BioBouncer

I'm sure this will work every bit as well as TSA's Do Not Fly list...
BioBouncer's camera snaps customers entering clubs and bars, and facial recognition software compares them with stored images of previously identified troublemakers. The technology alerts club security to image matches, while innocent images are automatically flushed at the end of each night, Dussich said. Various clubs can share databases through a virtual private network, so belligerent drunks might find themselves unwelcome in all their neighborhood bars.

Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said people may find BioBouncer insulting or invasive. Facial recognition software is notoriously inaccurate, he said, and he is concerned that data-sharing could be used to blackball innocent partiers.

Dussich said BioBouncer launches in March. Setup is $7,500 and fees and support for a year costs $6,000.

Tags: ,

53 Responses:

  1. technotronic says:

    My God(s), I don't think I've seen a more horrid GUI.. That's almost worse than the GUI for most open source software.. almost.

  2. Now I know full well that this opinion of mine has never been a popular one, but I still continue to stand by it.

    This is supposed to be a free country, and people should be free to run their business any way they choose. Any way right down to not allowing you to come in just because they don't like the way you look or talk, or even the color of your skin. I'm not racist, and I don't support those people that are racist, but I don't feel that we should have anti-segregation laws. I think we have taken the concept of "public business" way too far in the wrong direction.

    If you don't like the way people run their business, you simply don't give them your business, and you go elsewhere.

    • jwz says:

      I totally understand where you're coming from, but most rational people stop being that variety of intransigent knee-jerk Libertarian once they graduate high school and realize that A) the civil rights movement actually did a lot of good, and B) freeways aren't something that just magically happens in the night.

    • baconmonkey says:

      If you don't like the way people run their business, you simply don't give them your business, and you go elsewhere.

      Unless, of course, you don't have the option of just driving your SUV 10 miles to find a grocery store that will sell food to your kind. Or worse, none of the shops in your town want to sell anything to your kind, and you don't have the resources to move hundreds of miles away to regions that are more friendly to your particular subgroup. Ahh the magic of Dogmatic Capitalism Zealotry, where the consumer's choice puts them in control of the entire world's fate.

      • rodgerd says:

        And when you and your fellow filthy niggers decide to set a business of your own so you can buy food, the Klan arrive, lynch you, and burn down your store.

    • ichicolco says:

      So a business should be able to dump toxins and pollutants in the environment?

      So a business should be able to ignore labor laws?

      So a business should be able to ignore OSHA?

      So a business should be able to freely terminate promised pension plans for employees who upheld their end of a contract?

      I can see why your opinion isn't popular.

      • taffer says:

        They don't do these things already?

      • wsxyz says:

        So a business should be able to dump toxins and pollutants in the environment?
        So a business should be able to ignore labor laws?
        So a business should be able to ignore OSHA?

        OP wasn't talking about ignoring any laws, he was questioning whether certain laws should be on the books at all. On top of that, you are ranting about completely different laws than the one he was talking about.

        As an example of the original topic, Lester Maddox closed his restaurant in Atlanta in the 60s rather than admit black people as customers. While he certainly did have racist attitudes and beliefs, just as the vast majority of white southerners of his generation did, he was not an evil or hateful person. His primary motivation was pure "they can't tell me what to do with MY restaurant" pigheadedness.

        In hindsight, civil rights legislation was an absolute necessity. No amount of good will among men without the enforced ban on public discrimination would have brought this country as far as it has come in the last 50 years. However, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that a ban on public discrimination is an infringement on the rights of private individuals to do as they please with their private property.

    • rodgerd says:

      When they give up getting their power from power lines erected via power of eminent domain, drawing power from generators set up via ED and subsidised by the taxpayer. When their businesses don't employ staff educated in the public system. When they don't rely of road or rail links built with the help of taxpayer money. When they don't use the courts to enforce contracts, or the police to arrest shoplifters. When, in short, they opt out of all the bits of the social contract, not just the ones they find inconvenient.

      That is to say, when hell freezes over.

      • pozorvlak says:

        Well said. Bravo!

      • wsxyz says:

        When they give up getting their power from power lines erected via power of eminent domain, drawing power from generators set up via ED and subsidised by the taxpayer.

        Paid for every month to a for-profit and profitably-managed power company. There is no "social contract" here.

        When their businesses don't employ staff educated in the public system.

        In most places this could only improve the quality of the workers, not much of a sacrifice there.

        When they don't rely of road or rail links built with the help of taxpayer money. When they don't use the courts to enforce contracts, or the police to arrest shoplifters.

        These items are funded by tax money. If there is a "social contract", the business fulfills its obligations by paying its taxes. Extraneous requirements placed on individuals or businesses have nothing to do with these paid-for goverment services.

  3. Haven't they tried this over in Europe to weed out soccer hooligans at football matches over there?

  4. brad says:

    Yay. I already turn around and walk out whenever somebody swipes my drivers license through a machine at a bar.

    • jwz says:

      What bars do that around here? I've only had someone try to do that once, but it was years ago, and when I said no they let me in anyway.

      • all the casinos in Detroit do that.

      • kyronfive says:

        I had my ID swiped once at Paradise Lounge... but that was a long time ago.

      • brad says:

        I was thinking Portland.

        They asked you if they could swipe it? For me they look at the ID, then before handing it back to me a quick swipe through a hidden machine in their podium.

        • jwz says:

          My wallet has a window in it, so I don't take my ID out. They asked me to take it out so they could swipe it and I said no. They didn't argue.

          • dzm6 says:

            I had that argument with Beverages & More several times a few years back. They had installed card readers at each register and wanted to swipe the ID for booze purchases.

            I flat refused the first time. "You can see my ID if you want, but you can not swipe it through your reader." The clerk didn't feel like arguing and caved.

            The second time was a supply run for a Burning Man theme camp. Around $1000 worth of various people's booze. And the clerk didn't feel like making a decision. I ended up having an argument with the manager with a queue behind us. Finally got resolved when I put my wallet away and made it about ten feet toward the door (all the booze left at the check stand) before the manager called out that a visual check was fine.

            Last time I went to a BevMo the readers were no longer in use (at least at this branch).

            Wow. What a long story for so little payoff.

          • belgand says:

            I've never had my ID swiped, but every place I've ever been to refuses to just check it through the window. They always demand that I take it out and actually hand it to them. As a result my window is now all torn to hell and creates more of a hassle than it solves.

          • wsxyz says:

            As a bar owner, you should know that inspection through a window is considered to be insufficient as an ID check for the purposes of selling alcohol. Doormen and especially alcohol servers have a legal obligation to check IDs that usually requires them inspect both front and back of a government-issued ID.

            There is a liquor store near me that displays confiscated fake IDs at their cash register. Most of them look authentic on the front, but say "this is not valid ID" on the back.

      • ewindisch says:

        Every club in Pennslyvania. Of course, that has a lot to do with Pennslyvania's wacky liquor laws...

        • luserspaz says:

          At least some of the stores are open on sundays now. :-/

          I bet you could make a pretty good run for state office on a pro-liquor platform.

      • zapevaj says:

        I remember a few bars in the Marina that did it when I was there. I think most of us don't go to bars that are -clean- enough to have that sort of thing, honestly.

        Though the license-in-wallet thing works increasingly less, as making fake CA licenses is increasingly popular. Bouncers here usually need to take my license, wave it under a UV light, poke at the edges and just generally handle it to make sure it's not a fake.

    • jackbrinks says:

      Is there any good reason for someone to swipe the barcode on the back of a drivers license? I've taken to scuffing up the barcode to make it unusable on my last few licenses. No problems yet.

    • joel says:

      Use a hard drive magnet to demagnetize your ID.

  5. pavel_lishin says:

    I wonder how good it is at seeing through glue-on facial hair.

    • dojothemouse says:

      Hmm. I don't see this going into use at the Lexington Club.

    • violentbloom says:

      I happen to know a bit about the neven facial recognition software, and the answer is pretty well... it seems like more of the problem is angle of head. At least for your plain recognizing it's a face, actually matching it to someone I haven't tried as that's not what we do with it. I think the face mapping software may be different.

  6. patrick says:

    The guy's picture that is in the software looks like Bob Flanagan, except healthier.

  7. no_brakes23 says:

    I would not patronize (Not more than once, anyway,) any establishment that used this technology. I got no problem with their right to use it, but I would also exercise my right to not go there.

    But then again, I am a paranoid weirdo, so what do I know.

    • greyface says:

      I don't know what makes you think it will be any more obvious than a normal security camera. Or that you'd be able to tell the difference from a normal security camera.

      I suppose the first time you're turned away at the door because you've broken too many chairs on people's backs... and you really remember the bouncers who evicted you the last 8x...

  8. arn says:

    Why don't they just tattoo everybodies details on their foreheads. And inject microchips into us too. Or just kill us all for being suspected terrorists.

    This game is just boring now.

    rob.

  9. moof says:

    $6000/year? That's, like, twelve months worth of mirrors.

  10. ichicolco says:

    I'm sure this will work every bit as well as TSA's Do Not Fly list...

    But the TSA-DNF works perfectly fine. No one on the list gets onboard an airplane.

    Of course, we won't bother with pendantic details like who's on the list who shouldn't be, and how one gets off the list.

    • jsl32 says:

      you were saying?

      • ichicolco says:

        Details please. Don't dangle a tease out like that without details.

        • jsl32 says:

          are you fbi?

          /paranoia.

        • wfaulk says:

          Well, the obvious example is Cat Stevens, aka Yusuf Islam, whose discovery aboard a flight caused the plane to make an unplanned landing to remove him. The big questions at the time were “Cat Stevens is on the no-fly list?” and “if he's on the no-fly list, how did he buy a ticket and get on the plane?”.

          • ichicolco says:

            Yep, I agree. What name was the ticket purchased under? His current name? His legal name? His performer name?

            There was a case in the news recently that demonstrates the system - in general - does work.

            http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=63406

            If your name is on the list and if you buy a ticket under that name and if you attempt to board a plane, odds are you'll be stopped.

            Again, the real issues are:

            -- what is the criteria that puts you on the list (i.e. how many are on the list that shouldn't be)
            -- what is the appeal process and success rate of being removed from the list

            • wfaulk says:

              His current legal name is “Yusuf Islam” and he seems to have used that very consistently, both legally and publically, since his conversion nearly thirty years ago. I suppose it's vaguely possible that he had a thirty-year-old British passport that still said “Stephen Georgiou” on it or that he had some fake passport that said “Cat Stevens” on it, but wouldn't the accepted use of an expired or fake passport (with well-known aliases, no less) be as much a failure of the TSA list as simply missing the name altogether?

    • wsxyz says:

      I saw an article about this just today (don't remember which newspaper). Apparently, the wife of Senator Ted Stevens has had TSA problems. Her name is Catherine, which means TSA droids think she is a british singer-songwriter who converted to islam.

      Another example had the TSA robots preventing a family from boarding because the 4-year old boy accompanying his mother had a name on the list.

      • jsl32 says:

        seriously, plenty of people fly despite showing up on the list. the verification process sucks from a security perspective, but it seems to be how they want to do things. all it mostly does is make an unfortunate subset of people have to wait longer than normal before boarding. i mean, come on. like a terrorist can't simply purchase completely valid american ID and thus never even turn up on the list. it's not like organised crime has disappeared or anything.

        i am genuinely surprised anyone who was a false positive was prevented from flying, because that hasn't been the experience of anyone i know that pops up on the list.

  11. greatbiggary says:

    Is this set up for special case scenarios, like say people in the background, who look like a person bent over a bike tire with a hacksaw, or those looking downward, like for instance at their own stream of graffiti urine?

  12. back in the day at one of my former clubs, we did this a low tech way and we would just take polaroids of those who were not welcomed back, thus serving two purposes.
    1. letting the person know that we would remember them and they weren't welcomed back
    2. giving us something to laugh at as we would place them near the door on the wall, and watch as it would grow, sometimes exponentially overnight...

  13. mysterc says:

    So I guess the answer is "no way in hell."