Big Brother is coming to the footy

[KrispyKremePie]

It’s not red rooster I care about once privacy is lost there’s no telling where the info will end up especially if it’s in the unregulated hands of a corporation.

Sorry for my ignorance, but this is the bit I don’t get. Don’t the AFL get a lot of our personal info when we sign up for a membership? How much more can they get with a photo?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[76woodenspooners]

That article is also very miss leading, every day people will not be affected by any "ratings", ...

Yet?

The enabling technology is designed to be able to facialially recognise every one of the country’s citizens.

... it's more for the very best and very worse citizens to be rewarded / punished.

And who gets to determine what is “best” and what is “worst”?

Naturally, we’d put those darstardly Uyghur’s into the “worst” category, yes? Tibetans too, they’re probably up to no good. And those pesky Falun Gong folks? And democracy protestors, they’re the worst! Actually, anybody who protests for that matter ... all good and decent citizens just want a peaceful existence - can’t have protesters wanting to upset the security of good honest citizens.

More public cameras will have a big impact in reducing crime and making us all a little safer.

At what price? And is it a price worth paying?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Sorry for my ignorance, but this is the bit I don’t get. Don’t the AFL get a lot of our personal info when we sign up for a membership? How much more can they get with a photo?

Yeah, maybe ...

... I once went to a GWS game, they were playing one of those Victorian teams, I think it was Collingwood - they’re the team with the black and white stripes, yes?

Anyway, the AFL harassed me for years afterwards about getting more involved in AFL, trying to push me into taking out a GWS membership. No doubt I’m listed in some AFL database somewhere as a person who couldn’t be successfully converted to Aussie Rules.

 

[KrispyKremePie]

Yeah, maybe ...

... I once went to a GWS game, they were playing one of those Victorian teams, I think it was Collingwood - they’re the team with the black and white stripes, yes?

Anyway, the AFL harassed me for years afterwards about getting more involved in AFL, trying to push me into taking out a GWS membership. No doubt I’m listed in some AFL database somewhere as a person who couldn’t be successfully converted to Aussie Rules.

It sounds like the AFL are already abusing their database of personal details, even before they have implemented this face recognition technology... I think someone mentioned that they tested this technology at GWS games. Even if they managed to take a photo of you with it, I don’t see how they were able to link your contact details with the image.

I don’t think I would have an issue with facial recognition being at the MCG. But I could see it being an issue if they had it everywhere, like they seem to be planning to do in China...



On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[barrackers]

Sorry for my ignorance, but this is the bit I don’t get. Don’t the AFL get a lot of our personal info when we sign up for a membership? How much more can they get with a photo?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah sure the AFL and Collingwood do have a lot of info, but there’s also a lot they don’t have and that I wouldn’t want them to have. They couldn’t do much with a photo in isolation, but there’s a lot they could do if it’s linked or obtained for facial recognition.

 

[Gone Critical]

The old "slippery slope" argument is such nonsense.

That article is also very miss leading, every day people will not be affected by any "ratings", it's more for the very best and very worse citizens to be rewarded / punished.

More public cameras will have a big impact in reducing crime and making us all a little safer.

Have to say I have a complete opposite view to this. I think its largely an illusion that public cameras make us safe but it certainly contributes to the increasingly risk free world people seem to be striving for. Personal responsibility seems out the door and having ""Big Brother" there to keep us safe is the better alternative. Personally I don't want that life.

We have become so risk adverse despite living in a world that is so safe comparatively. The safer we make it and the more responsibility we pass off the more frightened we seem to become. Kids need a mobile phone at all times so they can call mum and dad if something happens. We need cameras in more public places just in case something bad happens.

Our forefathers and mothers would look on us in despair I think. Lots of good safety stuff has come in in my lifetime but it has bought the unintended consequence of making us scared of life. Our world in many ways is crippled by anxiety and a lack of people wanting to be responsible for their own welfare.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Safety is more important than privacy, without a doubt ...

Imagine you travel to the US, and a border agent asks you to declare all social media accounts you’re used over the last five years ...

... and that could very well happen when entering the US ...

... you would think that would be a totally cool idea, that you’d be busting to comply with all in the name of “security”?

 

[76woodenspooners]

No one really cares that you went to the Footy 3 times a year at the MCG and bought Red Rooster 2 times.

How would you feel if you went to the footy, the technology detected (rightly or wrongly) that you were doing something nefarious, and the AFL gave you a life ban as a result?

Maybe the technology was right or maybe the technology was wrong? It wouldn’t matter.

Of course there’d be no recourse or anything, the AFL can ban anyone they want - their only consideration is public opinion. But AFL is such a partisan thing, I can’t imagine that there’d be too many Carlton or Essendon supporters coming to your aid. And if what you’re being accused of is henious then you wouldn’t get many Collingwood supporters behind you either.

 

[sr36]

The really big issue is that laws to protect the public against nefarious use of data are lagging way behind the technology. I'm willing to bet that when this goes through, it won't be long before the only way of going to the footy will be to buy online, where you'll have to tick an 'I agree' box, which will effectively be you signing a contract that hands over rights to your personal data, and noone has any real control over where this data will end up or how it will be used in the future.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

How would you feel if you went to the footy, the technology detected (rightly or wrongly) that you were doing something nefarious, and the AFL gave you a life ban as a result?

Maybe the technology was right or maybe the technology was wrong? It wouldn’t matter.

Of course there’d be no recourse or anything, the AFL can ban anyone they want - their only consideration is public opinion. But AFL is such a partisan thing, I can’t imagine that there’d be too many Carlton or Essendon supporters coming to your aid. And if what you’re being accused of is henious then you wouldn’t get many Collingwood supporters behind you either.

That’s the extreme and not sure that’s the real argument.

What if at Round 1 someone accuses you of me of being racist to aborigines when we scream a big cheer for a Stephenson goal.
Imagine a few people say you were racist (opposition supporters).

And ofcourse it’s wrong.
It’s not different to your scenario.

The issue to me isn’t the extreme imagined circumstances but a discussion of do the benefits outweigh the negatives of face recognition.

 

[Gone Critical]

That’s the extreme and not sure that’s the real argument.

What if at Round 1 someone accuses you of me of being racist to aborigines when we scream a big cheer for a Stephenson goal.
Imagine a few people say you were racist (opposition supporters).

And ofcourse it’s wrong.
It’s not different to your scenario.

The issue to me isn’t the extreme imagined circumstances but a discussion of do the benefits outweigh the negatives of face recognition.

I think it is different to the verbal accusation. What you paint as extreme here can soon enough and surreptitiously become the norm. Freedoms are often hard won and easily lost. A lot of the ethos of this country was built on a healthy disrespect for authority. Jumping the fence every now and then is good for the soul. Lets not give those in charge all the advantages. They have shown often enough they don't keep their end up.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I think it is different to the verbal accusation. What you paint as extreme here can soon enough and surreptitiously become the norm. Freedoms are often hard won and easily lost. A lot of the ethos of this country was built on a healthy disrespect for authority. Jumping the fence every now and then is good for the soul. Lets not give those in charge all the advantages. They have shown often enough they don't keep their end up.

That may all be true.
My main point was about using extremes.

Ultimately does the positives outweigh the negatives?

For what it’s worth I don’t particularly trust organisations, bodies to always do the right thing.
Equally I don’t trust criminals to deny their evil urges either.

Interesting discussion nonetheless.

 

[76woodenspooners]

That’s the extreme and not sure that’s the real argument.

What if at Round 1 someone accuses you of me of being racist to aborigines when we scream a big cheer for a Stephenson goal.
Imagine a few people say you were racist (opposition supporters).

And ofcourse it’s wrong.
It’s not different to your scenario.

The issue to me isn’t the extreme imagined circumstances but a discussion of do the benefits outweigh the negatives of face recognition.

OK, let’s consider real circumstances.

Some time ago the idiots at the Carlton Football Club left their AFLW recruiting plans clearly visible on Whiteboards in an unlocked room at Pricess Park with public access. Bim-bam-boom and said plans get uploaded to BigFooty.

This was clearly embarrassing to the Carlton Football Club because they then made false accusations about what happened.

Do you think Carlton should have had facial recognition on their side? Me neither.

 

[Black_White]

OK, let’s consider real circumstances.

Some time ago the idiots at the Carlton Football Club left their AFLW recruiting plans clearly visible on Whiteboards in an unlocked room at Pricess Park with public access. Bim-bam-boom and said plans get uploaded to BigFooty.

This was clearly embarrassing to the Carlton Football Club because they then made false accusations about what happened.

Do you think Carlton should have had facial recognition on their side? Me neither.

Carlton’s intellectual property was stolen.
Since when does having an unlocked room give someone the right to steal?
And to compound the crime, the property was shared.
Someone broke laws. Facial recognition may have identified the law breaker.
No issue here.

 

[Kappa]

The really big issue is that laws to protect the public against nefarious use of data are lagging way behind the technology. I'm willing to bet that when this goes through, it won't be long before the only way of going to the footy will be to buy online, where you'll have to tick an 'I agree' box, which will effectively be you signing a contract that hands over rights to your personal data, and noone has any real control over where this data will end up or how it will be used in the future.

Exactly what "data" are you afraid of people stealing? The fact you went to the AFL 3 times a year? The fact you bought a hotdog at half time??? All the other information the AFL/Collingwood already have...

How would you feel if you went to the footy, the technology detected (rightly or wrongly) that you were doing something nefarious, and the AFL gave you a life ban as a result?

Maybe the technology was right or maybe the technology was wrong? It wouldn’t matter.

Of course there’d be no recourse or anything, the AFL can ban anyone they want - their only consideration is public opinion. But AFL is such a partisan thing, I can’t imagine that there’d be too many Carlton or Essendon supporters coming to your aid. And if what you’re being accused of is henious then you wouldn’t get many Collingwood supporters behind you either.

You're using a completely extreme and unreasonable example to somehow discredit the whole system which is nonsense. The "technology" doesn't decide if people should be banned, it just records incidents and allows the authorities to catch people who commit crimes or disgusting acts.

Imagine you travel to the US, and a border agent asks you to declare all social media accounts you’re used over the last five years ...

... and that could very well happen when entering the US ...

... you would think that would be a totally cool idea, that you’d be busting to comply with all in the name of “security”?

I would encourage all countries to check social media accounts of those entering the country to see if there's anything that raises red flags. I'm pretty sure border protection agents already do that though...

OK, let’s consider real circumstances.

Some time ago the idiots at the Carlton Football Club left their AFLW recruiting plans clearly visible on Whiteboards in an unlocked room at Pricess Park with public access. Bim-bam-boom and said plans get uploaded to BigFooty.

This was clearly embarrassing to the Carlton Football Club because they then made false accusations about what happened.

Do you think Carlton should have had facial recognition on their side? Me neither.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here

 

[barrackers]

This thread very much seems to have developed into two camps whose who want to maintain privacy and those who don't. In saying that both camps are posting under pseudonyms both in name and image.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

This thread very much seems to have developed into two camps whose who want to maintain privacy and those who don't. In saying that both camps are posting under pseudonyms both in name and image.

But we have facial recognition of avatars.

 

[sr36]

Exactly what "data" are you afraid of people stealing? The fact you went to the AFL 3 times a year? The fact you bought a hotdog at half time??? All the other information the AFL/Collingwood already have...

Currently there are laws in place to protect people's privacy that stop the Australian Police or Government from having the power to take your finger prints, unless you are convicted of a crime. Yet it's very likely that in the near future we will have to agree to hand over the rights to collect and onsell our facial recognition data to private companies if we want to go to a game of footy. Facial recognition data is going to be much more powerful than finger print data, as it will no only be able to identify us, but also track our movements. Whilst I don't have any qualms about me being exposed eating a hotdog, I have serious concerns about what unscrupulous companies and foreign powers may find out about important decision makers who go to the footy and how they will use this information to influence their decisions. Not to mention what might happen if our own country's government becomes paranoid and starts to closely monitor individuals who criticise the government, like what has happened regularly throughout history. The whole thing is a fascist's dreams come true. So yeah, I think it is a terrible thing that we are embarking on an era that forces people to give anyone, let alone short-term, profit-obsessed private companies the ability to track our movements and activity.

 

[Kappa]

Currently there are laws in place to protect people's privacy that stop the Australian Police or Government from having the power to take your finger prints, unless you are convicted of a crime. Yet it's very likely that in the near future we will have to agree to hand over the rights to collect and onsell our facial recognition data to private companies if we want to go to a game of footy. Facial recognition data is going to be much more powerful than finger print data, as it will no only be able to identify us, but also track our movements. Whilst I don't have any qualms about me being exposed eating a hotdog, I have serious concerns about what unscrupulous companies and foreign powers may find out about important decision makers who go to the footy and how they will use this information to influence their decisions. Not to mention what might happen if our own country's government becomes paranoid and starts to closely monitor individuals who criticise the government, like what has happened regularly throughout history. The whole thing is a fascist's dreams come true. So yeah, I think it is a terrible thing that we are embarking on an era that forces people to give anyone, let alone short-term, profit-obsessed private companies the ability to track our movements and activity.

You really can't see how much of a crazy and illogical jump it is from the MCG being able to track what some people do at the MCG to foreign governments tracking our political leaders / a radical authoritarian ultra-nationalism Government taking over our lives?

I mean this is real tin foil hat s**t.

 

[sr36]

You really can't see how much of a crazy and illogical jump it is from the MCG being able to track what some people do at the MCG to foreign governments tracking our political leaders / a radical authoritarian ultra-nationalism Government taking over our lives?

I mean this is real tin foil hat s**t.

It's a pretty similar tin foil hat to what many Western Governments were wearing when they stopped Huawei from building or owning parts of the regulated communication network, because they believe it may enable foreign espionage.

Basically, allowing private companies to track people is just as or even more dangerous, as there is next to no regulation. Where will they source the technology? Will it be checked to see what is encoded within it? Where will data end up? Is there any regulation to stop data like this from a large range of sources from being monopolised. There is a new wave of mass information data collection being set up by private companies, which has far greater potential use than the highly regulated collection of fingerprints ever had, and it is barely being regulated at all.

In terms of our local government, America is pretty similar to Australia in a lot of ways. Do you think Nixon would have said no to using this technology? Do you believe that Russia had no involvement in the recent US election? And even if this information isn't on-sold (which under current legislation it will be, which is why "I agree" tick box contracts always include clauses that allow the on-selling), do you believe that the IT security systems of ticketing companies, shopping centre management bodies, and a whole range of other businesses, who could start supplementing their income in the same way as ticketek are seeking to do, are and will always remain impenetrable?

 

[Anzacday]

We need cameras in more public places just in case something bad happens.

Whilst it's not what you intended, I actually agree with this.
They won't necessarily be a deterrent or prevent crime.
They can however be, (and are successfully) used to apprehend the offenders.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Carlton’s intellectual property was stolen.

Stolen? We live in a society that presumes innocence. Nobody stole anything.

Since when does having an unlocked room give someone the right to steal?

If you take a photo of Carlton’s backline during gameday, are you stealing Carlton’s IP? Of course not.

If you take a photo of Carlton’s backline during an open training session, are you stealing Carlton’s IP? Of course not.

If you take a photo of Carlton’s backline from your balcony on Royal Parade overlooking Princess Park during a closed training session, are you stealing Carlton’s IP? No. Calton’s Backline formation is not an official secret under the 1914 Crimes’ act.

If you walk through a men’s toilet door at Princess Park during a public event at the ground are you trespassing? No.

What if you walk through the door and find you’ve made an honest mistake, it’a not the men’s toilet, would you be trespassing? No.

And to compound the crime, the property was shared.

If that were true we’d have no media.

Journalists do that all the time. Maybe they’re not always the ones who are taking the pictures, but at a minimum they’re accessories.

That’s always been an embarrassment to leaders and politicians. See wikileaks. Despite the best efforts of politicians, they’ve never been able to clamp down on it - but with the help of folks like you they’ll eventually get their way. All in the cause of public safety of course.

Someone broke laws.

Carlton perhaps? In Victoria there are laws against not taking reasonable measures to protect your property.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Carlton’s intellectual property was stolen.

“Carlton” and “intellectual”

Not often you see those two words in the same sentence....

 

[76woodenspooners]

In saying that both camps are posting under pseudonyms both in name and image.

+ in opinions too in some cases.

 

[Scodog10]

I doubt GC has any input on the advertising arrangements, no conflict from where I’m sitting, just a cheap shot from you with no basis.

If GC took that as a cheap shot I’d suggest he gives up the role! Fortunately GC is aware enough to realise it wasn’t that...