The Guardian's Julia Powles writes about how with the advent of artificial intelligence and so-called "machine learning," this society is increasingly a world where decisions are more shaped by calculations and data analytics rather than traditional human judgement:
"Starting this summer, the [Japanese] government will test a system in which foreign tourists will be able to verify their identities and buy things at stores using only their fingerprints.
The government hopes to increase the number of foreign tourists by using the system to prevent crime and relieve users from the necessity of carrying cash or credit cards. It aims to realize the system by the 2020 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games.
The experiment will have inbound tourists register their fingerprints and other data, such as credit card information, at airports and elsewhere.
Tourists would then be able to conduct tax exemption procedures and make purchases after verifying their identities by placing two fingers on special devices installed at stores."
I talked about a future like this at the QSymposium this year and many of the international relations scholars looked at me like I was from another planet! It took about 48 hours for people to realise that what I was saying was not just the stuff of science fiction, though I admit to watching every episode of Dr Who by the time I was 10 years old. I graduated with a Masters of Transnational Crime Prevention in the Faculty of Law in 2009- this is exactly what I studied, especially with respect to the notion of "hot pursuit" and separately intelligence-led policing (although now it's a lot more fashionable to talk about evidence-based policing. See my panel chairing at this Human Rights and Policing conference. A small part of my own presentation on proactive criminalisation is here.
Is this the future we want?
Is it just me, or can't you see where we're headed with this stuff?
I'd like to think that the data being collected by this BOT was going to be used just for peace and security but that would be a pipedream!
C'mon people "startup of the year"? Do we give prizes for novelty and innovation without thinking what it all might mean in the future?
And please don't give me the rhetoric about a knife being used to butter bread or to kill someone... this ain't the same thing! This is abhorrent!
One day autonomous data collection, the next a packed mule! Anyone remember this article? But then the way these things are marketed you'd think they weren't real! Well think again... I had the great pleasure of entering Boston Dynamics in June of this year and was greeted by the monstrosities at the front door. The packed mules DO exist, they just haven't been unleashed en mass!
Thanks for the link KMA- interesting these Knightscope guys were given airtime at PII this year. Correct me if I'm wrong- but aren't these the guys PII is raising awareness against? What a smokescreen confusing mess!
Darlek: "I was made to take orders..."
Dr Who: "What does that mean?"
Darlek: "I am a solider, I was made to receive orders."
Katina: "My point exactly."
Thanks E.T. for this link- article written for the New York Times (oped) by CASS R. SUNSTEIN AUG. 20, 2014.
"What do Americans actually think about predictive shopping? To find out, I produced a nationally representative survey, conducted with about 500 respondents, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
I discovered, to my surprise, that a significant percentage of Americans already welcome predictive shopping.
The situation was presented like this: Suppose that over the years, your favorite online bookseller has compiled a great deal of information about your preferences. On the basis of a new algorithm, it thinks it knows what you will want to buy before you do. I asked, would you enroll in a program in which the seller sent you books that it knew you would purchase, and billed your credit card? (Anyone could send the book back for a refund or just opt out of the program.) Fifty-nine percent said no, but 41 percent said yes.
Second, I explored whether people would react differently if sellers signed people up without their consent. I asked, would you approve or disapprove if the seller automatically, and without your explicit consent, enrolled you in a program in which it sent you books that it knew you would purchase, and billed your credit card?
Twenty-nine percent said they would approve, and 71 percent said they would disapprove. People do care about explicit consent. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that nearly a third of Americans would approve of such a program.
Books are, of course, an unusual commodity. We might like the idea of stumbling onto new topics and ideas. Whenever shopping itself is fun, whenever serendipity and surprise are valuable, we might want to choose on our own, hence reject predictive shopping. "
Read more here
Read more here
"A US Department of Defense (DoD) research programme is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US military agencies. The multi-million dollar programme is designed to develop immediate and long-term "warfighter-relevant insights" for senior officials and decision makers in "the defense policy community," and to inform policy implemented by "combatant commands."
Launched in 2008 – the year of the global banking crisis – the DoD 'Minerva Research Initiative' partners with universities "to improve DoD's basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US."
Tit for tat. Citizens turn camera on police; so police respond by turning cameras on society. Who wins? What next? Memory implants?
Video can lie because context can be missing- let us not fool ourselves... discussion on wearables as applied to a multitude of applications is the topic of the next IEEE Technology and Society Magazine (June 2014) after this program in 2013. Check out http://sites.ieee.org/istas-2013
Interested readers might also like to look at this pioneering summary from the Point of View Technologies in Law Enforcement Workshop (2012) http://works.bepress.com/kmichael/249/ in addition to the Human Rights and Policing Conference (2013) http://www.ceps.edu.au/events/2013-ceps-human-rights-and-policing-conference/technology-and-forensic-science which featured the work of Mick Keelty et al.
New story here.
"Some officers have already paid for their own miniature cameras, raising concerns about the storage of data on personal computers.
The Keelty Review into the QPS last year flagged privacy issues around the storage of police recordings on home computers. It recommended investigating a solution to storing “big data”.
The camera revelation came after The Courier-Mail won a more than 12-month Right to Information battle to overturn a police decision to keep secret the results of a trial of cameras on Tasers.
It was released after the Information Commissioner overturned the QPS’s decision.
The 2011 review found Taser Cams were operationally ineffective, but recommended investigating body-worn cameras to record all use-of-force incidents after an extension of the trial found the body cameras superior in all areas.
The release of the report comes as the police Ethical Standards Command prepares to interview a Logan woman as part of an investigation into how she lost her eye after being Tasered in February.
Police are unable to rely on footage of the incident as Queensland’s 1000-plus Tasers do not have cameras and police are not issued body-worn video cameras.
An analysis of police use-of-force reports obtained under RTI for 2012 found that of the 63 people stunned by Tasers that year, only five were caught on CCTV.
Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers said the review findings supported his repeated calls for the QPS to issue body-worn cameras.
“Body-worn cameras are the modern equivalent of the police notebook and should be compulsory equipment for all police,” Mr Leavers said."