Can we use new technology to identify the hidden folks from Jan 6?

a reply to: network dude

You should certainly go ahead and do that. There's nothing wrong with that I would guess, as long as you're not identifying random citizens not committing a crime.

I think that became an issue when the extra J6 tapes were released. The SOH said ok, here you go, then a few more criminals were found, and then it was oops, maybe not do this.

a reply to: network dude

I believe what you are looking for, are the Agent Provocateur.

These will be the instigators and culprits.

Then you find their handlers, and their bosses until find top.

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: network dude

I believe what you are looking for, are the Agent Provocateur.

These will be the instigators and culprits.

Then you find their handlers, and their bosses until find top.

I have one specific one in mind, but yes, that is what I was getting at. I hope a deep dive into all things that happened that day is done.

a reply to: network dude

Ray Epps to o'buma, he's the obvious one in my opinion, meant as a red herring that isn't.

See Counterespionage & Clandestine human-source intelligence for more information specific to this material.

That site has a vast compilation of terminology used.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: network dude


I once many years ago had a conversation with someone on here who had written a programme that would allow cctv cameras to see a person's iris ,with sunglasses on at night and allow them to identify that individual and that was 10 plus years ago ND .

The argus drone from 2007 could see a person ,or vehicle and assign it a number and no matter how they/ it tried to hide would keep track of that target m.youtube.com...

It would shock you what they have now ND .

They know who and where everything is 24/7

that's about how I presume our technology is today. Which is why this thought popped into my head. As I said, we know THEY aren't going to be looking, so it behoves us to make the effort.

And for the DERP's, it's equally important to note that by doing this, only the perpetrators of something bad will be identified. To go against that, seems like fear if finding out you were played like a fool.

I have had a few hours to sleep on this ? ,The technology they have now is stupidly advanced even a few years ago when I last bothered looking ND the camera tech had got so advanced that they can see the individual blips on your trainers/shoes or in between the cracks on a paving block in the street and that is what they are showing us they possess lol .

Smart dust on clothes etc we are not going to get our mitts on , police pay records etc same , but I was just recently in the last few months speaking to a member on here with all the Female credentials that operates CCTV for a living now and was telling me the magnification of his system to read a phone number 3 miles away and there was cameras watching his camera lol .

Pretty sure 30 days is the norm or was for tape retention to over write but that day was different , I remember the 6th of January for different reasons even with memory problems , the tapes would be the route to go down but 4 years later mmmm .

originally posted by: bastion
There's facial recognition and gait DNA smart-cam AI systems that can identify people with masks on etc..but they're still very error prone and far more likely to falsely identify people.

It's also easy to fool the systems by wearing insoles or special clothes/sunglasses/make up can be bought such as these www.reflectacles.com... that scramble the software so any agent provacateur would use such methods to avoid identification.

Handy info there a little bird tells me adding a 6th finger onto a glove also throws Ai software of ,not sure about that but you never know

a reply to: stonerwilliam

There's meant to be even more advanced means where certain clothes can inject code into the AI to 'poison it's learning'' and it only takes 1 poison scan per 125,000 accurate scans to corrupt the AI system so it has a 90 - 100% failure rate in recognising human faces, let alone identifiying the person.
www.theregister.com...

The smart cameras are increadingly common in the UK to the point most supermarkets have them in self-service checkouts - police have tried to introduce them and run trials but there's activist groups who do the poison learning via clothes/makeup and warn others about the cameras so people can avoid them.
Financial Times - UK gov look to expand police AI cameras

Judges havev ruled use of such cameras by police is illegal but MET police still continue to use them. They still don't work on anyone who is black as the darker the skin tone, the less light is reflected (and I imagine really pale people dazzle the cameras)

a reply to: bastion

That was meant to be a thumbs up sign bud

.

Crappy touch screen tablets , yip I knew about the COoperative supermarket using this tech a while ago and asked a store guard about if everyone wanted they had to provide by law a copy of what they had on their server , it would run them ragged trying to do that , excellent info on beating AI .