this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
516 points (99.0% liked)

Privacy

41835 readers
1154 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThunderQueen@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago

It wasn't live. They use the same footage at every concert.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

If you live in a city (not only) anywhere, you are on at least 5-10 security cams when you leave your home on the way to work or the store, more counting those in your workplace and the store. Unknown how much are with face recognition soft. Think of it, you are tagget.

Worst knowing that a lot of live cams are even with public access and even streaming on YouTube.

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

Good. People don't understand implications until it happens to them. Suddenly they don't like this security features anymore because it became personal.

We need more people to experience that discomfort

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Nice, face recognition surveillance for sure is because to protect our childrens.

[–] fort_burp@feddit.nl 2 points 13 hours ago

It's crazy that suicide among youth has gone up in the past 20 years. Whatever they're doing to "protect the children" they need to stop.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who the hell can afford children ?

[–] jnod4@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

Some people on islands can afford many

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Pretty cool... But anyone else get major AI vibes from the way this article is written?

Why even become a journalist anymore if you're just going to be putting prompts into a black box and copy/pasting the output?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

But that's what capitalism is all about! Efficiency.

Now one journal-ist can produce hundreds of art-ickles per hour!

/s

[–] beegnyoshi@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 day ago

This article gives me vibes that someone wrote a few lines outlining the situation and asked the AI to write the article itself. Interestingly though, I think most people would just rather read the outline, less time wasted and less llm.

A part that screams AI would be:

This wasn’t subtle venue security—your biometric data became part of the artistic statement, whether you consented or not.

"This isn't this--it's that" is an extremely common AI sentence structure, further exposed by the fact that the part before the em-dash doesn't even make sense to begin with. No one was asking themselves whether it was part of subtle venue security.

As a sidenote, sometimes I read sentences like this and I wonder "could this ever even have been written by a human?" I think that there's a very low chance that this article didn't have at least some amount of AI involved, but I know that somewhere out there there must be some people who actually write like this. And that's kind of sad.

tbh I don't even know why I even wrote this, the entire article appears to be one big example of generic AI writing

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

"The Consent Question Nobody Asked"

Yeah, that tastes like AI this turn of phrase

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 198 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

If this disturbs you, then good. That was the point.

These guys are amazing. Of all the shows I saw at Roseland NYC, theirs in 96 was the absolute best.

[–] Vupware@lemmy.zip 37 points 2 days ago

The singer has always been about exposing problems the media won’t cover. I think it actually led to a schism and a few of the members leaving about two decades ago.

[–] BrilliantantTurd4361@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Did you see portishead? Just curious.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Cowboys by Portishead gives me goosebumps every time I hear it

Edit: Link, because I had to go listen to it as it's been years: https://youtu.be/ApQpx-MVk0w

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 80 points 2 days ago (7 children)

The only people offended by this are the ones who dont yet understand that this is happening constantly all over the place without your consent already.

[–] MrGemeco@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It’s a great way to showcase that these things are in use and will be in use in places with bad privacy laws (and by those that ignore such laws). Most people don’t want to think that this happens on a daily basis, it’s logical for them when you tell them, but they’re busy with their lives and they don’t actually see it being done with their own eyes.

Now tell them how this data is connected to your ticket and your face/video being analyzed after the fact, which is then sold off to become what is basically an quantification of you as a person to judge you and determine what your addictions, views and flaws are, in order to expoit it to make you as miserable as possible. And people won’t really believe it since it’s uncomfortable to believe in. Showing someone’s face makes it more believable and difficult to ignore.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

The only people offended by this are those who have something to hide!

/s

[–] racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Which would be most people?

Yes, the ignorants, which is exactly why we have artists, it's basically their most important jerb

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 113 points 2 days ago (15 children)

To be clear, the system picked out faces in the crowd, in the "yes, this is a face" sense. They were labeled in what appears to be random terms like positive, kind, nostalgic, bee keeper, gif animator, extreme ironer. No personal identification.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

People getting mad at massive attack are missing the point completely

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 76 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Social media erupted with bewildered reactions from attendees. Some praised the band for forcing a conversation about surveillance that most people avoid, while others expressed discomfort with the unexpected data capture.

Unlike typical concert technology that enhances your experience, this facial recognition system explicitly confronted attendees with the reality of data capture. The band made visible what usually happens invisibly—your face being recorded, analyzed, and potentially stored by systems you never explicitly agreed to interact with.

The audience split predictably along ideological lines. Privacy advocates called it a boundary violation disguised as art. Others viewed it as necessary shock therapy for our sleepwalking acceptance of facial recognition in everyday spaces. Both reactions prove the intervention achieved its disruptive goal.

Your relationship with facial recognition technology just got more complicated. Every venue, every event, every public space potentially captures your likeness. Massive Attack simply made the invisible visible—and deeply uncomfortable. The question now isn’t whether this was art or privacy violation, but whether you’re ready to confront how normalized surveillance has become in your daily life.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 65 points 2 days ago

Good. A little bit of shock treatment is just what the doctor ordered.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Now consider this to coldplay concert where they urged the crowd to send love to Charlie Kirk's family lol.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's okay, if Coldplay is a honeypot to lure execs onto camera to self-own

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vane@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Welcome to The Truman Show.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://x.com/IpswichPolice/status/1892910824517177743

I do trust Massiva Attack more than this violent gang of thugs

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] trailee@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This disturbs me in the best way. I love/hate it.

I wonder how long they can run this before their backend database vendor cuts them off with some flimsy pretext because this kind of thing is bad for business.

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

No backend database needed for what they did. It was just highlighting where the faces are in a shot of the crowd, same as modern smartphone cameras do, but with a surveillance-type UI around it.

[–] trailee@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Thanks, I just watched the video linked by @spizzat2@lemmy.zip and I see that now. It’s actually a little disappointing and I’d love to see the same kind of public spectacle on hard mode with real-time doxxing from a commercial backend. That would be far more provocative.

I think the article hugely understated that nuance.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, it should at least try to get their name. If it could include their job, income, family members, etc. that'd be great. It's pretty trivially possible. Maybe don't include address, because they could turn out poorly, but they should show how easy it is to get data on people.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That would be far more provocative.

Yes, but depending on the country that could be (public + illegal) if it lists [what is legally considered] personal sensitive information or accidentally reveals someone's secret like the Coldplay incident.

It would be fascinating, but IMO unnecessary and unethical.

[–] trailee@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Perfectly legal for “event security” to deploy facial recognition and watch live movement tracking annotated with real names and possibly other information purchased from a data broker, as long as it’s all done in secret. But illegal to let large numbers of people see the screen (maybe by mirroring it to the jumbotron). What a world.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

oh dont worry event security and LEA are neutral unbiased entities who can be trusted unlike the public

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›