backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Sep 15 at 2:04 AM


Google recently acquired top facial recognition firm PittPatt. The company's applications can be used to scour the internet and identify you within 60 seconds.  (Source: PittPatt)

Thanks to the acquisition Google may soon be able to deploy real world targeted advertisements like those depicted in Minority Report. The advertisements could identify you, check your credit, and target ads at you based on your finances and interests.  (Source: Fox/Dreamworks)
Google and Carnegie Mellon University have created a system capable of alarming invasions of privacy

The application's name is PittPatt and it allows a complete stranger to find your identity -- your real identity -- in under 60 seconds.  Here's how it works.  A client code calls the PittPatt interface with a picture it's taken.  PittPatt jumps online and compares that picture to millions of images in Facebook and in Google Inc.'s (GOOG) image search, using advanced facial recognition technology.  And within 60 seconds, it can identify an individual.

The technology is more than a little creepy.  It seems straight out of futurist thriller flick The Minority Report, where Tom Cruise's character is assailed by advertising billboards that ID him by retinal scans.  In the movie Cruise solves this problem by replacing his eyeballs.  In real life it won't be that simple (hint: you might need facial modification).

PittPatt was a Carnegie Mellon University research project, which spun off into a company post 9/11.  At the time, U.S. intelligence was obsessed with using advanced facial recognition to identify terrorists.  So the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) poured millions into PittPatt.  

And it worked.  PittPatt's proprietary technology can spot faces even when people wear sunglasses, hats, or masks.  While that sounds like a bank robber's worst nightmare, it's also alarming news for law abiding folks.

Now the technology is in the hands of advertising giant Google.  Google purchased the company for an undisclosed price in July.

PittPatt announced on its website, "Joining Google is the next thrilling step in a journey that began with research at Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute in the 1990s and continued with the launching of Pittsburgh Pattern Recognition (PittPatt) in 2004."

"We've worked hard to advance the research and technology in many important ways and have seen our technology come to life in some very interesting products. At Google, computer vision technology is already at the core of many existing products (such as Image Search, YouTube, Picasa, and Goggles), so it's a natural fit to join Google and bring the benefits of our research and technology to a wider audience. We will continue to tap the potential of computer vision in applications that range from simple photo organization to complex video and mobile applications."

Just two months prior it had been all denials and winks when Google was confronted with a CNN story which had a Google engineer on record stating that facial recognition technology was being developed to add to Google Goggles.  Stated Google at the time, "As we've said for more than a year, we will not add facial recognition to Goggles unless we have strong privacy protections in place. We're still working on them. We have nothing to announce at this time."

Alessandro Acquisti, Ph.D, a researcher and instructor still at Carnegie Mellon has designed an iPhone app that functions as a front end for PittPatt's facial recognition technology.  As mentioned, it can identify strangers Facebook profiles with startling accuracy.

And that's not all it can do.  It also incorporates searches of public databases that allows it to make a good guess at your social security number.  If it knows your date of birth (e.g. if your Facebook profile is public), there's a good chance it can ID your social security number.

Of course, the app relies on finding publicly available pictures of you online.  You can always put a picture of something other than your face as your profile image for social networks like Facebook and Google Plus.  But given the fact that many professional positions involve media exposure and/or online corporate bios, that may not be enough to protect your privacy.

Professor Acquisiti, showed his app off to NPR.  The news service writes:

Fred Cate [a law professor and privacy guru at Indiana University] says just imagine if you were a car dealer. You could hook Acquisti's app up to your surveillance cameras, identify potential customers, then check their incomes and credit ratings while they wandered around your lot.

Alessandro Acquisti has no plans to sell his app or make it public. In fact, the prospect of that horrifies him. But Cate thinks the commercial pressure to use technology like this will be intense. And some of the biggest companies in America agree. PittPatt was just bought by Google. But its technology only exists because of investments the government made in research in the wake of the attacks 10 years ago.

The app isn't publicly available.  And stalkers and frauds still have to resort to conventional methods like climbing in your window, sifting through your mail, or sending you phishing emails.

But if there's one take home message of the Google-PittPatt deal, it's the revelation that we're approaching an era where it will be incredibly difficult to protect one's privacy and finances.  When and if this technology hits the public it will shake both the social and financial foundations of society and no one can honestly say exactly what the end result will be.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

hmmm
By Joz on 9/9/2011 10:23:53 AM , Rating: 5
*Searches for self on Google*

Win for me, I do not exist.

*Searches for self on Facebook*

Win for me, I still don't exist.

(or on myspace, or other social networks.)




RE: hmmm
By Dr of crap on 9/9/2011 10:39:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yea I was going to post the very same thing!

I don't, and will not set up a place online where I spill all my info into. For WHAT?

It called common sense.
Don't give out info and you won't have privacy issues!

Next story, please.


RE: hmmm
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/9/2011 12:13:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yea I was going to post the very same thing!

I don't, and will not set up a place online where I spill all my info into. For WHAT?

It called common sense.
Don't give out info and you won't have privacy issues!

Next story, please.

You'll be safe... until your security ignorant wife/teenager posts your family pictures up online...

(Okay I suppose a few people have security savvy spouses/SOs or children, but most non technophiles are pretty ignorant of such things...)

(Or if you are unmarried and live by yourself, perhaps your claim is fair....)


RE: hmmm
By MrTeal on 9/9/2011 10:51:46 AM , Rating: 4
Searching for my name on google returns 45 million hits.

I'm a busy boy.


RE: hmmm
By sleepeeg3 on 9/9/2011 12:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your name is "The Hedgehog"?


RE: hmmm
By AnnihilatorX on 9/10/2011 5:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
John is that you?


RE: hmmm
By Kiffberet on 9/12/2011 8:55:51 AM , Rating: 3
This facial recogntion technology has been around for quite a few years, so it's not surprising someone's using it to trawl the net.

I use Picasa (owned by Google I think) to put photos on the web for friends to view and I was amazed when Picasa automatically started putting all my friends faces together from all the different photos on my computer that I'd taken over the last 10 years. All I had to do was puts names to about 30 faceand Picasa can now tell me every single photo with that person in. Very impressive and only a handful were wrong (usualy those with sun glasses or the photo slightly obscured).

The technology could easily be used to analyse faces on live CCTV footage. All it needs is someone to link all the CCTV up across the country, and everyone can be tracked.

(whose to say it hasn't already been done...)


RE: hmmm
By bigdawg1988 on 9/13/2011 11:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
(whose to say it hasn't already been done...)

Well thank you very much for ruining my day!!


RE: hmmm
By polybios on 9/9/2011 11:37:58 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is, it doesn't matter if you have facebook profile or not. Any friend of you with facebook profile can tag you in photos and you are done. And even if you weren't tagged, I can take a photo of you and search the whole internet for other photos of you with face matching.


RE: hmmm
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2011 12:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you can stop people from tagging you. Or just have it notify you.


RE: hmmm
By polybios on 9/9/2011 12:59:28 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe you can stop people from tagging you as a FB user, but they can still tag you as a generic person (without link to profile), can't they?


RE: hmmm
By MrBlastman on 9/9/2011 11:41:25 AM , Rating: 2
This is all an exemplary reason why you don't:

a. Use Social Networking
b. Use real info online
c. Have multiple email addresses
d. Post photo albums online in any form for others to see

etc.

These freedoms come with a price. A price that is far, far too steep.


RE: hmmm
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2011 12:53:41 PM , Rating: 1
My name comes up. But no photos.


RE: hmmm
By fuzzlefizz on 9/9/2011 1:43:54 PM , Rating: 3
*Searches for Joz on Dailytech*

Win for me, Joz exists.


RE: hmmm
By Joz on 9/9/2011 2:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
Not my real name.

I win.


RE: hmmm
By polybios on 9/10/2011 3:31:26 AM , Rating: 4
this is what I have found about you in one hour:
gender: male
real name: Scott
age: 22 - 25
location: USA
birthday: May 19
your table tennis racket: http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/6937/13890687.j...
your dog: http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/4949/50230708.j... http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/3963/16387948.j...
your eyes: http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4109/81651781.j...

I win.


RE: hmmm
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/10/2011 5:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
Glad I use a different handle on every site, wouldn't want people seeing my private ping-pong equipment...


RE: hmmm
By tastyratz on 9/12/2011 4:19:00 PM , Rating: 2
A man's choice in table sports is a private indulgence indeed. Think of the evil google could do knowing this!

actually I would hate for that to be the ONLY information that turned up. Everywhere I go with smart advertising they would be trying to sell me balls. balls get old fast, and nobody likes old balls.


RE: hmmm
By rabbitslayer21 on 9/12/2011 4:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
Ooh! Ooh! Do me next!


RE: hmmm
By polybios on 9/13/2011 3:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
Alex, you have several social network's profiles, no challenge...


I Am Not...
By mmatis on 9/9/2011 12:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
concerned about Google or any other private entity doing this. I AM concerned about the US government using it. We are RAPIDLY approaching civil war in this country due to the government's refusal to operate within its constitutional limits. If, however, it is war they want...




RE: I Am Not...
By sleepeeg3 on 9/9/2011 12:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I think people missed the part about this being funded by the federal government. A shot from a video camera and you can be instantly verified down to your social security number? Scary.


RE: I Am Not...
By guffwd13 on 9/9/2011 2:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
I just spoke with someone personally familiar with the research (I'll refrain from providing a photo link so as not to identify said person), and apparently the professor who headed to the project warned Homeland Security that it was possible to retrieve a social security number of someone from a photo. And as such, they need to increase personal security so as not to make us fall pray to others. They didn't believe him and dismissed the warning. So he wrote a code to prove it.

Ironic isn't it? Or arrogant (on the part of Homeland Security).

And by the way, the system apparently doesn't retrieve your actual SS number. It can only determine a probability down to 20 or so - one of which is correct. This is because your number is based on your date of birth, place of birth and a few other factors. It isn't random or consecutive - its specific to you.


RE: I Am Not...
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/9/2011 6:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
"We are RAPIDLY approaching civil war"

Hardly. No offense to Americans (as I'd say the same thing about my fellow Canadians), but would Mr. Average Joe Sixpack sitting on his fat ass watching imbecilic "reality TV" programs really give a shit about anything enough to want to start a war that could seriously reduce his overall comfort and complacency level? People need to experience real hardship, or believe fervently in some ideal before considering such action.

Other than that bit of hyperbole, damn right the government should not be given such powers.


RE: I Am Not...
By alcalde on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: I Am Not...
By EricMartello on 9/9/2011 11:22:40 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, this guy is really drunk on the Kool Aid, ey?

There are countless examples in recent history (i.e. even the last 6 months) where the US Government shows its blatant disregard for the constitution. Here's a few:

- The Dept of Homeland Security: it's mere existence is unconstitutional.

- The BATFE "Fast and Furious" failure. Let's erode Americans' second amendment right and give assault weapons to mexican drug dealers. Gun control is unconstitutional.

- Obamacare...the fact that something like that is even up for consideration is a joke, and is unconstitutional.

- THIS facial recognition technology is looking to be a violation of Americans' 4th amendment rights. If searching someone becomes as easy as snapping a pic and executing a google search, then yeah...it's going to be abused and it is unconstitutional.

Is a civil war brewing in the USA? I don't think we're there yet but I can see it happening, especially with the government being fully ineffective to handle the fundamental needs of its people and frequently overstepping its authority in an attempt to seize more power and control.


RE: I Am Not...
By alcalde on 9/10/2011 4:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
"Its mere existence is unconstitutional". That's convincing. ;-) Without citing Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, please explain where in the Constitution this is forbidden - and why it doesn't similarly forbid the FBI, CIA, DEA, and any other federal security division.

"Gun control is unconstitutional" - um, that's not what the Supreme Court has ruled, and they're the authorities on what's constitutional. You're not even trying to not sound like an extremist.

Sigh... health care is not unconstitutional either, and you ARE a Ron Paul Tea Party Brigade member; I was hoping I was off-base. I'm sure auto insurance is unconstitutional too, right? Are you also one of those "soverign citizen" types who think you don't need a license to drive either?

"Facial recognition is unconstitutional" - why don't you just say that anything you don't like is unconstitutional? Do you know anything about law, the courts, or the constitution? Do you know those little things called license plates on your car? Well, many years ago someone tried claiming that a police officer running a license plate check on them was unconstitional. The courts ruled that the plates were on display in public and hence a reasonable right to privacy was NOT in place. They imposed limits regarding different levels of information the officer could access depending on the circumstances/results - say, the plate comes back that the owner has a suspended license and someone matching the owner's description is driving the officer could access more data and initiate a stop - but the officers did have the right to run the plate.
This is the EXACT same situation with the facial recognition. If you're walking around in public, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just as I could snap a picture of you in public legally, a system can snap a picture of you. If and only if the system ids you as possibly a wanted criminal or suspected terrorist, then it could access non-public information about you. That's 100% identical to the way officers handle license plates every day.

The only reason we have a problem with the government today is that people are letting themselves be manipulated by ideologues into believing all sorts of nonsense rather than addressing real problems. They've got unemployed whites turning on underemployed Mexicans, Christians versus gays, dirt poor people believing their lives will get better if Donald Trump gets a tax break and GE can continue to pay no taxes and Google can use the "Dutch Sandwich" to avoid paying taxes, and other people who believe the government is out of control - only when there's someone in office who the powers that be don't like, of course. I saw this during the Clinton years, too - Clinton killed Vince Foster, the OKC Bombing was an inside job to allow the ATF to steal our guns, etc. Then Bush came in and grabbed an American citizen on U.S. soil and locked him away for years with no trial (Jose Padilla) and the Michigan Militia was nowhere to be seen. Suddenly there's a milquetoast centrist conservative black guy in office who wants to give poor people a few crumbs and here we go with the fascist one-world conspiracy talk again.

When Michelle Bachmann wins a straw poll, that's a sign the problem isn't government anymore... it's an appallingly ignorant citizenship who'll believe anything, particularly if it's something bad about some other group of their fellow countrymen.


RE: I Am Not...
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/10/2011 5:06:48 PM , Rating: 4
Both extremes of ignorance on display here, but the complacent type is the worst. American politicians have been using the constitution as toilet paper for 200 years, otherwise the federal government wouldn't be twice the size of your manufacturing sector and your debt wouldn't be bigger than your economy.

For the tinfoil-hatists, the government does not wish to literally enslave and mind-control you; for the head-in-the-sandists, don't you see your government is buying your votes with your own money (and your children's money), and has set your country on a perilous path to bankruptcy and perpetual economic depression?


RE: I Am Not...
By EricMartello on 9/11/2011 7:43:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Its mere existence is unconstitutional". That's convincing. ;-) Without citing Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, please explain where in the Constitution this is forbidden - and why it doesn't similarly forbid the FBI, CIA, DEA, and any other federal security division.


What's forbidden is that the Dept of Homeland Security also included legislature that was approved without any kind of votes from US citizens that allows for violations of Constitutional rights in the name if "security". Things like warrantless surveillance, bypassing due process, arresting people without cause, etc. The FBI, CIA and other agencies are not unconstitutional in themselves, but the overreaching powers they have been granted is where the problem manifests.

quote:
"Gun control is unconstitutional" - um, that's not what the Supreme Court has ruled, and they're the authorities on what's constitutional. You're not even trying to not sound like an extremist.


I'm not an extremist, but the 2nd amendment is quite clear in what it states. The supreme court is not an authority; the citizens of the USA are the authority and law-abiding citizens do have a right to possess firearms for protection and self-defense. I am happy to see that a couple politicians are pushing a reciprocity act that would allow people with concealed carry licenses to cross state lines legally with their firearms.

quote:
Sigh... health care is not unconstitutional either, and you ARE a Ron Paul Tea Party Brigade member; I was hoping I was off-base. I'm sure auto insurance is unconstitutional too, right? Are you also one of those "soverign citizen" types who think you don't need a license to drive either?


Obamacare in a nutshell states that all US citizens must pay for health insurance. Who said anything about healthcare? Obamacare does not address the fundamental issue as to why people do not have health insurance - it's too fckin expensive! Healthcare in the USA, while maybe higher than some other countries, is priced well beyond what a legitimate market would support. It is definitely unconstitutional to force people to purchase health insurance, and furthermore it will not solve the problem of affordability for many people who currently do not have health insurance.

quote:
"Facial recognition is unconstitutional" - why don't you just say that anything you don't like is unconstitutional?


Is that what I said? Pretty sure it's not. I said that this implementation (i.e. the contents of this news article) is unconstitutional because it IS sponsored by the government and it is a violation of the 4th amendment. It's not a matter of whether or not I like something.

quote:
When Michelle Bachmann wins a straw poll, that's a sign the problem isn't government anymore... it's an appallingly ignorant citizenship who'll believe anything, particularly if it's something bad about some other group of their fellow countrymen.


No secret that the general population of the USA are total morons who lack basic cognitive abilities...but they alone are not the problem. The government is just too big and bloated...it needs to be scaled down and streamlined.


RE: I Am Not...
By cjohnson2136 on 9/12/2011 1:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not an extremist, but the 2nd amendment is quite clear in what it states. The supreme court is not an authority; the citizens of the USA are the authority and law-abiding citizens do have a right to possess firearms for protection and self-defense. I am happy to see that a couple politicians are pushing a reciprocity act that would allow people with concealed carry licenses to cross state lines legally with their firearms.


The 2nd Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If you are not a well regulated militia then no you do not have the right to bear arms. If you want to be called on by your governor to fight when called then you would be a militia but a person that holds guns and will not use them for the gov't is not a militia and hence does not have the right to bear arms.


RE: I Am Not...
By EricMartello on 9/13/2011 1:18:54 AM , Rating: 2
Oh look, cjohnson single-handedly diffused all debates about the true intention of the second amendment........not really.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Read it carefully brah. It says "the right of the People" not the right of the militia; it's quite clear that it was intended to protect the people from the government by making it illegal for the government to disarm them. Militias are an entirely separate issue also protected by the 2nd amendment.

quote:
How is that unconstitutional. To me it sounds like a tax which last I checked the gov't was within its rights to tax it's citizens


To you it sounds like a tax, but you're a moron so it doesn't matter what it sounds like to you. A tax is by definition a forced fee that benefits the "state". Obamacare is not a tax; it's forcing people to purchase health insurance from private companies. Weren't you the idiot who tried to misstate "healthcare" as being "health insurance"? Oh yeah, that was you.

quote:
Also wrong again. It is only unconstitutional if someones privacy is violated by gov't. Just because there is a chance it could be violated does not mean anything. If police use it within the laws that are set which includes getting a search warrant or following the laws of a reasonable search then no 4th amendment violation is there.


Wrong? Me? Never. The fact that you can legally take pictures of anyone in a public place would easily open the door for this technology to be abused by government/law enforcement. The scans and searches imposed by the TSA for people wanting to fly are also a violation of the 4th amendment. If you think otherwise, you're probably canadian or british...and a moron.


RE: I Am Not...
By cjohnson2136 on 9/13/2011 10:18:35 AM , Rating: 2
Really you have to resort to name calling?

quote:
Wrong? Me? Never. The fact that you can legally take pictures of anyone in a public place would easily open the door for this technology to be abused by government/law enforcement. The scans and searches imposed by the TSA for people wanting to fly are also a violation of the 4th amendment.


Just because the technology has the potential for abuse does not mean it is unconstitutional. GPS is technology that can track your location is it unconstitutional to have it in your cell phone when there is a chance for abuse from the police. Technology is also going to evolve and as it evolves there will always be a chance for abuse. Does that mean the technology is unconstitutional? That would be ridiculous to assume any new technology with a chance of abuse from the government should not be made.

As for the other two points I don't really care since it is off the point of the article.


RE: I Am Not...
By EricMartello on 9/15/2011 2:04:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really you have to resort to name calling?


It's not name-calling; it's fact-stating.

quote:
Just because the technology has the potential for abuse does not mean it is unconstitutional. GPS is technology that can track your location is it unconstitutional to have it in your cell phone when there is a chance for abuse from the police. Technology is also going to evolve and as it evolves there will always be a chance for abuse. Does that mean the technology is unconstitutional? That would be ridiculous to assume any new technology with a chance of abuse from the government should not be made.


Fail example since the GPS technology in cellphones has already been exploited illegally thanks to the DHS. Once again, you seem to have an issue properly identifying points here. The GPS technology itself is not unconstitutional; the exploitation of that that tech by law enforcement/government agencies is. Why don't you stop responding and give that concept a few weeks to sink in.

quote:
As for the other two points I don't really care since it is off the point of the article.


LOL all of your responses have been off topic and off point for that matter.


RE: I Am Not...
By cjohnson2136 on 9/12/2011 1:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obamacare in a nutshell states that all US citizens must pay for health insurance. Who said anything about healthcare? Obamacare does not address the fundamental issue as to why people do not have health insurance - it's too fckin expensive! Healthcare in the USA, while maybe higher than some other countries, is priced well beyond what a legitimate market would support. It is definitely unconstitutional to force people to purchase health insurance, and furthermore it will not solve the problem of affordability for many people who currently do not have health insurance.


How is that unconstitutional. To me it sounds like a tax which last I checked the gov't was within its rights to tax it's citizens


RE: I Am Not...
By garagetinkerer on 9/14/2011 10:11:06 AM , Rating: 2
Tax is paid to the government for what it is supposed to do. Which in this case is violating an individual's privacy some more. When you speak of health insurance, the money is going to the corporations and hence is not a tax. I say stop this corporate socialism. It is funny how they speak of "capitalism" when they cut pay/ jobs. As soon as the companies need/ want money, all "free market" concepts are forgotten and fast.


RE: I Am Not...
By cjohnson2136 on 9/12/2011 1:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that what I said? Pretty sure it's not. I said that this implementation (i.e. the contents of this news article) is unconstitutional because it IS sponsored by the government and it is a violation of the 4th amendment. It's not a matter of whether or not I like something.


Also wrong again. It is only unconstitutional if someones privacy is violated by gov't. Just because there is a chance it could be violated does not mean anything. If police use it within the laws that are set which includes getting a search warrant or following the laws of a reasonable search then no 4th amendment violation is there.


RE: I Am Not...
By tng on 9/11/2011 11:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
I take it you live in a large metro area?

While I will agree that civil war is probably not going to happen soon, there is a large disconnect between people who spent their lives in an urban environment and those who grew up in the country. In other words the problem is between the Red and Blue voting areas.

If there is a civil war it will be fueled by this disconnect and I would not bet on the Blue.


RE: I Am Not...
By navair2 on 9/13/2011 9:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed on all.


RE: I Am Not...
By dark matter on 9/10/2011 6:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
With regards to Libya, you'll notice that the Western governments are rejoicing about the fall of the previous Libyan government. Even going so far to arm the rebels.

Don't you find it the slightest bit galling that our governments and the media call them "rebels", when if you, or I, posted on here that we intend to bring our governments down using force we would be locked up (without access to legal representation and perhaps even torture) and classed as a "terrorist".

Argue all you like, but that is the stark reality. Don't believe me, you try it, and when in court (if you're lucky) just say you're a "rebel" and why not ask for some guns whilst your there.


RE: I Am Not...
By garagetinkerer on 9/14/2011 10:13:27 AM , Rating: 2
Someone give him a 6 for calling out on BS!


Google = creepy
By sorry dog on 9/9/2011 10:34:16 AM , Rating: 1
Why does Google need stuff like this...they already know most everything else about us...It's like Google is trying to build Skynet or something.




RE: Google = creepy
By cjohnson2136 on 9/9/2011 10:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
Google == creepy

Fixed your title. :)


RE: Google = creepy
By cjohnson2136 on 9/9/2011 10:50:08 AM , Rating: 2
if(Google == creepy)
{
Skynet.Creation.IsEnabled
}
else
{
Google.Money = Google.Money * 1,000
}


RE: Google = creepy
By inighthawki on 9/9/2011 11:55:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:

if(Google == creepy)
{
    Skynet. Enable();
}
else
{
    Google.Money *= 1000;
}

Fixed that for you.


RE: Google = creepy
By cjohnson2136 on 9/9/2011 2:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I looked at it when I posted and figured I needed to change some things but I didn't have time cause of my project


WTF
By KrayLoN on 9/9/2011 10:45:11 AM , Rating: 3
This is out of control...

Where do we draw the line? At what point can I say that my rights as individual outweigh the needs of the many or of my own for that matter? LOL...we are so brain washed as a society. How can we be more secure by being less secure?

Sure...this can be used for good but I can say without a shadow of a doubt it will be used for something bad more than and it will be used for something good. It will also be used for something bad way before it is used for something good.




RE: WTF
By frobizzle on 9/9/2011 11:09:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
At what point can I say that my rights as individual outweigh the needs of the many or of my own for that matter?

(Loud, mechanical voice, seeming to emanate from everywhere at once) "When we tell you that you can!"


By unimatrix725 on 9/9/2011 2:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wander how lifelock will respond to this? (hehe) I always thought that when your credit is queried it MAY or MAY NOT impact it. I also thought it was illegal for someone to query your credit, without your permission or knowledge? This is one sh*tstorm waiting to happen. I steer clear of social networking. It creates drama, which I have more than enough of!




By renosablast on 9/9/2011 4:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
And then what happens when anonymous or other entity hacks into it and publishes the info?




Eden of the East
By b1u3 on 9/9/2011 4:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is similar to the software they created in Eden of the East.




FR app
By wallijonn on 9/9/2011 6:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The app isn't publicly available.


Let's hope Google doesn't get cracked.





Beware
By cruisin3style on 9/12/2011 3:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
of free apps that take pics on android devices w/ front facing cameras?




PittPatt
By foolsgambit11 on 9/11/2011 4:08:11 AM , Rating: 1
Really? PittPatt? Because who couldn't love something named PittPatt?

Let's make PittPatt the new mascot of Google - a magical, pan-sexual, non-threatening spokesthing!

And for my next Mr. Show link - at about 1:25.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uco5Ed-5y2U




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki