Please dont link to paywalled articles, unless you paste the whole article contents in the post
Oops, sorry!
Ty
Page doesn’t load
Providing the text or an archive link separately may be polite, but your request goes too far. If somebody shares a paywalled link that is on topic for the community, you have several options. You can ignore it and miss out, and be no worse off. You can find an archive copy yourself, and even share it in a comment to receive fake internet points. You can enjoy the discussion in the comments and maybe find other relevant links there. But you’re suggesting that the community is better off with fewer posts and less participation (“please don’t [post] unless”).
The community rules include
Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
That’s a much nicer way of stating a preference to have OPs do the legwork. Please don’t discourage community participation.
To be fair, the sidebar itself suggests copying the content over if they’re paywalled. It’s nuts that you’ve highlighted that, and then complained about a rephrasing of what it says.
It’s nuts to me that you can’t see the nuance in the difference between “please don’t [post]” and “maybe copy [the article text] into the post”.
The “maybe” in there is doing a lot of work converting that into a suggested guideline rather than being a hard rule, and a polite request to follow the guideline is appropriate. But the nuance of “don’t post unless” is distinctly discouraging participation, and not appropriate.
Low effort posts harm our communities. Please don’t encourage harmful participation
At the time I’m submitting this one, this post has 77 comments, including a few with OP engaging in replies. There are several distinct healthy discussions that occurred in this post long before you complained that OP didn’t put in enough effort by violating 404’s copyright because you feel entitled to have a low-effort doomscrolling experience. OP isn’t the one hurting the community here.
People are commenting on a headline they can’t read. Lots of misinformation follows. Yes, that’s harmful
Even those makeup are kinda useless since they can track you to your door, see the cars you got in, the people you met, see if those people posted on social media if they know someone trying anti-facial recognition methods, etc. They can easily make a list of people prone to use anti-facial recognition that lives in or walks by certain areas then recognize them by body-type, height, walking rhythm…
Best thing is to destroy all the cameras near your house.
They can easily make a list of people prone to use anti-facial recognition that lives in or walks by certain areas then recognize them by body-type, height, walking rhythm…
Which is why everyone should put stones in their shoes, especially if going to a protest. 🙂
Even just protest shoes being different style then your normal ones probably make a difference. Different bag loadouts could affect it too.
Some of those mean the more people that use anti facial recognition tools, the more effective they will be for everyone. So we should probably just encourage everyone to use it.
Yeah, It’s one tool in the toolbox. and it won’t stop all those other things for sure, but products like this can help build awareness of the ubiquitous surveillance we live under. Awareness might eventually lead to policy change. So it’s not a bad thing, and the article does describe the limitations and weaknesses.
Also, not for nothing, I saw a test on YouTube (Dr. John Padfield - Business Reform) where his tests showed that IR reflective hats worked better than glasses.
Yeah, you might as well turn off your antivirus and firewall seeing as those can be bypassed by a skilled actor anyways.
Version alpha
“All-in-one defense across the light spectrum —reflects near-infrared light, filters blue light, blocks 100% UV rays, and is light-adaptive for all-day comfort.”
Apart from defending against facial recognition, this is really dope.
Holy shit. That’s awesome.
Here’s an actual link to the tech: Zenni ID Guard
Pretty wild getting hit with a message to accept all cookies.
Need something to mask your identity? Best I can do is send your info to 20 brokers.
I agree it sucks.
But: Manage Cookies > select none > Confirm my choices
Wouldn’t trust the company selling it to be honest about it
I like the idea, but don’t just buy these assuming you’re good to go, and then walk around with a normie iPhone or Android device that phones home constantly with your precise location and device ID, SIM information etc.
There is always at least some error rate and deniability in probabilistic matching by something like facial recognition. There is a lot less deniability of your specific device ID, tied to your real identity (thanks to KYC laws), being in X location at Y time.
I’ve been thinking for a little while that it might be interesting to build on a pair of glasses with a couple IR LEDs at either edge and a battery pack to light them up. I can’t decide if that would be good to wear to a protest because the glare would likely obscure your entire face to cameras, or if it would be a bad idea because you’d stick out immediately on any surveillance.
That would probably be more effective as a form of protest against such technologies.
Yeah but:
https://xkcd.com/1105/So you’re saying we need to make plans and soldering parties with all of our new friends. That’s a good plan, actually.
DIY hoodie https://www.popsci.com/technology/camera-shy-hoodie-privacy/
These glasses are pricey tho, so maybe DIY based on the hoodie https://www.reflectacles.com/#home
That’s awesome, thanks for sharing!
I don’t even know if it would work. Most cameras have an IR filter they use during the day.
I actually recently bought a pair of Zennis and saw this advertising before it made the rounds in the media. The advertising was extremely generic in describing how it worked.
So this is it? Just IR blocking? Like, your eyes are not your whole face. Put a pair of sunglasses on and achieve the same thing…
The idea is it reflects IR and blows out the exposure.
But IR Is only on during low light conditions.
I’m just pointing out that it’s not IR blocking, it’s IR reflecting.
The sun emits IR in non low light conditions
Prove it
I agree with your sentiment. Security is trust but verify kind of field and some proof from a third party to kind of audit this claim would be great.
Also it’s not the guy you linked to jobs lol
Security is trust but verify kind of field
Nope, security is an archetypal verify before trust kind of field.
You I guess it more depends on the threat model. That can also be a fully valid stance as well
Prove what? I’m merely relaying the info from the article you didn’t read.
Prove what?
…what you said? That these lenses reflect IR and blow out the exposure.
the article you didn’t read.
…the paywalled article? Yeah, didn’t read it.
It kind of has a red tinted layer which creates red blobs in quite a lot of different lighting conditions. Even with non IR photography, if you are standing outside or under bright lights there’s a good chance any pictures will end up with red artifacts in the lenses, partially or completely obscuring your eyes.
Videos testing these glasses show that face-id doesn’t work when wearing them. This demonstrates that (at least for Apple), covering your eye area is enough to defeat IR-based facial recognition.
still doesnt solve the problem, the feds already know who you are.
Anyone seen anything similar in the UK or EU? I had a look and couldn’t find this sort of lens coating at all
Who is Matthew Gault?
thank god i don’t need glasses.
