zlacker

>>theamk+(OP)
For years I've thought about doing an "art project" to make people more aware of the fact they are being observed – but I never actually got up and did it.

The idea was to seek spots in the city where public web cams are pointed at, and paint QR codes on the ground at those spots (using a template), linking to the camera stream. So when curious passerbys scan the code, they see themselves in a camera stream and feel "watched".

>>fainpu+qj
Not exactly the same, but Massive Attack had some facial recognition software running in the background during a concert to illustrate how pervasive modern day surveillance is: https://petapixel.com/2025/09/17/band-massive-attack-uses-li...

>>allenu+6E
That's not face recognition. That's face detection. It just detects faces and sticks a label from a pre-selected list. Come on, this doesn't even pass the basic smell test. "Facial recognition" my ass. It doesn't recognize anyone. I could build this in a cave with scraps. There's a huge difference between the two: recognition means you have found a known person, detection means you found a person.

That's about the difference between eating sodium chloride and eating sodium.

>>renewi+Hd1
You're right but I don't understand why you're so hostile about it. At any rate, it's still making the same point regardless.

>>marcel+EV3
This kind of privacy slop is overly popular in tech circles. Each participant just posts uninformed garbage and then they link to each other with “citations” for sources that are wholly made up. It’s really reducing the quality of information on this website that it’s now full of junior engineers and interns.

Those guys always obsess over CVEs and privacy and they’re always wrong about everything but have learned to mimic the language of people who know stuff. “There’s some evidence” / “here’s a source”. Ugh. Can’t stand it.