A recent investigation conducted by reporters at the Dig Boston revealed some pretty invasive security measures being used on festival-goers at the Boston Calling music festival this past May, without their knowledge. The pilot program uses IBM software to spy on people through security cameras, using facial recognition technology to identify and track attendees. The program is intended as a heightened security measure in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, but does it go too far?

The system works by identifying distinguishing characteristics on people, such as baldness, eyeglasses and beards, through security cameras placed around the venue. This data is then transmitted to a hub that Boston police, city reps, and IBM support staff can observe in real time while searching for social media keywords related to the event. The purpose is intended to monitor suspicious activity such as a bag left unattended or someone loitering near an entrance, to prevent another incident such as the Boston Marathon bombings.

While it is reassuring to know that the city is taking great measures to ensure the safety of its citizens, this technology may pose a great threat to our privacy. For instance, the program promises a face capture of every person who approaches the door, an over-the-top security measure which festival attendees were not made aware of. Over time, we could see this spreading to concerts, festivals, sporting events, shopping malls and other large, crowd-heavy spaces throughout the country, meaning that we could be watched over nearly everywhere we go. The issue here is that the technology is advancing faster than the legislation around it. If this technology is to exist, laws must be put in place to ensure that it is used responsibly and not as a form of total government control.

The other issue in question is that facial regonition software proved ineffective in identifying the Boston Marathon bombers, so why should it work now? Though both men had been captured on security cameras that day, and were in the system from previous encounters with the law, it took regular old police work to identify the suspects. So, is it really worth invading our privacy for something that has proven not to reliably serve its intended purpose?

[via Noisey @ Vice]

-Sara Furer (@FURER_)