Accountability in Music • Page 187

Label Drops Hip-Hop Tastemaker After Sex-Assault Allegations

 

took long enough

 

His dumbass fans wont care. Knowing the way some rappers abusive pasts are being glamorised, he'll probably get another label with less morals to sign him.

 

yup. if you look at his youtube response, pretty much all the comments are just making fun of the victim for having one arm.

humans suck.

 

Weezy F Baby the stands for For Fuck's Sake

 

I wonder how much longer we’re going to have to hear about that piece of shit

 

Travis Barker got a tattoo for him lol

 

Travis Barker is not a smart man

 

Well, I spent about a half-hour researching and writing a post on playlist algorithms and streaming media on another thread (Why Are All of Spotify’s Most-Streamed Artists Men? • Page 3 • forum.chorus.fm) and here's another story in the press on a related issue. Probably better to put this here:


Surveillance fears grow after Taylor Swift uses face recognition tech on fans
Pop star’s reported use of software to root out stalkers may be well meant, but it fuels a disturbing trend, experts say
Surveillance fears grow after Taylor Swift uses face recognition tech on fans

My feelings on this is like my feelings on debating Spotify's 360 degree spin on banning extreme mysogynist tracks from mainstream play and how the vast majority of plays go to male artists -- it's missing the point on how this technology is impacting the larger society and displaces the attention of activists.

Like I can debate either way on whether or not Taylor Swift (or her security team, or their insurance company, whatever) should be using "facial recognition technology" hidden in a kiosk playing Taylor Swift rehersal videos as a ploy to find out if staklers are attending her shows, but I think it's inevitable she/they are going to be doing this. And I am sure there will be little or no complaint from anyone in the music industry about this, rather you're going to see more venues all the way down to the club level wanting the same technology to help keep tabs on whoever they deem as troublemakers. You will probably hear some mention of concern that this will be used to discriminate againt POC but as far as mainstream use I think there will be no complaint otherwise from anyone in any position of authority in the industry.

PS - Why don't I think there will be any complaint from the industry? Because it's probably already being done, or at least experimented with, because it's cheaper to pay some cloud service to do facial recognition than it would be to hire even a low-wage bouncer to do the same thing, not to mention the cloud service would probably do a better job.

 

If music artists are gonna start using facial recognition to root out stalkers then @thesoftskeleton is in trouble


Ps to remain on topic.....I think that’s very weird. I haven’t formulated a full thought on it but yeah it kinda freaks me out that we’re headjng that direction.

 

When I saw this news story yesterday I was legit like well...it was a good run while it lasted.

What degree is considered stalking like I don’t understand when someone is a threat

 

The best answer to that might be that it can be whatever the targed or potential victim thinks is a threat. Stalking is sort of a crime in the mind of the person being stalked.

Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Stalking - Wikipedia
"According to a 2002 report by the U.S. National Center for Victims of Crime, "virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking",[2] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter."

So someone "creeping" on your Facebook page, staring at your profile picture and name even though they can't see anything else might feel like stalking, but it's not in itself a reasonable threat to your safety. But someone standing outside of the property line of your residence staring at your front door should be considered stalking, or they may be committing some other sort of crime. For a crazed / obsessed fan that's been convicted of stalking, they've probably been barred from attending the concerts of whatever band / performer is involved, so their presence would be considered breaking a stalking related law.

It's easy to elaborate superficially on the problem that facial recognition might cause for fans and the public in general but there's a lot more potential problems caused by this than the typical reporting is likely to cover.

One thing I've thought of that hasn't been reported in the stories I've read is that facial recognition technology seems to be optimized to more accurately read and interpret identifying facial characteristics and expressions of people with lighter skin. So one might expect the technology in public venues to be used first on the audiences of performers with lighter skin, whether they are sports fans (already being done) or music fans (say Taylor Swift). It may not in practice automatically be percieved as biased against POC if positives are treated with respect and care when human security follows up individually in getting a positive ID but it may automatically result in more POC being flagged for in-person follow-up by security to verify their ID. That's a kind of bias or discrimination even if it isn't automatically, immediately percieved as such.

I think this may spread quickly in the music scene not only for the financial savings it might give venues and promoters (see previous post) but also because there are so many female artists who have gotten some sort of creepy message or dealt with some weird fan in the past (even if they don't have anyone they've identified or tried to report as a stalker) or have had had an abusive ex-boyfriend they'd like to know if they're in the audience, so if this was sold as a way to help them keep that fear in check it would all the more likely implemented.

 

I know that Taylor swift specifically has had stalkers and people on her property and stuff so I kinda get it but overall it’s a strange reach. Lots of people follow artists around on tour or go to multiple shows. Will those people be put on a stalker watch list or something

 

No, supernovagirl, I'd think though those Swifties who follow her around as legitimate fans could though be put on a watch list for special VIP treatment. Just kidding.

Seriously, to get on some stalker watch list and get time (and money) spent on security to deal with, the potential offender would have to be considered some significant threat. I don't think there is any professional or legal standard for Taylor's security to say exactly who might be considered enough of a threat, but since it costs money to make that judgement call and put them on their personal watch list they'd want to focus on the people they consider most likely to be a threat, at least the people they already have a restraining order against.

 

For what it's worth, Taylor's security team have like...binders full of people who have made threats, harrassed her, etc. She has a pretty good handle on who is a real stalker and who is a superfan. I don't like this tech necessarily, but she has files on who to watch out for. There was a rumor going around that no fans were allowed near the b-stage at her Nashville show because there was a legitimate stalker there. There's also video of her panicking during a song where she's at the piano because she thought she heard footsteps of someone coming up behind her. It's sad for her to have to live her life like that.

 

Kayla, I actually don't think she personally has a handle on who is a most serious threat and who is a less serious threat. I doubt she personally knows many of these stalker-types, and she'd be less likely to personally know the ones who are the most threat. She'd know of them if they had been identified, investigated, and especially if a court order had been issued against them, so they'd be the ones obviously for her security to focus on. Those have to be fewer in number than the mass of the people who are in those binders of people who might pose a threat to her that you mentioned.

I think the number of people her security could potentially be reasonably concerned about might number in the hundreds or more. It would have to include every supposed identity of anyone who has sent her credibly threatening messages or shown a pattern of doing so, not just those who have been seen physically stalking her or trespassing on her property, and more than the people she's tried to take legal action against or succeeded in getting restraining orders against. But if she has her security put all of those faces and identities into this facial recognition system, or any sort of survailence system, they are going to have problems with false positives as well what should be done in general with any positives.

Imagine at a show that her fan kiosk with this embedded survailence system says it recognizes a stalker and it sets an alarm off with security. There would have to be a security person in the immediate area of that kiosk respond quickly enough to encounter the possible stalker and get a positive ID on them. If they didn't and the stalker walked away, what would they do? There may already be cameras everywhere but the restrooms at her shows but they all can't be hooked up to this facial recognition system, there's maybe only a few that are being monitored in real time for this. They might look to other cameras for a blur of someone who looks kind of like the person the system thought was positively IDed but a human would likely have to do that and that takes time to do.

The algorithms that do this facial recoginition are going to have to be fairly loose to catch stalkers whose facial features change, like by hairstyle, glasses, facial hair, or makeup, even if they aren't trying to disguise themselves. Loose algorithms increase the chance for false positives as does a larger database of possible targets they are searching for, and what do they do then? Security would have to be ultra-careful about how they confirm someone's ID and so verify a positve ID as they'll maybe have to photograph their face more closely and ask for their ID. This might be more difficult to manage if they are encountering a POC or a upset fan. If nothing else dealing with false positives could take a lot of their time -- time they wouldn't have to spend on people who are posing real threats.

If her files contain the possible identities of hundreds (maybe thousands?) of people and all of them are put into this system and the algorithms are loose enough to get a match with faces that change with hairstyles, eyeglasses, facial hair, and maybe even makeup the likelihood of false positives is going to be much higher than if they only put in a few faces and used the same or tighter algorithms. And even without this facial recognition system I think the stalkers who have been warned to stay away or had court orders filed against them already are staying away or would be willing to take measures to hide their identity if they did attend a show.

I really think this system is not going to be all it is cracked up to be as far as enhancing her security. So like I said the larger question is what this means for society, not so much for Taylor Swift and her fans who I think are likely not going to be affected as much as we might at first think, positively or negativly.

 

Not true.

 

I forgot to add makeup in that sentence. I think I was adding it with an edit as you were writing your post. Typical hairstyle changes won't easily affect facial recognition. Eyeglasses are more likely to do so, and facial hair that changes possible facial shape is also more likely to do so.

The thing that would affect facial recognition most is makeup or other facial changes, even hairstyles, that changes the appearance of fundamental facial features or is asymmetric enough to throw off the "lock" entirely that a facial recognition system makes initially to get a possible ID on a face at all.

This has been written about in the popular press for years:

2010:
Fooling face recognition systems with makeup

2014:
How I Hid From Facial Recognition Surveillance Systems

2018:
Yes, There’s a Way to Outsmart Facial Recognition Technology—And It Comes Down to Your Makeup

I could have elaborated on it in my original post but the main point that a determined stalker could change their features to throw off a facial recognition systems postive ID of them is still basically correct, I think. The point of changing facial attributes or increasing asymmetry isn't to look like someone else, it's to lessen the chances of a facial recognition system getting a lock on their face and then coding and classifying the features it is looking for, and also lessening the chance of getting a particular facial ID assigned to that lock. Even if all that effort does is make a stalker think they will be less likely to be ID'd by facial recognition the deterrent effect, at least, decreases because the stalker will think they won't be likely caught by their effort.

Of course, a creepy guy trying to stalk Taylor Swift by attending her concerts isn't going to style their hair and apply makeup and more (like the articles above say) like David Bowie, but a few changes with eyeglasses, hairstyle, and a little makeup -- especially if it wasn't so noticably asymmetric and appearing suspicious to humans as the examples in the articles show -- could throw off a facial recognition system's lock on their face and less the chance for any kind of ID, much less a positive ID, especially if the photo that the system is evaluating is taken from a distance or from an angle yielding a image that is less-than-perfect for computer recognition. Heck, he could even experiment with a modern smartphone camera's facial recognition security (the facial recognition system that some phones use for a screen lock) or facial recognition apps to test his makeup skills.

I'm not saying it's easy, only that it's likely a determined, delusional stalker would reasonably, easily find out how they can do that or at least convince themselves they can do it, and the deterrent effect at least is gone for them, and they may also successfully evade a facial recognition system's attempt to identify them.

 

I use different glasses, different hats, facial hair, and much more with facial recognition every single day, some three or four hundred times. You've gone down the wrong path with this. A privacy angle is a good place to argue from, but we're at a spot where the tech and AI together is very, very good and getting better daily, so a mistaken identity angle is not. It will only cause more issues and misunderstanding if people think the technology isn't there yet and can be fooled with glasses. We need to be talking about the fact that it is very good, and it's being used right now and spreading, and it's going to be used by more and more law enforcement in the near future.

(I feel like this conversation is better suited in a different thread, so, I'm not going to be responding here.)

 

Re: subject of stalking and musicians... I know some people here don't want to support Chris Hardwick, but he had Lily Allen on his podcast last week and she talks at length about her experience with a stalker (spoiler alert: he went to prison, but not without a lot of effort from her first). It's terrifying what she went through.

 

Amazon link doesn't work for me with the ap referral tag in it btw.

 

https://chr.us/2A1VBW9

 

I am so aware that whatever I write will be most likely seen on a smartphone screen, making it hard to respond to multiple misinterpretations in one post, but I’ll try. I hope that people discovering this thread of conversation later go back up and read at least the first post I made with the news article on facial recognition being used to try to identify stalkers at a Taylor Swift concert.

The points I was trying to make aren’t novel, they are ones the ACLU and tech watchdog groups have been making for years and not succeeding very well at because the general public doesn't think very critically about these things.

Jason, you needn't reply to this but my point was not that the effort to avoid facial ID is going to cause problems with a **mistaken** identity, like a false positive ID, it's that it's more likely going to throw off getting a facial lock and any kind of ID on a particular stalker at all (resulting in a false negative ID, like no ID was made at all). And it's not so much that these algorithms are going to be a privacy invasion, I don't think they could be more than a privacy invasion than the cameras themselves are that are already there and in many venues they're already almost everywhere except the toilets. I also feel that using the feeds from what cameras are already in place wherever they are to say find kidnapped kids or stop terrorists is fine by me. My concern which I think I explained clearly enough in the first few posts is that this supposed improvement and cost-saver for concert security and bands and fans to identify stalkers will be little or no improvement, incur costs in security resources to implement and monitor that the public ought to be aware of especially if they are done instead of other actions that may be more effective, and most of all, they'd be easy for a stalker to at least think they can evade, which many stories have run for years in the mainstream press like I mentioned from CNET, The Atlantic, and Vogue have described.

Like with your smartphone, if you are using facial recognition to unlock the screen and it doesn't recognize you, it won't unlock. Your smartphone may be awesome and you've probably taught it well, and so it may usually recognize you as phones are commonly used, with a high quality phone front camera held near your face, even if you wear a hat and change eyeglasses. Users don't normally need to put on or take off glasses or hats to unlock their phones. The most commonly used accessories for one's face and head like eyeglasses or hats are the least likely to affect facial recognition, but especially with a different hairstyle and makeup (like the links above describe) it can make getting a positive ID on someone much more difficult. And to unlock your phone it only has to recognize you while you are holding it and using it in that nearly ideal manner, it is not trying to recognize you as a distinct suspect individual from a database of hundreds of Jason Tate stalkers.

If you want to use the phone analogy, it's not that someone could easily fool your phone into unlocking, only that it's not all that difficult -- or so a stalker might think -- to throw off facial ID from recognizing them, and not unlock your phone. The potential stalker would not be trying to create a false positive ID, they'd be wanting to avoid being ID'd at all -- a kind of false negative, where the system wouldn't return a match to any of the limited number of potential threat IDs they are being compared to.

The best security cameras in stores and public places often don't work well enough to allow trained humans in the police and the FBI to identify robbers and assailants who make no effort to obscure their identity from recordings that (if they know they are being recorded) they know will be viewed over and over again, enhanced with computers and cloud-based systems, etc. Attempts at enhancing surveillance at concerts with cloud-based facial recognition systems trying to react in real time won’t likely do a better job than that. They’re cheap to implement though (cheaper than more trained security staff would be to hire), and I'd expect other venues to follow in suit. That’s very relevant to the safety of everyone, especially women, transgender people, POC, etc in the music scene, and I’d hope we’d want to be more accountable about this for their sake.

I think a layperson would see that if they understood arguments like the ACLU makes, and I hope more laypeople do see that because I'm sure many determined stalkers are going think it's worth a try, and it's going to cause problems and little effect (and little good) come from facial recognition systems being used like this at concerts big or small. This isn't a problem that some future, higher form of tech will likely fix because the math just doesn't favor achieving kind of precision we might assume it could have when computer-aided vision is used for this purpose. That sure won't stop security tech companies from telling the press that they can do this, and the music industry using this to justify higher prices though! Laypeople won't likely care about these details especially if they don't think they'll be hurt by it and that was part of my point, I think they probably won’t be affected...

...but crazed stalkers, especially if they are technology-obsessed Men's Rights Activists, or follow the alt-right, or read or listen to conspiracy hucksters like Alex Jones, I think some of them would want to try to evade something like this.

Wow, that does need to be followed up on! It alsothough relates to Accountability in Music, if there is good reason to doubt it will enhance music scene safety and help identify offenders and potential threats in the music scene. I’ll watch for threads and and articles on this sort of thing and I'd be glad to comment on them.

 

I think that the way he views sex is unfortunately the way the vast majority of men view sex
His statements are important in my opinion in the sense that if men are reading it they may identify with the fact that their memories of events and relationships are different than the victim’s....because they often are. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or it wasn’t real. It’s important to examine all of that shit.