I missed an installment last fall, so some I am reaching back a bit to cover things that I notice at the end of last year and then moving forward into this year:
I've Just Seen A Face
This new commercial application of face-recognition technology combines digital photography with computer search algorithms. A digital camera captures a photograph of your face as you walk by and the search engine searches for your image on the various databases, including social media, like Facebook and Google+ or new photographic social applications such as Instagram. The objective is to identify the individual in the original image and any associated data available for that person. Put more simply, the objective is to cash in on your identity.
In this context, identity means facts about you that people will pay money to know. Who would pay for this information? People who want to use those facts to sell you something. Follow the money.
Thus, the Korean shopping mall installed these facial recognition kiosks. After capturing and searching a person's image, there follows an instantaneously display advertising directed specifically to person's interests when matched to the products sold at the mall. The technology matches a person's likely shopping interests with the retailers located in the mall. If you like the books, it could display an ad for mall's bookstore (if there still is one in the mall). If the search finds that you have an interest in outdoor activities, it may display on ad for sporting goods or outdoor activities store. If a birthday or anniversary is coming up in your family, it could display gift suggestions -- jewelry, ties, toys.
The facial recognition technology is out there, although you may think it exists only in movies or with secret government anti-terrorist squads. And, you may doubt that you put this kind of bankable personal information out there to be found by an search engine.
Maybe that is true. Maybe if you are Luddite who lives off the grid (and therefore are unlikely to be walking into a shopping mall in any event). True, there are some out there who have resisted the temptation of Facebook or Twitter or Google+ or Instagram, etc. But there are millions upon millions out there using social media. And, what about LinkedIn? Or, does your firm or business have a website with your picture and profile on it? What about your children? Have they "tagged" you in photographs that they posted on Facebook? Or perhaps your loving parents are on Facebook and have posted some of their family pictures?
It is not easy to remain obscure and faceless these days. You may be surprised to find out what information about you is out there. Search engines are able to search it and advertisers are able to use those searches to identify you and your likes. How do you think Google makes its money? It is not a non-profit. The information that you search for through Google reveals your interests and Google channels search results and advertisements to your search result page based on those interests. So do not be surprised if you walk into a mall or shopping center in the near future and find a kiosk flashing pictures of products directed specifically to your attention.
Big Brother Part I
The Baltimore Sun reported last fall that the Mass Transit Administration (MTA) has been eavesdropping on its drivers and passengers. The stated purpose is to achieve greater security and safety on public transportation. The MTA believes that this technology will aid in investigating crimes on public transportation.
"We want to make sure people feel safe, and this builds up our arsenal of tools to keep our patrons safe," said Ralign Wells, MTA administrator. "The audio completes the information package for investigators and responders."
Of course, this is often the stated goal of surveillance of all kinds. The legal issues with other types of surveillance also are engaged here: privacy and possible misuse of information. Arguably, privacy is addressed by the fact that this is public transportation, so there should be no expectation of privacy. In application, however, it may not be so clear.
More of a concern, however, is what the MTA does with the information that it gathers. Much of it will have nothing to do with a crime, intended or perpetrated. Much of it may be everyday conversation about mundane affairs. Somewhere in the middle, however, is likely to be information of a sensitive nature, something that people did not intend to be public knowledge. What if the conversation has nothing to do with safety on the MTA, but does involve criminal activity elsewhere? What if it deals with something very personal to the passenger or driver, something that they may have told another in confidence, but now finds its way into the MTA surveillance database?
Buses have had surveillance cameras for years. Voice recording microphones are now being incorporated. Signage on the business lets drivers and passengers know.
The State's Attorney Office thinks that the system passes legal muster. The ACLU disagrees:
"People don't want or need to have their private conversations recorded by MTA as a condition of riding a bus," said David Rocah, a staff attorney with the Maryland chapter of the ACLU. "A significant number of people have no viable alternative to riding a bus, and they should not be forced to give up their privacy rights."
State legislators have indicated that they will look at this issue. Next, time you ride the MTA, be careful what you say and do.
Big Brother II
If you are worried that the MTA is listening to your conversations on the bus, you have some sympathy for
what happened to General David H.Patraeus, who resigned last year as Director of the CIA after disclosure of an extra-marital affair. The extra-marital affair part is certainly scandalous enough, but what maybe more shocking is how Patraeus was undone by a series of events when law enforcement and government investigators looked into his activity in cyberspace. The New York Times covered the details in
a News Analysis piece last November. The Times correctly noted that cyberspace investigations can rapidly escalate far beyond their original, often limited, scope simply because of the wealth of information that is exposed by even a relatively focused inquiry. All of the data and information that we have sitting on our computers and online suddenly may fall under the eyes of investigators looking for something entirely different. The Times article notes that the ACLU seems to be lamenting Patraeus undoing, at least as to the investigate methods used and the privacy rights trampled (if not an endorsement of Patraeus himself, with whom the the ACLU may have other concerns). It is also highly ironic that America's spy chief (the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency) was undone by cyber investigators combing through his email. Perhaps, as the Times notes, it is better that our law enforcement folks caught up with Patraeus before another country's spies did.
Lost
Since passing of Steve Jobs, Apple has moved forward under new leadership. No doubt some new Apple developments were in the pipeline before Jobs died and he had some degree of influence and role in the decision making. I doubt, however, that he would have approved of the launch of the Apple Maps application.
This is old news now for many of us who have Apple devices and for those you follow Apple's latest product changes and development. For those who need a quick summary, last year Apple launched a new version of its operating system for iPods, iPhones and iPads, designated iOS 6.0. This new operating system brought may improvements to Apple mobile devices. It also brought a significant change is a key default application that Apple installs in all its devices.
When you get a new iPod, iPhone or iPad now, it comes with these native applications pre-installed. They include basic Apple apps for email, text messaging, the Apple App store, contacts, and now Apple's application for finding places and getting directions, simple called Maps.
Until iOS 6.0, Apple had used Google Maps as its native geographic application. Each of these applications has several basic functions: looking up addresses or points of interest, in your locality or around the world and displaying them on a map; using Geo-positioning software ("GPS") in the device to coordinate with your current location and provide a set of directions to your destination. The new generation of these applications competes directly with commercial GPS devices by adding a voice-over that narrates step by step instructions for reaching you destination.
The Google Maps mobile application came with a long track record of success behind it from similar software on Google's website. Many people (including me) loved Google Maps online and loved its mobile app on devices.
Apple, however, had a kind of love/hate relationship with the Google Maps app. It was a wonderful addition to the native applications that came with your Apple device, but Google was competing with Apple in the mobile device arena by developing and promoting its operating system for Android mobile devices.
So Apple began the development process to replace Google Maps on its devices with a native Apple Maps app. Apple even went so far as to eliminate the choice to use Goggle Maps. Everyone knew this was coming, including Google. It was no surprise that Apple wanted to do this. The surprise came in how poorly Apple Maps performed its basic function, finding where you are and where want to go.
Apple's interface for its Maps app is somewhat different from the Google Maps app that customers knew and loved. Arguably, Apple made some improvements in the interface, which is somewhat easier to read and use, particularly if you are driving and trying to follow the directions, either visually or audibly. Apple also took advantage of its Siri voice feature to give verbal versions of your directions.
The problem, however, is that very often the directions that Apple Maps provides are wrong. Within days of the release of iOS 6.0, commentary in print and cyberspace was buzzing with complaints and examples of how faulty the Apple search results were. One example sticks clearly in my mind. The Apple Maps misplaced an Apple store in a major U.S. city, putting in on the wrong side of the street.
Here is my own personal comparison. By chance, before in downloaded iOS 6.0 on my iPhone, I took a trip to Maine with my wife to attend a wedding and then vacation and site see, as we had never been to Maine before. As we were renting a car, we took along a GPS and we had our iPhones. It turned out that the GPS was set on a "minimalist" setting for verbal directions and did not update you frequently with repetitive step by step instructions. Instead, it would remain silent for long periods and then suddenly announced "In 200 feet, turn right". As we had borrowed the GPS, neither my wife or I wanted to changes the settings, least we forgot to set them back (or forgot how to set them back) when we returned it.
So we followed the maps on the GPS, but I also used my iPhone and the Google Maps app to locate our designation and directions, so we could anticipate where we were going. The Google Maps app did not replace the GPS, but it was unfailingly correct in determining our destination and plotting us a course that led exactly to the place were were going. We used this repeatedly all over Maine and into Canada without an error.
When we returned home, I downloaded iOS 6.0 with the Apple Maps app. In its initial performance, it was batting about .250. It can get you to the general vicinity of your destination, but it errs frequently when it tries to close in on the exact location. And the errors can be somewhat dangerous.
Here is the most egregious example. I was going to a client's house for a meeting. I had not been in several years, so I put the address into my iPhone and Apple Maps provided a set of directions. All was fine until I was nearly at the client's home. Apple Maps indicated that I should make a left turn onto the client's street from the road on which I was traveling. I slowed down looking for the left turn, but did not see it. I reached another street that looked familiar, but it was not the client's street. The app said that I had passed the client's street, so I turned around and back tracked, still looking for the client's street, now on the right. No turn appeared. I reversed direction again. No luck. I finally turned down the road that looked familiar and found the client's street about a quarter mile down this road, which was not in Apple Maps directions.
When I finished my meeting, I went down the client's street a little further in the direction of the main road, looking again for the intersection where I was supposed to turn. All I found was a dead-end. The client's street did not intersect the road that the Apple app said it did.
Apple finally had to make a public apology for these glaring defects in its search functions and mapping directions. It scrambled to improve Apple Maps, with some success. More recently, Apple finally conceded and brought back the new and improved free Google Maps application on the Apple platform. I recently used both Apple Maps and Google Maps on another trip to new places, this time Southern California, sometimes using them simultaneously. Apple Maps is greatly improved and I will concede that I am not as familiar with it, as I have gone back to Google Maps since it became available. Still, I would give Google Maps a higher rating.
Many people said that this would have never happened if Steve Jobs was still around. May be so. This was a major embarrassment for Apple and at least one key Apple executive responsible for the Apple Maps launch departed Apple in the wake of its rudderless debut. Apple has fixed Apple Maps and it is a more respectable piece of software now. But Apple also had to concede a place to Google Maps in the Apple Apps Store and on Apple devices. In the end that was probably better that than have users defect to Android phones to find there way to destinations new and old.
