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops

Technology
214 99 2.1k
  • Please post the entirety of your online history. Surely there's no reason to hide.

    ...we're talking about hiding though

    Whether what you've done is entirely legal (or not) authoritariaism doesn't care.

    That goes both ways. That was my entire point.

    Who is in power again? The protesters are not making anyone disappear. Goodbye, troll.

  • Protestors or vandals and rioters?

    Yes.

    The former: to prevent government persecution and unfair retaliation.

    Why would they face persecution if they did nothing wrong!?

    How is your flavor pallet after sucking so much leather?

  • The point I'm trying to make is that everyone is wearing a mask for the same reason: to prevent retribution for their beliefs and according actions.

    They don't "know what they're doing is wrong", they just know that other people think that and will target them for it, which is the exact same reason protestors wear them.

    Your point is moot.

    For the people by the people or did you forget?

  • Also what about cops outside of the LAPD? This app only useful if it works on any cop.

    It is definitely not going to work on any cop. There are still cops who are working in countries where privacy laws exist.

  • I'm a librarian. I also work with members of the public, some of whom do not share my understanding of reality. My information is still public because I'm a government employee.

    Why the fuck would it need to be public? Especially in a country like the US where most of the annual reports of companies aren't public where people can actually benefit form.

    If you work for a company that company is responsible for the actions you take while working there. If you discriminate somebody in the library it is your library which is being targeted and then they will target you as well.

    At least that's now it generally works in the world, variations can exist depending on the area you live in.

  • Why would a librarians info need to be public? Does America require a public database of public servants?

    No they don't need to know who is working where. The public just needs to know where the money goes through. Annual reports of a lot more companies should be public.

  • It's a public servants thing--the public wants to know what they're paying for, so public servant salary records are public.

    Various websites compile this information from the various state and federal sources. It's wicked easy to find information on, say, every public servant with the title "librarian" in Fake County, Kentucky.

    Knowing their full name, you can look up their home ownership records in the county real estate or tax databases and ta-da, you know where they live. You also know if they work part-time at a different public library, so that's convenient for stalking purposes.

    Edit: not that I think it's a good thing. It's creepy as all get out. If we have to post salaries, I'd much rather they be anonymized like on Glassdoor.

    Edit2: and these lists do get used for political ickiness. There's an anti-union group that mails out helpful tips on how to save money--leave your union. They even provide a "I want to leave" postcard addressed to your union leadership for you to sign, pre-filled-in with your info.

    You don't need to know who works at the library, you need to know the financial statements of the company together with the base on which the salary is based on.

    It always baffles me when I try to find annual reports of American companies and they are just not made public unless they are public. But for things like non-profits, or government owned companies it is especially important as well. Sadly it is easy to get a non-profit in the US, so people abuse that. Becoming a CPA in the US is also very easy compared to at least NL.

    Privacy doesn't exist in the US unless we are talking about companies.

  • What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. But this shit will get sued so quick because “safety”

    Privacy is the word you are looking for.

    O wait ... the US doesn't know privacy for everything but companies

  • I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.

    But a question surround this, what if the US wasn't corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn't this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?

    In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).

    At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn't the people be able to do that?

    Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US

  • Commercial versions of these systems exist in the UK.

    The Gdpr makes these things harder to do, but not automatically illegal.

    Surely you have noticed that there is a lot of criticism of the GDPR and EU tech regulation.

    Yeah, and some of it is even true.

    As I wrote, the UK does not have the AI Act. This is also a case where EU GDPR and UK GDPR diverge.

    Finally, I never claimed it's automatically illegal.

    Yeah, and some of it is even true.

    Most of it, in my experience. I do not know why this community is so committed to disinformation.

  • I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces, it’s quite easy for you to Google this but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.

    Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.

    I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces,

    I didn't write there was one. It sounds like you "know" that photography is "protected" because you need that to be true.

    it’s quite easy for you to Google this

    Indeed. For anyone who's not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.

    but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.

    That's true. You can't because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.

    Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.

    What do you mean "again"?

    The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.

  • I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.

    But a question surround this, what if the US wasn't corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn't this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?

    In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).

    At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn't the people be able to do that?

    Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US

    The answer is that I don't think it matters because the US or any other society will never reach some utopic standard of privacy. So long as we live in a world where facial recognition is possible - it is better to regulate it strongly than attempt to prohibit it.

    In a modern globalized world the old privacy is dead, no matter how you look at it. Going forward something new will need to be built out of the ashes, be it a new privacy or something better/worse.

  • Am I the only one who thinks police should be held to a higher standard of accountabilities?

    The police yes, but he is speaking about a convicted criminal that want revenge when he get out of jail. Or even without getting out of jail, sending some of his accomplices to do the job.

  • What are they so afraid of? They're public servants, so they should be publicly identifiable. If they don't like it, get off the government payroll

    What are they so afraid of?

    The drug lord or mafia boss that sends killers to eliminate their families ?

  • This reeks of a honey pot scheme for some reason.

    You're doing nothing to fix it.

  • I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces,

    I didn't write there was one. It sounds like you "know" that photography is "protected" because you need that to be true.

    it’s quite easy for you to Google this

    Indeed. For anyone who's not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.

    but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.

    That's true. You can't because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.

    Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.

    What do you mean "again"?

    The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.

    You seem to want to me prove that a law doesn’t exist where it’s much easier for you to show me a law doesn’t exist.

    You can read this House of Commons debate on the topic Here

    Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place

    Or you can read This debate from the House of Lords.

    The taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rules or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place … and the Home Secretary … expressed our desire to ensure that people are free and able to take photographs in public places

    Seems pretty simple really. Although I will concede that processing or personal identifiable information, even if done ok device, would likely be a breach of GDPR.

    As for your assertion that I habitually break GDPR, yeah sure in this hypothetical scenario, but thankfully as a software engineer we have a team that handles this for us.

  • I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.

    But a question surround this, what if the US wasn't corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn't this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?

    In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).

    At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn't the people be able to do that?

    Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US

    The plebs and the regime never have the same rights, in any country
    FR is definitely used in GDPR countries.
    For police it's so- called 'tightly regulated'.
    For private use forbidden but 'there are exeptions'

  • The answer is that I don't think it matters because the US or any other society will never reach some utopic standard of privacy. So long as we live in a world where facial recognition is possible - it is better to regulate it strongly than attempt to prohibit it.

    In a modern globalized world the old privacy is dead, no matter how you look at it. Going forward something new will need to be built out of the ashes, be it a new privacy or something better/worse.

    Well yeah it is better to regulate it but that should include that you aren't allowed to use the data from it to track people etc.
    We already have protrait right in the GDPR so it is already hard to use.

  • The plebs and the regime never have the same rights, in any country
    FR is definitely used in GDPR countries.
    For police it's so- called 'tightly regulated'.
    For private use forbidden but 'there are exeptions'

    Based on trias politcal yes you do.

    If your country is corrupt then yes the people with money have power. Not every country is corrupt enough for people to really buy into it.

  • I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.

    But a question surround this, what if the US wasn't corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn't this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?

    In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).

    At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn't the people be able to do that?

    Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US

    the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn’t be able to exist for most cases)

    A core tenet of the law is the right to trial by a jury of your peers.

    Jury trials have a very similar flaw to democracy.

    Think of an average person you know, how stupid are they? Now, realize that half the people out there are stupider than that.

    An average randomly selected jury is going to be composed of 50% below average intelligence people.

  • Game Dev Fundamentals - Trevors-Tutorials.com #1

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 11 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    129 Aufrufe
    jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.worldJ
    No, re-read. It is about technology.
  • We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

    Technology technology
    331
    1
    1k Stimmen
    331 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    dsilverz@friendica.worldD
    @technocrit While I agree with the main point that "AI/LLMs has/have no agency", I must be the boring, ackchyually person who points out and remembers some nerdy things.tl;dr: indeed, AIs and LLMs aren't intelligent... we aren't so intelligent as we think we are, either, because we hold no "exclusivity" of intelligence among biosphere (corvids, dolphins, etc) and because there's no such thing as non-deterministic "intelligence". We're just biologically compelled to think that we can think and we're the only ones to think, and this is just anthropocentric and naive from us (yeah, me included).If you have the patience to read a long and quite verbose text, it's below. If you don't, well, no problems, just stick to my tl;dr above.-----First and foremost, everything is ruled by physics. Deep down, everything is just energy and matter (the former of which, to quote the famous Einstein equation e = mc, is energy as well), and this inexorably includes living beings.Bodies, flesh, brains, nerves and other biological parts, they're not so different from a computer case, CPUs/NPUs/TPUs, cables and other computer parts: to quote Sagan, it's all "made of star stuff", it's all a bunch of quarks and other elementary particles clumped together and forming subatomic particles forming atoms forming molecules forming everything we know, including our very selves...Everything is compelled to follow the same laws of physics, everything is subjected to the same cosmic principles, everything is subjected to the same fundamental forces, everything is subjected to the same entropy, everything decays and ends (and this comment is just a reminder, a cosmic-wide Memento mori).It's bleak, but this is the cosmic reality: cosmos is simply indifferent to all existence, and we're essentially no different than our fancy "tools", be it the wheel, the hammer, the steam engine, the Voyager twins or the modern dystopian electronic devices crafted to follow pieces of logical instructions, some of which were labelled by developers as "Markov Chains" and "Artificial Neural Networks".Then, there's also the human non-exclusivity among the biosphere: corvids (especially Corvus moneduloides, the New Caleidonian crow) are scientifically known for their intelligence, so are dolphins, chimpanzees and many other eukaryotas. Humans love to think we're exclusive in that regard, but we're not, we're just fooling ourselves!IMHO, every time we try to argue "there's no intelligence beyond humans", it's highly anthropocentric and quite biased/bigoted against the countless other species that currently exist on Earth (and possibly beyond this Pale Blue Dot as well). We humans often forgot how we are species ourselves (taxonomically classified as "Homo sapiens"). We tend to carry on our biological existences as if we were some kind of "deities" or "extraterrestrials" among a "primitive, wild life".Furthermore, I can point out the myriad of philosophical points, such as the philosophical point raised by the mere mention of "senses" ("Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, ..." "my senses deceive me" is the starting point for Cartesian (René Descartes) doubt. While Descarte's conclusion, "Cogito ergo sum", is highly anthropocentric, it's often ignored or forgotten by those who hold anthropocentric views on intelligence, as people often ground the seemingly "exclusive" nature of human intelligence on the ability to "feel".Many other philosophical musings deserve to be mentioned as well: lack of free will (stemming from the very fact that we were unable to choose our own births), the nature of "evil" (both the Hobbesian line regarding "human evilness" and the Epicurean paradox regarding "metaphysical evilness"), the social compliance (I must point out to documentaries from Derren Brown on this subject), the inevitability of Death, among other deep topics.All deep principles and ideas converging, IMHO, into the same bleak reality, one where we (supposedly "soul-bearing beings") are no different from a "souless" machine, because we're both part of an emergent phenomena (Ordo ab chao, the (apparent) order out of chaos) that has been taking place for Æons (billions of years and beyond, since the dawn of time itself).Yeah, I know how unpopular this worldview can be and how downvoted this comment will probably get. Still I don't care: someone who gazed into the abyss must remember how the abyss always gazes us, even those of us who didn't dare to gaze into the abyss yet.I'm someone compelled by my very neurodivergent nature to remember how we humans are just another fleeting arrangement of interconnected subsystems known as "biological organism", one of which "managed" to throw stuff beyond the atmosphere (spacecrafts) while still unable to understand ourselves. We're biologically programmed, just like the other living beings, to "fear Death", even though our very cells are programmed to terminate on a regular basis (apoptosis) and we're are subjected to the inexorable chronological falling towards "cosmic chaos" (entropy, as defined, "as time passes, the degree of disorder increases irreversibly").
  • 642 Stimmen
    170 Beiträge
    797 Aufrufe
    F
    I actually wouldn't enjoy talking to most people at work, because that would involve going there instead of doing it from the computer where I already am
  • iFixit says the Switch 2 is even harder to repair than the original

    Technology technology
    126
    1
    698 Stimmen
    126 Beiträge
    614 Aufrufe
    Y
    My understanding is that if they've lasted at least a month and haven't died on you, you probably got a "good" batch and what you have now will be what it stays as for the most part, but a fair number of gulikits just sort of crap out at the 1-2 mo mark. So heads up on that.
  • 79 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    57 Aufrufe
    B
    Didn’t he pay a hitman to murder a couple of people?
  • Covert Web-to-App Tracking via Localhost on Android

    Technology technology
    2
    43 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    M
    Thanks for sharing this, it is an interesting read (though an additional comment about what this about would have been helpful). I want to say I am glad I do not use either of these services but Yandex implementation seems so bad that it does not matter, as any app could receive their data
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    40 Aufrufe
    L
    I think the principle could be applied to scan outside of the machine. It is making requests to 127.0.0.1:{port} - effectively using your computer as a "server" in a sort of reverse-SSRF attack. There's no reason it can't make requests to 10.10.10.1:{port} as well. Of course you'd need to guess the netmask of the network address range first, but this isn't that hard. In fact, if you consider that at least as far as the desktop site goes, most people will be browsing the web behind a standard consumer router left on defaults where it will be the first device in the DHCP range (e.g. 192.168.0.1 or 10.10.10.1), which tends to have a web UI on the LAN interface (port 8080, 80 or 443), then you'd only realistically need to scan a few addresses to determine the network address range. If you want to keep noise even lower, using just 192.168.0.1:80 and 192.168.1.1:80 I'd wager would cover 99% of consumer routers. From there you could assume that it's a /24 netmask and scan IPs to your heart's content. You could do top 10 most common ports type scans and go in-depth on anything you get a result on. I haven't tested this, but I don't see why it wouldn't work, when I was testing 13ft.io - a self-hosted 12ft.io paywall remover, an SSRF flaw like this absolutely let you perform any network request to any LAN address in range.