Sen. Franken Has 'Deep Concern' About Google Glass App NameTag

[Purveyor]

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is worried about the privacy implications of a new facial recognition app.

In a letter on Wednesday, Franken expressed "deep concern" about NameTag, a facial recognition app for Google Glass devices that have been "jailbroken" to circumvent Google's ban on facial recognition tools.

Franken, chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Privacy, asked NameTag to delay its launch until there are best practices for facial recognition technology, such as those that will come out of a Commerce Department initiative beginning this week.

“According to promotional materials, NameTag lets strangers get a broad range of personal information — including a person’s name, photos, and dating website profiles — simply by looking at that person’s face with the Glass camera," Franken said in his letter.

"This is apparently done without that person’s knowledge or consent, which crosses a bright line for privacy and personal safety.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/197580-franken-questions-facial-recognition-app#ixzz2sUjrW7MS

[frazzled]

1. That makes NSA and TSA look like pikers

There definitely should be a blocking or opt-out option for people who do not wish their identities or other information to be freely available to any creep on the street with a Google Glass. Echhhhh.

[Brettongarcia]

9. Agreed! The real privacy threat is not just from government: it's private companies and individuals

[Politicalboi]

2. He's right

Only our government should be able to do that. LOL!

[Purveyor]

3. Well I'm certain the President's defenders on NSA will be along soon to wholeheartedly defend

the use and distribution of this 'app'.

[Shivering Jemmy]

54. What is to defend...

I can write some computer code that could do this in a couple of days at most. All I need to do is scrape a few popular websites and do an eigenface decomposition on images of pictures from around the web.

How does one make this illegal?

[reusrename]

4. I don't see how this toothpaste gets put back in the tube.

There has to be a better way of moving forward. Making the technology unavailable to ordinary folks while at the same time arming others with it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[randome]

13. It won't, you're right. We either adapt or live in caves.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[upaloopa]

29. I don't understand?

If we don't adapt to new technology we are living in caves?
If so I like my comfortable cave.
My wife wants to go back to spending only cash because she is afraid of getting credit card or debit card info stolen.
We need as much protection technology as there is privacy intrusion technology. You should be able to block all this identity stealing shit.
Seems everyday I am asked by some website or other to sign in using my email or facebook account. I head for the hills when I see that.

[pnwmom]

31. We should just adapt to police instantly knowing our names, addresses, any police record,

home value, where we work, and all the other info the ACLU has gone to court to keep private? Do you know that there have been lawsuits about the right to not give the police even our name unless they have probable cause? And yet you would just hand them so much more.

I assume you can't be a Snowden supporter, right? Because anyone who is worried about government surveillance should be terrified of this.

[reusrename]

34. I think this is sort of what I was getting at.

If law enforcement is going to have that ability to instantly know these things about me, then I want to have the ability to instantly know those same things about them.

One of the real problems I have with the whole Snowden debate is the double-think that most folks seem capable of. We can easily catch muslin terra-ists using this technology, but we can't use it to combat organized crime. Why not?

Oh yeah, the criminals are the ones who own the technology! Doh!

[Shivering Jemmy]

51. I think you are on to something

in the David Brin Novel *Earth*, privacy is completely dead. The tradeoff is that it is as dead for people in power as it is for ordinary people.

[MADem]

77. Cosmetics to disguise the lines of one's face will become popular, as will

glasses that distort the wearer's appearance to a lens!

[pnwmom]

35. I don't think we SHOULD arm the police with it, or anyone else. The more I think about googleglasses

the more I want them to go away.

[RB TexLa]

5. This is all stuff the person has put on the internet about themselves. What is the government's

concern? Or role even?

What would anyone's concern be?

[BadgerKid]

6. Or stuff people tag you in.

But iirc, FB lets you untag yourself.

[RB TexLa]

7. This seems like nothing

[Brettongarcia]

11. Except now everybody you meet on the street knows your name, income, and sexual preferences?

[Incitatus]

74. I can see this being a favorite tool for sexual predators.

Some psycho could just look at someone with the glasses and get their home address.

[RB TexLa]

85. Only if you've put that on the internet

LOL

[LanternWaste]

17. Things often seem like nothing when the existence of nothing validates our biases.

Things often seem like nothing when the existence of nothing validates our biases.

[SomethingFishy]

24. Nothing? More like a fucking targeting system...

Oh look, single woman, no relationships, good job, has money, probably lives alone...

How fucking hard is it to figure out?

[pnwmom]

25. Would you wear a sign on your forehead that said your name, address, the value of your home,

your age, your spouse's name, your children's names and ages, whether you've had any speeding tickets, where you work, etc.

All of that is public information you can't control. And you can't control your photos either, if other people take them and put them on the web. And this isn't just about FB. Many of us can't avoid having our pictures taken for work or other purposes. We can't opt out.

[pnwmom]

32. Only because you have little idea what's out there on you right now. And you are required to opt out

of every single site that lists your name, address, home value, the names and ages of your children, etc.

And how do you control the spread of your picture if OTHER people take your photo and put it on the internet? If your employer does, or the place you volunteer with?

[gollygee]

70. I assume you've never been stalked

It would be a stalker's dream to have so much information about potential targets so easily.

[jmowreader]

30. If you know you're tagged

[pnwmom]

33. What if you work for a place that has your picture out there? Should you quit your job? nt

[jmowreader]

66. No, not at all. That's not what I was saying.

A few months ago a woman who taught at some sort of Christian school (it was on DU, I don't have a link but we were all really pissed about it, I can tell you) was terminated because she took a trip to France. She drank some wine while there and one of her friends took one of those "look at us all together having some wine in France" photos, which got posted to friend's Facebook page. A parent of one of her students saw this picture, alerted the school administration, and the teacher got fired.

Between the technology and the extremist morality of today, it's getting to the point where we've all got to live like monks if we hope to keep our jobs. Look at our politicians: someone running for political office has to be prepared to have people dig up every significant, insignificant and forgotten thing from thirty years past and dump it right on his/her head for any reason or no reason at all. And you're thinking, "well, I want to know everything about the people I elect to be sewer commissioner." Thanks to tech like Google Glass (and the Bluetooth spy cameras you can buy right now, and link to your phone to do the same thing as Glass for far less money), people will know everything about you.

Quitting your job wouldn't solve the problem of Google Glass users finding you...thanks to sites like the Wayback Machine, anything posted on the Internet stays there forever. I have said from the beginning of the Snowden disaster that the private sector, who has absolutely no restrictions on it whatsoever, is a bigger risk to your privacy than the NSA, who has had a regulation covering spying on Americans at least since Nixon. (It's called USSID 18 and you can read it here: http://cryptome.org/nsa-ussid18.htm) That still holds true.

Folks, update your wardrobe and make sure your hair and makeup are always perfect; we're all about to be on television 24/7 and you don't want your own personal "stars without makeup" pictures floating around. Yes, you guys too.

[pnwmom]

68. I've never posted a photo in FB except in the most private setting. I've checked, and if you're not

a friend, you can't see it. (Friends of friends can be anyone, and they can't see it.)

But I can't stop my employer from putting my photo out there, or other people from taking my photo and I.D.ing it on the web. That's why we have to have laws banning the use of this technology by every stranger on the street.

I agree with you about Snowden, though. My main gripe with him was releasing information about our international spying. But I agreed with him about internal US surveillance - and I can't understand why everyone else who was on his side about that isn't alarmed about this.

[dickthegrouch]

78. Only if you're a member

I am not a member, never will; be a member of FB. I can't get them to agree not to enable other people to tag my picture.

That's the whole rub: I have NEVER given my permission to anyone to tag my picture. MY privacy is MINE to give away IF I want to, which I DON'T.

[JoeyT]

8. Which links you to a whole bunch of other stuff.

Addresses, phone numbers, and other assorted stuff you wouldn't normally hand out on the internet.

What useful role could this app possibly have? Who's the target group? Rapists and stalkers?

[pnwmom]

26. Don't forget thieves and scam artists, who just happen to meet you on the street. n/t

[pnwmom]

18. There's all kinds of info we don't put out there purposely.

And sometimes our pictures are out there -- either through work or other activities in the community-- and we can't stop them.

This is not all voluntary.

[snooper2]

23. Or if you are walking down the street and a sex offender is staring at your daughter

All public info right?

[PowerToThePeople]

10. the terminator. n/t

[okaawhatever]

12. This needs to be stopped. We've pretty much held that someone doesn't have the right to your name

address without your permission, this app gives you all of that and more. It's a horrendous precedent for privacy in this country. How sad that the msm isn't covering it.

I'm sure Monsanto will have all the folks they hire to gather info on protesters wearing them.

[Lancero]

14. I can understand the concerns...

But really, this app just pulls information that you have willingly given out, and information avaliable in public databases.

If this app also hacked into your phone and email with just a glance, then we can be concerned.

But this does show one thing about your personal information - That you shouldn't, ever, give it so easily and willingly.

[pnwmom]

20. Not true. I have the most conservative settings on FB and no photos on other social media

but people can't stop pictures being put on websites for work or other purposes. I have identifiable photos on the web that I didn't put there and I can't control.

And I don't voluntarily hand out information about what my house is worth or other info that's on these sites. You have to go to each one of them and opt out. They should have a law requiring people to opt-in.

[SomethingFishy]

27. So every bit of information you have "willingly" given out should be available

to everyone on the planet? So you think that every person on the street should know where you live, your phone number, your arrest record, your medical history, your relationship status, who your friends are, your party affiliation, and any other information you have at one time or another given away willingly?

Good fucking luck with that one.

[Lancero]

72. Lets go by a list shall we?

Where you live - This information is apart of many public databases, and phonebooks.
Phone Number - Again, public databases and phonebooks
Arrest Records - Depends on state, but generally public records
Relationship status - Your choice to reveal this or not.
Friends - Your choice to reveal this or not.
Party affilation - Your choice to reveal this or not.

So the first three are all locatable via public databases, or other readily avaliable and legal means. Not a whole lot you can do about that.

The last three are bits that you can choose to reveal yourself, however this is the issue with revealing information on the internet (ie, facebook) - It rarely stays in one place. Information travels - If you put something out on the net, their is no way for you to stop people sharing that information.

So yes - If it's information that isn't in a public database, but you wish to remain private, then you shouldn't reveal it.

[SomethingFishy]

75. Where I live is in many databases.. But it's not plastered on my back

so anyone can look at me decide I'm easy prey and follow me home. Or see me get in line somewhere figure they have a couple hours before I get home so they head over to my place and ransack the joint. It's not real difficult to see the problems with this and I'm not going to debate semantics on an invention that is taylor made for stalkers, rapists, burglars and killers.

[Lancero]

79. All this app is...

Is a new means to access that data.

Ease of access, greater accessibility, isn't inherently dangerous. The information it gives may be, but that isn't the app's fault - It's pulling it from public sources. If you want to protect yourself, then go after the source of the problem.

[pnwmom]

28. I don't willingly give out my house value, and who would willingly give out

an arrest record? Or advertise their name and phone number to every person they passed on the street?

Do you think it's a good idea to allow any thief to look at a nondescript person and instantly know how much they're worth and where and with whom they live (and that they aren't home)?

Yet these places can already supply that info to any taker, as long as money changes hands.

You need to think this through more. We have fought for the right not to give every policeman this information. And yet we're supposed to happily hand it to everyone we pass on the street -- including the police?

[2naSalit]

67. Tell you what...

Just go to google and enter your name in a search and see what the results are and then ask yourself how much of that info did you willingly give to be available online at any time/all the time/forever?

[Lancero]

73. K.

Googled it, 3 million results. None of the first 5 pages are about me.

So I put my state to it. Got even more results, oddly enough.

But on the first page I did find some of my information - The first was a phone number and address, apart of a public database, that was a bit more then half a decade out of date. And then the other two were obituiary's for my grandfather (Which gave my name, and my town of residence at the time - Information that can easily be found in a public database, but is out of date) and my father.

Second page, nothing other then a archive entry which pulled info from the obituary.

Also found a facebook with my name, but it's another person who is also named that.

So, I've googled it. Didn't find anything, other then what is apart of public databases and information that I allowed to be released.

[2naSalit]

76. try putting your name

in quotation marks, it narrows things down, but then you might be mr. clean genes...

I get quite a different set of results. I get ten pages of hits and the first ten are things I have not willingly put out there. I know a lot of people who put my info out there who have a public hate-on for me (RWNJ types) so that may be one of the problems. Unfortunately, I can't get it taken down without paying someone a hefty price for it.

[Lancero]

80. Did that...

Only results were, again, publically avaliable information (In this case, whitepages results, three obituary's, and some birth records), websites that pull publically avaliable information for their use (In this case, voterfactory, and hot-people.info - Despite how it sounds, it's a website that ranks houses by how close to a waste site they are.) and information that I've given out myself (A few website accounts I'd made about 8 years ago and completely forgot about.)

But interspaced between them were, yet again, results for other people.

That said, besides my name most information is out of date and even then I rarely go by that name anymore (I've since dropped it for my middle)

[2naSalit]

82. Using

a different name or part of your name helps a lot! there are five other people with the same name as mine, some spelled differently, but the most prominent is my info... feels like walking around with targets tattooed on your temples, especially since the opponents are total whackjobs with gunz and an agenda.

I've had to change mine but the problem still persists... the trouble with speaking up against injustices, goes with the territory, including death threats. The latter is my main concern for having all that info readily available. I'm not the lone ranger there either, being an activist these days isn't like it was back in the 60s and 70s where your main concern was tear gas during a protest and a brutal cop if you got too close to the action.

[Lancero]

83. Thats the thing though

All this information is already readily available. All the app provides is greater accessability, it has nothing to do with what information is or isn't available.

This is the part that most people don't understand - This app pulls from information that is already out, that has already been revealed either through public record, public materials, or by yourself. So, how can information that you've revealed to people, and information apart of public databases, be considered private? Public is the opposite of private, and if you reveal your information - especially online - then how is that information still private?

And it's for that reason that this app isn't invading your privacy - The information it's revealing isn't private, it's public! People say 'but but but, matching the picture to the information!"... Well, I'd assume it pulls pictures and names from facebook - a public source - but hey, guess what? You don't have to put a picture of yourself to your account (I put up a picture of my cat), but if you wanted to you could still set it to ensure that it is private.

Really, the thing most people hate about this app? It shows them how poor of a job they've done on protecting their privacy.

[2naSalit]

84. So

if someone, myself in particular, HAS NO FB or anything other than an e-mail address and no phone accts with name on it and don't give this info out... don't sign petitions that require such info, no credit cards...?

I do know that the PO has an open data where your address can be obtained by third parties but otherwise, I try to keep it all to myself, but it doesn't matter. I heard that as long as someone "friends" you on one of the social media things you are identified. I don't allow anyone to take my picture, except DL.

It is what it is and it sucks.

[Brigid]

15. This kind of thing just absolutely creeps me out.

I see this as extremely dangerous. It could be used by stalkers, rapists, and other violent criminals.

I'm 55 years old, and very privacy-conscious. I won't touch Facebook or twitter, and won't even give my email address or phone # when a store wants it for their stupid "loyalty programs." (I hate that!) There is a reason why Google won't allow this app in through the front door; it shouldn't be allowed to sneak around through the back. This company is going to get the crap sued out of it the first time this is misused, as it will be.

[NCTraveler]

16. Not sure where in the article a need for government involvement is shown.

I could be wrong, but this seems similar to a google search, just using the persons face to gather the results. Google already does this on a more limited scale with their image search. This just makes the process easier. Looks like public information.

[Brigid]

19. Google has banned face recognition apps.

Including this one. If you don't see the danger inherent in this technology, especially for women, then I'm afraid I can't help you. And this company is playing with fire. The first time someone is harmed by misuse of this, they will get sued into oblivion. A Google search doesn't allow you to see somebody on the street and then find out their name and everything about them.

[NCTraveler]

40. I do agree that it could be dangerous.

Many, many legal things are dangerous. A google search isn't far off from what you say.

[pnwmom]

21. That's because you don't know how much info they have out there that YOU have no control over.

Would you really like to walk around town with a sign on your forehead saying how much your house is worth? That's public knowledge. About the speeding ticket you got? That's public knowledge. How old you are and how many children do you have and how old they are? That's public knowledge, too. So is your place of employment, if your employer lists you on its website or on promotional materials.

Maybe you have FB on the most private setting, as I do. But if you have ever posed for a group photo at a friend's house, you might end up tagged on FB. If you ever had a picture taken at work that's on their website. There are lots of ways your photo could be out there, ready to be identified.

[NCTraveler]

37. You keep saying that phrase. Public Knowledge. nt.

[pnwmom]

39. But it's NOT something available to every stranger who sees you on the street.

Or every police officer who passes you.

That's what the app would do -- allow people to get this information about strangers.

[NCTraveler]

42. I agree that it would alow people to get public information on strangers.

Police already use facial recognition software.

[NCTraveler]

38. What info do they have that I don't know about? nt.

[pnwmom]

41. Why would you willingly give up your name, address, home value, your age, your spouse's name,

his age, your children's names and ages, and any arrests any of you may have had, along with the name of your employer, to anyone who you pass on the street? Or try to buy a car from? Or who might be looking for someone's home to break into?

[NCTraveler]

43. You have already given it up. It is in the public domain.

The car part doesn't make sense. You have to give it up in order to purchase a car legally.

[pnwmom]

46. You don't have to tell a car dealership how much your home is worth in order to negotiate

a car price. You don't have to tell a thief that you're not at home.

And the public information is out there even if we don't voluntarily give it up. My picture is out there through my work; I don't have any control over that.

[NCTraveler]

48. Yes, you do have to tell a car dealership that.

I am pretty sure it is illegal to purchase a car without forms that include your name.

[pnwmom]

57. Why should my mother's age, the value of her home, and the fact that she's a recent

widow be available to every creep who passes her on the street?

[NCTraveler]

58. It already is.

[pnwmom]

60. Any technology like this should be banned. I can't believe people are so concerned about Snowden

and not about this.

If this was already in use out there, Sen. Franken wouldn't be making an issue of it now. From the OP:

“According to promotional materials, NameTag lets strangers get a broad range of personal information — including a person’s name, photos, and dating website profiles — simply by looking at that person’s face with the Glass camera," Franken said in his letter.

"This is apparently done without that person’s knowledge or consent, which crosses a bright line for privacy and personal safety."

[NCTraveler]

62. It is already in use. Has been for a long time. I thought this was well known.

It is in use by private companies and the government. This debate is old. Google glass itself has nothing to do with the debate. The technology, that has existed for years, has been up and running.

[pnwmom]

64. Then why is Franken investigating google glass as if it's a new thing?

[NCTraveler]

65. The answer to that is clear in my line of previous posts. nt.

[woolldog]

71. No it's not.

That's ludicrous.

It's only available to people who know her name. And the vast majority of people who pass pwnmom's mother on the street don't have that info.

[NCTraveler]

61. Her license plate would give this information.

Her address would give this information. It is often easy to get just by knowing an employer. This information is already out there. The whole argument you are making, and this is the whole argument, is should people know your name. That is it. Should they know your name or is that a private matter. Private companies are already using the same software.

[pnwmom]

63. Ordinary people don't have info to the license plate data base, or an employer data base.

And I don't want strangers I pass walking on the street to know my name, or my mother's name, or the names of my children.

[pnwmom]

22. Imagine this thing in the hands of the police.

I'm assuming there can't be any Snowden supporters here who think this app is fine, right?

How long do you think it would be before the police started wearing these things if they legally could link to an app like that? Suddenly, they'd know your name, age, address, the value of your home, whether you have any kind of police record -- all instantly.

[NCTraveler]

45. Anything that would make this illegal has already been in the hands of the police for years.

[pnwmom]

47. Not true. They're not wearing google glasses. n/t

[NCTraveler]

49. So it is the delivery system that you are against.

Because police have everything except for the glasses. Including mobile facial recognition devices. I guess I don't see the difference in a camera and the glasses when it comes to cops. We have already accepted that this is acceptable for law enforcement. They are currently using technology that does the exact same thing. Actually, even more intrusive.

[pnwmom]

50. The ACLU hasn't accepted that this is okay for the police. Many states have laws that don't require

us to have to give our name and address to police UNLESS they have cause to stop us.

Why should we allow every stranger on the street to have access to info that we wouldn't even give the police?

Do you want every stranger your mother meets to know her age, the value of her home, and the fact that her adult children live in another state and she was widowed three months ago?

[NCTraveler]

52. "Many states have laws that don't require us to have to give our name and address....

to police unless they have cause to stop us." You don't have to give up your name to anyone who ask you on the streets. Yet, if cops want to use facial recognition software, just like the glasses, they can, and they do. If they want to run your plate number they need no cause.

[pnwmom]

56. We shouldn't allow criminals or other strangers to have easy access to everything about everyone

they see. And those people living in states where they are not required to give up this info to the police should be protected by laws not allowing police to use facial recognition apps either.

Running a plate number isn't the same. People who are walking on the streets shouldn't have to walk around with their names and addresses plastered on their faces, and that's what this is equivalent to.

[jsr]

36. They'll just move the database offshore and make it an extortion website

outside the reach of American courts, like those websites with mugshots.

[pnwmom]

44. Why are people so outraged about Snowden and so blasé about everyone else getting hold

of personal information?

[kcr]

69. Good question.

I'm amazed at this myself.

[IDemo]

53. I can see the Glass App now:

All of a stranger's background info, social networking history, political and sexual preferences, income, likes/dislikes are assembled into an animated avatar to sum up the individual for the Glass wearer's convenience and entertainment purposes.

[Rex]

55. Don't worry senator, it won't list any of the B class voiceovers

some of us remember you so famously for! No sir, just your past life - your credit score - if you are lying - simple stuff. I hear that is the Google Plus-good One helmet in limited production. You will probably never ever see one. They come with Google Mantle after all.

[HereSince1628]

59. Progress...future pogroms will require no one to wear an indicative badge.

RNC fund raisers and conventions will never be attended by persons with known participation in opposition political "undergrounds"

What a boon for security services!

[woolldog]

81. More likely we will be implanted with a chip at birth

that will upload and download information regularly.