reputation tour had Facial recognition tech for her stalkers

[RAMROD 96,574]

Considering stalkers have been invading her houses for more than twice now, I do not blame her at all.

It must be so scary to be stalked obsessively like that. With intent to kill too. 

[River 91,208]

33 minutes ago, GypsyBabe said:

I agree with this. It's like taking a fingerprint without permission. 

Also, doesn't security get paid a **** ton of money to keep stalkers away from her to begin with. 

I think she feels too much powerful to do whatever she wants, I'm sorry, maybe she's talented and all this but if she's afraid to go on tour, just stay at home and don't steal the faces of the people who pays to see you..

When the news takes a photo of you or video and it's not part of a big crowed, they ask you for a permission, even youtubers do that, many times you see covered faces of people that they prank or interview..

[Gagaism 8,605]

ArtPop

[Ziggy 10,370]

9 hours ago, PrincessVenus said:

I think it was also because after ARTPOP a lot of stans kinda turned on her. But yeah she definitely also did it because there are definitely Gaga fanatics out there.

Mhmm I was swiping on Tinder today and one of a guy’s pics was video of him chasing Gaga after her concert as she was running to her vehicle.

Why you would ever put that on a dating profile I do not know lol

[Lighter 15,376]

Her guards are former military.

and it’s not like her team would track down confirmed innocent people

[malazam 15,710]

 

1 hour ago, GypsyBabe said:

I agree with this. It's like taking a fingerprint without permission. 

Also, doesn't security get paid a **** ton of money to keep stalkers away from her to begin with. 

I don’t see an issue here. New devices such as smartphones use facial recognition. Apple sends the data to the US govt and Huawei to China’s, Facebook sells info, and the list goes on.

In this case we’re talking about facial recognition in a matter of security inside of a concert, it’s not different from being filmed for a DVD, you robably have the rights of the usage of your image by buying a ticket.

[River 91,208]

4 minutes ago, malazam said:

 

I don’t see an issue here. New devices such as smartphones use facial recognition. Apple sends the data to the US govt and Huawei to China’s, Facebook sells info, and the list goes on.

In this case we’re talking about facial recognition in a matter of security inside of a concert, it’s not different from being filmed for a DVD, you robably have the rights of the usage of your image by buying a ticket.

but when you use the face refognition in your iphone, it's your choice.

And Apple is not giving info to the US gov. they refused to unlock an iphone of a terrorist last year..

Everything that you listed is coming from the personal choice of the user to give their face away.

In the tour they didn't have a clue, so even if you give away your right on your face, you need to know about it and to have the right to actually agree to give it away

[GypsyRomance 861]

Why are you so afraid of giving your facial recognition if you don't have any negative intentions? Are you a stalker of taylor or something?

[Lighter 15,376]

27 minutes ago, GypsyRomance said:

Why are you so afraid of giving your facial recognition if you don't have any negative intentions? Are you a stalker of taylor or something?

Exactly

[LateToCult 36,444]

7 hours ago, GypsyRomance said:

Why are you so afraid of giving your facial recognition if you don't have any negative intentions? Are you a stalker of taylor or something?

It’s a deeper topic than this. A third party had access to images of her fans without their consent. With Taylor Swift being one of the most (if not the most) influential musician on the market whatever she does can start a trend among other musicians and record labels.

Who’s to say that some company that’s working on facial recognition technology won’t approach another artist now and strike up some deal to use their tech for surveillance? It may sound paranoid on my part but that’s a very real possibility. That type of data is also never 100% safe and we should know that by now with large companies dealing with hacks every year.

I understand that she wanted to feel safe but what her team did was flawed to begin with because there’s no guarantee that a stalker would use the kiosk (was anyone even arrested at the show for this?). It’s also unnecessary because she has some of the best security in the business and the one location where she used it (Rose Bowl) is a very safe venue if she had good security, which I’m sure she did.

[SharkmanthaC 105,214]

8 hours ago, River said:

When the news takes a photo of you or video and it's not part of a big crowed, they ask you for a permission, even youtubers do that, many times you see covered faces of people that they prank or interview..

This actually isn’t 100% true (at least in the US). My husband is a videographer for a local new station, so I asked him about this to make sure. If you are in a public place you can be photographed or videoed without permission. Now of course they will ask to interview you. Private property they cannot film people. But for example if a murder happened at a house, they can film video of the house/neighborhood from the public street. 

However, he also said the facial recognition that Taylor was using doesn’t seem to be legal. I’m sure there will be quiet the uproar about it. I doubt this was Taylor’s decision though, she may have known about it, but I’m sure it wasn’t her decision. Security probably thought it was the best way to screen thousands of people. What a scary world we live in that celebrities feel so threatened they have to do this. 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

53 minutes ago, SamanthaC said:

This actually isn’t 100% true (at least in the US). My husband is a videographer for a local new station, so I asked him about this to make sure. If you are in a public place you can be photographed or videoed without permission. Now of course they will ask to interview you. Private property they cannot film people. But for example if a murder happened at a house, they can film video of the house/neighborhood from the public street. 

However, he also said the facial recognition that Taylor was using doesn’t seem to be legal. I’m sure there will be quiet the uproar about it. I doubt this was Taylor’s decision though, she may have known about it, but I’m sure it wasn’t her decision. Security probably thought it was the best way to screen thousands of people. What a scary world we live in that celebrities feel so threatened they have to do this. 

Exactly. The issue is not intent but consent. I’m sure they have all the right intentions but what Taylor is doing is illegal. Can you imagine what could happen if all that information “fell” into the wrong hands? 

[River 91,208]

2 hours ago, SamanthaC said:

This actually isn’t 100% true (at least in the US). My husband is a videographer for a local new station, so I asked him about this to make sure. If you are in a public place you can be photographed or videoed without permission. Now of course they will ask to interview you. Private property they cannot film people. But for example if a murder happened at a house, they can film video of the house/neighborhood from the public street. 

However, he also said the facial recognition that Taylor was using doesn’t seem to be legal. I’m sure there will be quiet the uproar about it. I doubt this was Taylor’s decision though, she may have known about it, but I’m sure it wasn’t her decision. Security probably thought it was the best way to screen thousands of people. What a scary world we live in that celebrities feel so threatened they have to do this. 

But if I ask not to film me or to cover me, because I see them with the camera so I have the choice to disagree to be filmed, can they still show my face on tv?

This is the point, the right to agree and disagree..

[crackpoppodcast 1,435]

Well now the entire purpose of the software is defeated because of news reporting on it. Her stalkers will definitely see that now and stay clear from attending her future shows. So yeah they can just stop now.

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

2 hours ago, River said:

But if I ask not to film me or to cover me, because I see them with the camera so I have the choice to disagree to be filmed, can they still show my face on tv?

This is the point, the right to agree and disagree..

 

1 hour ago, daddybunny said:

Well now the entire purpose of the software is defeated because of news reporting on it. Her stalkers will definitely see that now and stay clear from attending her future shows. So yeah they can just stop now.

People always have the right to say no. Taylor should have known she was in a legal gray area here. I wonder who gave consent to let this happen...

The software is only as good as it’s hackers. Whoever invented it probably knows it’s weakneses best. Unless the inventor is a stalker themself...