Surveillance Company Tells Cops It Wants to Add Facial Recognition to Flock Cameras (404media.co) 20
404 Media reports:
"We will not add facial recognition to our devices," Flock CEO Garrett Langley said in a recent video. But other, third-party companies are telling cops that they are willing to add facial recognition to data gathered by Flock cameras in order to "close that gap." A company called VIDIZMO is advertising the capability to export footage from FlockOS to its own platforms that do facial recognition, behavior prediction, and racial and gender analysis on live camera feeds. VIDIZMO is a several decades-old video analysis and database company that has started offering facial recognition technology to cops within the last six months. In a May email to Johnson City, Tennessee, deputy police chief Michael Adams, a salesperson from VIDIZMO wrote that the company's product could do facial recognition on both Flock and Axon [body-worn camera] data in "one searchable platform...."
VIDIZMO's CEO, Nadeem Khan, told 404 Media on a video call that the company has not yet started running facial recognition tech on footage from Flock cameras, and that it has not actually built the specific tool that would export data from Flock's system to its own platform (though the company advertises this capability online, and the company already sells other facial recognition products). But Khan said VIDIZMO "would love to do the integration," and that he believes facial recognition "is the way the world is going, the way the world will have to be," and that he thinks Flock should offer the capability itself in a way that "balances privacy, security, and the freedom that we enjoy in this country."
The article notes that VIDIZMO says on its website, "You can identify individuals from seven races: White, Black, Indian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latino Hispanic." VIDIZMO adds that stores or cities can also then do "demographic analysis" for marketing purposes by determining the races or ages of people showing up....
VIDIZMO's CEO, Nadeem Khan, told 404 Media on a video call that the company has not yet started running facial recognition tech on footage from Flock cameras, and that it has not actually built the specific tool that would export data from Flock's system to its own platform (though the company advertises this capability online, and the company already sells other facial recognition products). But Khan said VIDIZMO "would love to do the integration," and that he believes facial recognition "is the way the world is going, the way the world will have to be," and that he thinks Flock should offer the capability itself in a way that "balances privacy, security, and the freedom that we enjoy in this country."
The article notes that VIDIZMO says on its website, "You can identify individuals from seven races: White, Black, Indian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latino Hispanic." VIDIZMO adds that stores or cities can also then do "demographic analysis" for marketing purposes by determining the races or ages of people showing up....
No. (Score:2)
No. Nadeem Khan might as well be a goddamned terrorist.
Re: (Score:3)
We have seen recent stories about facial recognition flagging innocent people as having committed crimes in states they never even visited, resulting in arrest and detention for months before sorting it out.
Those kinks are too much to bear. The tech is not ready. Using it now is not acceptable.
Several decades old, huh (Score:2)
VIDIZMO is a several decades-old video analysis and database company
You wouldn't be able to tell that by looking at their website [vidizmo.ai].
Re: (Score:3)
Even stranger: https://getlatka.com/companies... [getlatka.com]
Looks like they started in 2009 and made no money until 2025. Sitting dormant for 16 years?
Re:Several decades old, huh (Score:5, Interesting)
My guess is Mossad is involved somehow.
Double speak (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way to balance mass surveillance with "privacy, security, and the freedom that we enjoy in this country"
Re: (Score:3)
There is no way to balance mass surveillance with "privacy, security, and the freedom that we enjoy in this country"
Count the sheer number of audio and video recording devices connected to a worldwide network within 100 feet of you. Right now.
Any desire to maintain “balance” was lost long ago. Around 1949 to be precise. When the fucking instruction manual for 1984 was written.
Re: (Score:3)
They were talking about the present tense. Your privacy is being tracked by every private corporation and bought and sold for profit. Your security is getting shot or strangled by law enforcement at random, sometimes execution style while you're already on the ground. Your freedom extends to being detained and jailed for the colour of your skin despite being a full US citizen.
If anything facial recognition would be an upgrade compared to what you currently enjoy in this country.
Re: (Score:1)
This. Flock is not an anomaly. It's just who the onslaught of negative publicity is currently pointed at. Seems like no one understands this.
Almost everyday now I'm reminded of something I saw going through Rockford Files on DVD. Season 4 episode "The House on Willis Avenue" ends with a title card warning (as wikipedia put it) "that computer networks that gather vast amounts of information about people's private
Shocking (Score:3)
Ahahaha, just kidding! I'm sure that's already happening.
balances privacy, security, and freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
But Khan said VIDIZMO "would love to do the integration," and that he believes facial recognition "is the way the world is going, the way the world will have to be," and that he thinks Flock should offer the capability itself in a way that "balances privacy, security, and the freedom that we enjoy in this country."
the proper verb is eliminates
Closing the gap? (Score:2)
But other, third-party companies are telling cops that they are willing to add facial recognition to data gathered by Flock cameras in order to "close that gap."
The only gaps I want to see closed are the ones between the upper and lower blades of the guillotines around the necks of all these fuckers. Every single one of them is a traitor to humanity.
Their willingness to take advantage of a surveillance technology which is still being widely and popularly condemned says something. I'm just not sure what that "something" is.
Re: Closing the gap? (Score:2)
That "something" is "I'll do it because it gets me money. As long as I get paid, I'm good with it and let the courts decide later on if it's legal or not."
I want to ad something too (Score:2)
facial recognition is easy (Score:2)
Any video or snapshot stream or timelapse (all only differing in framerate) that contains faces can already be scanned for them. You can capture all the faces either in realtime or in postprocessing and store them off as digital fingerprints. Then its just a matter of getting an ID on you and your corresponding facial fingerprint. It may only have to happen once, and henceforth we know who you are everywhere you go.
Governments already have your facial fingerprint from your driver's license or passport photo
sure (Score:5, Interesting)
Just publicly release Flock data for all your officers.We should only accept a surveillance state if it is completely transparent.
This (Score:3)
This is my issue with all of these technologies in use by government. It is not so much the actual surveillance that troubles me. It is the massive imbalance of power that is created when only one side has access to it.
Create a situation where I can track all the movements of Deputy Dumbass and Senator Suxballz just as easily as they can track me and I'm good with it. With a level playing field I'm much more comfortable and open to arguments about solving/reducing crime, or even the "if you've done nothing
Re: (Score:3)
The government assumes we're all criminals or spies. And we the public shouldn't have access to information for issues of officer safety and national security. It's why agents are masked now and often don't even display a badge number. Yet if I blast a guy toting a gun and breaking into my property that refuses to identify himself, then I'm the bad guy. Somewhere along the line we all forgot who the government actually works for: the People.
Chinese Manufacturers are back in the game (Score:2)