Here’s a real AI threat – they’re going to link every single CCTV camera in the Western world and track you in real time everywhere you go.

Again, it’s not the AI that’s the threat, it’s the people using it.

The Guardian:

Police will use live facial recognition technology in Cardiff during the Beyoncé concert on Wednesday, despite concerns about racial bias and human rights.

The technology will be used in Cardiff city centre, but not at the stadium, to “support” the artist’s concert at the Principality stadium by identifying wanted individuals and ensuring safeguarding, South Wales police said, as the artist kicks off the UK leg of her first solo headline tour in seven years.

A spokesperson for the force said the technology would be used in the city centre, not at the concert itself. In the past, police use of live facial recognition (LFR) in England and Wales had been limited to special operations such as football matches or the coronation, when there was a crackdown on protesters.

Daragh Murray, a senior lecturer of law at Queen Mary University in London, said the normalisation of invasive surveillance capability at events such as a concert was concerning, and was taking place without any real public debate.

“I find it very hard to believe that it could be useful at a concert, or at a rugby match,” said Murray, who has studied the Metropolitan police’s use of LFR. “But given the really significant interference with human rights, I think it’s up to the police to provide a really compelling argument as to why it’s necessary.”

With live facial recognition technology, it is typically a standalone deployment where, using cameras, police scan passersby to match biometrics against those held on a watchlist.

South Wales police last used the technology for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix held at the same stadium in August 2022. The event, which scanned 20,929 people against a watchlist of 245 images, produced no alerts, actions or arrests, according to the force.

Murray said the technology had dangerous effects on modifying behaviour and, in turn, democratic processes such as protests or political opposition.

“I think things like live facial recognition are the first step, but I think they’re opening the doors to the use of permanent facial recognition across city-wide surveillance camera networks,” he said.

It’s going to be more than city-wide, my friend.

There is zero reason it would not be established across the entire Anal Empire.

They are actually planning this.

Yeah, I’m not sure host even a normie didn’t have themselves involuntarily tagged in a photo and think “eyyy.”

I mean, this is weird, having computer intelligence identify your every move. This stuff should have been made illegal long before it was employed.

The Guardian:

Facebook will delete the “faceprints” of more than a billion people after announcing that it is shutting down its facial recognition system due to the “many concerns” about using the technology.

The social media network has been under political, legal and regulatory pressure over its use of the software, which automatically identifies users in photos and videos – and let’s them know if a fellow user has posted a photo or video with them in it – if they have opted in to the feature. In a statement, Facebook’s parent company, Meta, said it would shut down facial recognition on the platform over the coming weeks and delete 1 billion facial recognition templates.

Meta’s vice-president of artificial intelligence, Jerome Pesenti, said the technology had helped visually impaired and blind users identify their friends in images and can help prevent fraud and impersonation. But Pesenti said the advantages needed to be weighed against “growing concerns about the use of this technology as a whole”.

“There are many concerns about the place of facial recognition technology in society, and regulators are still in the process of providing a clear set of rules governing its use,” he said. “Amid this ongoing uncertainty, we believe that limiting the use of facial recognition to a narrow set of use cases is appropriate.”

If users have opted into the face recognition setting, the faceprint used to identify them will be deleted. If that face recognition setting is turned off, Meta said there is no faceprint to delete. Pesenti said Facebook will encourage users to tag posts manually.

In 2020, Facebook’s parent company paid $650m (£477m) to settle a US class action lawsuit brought by users who claimed the firm had created and stored scans of their faces without permission. Complaints had also been filed with the US competition regulator and in 2012 a Facebook application to introduce facial recognition in the EU had to be withdrawn because no provision had been made to gain user consent.

I definitely doubt they will actually delete it. These companies are not regulated, so they can simply lie to the public about anything and there cannot be consequences for them.

What is the point of having a government that feeds the people into corporate meat grinders?

Everyone must get vaccinated so we can stop wearing the masks that stop facial recognition from actually working, but vaccinated people should still wear a mask anyways.

Please get vaccinated. Please wear a mask. Lives are at stake. #NewProfilePic pic.twitter.com/eN0l7mv88O

— Nancy Sinatra (@NancySinatra) August 23, 2021

If this doesn’t make sense to you, you better start following The Science or you’re gonna end up dead.

Washington Post:

The federal government plans to expand its use of facial recognition to pursue criminals and scan for threats, an internal survey has found, even as concerns grow about the technology’s potential for contributing to improper surveillance and false arrests.

Ten federal agencies — the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Interior, Justice, State, Treasury and Veterans Affairs — told the Government Accountability Office they intend to grow their facial recognition capabilities by 2023, the GAO said in a report posted to its website Tuesday.

Most of the agencies use face-scanning technology so employees can unlock their phones and laptops or access buildings, though a growing number said they are using the software to track people and investigate crime. The Department of Agriculture, for instance, said it wants to use it to monitor live surveillance feeds at its facilities and send an alert if it spots any faces also found on a watch list.

The government’s expansion comes as major tech companies have pushed to stall law enforcement’s adoption of the software. Amazon said in May that it had stopped selling its facial recognition software Rekognition to U.S. police, citing the lack of federal laws governing how the software should be used. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

Three states — Virginia, Massachusetts and Maine — and more than a dozen cities, including Boston, Portland and San Francisco, have banned or restricted the technology’s use by public officials or police.

Representatives from both parties voiced concerns about the technology during a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month. And Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in April introduced a bill that would ban the government from using facial recognition systems that relied on data that had been “illegitimately obtained.”

Federal agencies need stricter limits on facial recognition to protect privacy, says government watchdogProponents say the software’s accuracy is improving and that it has played a critical role in helping track and identify major criminals. But the technology’s accuracy has been shown in research to vary wildly depending on the skin color of the person being surveilled. Facial recognition searches have been cited in at least three wrongful arrests, all of which were of Black men, and in the identification of protesters accused of violence during demonstrations over the murder of George Floyd.

“Even with all the privacy issues and accuracy problems, the government is pretty much saying, ‘Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead,’” said Jake Laperruque, a senior counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, an independent watchdog group in Washington.

Because of racist reasons, it’s pretty hard to apply the same algorithms to white people and black people.

Many have tried to figure out a way for black people to be correctly identified, but they all failed. Even Google failed.

Some of the artificially generated faces used to test Twitter’s algorithm.

I’ve had much more than enough of this computerize racism.

It’s time we take a stand against the bias of computers.

The Guardian:

Twitter’s image cropping algorithm prefers younger, slimmer faces with lighter skin, an investigation into algorithmic bias at the company has found.

The finding, while embarrassing for the company, which had previously apologised to users after reports of bias, marks the successful conclusion of Twitter’s first ever “algorithmic bug bounty”.

The company has paid $3,500 to Bogdan Kulynych, a graduate student at Switzerland’s EFPL university, who demonstrated the bias in the algorithm – which is used to focus image previews on the most interesting parts of pictures – as part of a competition at the DEF CON security conference in Las Vegas.

Kulynych proved the bias by first artificially generating faces with varying features, and then running them through Twitter’s cropping algorithm to see which the software focused on.

Since the faces were themselves artificial, it was possible to generate faces that were almost identical, but at different points on spectrums of skin tone, width, gender presentation or age – and so demonstrate that the algorithm focused on younger, slimmer and lighter faces over those that were older, wider or darker.

Twitter had come under fire in 2020 for its image cropping algorithm, after users noticed that it seemed to regularly focus on white faces over those of black people – and even on white dogs over black ones. The company initially apologised, saying: “Our team did test for bias before shipping the model and did not find evidence of racial or gender bias in our testing. But it’s clear from these examples that we’ve got more analysis to do. We’ll continue to share what we learn, what actions we take, and will open source our analysis so others can review and replicate.” In a later study, however, Twitter’s own researchers found only a very mild bias in favour of white faces, and of women’s faces.

The dispute prompted the company to launch the algorithmic harms bug bounty, which saw it promise thousands of dollars in prizes for researchers who could demonstrate harmful outcomes of the company’s image cropping algorithm.

Historically, the problem with these algorithms has mostly been that when they’re able to accurately recognize the faces of people of color, gorillas and other primates get counted as people too due to the similarities in bone structure and facial features.

Conversely, black people may be identified as animals instead of people. This problem is hard enough to solve that Google’s initial solution to the problem was simply banning gorillas.

“Almost every major AI system we’ve tested for major tech companies, we find significant biases,” said Parham Aarabi, a professor at the University of Toronto and director of its Applied AI Group.https://t.co/JRPj9PJ9y0

— Cyrus Farivar (@cfarivar) August 9, 2021

Most of these impending doom technologies are less about doing whatever they say they’re supposed to do, and more about controlling people’s lives.

Biometric facial recognition is supposed to be about preventing fraud, but it turns out it’s really easy to commit fraud against it.

Wall Street Journal:

Facial-recognition systems, long touted as a quick and dependable way to identify everyone from employees to hotel guests, are in the crosshairs of fraudsters. For years, researchers have warned about the technology’s vulnerabilities, but recent schemes have confirmed their fears—and underscored the difficult but necessary task of improving the systems.

In the past year, thousands of people in the U.S. have tried to trick facial identification verification to fraudulently claim unemployment benefits from state workforce agencies, according to identity verification firm ID.me Inc. The company, which uses facial-recognition software to help verify individuals on behalf of 26 U.S. states, says that between June 2020 and January 2021 it found more than 80,000 attempts to fool the selfie step in government ID matchups among the agencies it worked with. That included people wearing special masks, using deepfakes—lifelike images generated by AI—or holding up images or videos of other people, says ID.me Chief Executive Blake Hall.

“Thousands of people have used masks and dummies like these to try and trick facial identification verification, according to ID.me,” Wall Street Journal reports.

Facial recognition for one-to-one identification has become one of the most widely used applications of artificial intelligence, allowing people to make payments via their phones, walk through passport checking systems or verify themselves as workers. Drivers for Uber Technologies Inc., for instance, must regularly prove they are licensed account holders by taking selfies on their phones and uploading them to the company, which uses Microsoft Corp.’s facial-recognition system to authenticate them. Uber, which is rolling out the selfie-verification system globally, did so because it had grappled with drivers hacking its system to share their accounts. Uber declined to comment.

Amazon.com Inc. and smaller vendors like Idemia Group S.A.S., Thales Group and AnyVision Interactive Technologies Ltd. sell facial-recognition systems for identification. The technology works by mapping a face to create a so-called face print. Identifying single individuals is typically more accurate than spotting faces in a crowd.

Still, this form of biometric identification has its limits, researchers say.

…

Analysts at credit-scoring company Experian PLC said in a March security report that they expect to see fraudsters increasingly create “Frankenstein faces,” using AI to combine facial characteristics from different people to form a new identity to fool facial ID systems.

The analysts said the strategy is part of a fast-growing type of financial crime known as synthetic identity fraud, where fraudsters use an amalgamation of real and fake information to create a new identity.

Until recently, it has been activists protesting surveillance who have targeted facial-recognition systems. Privacy campaigners in the U.K., for instance, have painted their faces in asymmetric makeup specially designed to scramble the facial-recognition software powering cameras while walking through urban areas.

Criminals have more reasons to do the same, from spoofing people’s faces to access the digital wallets on their phones, to getting through high-security entrances at hotels, business centers or hospitals, according to Alex Polyakov, the CEO of Adversa.ai, a firm that researches secure AI. Any access control system that has replaced human security guards with facial-recognition cameras is potentially at risk, he says, adding that he has confused facial-recognition software into thinking he was someone else by wearing specially designed glasses or Band-Aids.

…

Spoofing a facial-recognition system doesn’t always require sophisticated software, according to John Spencer, chief strategy officer of biometric identity firm Veridium LLC. One of the most common ways of fooling a face-ID system, or carrying out a so-called presentation attack, is to print a photo of someone’s face and cut out the eyes, using the photo as a mask, he says. Many facial-recognition systems, such as the ones used by financial trading platforms, check to see if a video shows a live person by examining their blinking or moving eyes.

Most of the time, Mr. Spencer says, his team could use this tactic and others to test the limits of facial-recognition systems, sometimes folding the paper “face” to give it more perceived depth. “Within an hour I break almost all of [these systems],” he says.

So basically, these biometric facial ID systems that are popping up everywhere do not do the thing they are supposed to do at all, as the only people who need to be face-scanned in theory are criminals. The entire claim of the biometrics industry is that it is to prevent fraud.

Of course, this technology was already largely pointless in terms of verifying people’s faces on the internet, as it was advertised as something that was going to prevent hacking, when in fact any hack of the kind they were claiming they were going to prevent bypasses these systems.

The only possible conclusion then is that it is not actually supposed to prevent fraud, but is to gather the information of non-criminals for mass surveillance purposes, acclimate people to submitting to these systems, and to further dehumanize normal people.

All of these technologies they’re coming out with are the same.

Do you think it won’t be easy to bypass the supposed security protections of implantable microchips?

These people are creating a dystopia on purpose – not because it is practical.

All of this technology will eventually be used in the endless and ongoing Hunt for the Great White Terrorist.

The Hill:

Microsoft is facing new pressure from investors over its development and sale of surveillance technologies to law enforcement and its efforts to shape the policies regulating their deployment.

Three separate shareholder proposals filed this week reviewed by The Hill are demanding Microsoft evaluate whether its business model aligns with the tech giant’s stated commitments to racial justice and human rights.

The first, filed by the social-issues-focused firm Harrington Investments, calls on Microsoft leadership to “generally prohibit” the sale of facial recognition technology to all government entities and disclose any exceptions made to that rule.

Microsoft announced last summer that it would not sell the technology that scans faces for the purpose of identifying them to police departments until there is a federal law regulating its use amid renewed scrutiny during protests against police brutality.

That pledge did not make clear whether Microsoft would still sell the tech to other government agencies, like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). For example, the company repeatedly tried to sell the Drug Enforcement Administration on its tech during 2017 and 2018.

Activists and privacy advocates have raised alarm about deployment of facial recognition by law enforcement both over inaccuracies and the surveillance power it can provide.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology released a study of more than 100 vendors, including Microsoft, in 2019 that found the majority of facial recognition systems have “demographic differentials” that can worsen their accuracy based on a person’s age, gender or race.

The proposal counts the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington among its supporters. Jennifer Lee, the group’s technology and liberty project manager, said in a statement to The Hill that “if Microsoft is truly committed to protecting our democratic freedoms and standing for racial justice, it must permanently divest from selling facial recognition technology to all government entities, including law enforcement.”

It doesn’t work as well on nonwhites because their features are less defined.

But it doesn’t have to work equally well when applied to different racial groups because it will only be used against white people.

Remember: according to the Biden administration, white supremacy is “the greatest security threat to the country.”

We really need to be pushing the issue of FBI involvement in the Capitol Storm.

Related: Tucker Carlson Finally Addressing the Fed Elephant in the 1/6 Room – Lectured by Twitter That Feds are Good

If that issue blow up, it is at least going to pump the brakes on some of this really crazy stuff they’re planning to do to us. It will at least give us some extra time.

Humans in general have a hard time guessing the gender of blacks.

Teaching artificial intelligence systems how to tell if blacks are male or female just by looking at their faces has proved to be quite a challenge.

AFP:

Facial recognition systems can produce wildly inaccurate results, especially for non-whites, according to a US government study released Thursday that is likely to raise fresh doubts on deployment of the artificial intelligence technology.

The study of dozens of facial recognition algorithms showed “false positives” rates for Asian and African American as much as 100 times higher than for whites.

The researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a government research center, also found two algorithms assigned the wrong gender to black females almost 35 percent of the time.

There is nothing wrong with those algorithms.

There’s virtually no difference between a black female and a black male once you take their beards, breasts, and genitals out of the picture.

Black people have extremely high testosterone rates. That is why they are so violent. You can’t really do the studies anymore, but under the guise of a prostate cancer study in 1986, researchers found that black men have 21% more free testosterone than white men.

Black women probably also have more testosterone than a lot of white men these days.

Testosterone shapes the bone structure as well as musculature. Women with high testosterone look like men. It’s the reverse of the “soyboy” effect where men with low testosterone look like women.

The study comes amid widespread deployment of facial recognition for law enforcement, airports, border security, banking, retailing, schools and for personal technology such as unlocking smartphones.

Some activists and researchers have claimed the potential for errors is too great and that mistakes could result in the jailing of innocent people, and that the technology could be used to create databases that may be hacked or inappropriately used.

The NIST study found both “false positives,” in which an individual is mistakenly identified, and “false negatives,” where the algorithm fails to accurately match a face to a specific person in a database.

“A false negative might be merely an inconvenience — you can’t get into your phone, but the issue can usually be remediated by a second attempt,” said lead researcher Patrick Grother.

“But a false positive in a one-to-many search puts an incorrect match on a list of candidates that warrant further scrutiny.”

It is true that the technology can be used for evil ends even if it is correctly identifying every test subject, but what technology is immune to that?

The problem isn’t the technology but who is in control of it.

The study found US-developed face recognition systems had higher error rates for Asians, African Americans and Native American groups, with the American Indian demographic showing the highest rates of false positives.

However, some algorithms developed in Asian countries produced similar accuracy rates for matching between Asian and Caucasian faces — which the researchers said suggests these disparities can be corrected.

“These results are an encouraging sign that more diverse training data may produce more equitable outcomes,” Grother said.

The whole “human race” thing often hits this kind of roadblock with technology and anything based on objective reality.

Browns and blacks are so different from whites that creating facial recognition technology that can accurately identify the three groups is three times the work.

You wouldn’t expect facial recognition used in humans to also accurately identify macaques.

Why should we expect the same algorithms to work on blacks and whites?

Mark Zuckerberg is doing all kinds of things with people’s data.

Daily Mail:

Facebook is under fire for privacy concerns once again, as the social media giant tested a facial recognition app on its employees.

Using real-time facial recognition, the firm was able to identify a person by pointing a smartphone camera at them.

It was reported that the app has been discontinued, but the technology was capable of bringing up someone’s Facebook profile who had enabled facial recognition on their profiles.

Saying it was discontinued doesn’t really mean that they don’t have the technology, it just means that they’ve allegedly stopped developing it.

The shocking report was first revealed by Business Insider who cited anonymous sources who said the app was developed between 2015 and 2016, but has since been shut down.

Facebook did confirm that it developed the app, but denied it was capable of identifying members of its social media network and pulling up their profile.

A Facebook spokesperson told DailyMail.com in an email: ‘As a way to learn about new technologies, our teams regularly build apps to use internally.’

‘The apps described here were only available to Facebook employees, and could only recognize other employees and their friends who had face recognition enabled.’

So it was able to identify members of its social media and pull up their profiles, but it was allegedly only limited to Facebook employees and their friends.

The social media giant has been under a microscopes lately for its privacy issues and this app is not the first instance it had to do with facial recognition.

In 2018, Facebook started using its AI to assist in tagging users in photos, but many said it may violate users’ privacy, the New York Times reported.

…

The firm said its facial recognition technology can ‘help protect you from a stranger using your photo to impersonate you’.

Yes, goyim, this is for your own good, and so you can continue giving Facebook more accurate information about yourself.

Proponents of the technology say it can even be an effective tool for spotting criminals.

But many argue that the firm doesn’t take enough steps to make sure it has obtained proper user consent before doing so.

To start, the technology can remotely identify users by name without their knowledge or consent, according to the Times.

It scans faces of users in a photo or video and matches their unique facial patterns to users that are in a database of named people.

Facebook also tells users that they can turn the feature on or off, but many argue that Facebook still scans faces even when it’s deactivated.

‘Facebook tries to explain their practices in ways that make Facebook look like the good guy, that they are somehow protecting your privacy,’ Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Times.

‘But it doesn’t get at the fact that they are scanning every photo.’

It’s not just that they are scanning every photo, it’s also that they have plenty of very personal information associated with those photos. They know everything people do on their website and even stuff they do outside their website.

They know who people talk to, they know which profiles people visit and how long they view each profile, they know what people like, they know people’s interests, they know people’s social life and social circles — and they have all of that information mapped to people’s faces and full names.

It is a dream come true for artificial intelligence researchers, and it is in the hands of Jews.

Look at their faces. Can you tell male from female apart?

Check out this new episode of Objective Reality Meets Jewish Indoctrination.

AP:

Facial-detection technology that Amazon is marketing to law enforcement often misidentifies women, particularly those with darker skin, according to researchers from MIT and the University of Toronto.

…

The researchers said that in their tests, Amazon’s technology labeled darker-skinned women as men 31 percent of the time. Lighter-skinned women were misidentified 7 percent of the time. Darker-skinned men had a 1 percent error rate, while lighter-skinned men had none.

I mean… that’s just racist. Literally.

Artificial intelligence can mimic the biases of their human creators as they make their way into everyday life. The new study, released late Thursday, warns of the potential of abuse and threats to privacy and civil liberties from facial-detection technology.

Eh, it’s really not bias. Black women really do look like black men.

Some more than others, sure, but it’s clear that the differences between black men and women are mostly their genitals and breasts. The rest of their body and faces are practically the same.

You’ll also notice that the exception to this — that is, black females that you immediately recognize as black females — are the ones that are not pure black.

Black women with some white genes are easier to identify as women. You can see that in movies and TV series, the black females pushed as “beautiful” are never completely black, they’re always mixed “race.”

The closer they get to pure black, the more they look like black males.

In a Friday post on the Medium website, MIT Media Lab researcher Joy Buolamwini responded that companies should check all systems that analyze human faces for bias.

“If you sell one system that has been shown to have bias on human faces, it is doubtful your other face-based products are also completely bias free,” she wrote.

What exactly is this “bias” she talks about, though?

Is she suggesting races don’t exist?

Or that the differences between men and women from every “race” are exactly the same and can be measured in exactly the same way?

This Joyful front-hole thinks “humanity” is a mystery mix of very different species that share the ability to make similar noises with their mouths and kinda walk similarly and blames a conveniently vague notion of “biases” as the reason why the same facial recognition techniques that work on horses don’t work on whales, and she’s a MIT Media Lab researcher.

That is a good snapshot of the current state of science.

You heard it here first. Time to start thinking about assembling a killer clown gang.

Why?

Well, you’ve got the intimidation factor going for you for one.

Secondly, it’s a staple of cyberpunk media.

And not just Chinese cartoons have it.

Basically, it is an unavoidable reality we’re going to have to face sooner or later – that much is clear.

And thirdly – and this explains everything – it turns out that these cyberpunk clowns knew something that we didn’t.

The makeup is used to throw off the facial recognition software of Big Brother cameras.

RT:

Facial recognition software is becoming more pervasive, which has some Orwellian implications for privacy. Security and privacy researcher Ian O’Neill has discovered a way to beat the system: get decked out in Juggalo paint.

“Facial recognition generally relies on looking for a few different important facial features – nose, eyes, mouth, eyebrows, and jawline,” O’Neill told RT. O’Neill discovered that Juggalo makeup, worn by fans of ‘the worst band in the world,’ Insane Clown Posse, can defeat most kinds of facial recognition tech.

“This makeup actually replaces the jawline, as well as a few other large features, which makes it very difficult to match it to other regular faces,” O’Neill said. While heavy makeup is often used in other musical subcultures – like the ‘corpse paint’ favored by black metal artists – only Juggalo makeup has the jawline-obscuring, face hiding characteristics needed to reliably fudge facial recognition software.

Boom.

White Nationalist Clown Posse here we come.

However, hiding as a Juggalo could draw more attention from law enforcement. As a predominantly white, underclass subculture, Juggalos are designated as a “loosely organized hybrid gang” by the FBI. The National Gang Intelligence Center has warned that as well as paying good money for songs like ‘Miracles’, Juggalos will “evolve into a more sophisticated criminal entity through associations with hardened, experienced gang members.”

See, our enemies are already memeing it for us.

The band, led by Detroit rappers ‘Violent J’ and ‘Shaggy 2 Dope,’ launched an unsuccessful discrimination lawsuit against the FBI in response to the designation. Despite having the backing of the ACLU, the lawsuit was thrown out of court last December, leaving the band penniless and begging billionaire fan Elon Musk for money on Twitter.

They’re also dead broke which means confirms they’re Alt-Right/White Nationalist more than any FBI report ever could lol.

…the safest place to remain anonymous might be the ‘Gathering of the Juggalos,’ a yearly music festival organized by the Insane Clown Posse’s record label, Psychopathic Records. This July, thousands of fans will gather in Thornville, Ohio, for four days of rap, rock, pro wrestling, Faygo-chugging and ‘whoop whooping,’ all safe from Big Brother’s gaze behind their thickly-applied clown makeup.

If that’s what its got to come down to, that is what it is going to come down to.