This message was self-deleted by its author

[one_voice]

This message was self-deleted by its author (one_voice) on Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:29 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[ismnotwasm]

1. Wow

That is fantastic

[yuiyoshida]

16. it is...

Technology is gonna change so much..its gonna be exciting to see what's next!

[ND-Dem]

2. ugh. "using facial recognition technology...."

the price isn't worth the candle.

[Fawke Em]

6. I'm with you.

While I agree that we need more awareness of domestic abuse, using a technology that is abusing our civil rights isn't the best way to gain that awareness.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. I think they're not quite naming it correctly.

I doubt the software 'recognizes' individual 'faces'. I think it just can tell if something that looks like a 'face' is directly facing the billboard. You could probably 'fool' it by setting up a bunch of cardboard cutout people that looked like they were looking at it.

[ND-Dem]

8. "facial recognition technology"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_recognition_system

The FBI can now quickly identify people just by looking at their faces. Coming soon: eyes, voice, palm print and walking stride.

By 2015, the system is expected to produce results on more than 55,000 photo searches every day. Facial recognition is only expected to be used in just a small portion of those searches. Police nationwide are expected to use it 196 times a day, government documents show.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. Which is exactly my point.

I don't think that's what the billboard is doing. Facial recognition systems are going to take a lot more code and a hookup to a database to try and identify people. That's serious overkill for the billboard, which is going to be using something far more like a wii controller that merely tracks eyes.

[ND-Dem]

13. you'd think it would be overkill, but how would we know? how do we know the real purpose

of the billboard isn't to ID passers-by?

we don't know.

to me, the billboard seems like serious and expensive overkill for a public service announcement. someone is fronting the cash and not the local battered women's shelter.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

14. Anyone who wanted to do that could probably set up the same things without bothering with

a billboard, could probably set up dozens of such systems around a city without anyone noticing.

Or, if the intent was to capture all traffic, set it up with a billboard that would get even more attention without bothering to advertise that they were using such software. Really, I think there's a lot of paranoia floating around here.

[ND-Dem]

22. or maybe the point is to let people know that their images and phone numbers are available

to whoever at a moment's notice.

[druidity33]

39. sort of...

It sure is convenient that looking at the billboard puts the viewer in a specific/small and defined geographic area. Also they stand still for a few moments and all face in the same direction. Depending on the type of faces you want to recognize, you could put the billboard in a different "market". Making the technology ubiquitous lessens peoples defenses as well. All in all it's a win win for the Security State if ever this technology/concept gets co-opted.

[cbayer]

48. The way this is explained shows it to be distinctly different than what you are

describing here.

It is able to note when someone pays attention to the billboard, not to specifically recognize the face that is paying attention.

I think you may be over-reacting here.

[ND-Dem]

52. they're collecting 3 types of information; cell phone numbers, video, and facial recognition scans.

you put the dots together and see what you get.

four actually: location of the people in the crowd. and since there is more than one billboard of this type, they can track movement too, theoretically.

[cbayer]

56. You are incorrect.

There is nothing to indicate they are collecting any information at all.

The board can tell when a fact turns towards it.

All cell phones in any given area are know at any given time. This is done using both gps and tower data. It's how traffic can be shown on any street.

If your friend has your phone and is near the board, the phone is going to ring.

I think you might be over-reacting just a wee bit.

[ND-Dem]

60. they're sending text messages; thus, they're collecting information.

think what you like.

I have my opinions too, but I won't mention them, as they might offend you.

[cbayer]

62. I don't know how many times I will have to tell you this, but I will say it

one more time.

The location of your phone is known at all times unless you have turned it completely off. It has nothing to do with whether you have it or your friend has it or someone who stole it from you has it.

It has no correlation at all with face recognition.

[ND-Dem]

64. if they send you an email, they're collecting information. and in this case, the information

is correlated with the location of the video and facial recognition images on a particular billboard at a particular location at a particular moment in time.

that one's phone can be located via cell phone tower is pretty irrelevant.

[eggplant]

71. If you bought a case of cell phones there, they would all get messaged.

It's got nothing to do with the cameras. It has to do with being in the proximity. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[ND-Dem]

74. i said, they're collecting multiple kinds of information. i didn't say the cameras were collecting

cell phone numbers.

why is this so hard for you to grasp?

1. facial recognition data
2. video recording
3. cell phone data
4. location data
4. and possibly, multiple location data enough to track movements, since there are multiple billboards of the same type

[ellennelle]

10. what's your evidence?

what scares me about it is that the cameras don't just note when people are viewing the billboard. THEY FRIKKIN' CALL YOU ON YOUR PHONE AND THANK YOU!!

now, tell me, how exactly they do that without face recognition??

plus, the ad itself points out that they are using face recognition.

the part about noticing attention to the ad is fine, that's ok; but then recognizing the faces and contacting those phones???

TOTALLY CREEPS ME OUT!

don't get me wrong, i'm all for obliterating the abuse culture. but not with this obscene invasion of privacy.

no thx.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. Well, if that's indeed what it's doing, that's an obscenely wasteful use of computing resources. nt

[ND-Dem]

23. it's what they're doing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026331940#post19

[cbayer]

51. I don't see anything to indicate that they call you specifically because they recognize your face.

Where your cell phone is at any given time is very easy information to access. It is how products like google maps are able to show you how much traffic is at any given intersection. If you friend has your phone, they are going to get the phone if they are near the billboard.

[ND-Dem]

55. no, they call you because they vacuum up your cell phone number at that location, which they can

correlate to your personal information, which they can correlate to your face, your location, and your movements.

are you really that naïve?

[cbayer]

59. I tend to think the issue here is not about my naivety at all.

The location of your phone is known whether it's in your pocket of the pocket of your friend who has borrowed it and is 500 miles away.

[ND-Dem]

63. and is it correlated with video of you, facial recognition software, and multiple hotspots that

track your movements?

if not naïve, then worse.

[ND-Dem]

32. it doesn't say anything about having to opt in.

Anyone “within proximity of the billboard” will also receive a text message via Weve, a mobile marketing venture by three of the UK’s largest phone companies, “[encouraging] them to donate to Women’s Aid”, writes WCRS.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/68179-this-billboard-heals-domestic-violence-victims-bruised-face-as-passers-by-take-notice

One of Byyd’s biggest customers is Weve, a joint venture created in 2012 by the UK’s biggest mobile operators — Vodafone, EE and O2 — to mine their customers’ data for use in targeted advertising.

Weve holds a vast repository of data about more than 22m smartphone users, including demographic details such as age and sex, as well as highly accurate information about their movements.

“We’re able to look at consumers who have been near specific points of interest, such as a supermarket or a sports venue, and retarget them accordingly based on that information,” says Mr Malachard. “That’s quite powerful.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ceeb8a80-ac6b-11e4-9d32-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3TpRJG4Gz

[JackRiddler]

42. Right, and that means the numbers are harvested.

And the numbers effectively are the identities.

So whether or not they're running biorecognition, they're gathering every name (with a cell phone) by a much more reliable means, and they can match that to period they spent looking (surely an indicator corresponding to demographic categories), etc.

[ND-Dem]

44. weve is owned by the three biggest mobile companies in the uk, so i imagine they have a wide

coverage.

odds are most of the people walking by, if they have cells phones on them, would have phones assigned by uk's 'big 3'.

[sheshe2]

72. Wow.

I have read your posts here. Way to go to disrupt a thread about violence toward women. Try commenting on the thread then start your own. Stop derailing VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN!

Not surprised at all that you would ignore the savage beatings that women receive, we are always ignored. You know why it is a silent crime? No one ever stops for a moment to listen to us. Few ever care. It's an epidemic. Please try to stay on topic. I have read your posts on other threads, you derail time and again.

[ND-Dem]

75. sorry you feel that way. i have a different opinion about the meaning of the billboard.

that's democracy.

[sheshe2]

77. You derail threads.

Time and again, you derail.

So okay, you hate the billboard. Care to comment on women getting the shit beaten out of them? Concerns you may have for them? Compassion for them, any comments on that? Or will you continue to ignore it as so many do.

Sad. Your focus is so very sad. It speaks volumes.

All I have seen you do is derail threads and never respond to the post.

[ND-Dem]

79. no one has to answer, least of all you. some posters were as put off by the technology as i was,

& it's certainly not needed to publicize the issue.

but you love it, so enjoy. there's no point in us talking further.

PS: having a different opinion or POV is not equivalent to "derailing the thread." You are free to discuss what you think the thread is "really" about to your hearts content, and all those who feel the same are free to do the same.

[JackRiddler]

78. I'm sorry, your OP is not about violence against women.

It is about (1) coverage in Ad Week of (2) an ad campaign for (3) an organization that seeks to (4) end violence against women. Said ad campaign happens to be technologically innovative, and attracts Ad Week's attention. Otherwise there would be no (1) in the first place. It is certain that this technological innovation, now being rolled out, will be used in completely unrelated ad campaigns, e.g. to sell cars and burgers. The technological innovation in question is open to criticism. Some people have problems with it. People who are 100% against violence nevertheless don't want a billboard spying on them. Even if they're not against it, people should understand this stuff regardless. Thanks for your patience.

[sheshe2]

80. Actually Jack....

It is not my Op. I commented here. Yet~

I'm sorry, your OP is not about violence against women.

Leave it to a man to tell a woman what is and is not violence toward them. Thank you for setting me straight. I am a mere woman, how the hell could I possibly understand?

[JackRiddler]

81. This is unfair, but no problem.

Just one thing: I said nothing about what is and isn't violence. That is indeed for a person who was attacked to decide. I said what I think the OP is about. Two different things. Also, sorry I thought it was you who started it.

[sheshe2]

82. Well sorry it is unfair.

Just one thing: I said nothing about what is and isn't violence.

Yes, I know you said nothing. However, your silence speaks volumes to all of us that are slapped, beaten, and verbally abused. Our black eyes, our bruises. Yes we lie how we got them. We are silent because no one believes us or stands with us.

[JackRiddler]

83. This is the Internet.

The topic of discussion is an ad campaign.

Respectfully, you don't know me in real life, or whether or not I am "silent," or what I believe.

[sheshe2]

85. Respectfully, the topic is about violence against women.

You are making it about the ad campaign.

You could voice an opinion. Yet you are silent. Silent. So silent.


Don't hurt Mommy. Shhhh. Quiet. I know daddy hurt you. I know. I have to be quite now.

Shhhh. Silence.

[JackRiddler]

87. I oppose violence against women

and it's obvious that the majority of society is in denial about its extent.

The article in the OP is about an ad campaign.

[cbayer]

50. I don't see anything about a thank you call in the linked article.

Can you point me to where you saw that?

Thanks.

[ND-Dem]

57. hre's one place:

Anyone “within proximity of the billboard” will also receive a text message via Weve, a mobile marketing venture by three of the UK’s largest phone companies, “ them to donate to Women’s Aid”, writes WCRS.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/68179-this-billboard-heals-domestic-violence-victims-bruised-face-as-passers-by-take-notice

One of Byyd’s biggest customers is Weve, a joint venture created in 2012 by the UK’s biggest mobile operators — Vodafone, EE and O2 — to mine their customers’ data for use in targeted advertising.

Weve holds a vast repository of data about more than 22m smartphone users, including demographic details such as age and sex, as well as highly accurate information about their movements.

“We’re able to look at consumers who have been near specific points of interest, such as a supermarket or a sports venue, and retarget them accordingly based on that information,” says Mr Malachard. “That’s quite powerful.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ceeb8a80-ac6b-11e4-9d32-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3TpRJG4Gz

[one_voice]

58. you sign up to receive a txt message.

I added a link with more info

[cbayer]

61. I saw that and appreciate it.

There are some massively incorrect conclusions being draw here.

[one_voice]

65. Yes, I've considered self deleting.

[cbayer]

67. Nah. There's just one problem here and I'm no longer going to engage him.

Hide his posts and the thread will look much better.

I think this is a great project and I appreciate your bringing it to our attention.

[ND-Dem]

73. where is that link, please?

Anyone “within proximity of the billboard” will also receive a text message via Weve, a mobile marketing venture by three of the UK’s largest phone companies, “ them to donate to Women’s Aid”, writes WCRS.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/68179-this-billboard-heals-domestic-violence-victims-bruised-face-as-passers-by-take-notice

One of Byyd’s biggest customers is Weve, a joint venture created in 2012 by the UK’s biggest mobile operators — Vodafone, EE and O2 — to mine their customers’ data for use in targeted advertising.

Weve holds a vast repository of data about more than 22m smartphone users, including demographic details such as age and sex, as well as highly accurate information about their movements.

“We’re able to look at consumers who have been near specific points of interest, such as a supermarket or a sports venue, and retarget them accordingly based on that information,” says Mr Malachard. “That’s quite powerful.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ceeb8a80-ac6b-11e4-9d32-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3TpRJG4Gz

[OnyxCollie]

18. WikiLeaks is your friend.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[gcomeau]

15. Oh FFS

They are clearly not talking about actually *identifying* people looking at the billboard. It just recognizes "Hey, that's a face pointed at me".

(And you will note they say *everyone in proximity* gets a text. Not everyone who looks. They send it out location based not identity based. Which yes, can be done with a little work to arrange for it. So no they're not looking up your identity then figuring out your number then sending you some personalized thank you message for looking at the poster.)

[ND-Dem]

19. At the bottom of the billboard is a livefeed panel displaying images of the onlookers,

which the company hopes will draw even more attention.

Anyone “within proximity of the billboard” will also receive a text message via Weve, a mobile marketing venture by three of the UK’s largest phone companies, “[encouraging] them to donate to Women’s Aid”, writes WCRS.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/68179-this-billboard-heals-domestic-violence-victims-bruised-face-as-passers-by-take-notice


So they're vacuuming information 3 ways, in fact.

1. Facial recognition technology
2. Video imaging
3. Mobile phone capture

[cbayer]

53. This is exactly right.

If your friend had your phone and was in the vicinity, the phone would get the call.

[Oktober]

17. Technology is neutral...

The ethics come in how it is utilized...

[ND-Dem]

20. because in order for the public to care about women being battered, we need to collect

their pictures and phone numbers as they walk down the street.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026331940#post19

bull-shit.

I wonder how much this costs, because there are multiple billboards in various locations.

I'm sure all are paid for by women's rights activists and donors.

[MrMickeysMom]

30. THIS is the only way it SHOULD be used!

Plus, it didn't quite sound like it was constructing facial features. That technology sure is a two-edged sword, so I do understand what you were saying.

[Liberal_in_LA]

36. that made me feel a little weird about it too

[Scootaloo]

66. The technology exists, and so the technology will be used

[petronius]

3. That is extremely cool, and thought-provoking! I don't like the last part though, if

I understand it correctly - everybody who passes the billboard gets a text? Closing the gap between awareness and action is obviously crucial, but that's not an idea that I'd like to see become universal (unless the "Weve" they've mentioned is something one chooses to take part in, and only Weve users get a message?)...

[Stargleamer]

4. People do have trouble at times focusing on what's important. . .

[calimary]

25. This is an AMAZING billboard.

BRILLIANT riff on a social media explosion. It's perfect. Somebody's really on the ball, trend-watching. Genius! Take the damn dress thing and give it a really relevant twist.

[brer cat]

5. that's amazing.

Makes the point very well: If you can see it, you can change it!

[ND-Dem]

9. too bad so few can see themselves being spied on

[surrealAmerican]

24. Although this is an interesting bit of public commentary ...

... as a public service ad, it doesn't make much sense. The people who avoid looking at it would be the people you want to get the message to.

[JackRiddler]

43. Not really true.

The people who look are the ones you would want to hit up for donations.

[Thor_MN]

26. +1 on the intent, big minus on the implementation. Creepy.

I'm not a fan of signs watching me.

[eggplant]

27. OFFS. Enough with the tinfoil.

You can do *gaze* recognition (figuring out which things the camera sees are people, and where their eyes are looking) without having to figure out *who* they are. The pictures of the viewers underneath are just the extracted live images.

There would simply be no reason to bother keeping a record of *who* looked, just how many at any given time.

And as a poster above noted, it's not the technology that's important here. It's the subject matter. Sheesh.

[ND-Dem]

29. offs yourself.

At the bottom of the billboard is a livefeed panel displaying images of the onlookers,
which the company hopes will draw even more attention.

Anyone “within proximity of the billboard” will also receive a text message via Weve, a mobile marketing venture by three of the UK’s largest phone companies, “ them to donate to Women’s Aid”, writes WCRS.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/68179-this-billboard-heals-domestic-violence-victims-bruised-face-as-passers-by-take-notice

So they're collecting:

1. data from facial recognition software
2. video images
3. cell phone numbers

because obviously, that's the only way to fight domestic violence.

[eggplant]

68. Um, no.

There is no reason to assume any of those things.

The video images they are displaying are the ones their cameras are seeing. If you stuck a video camera in your window and hooked it to a TV so people could see themselves, it doesn't mean you are recording them.

The cell phones are being targeted via location services. In the UK, this is an accepted form of advertising. See http://www.o2media.ie/products/location-based-messaging.html

But hey, if it spoils your narrative to say that not everything in the world s out to get you, then I apologize. Fresh tinfoil is on the house.

[JackRiddler]

33. Wrong, they have a record of who looked.

If they sent texts, they have a list of the numbers to which they sent the texts. Please do not attempt again to misinform us about this self-evident fact.

This data won't be wiped, since nothing need ever be wiped any more.

Numbers receiving texts can be automatically be matched to phone accounts & identities, and form a database for possible future exploitation.

The data can also be graded according to how long people looked - which doubtless matches roughly with consumer demographic profiles.

Many other demographic markers (sex, for example) don't require individual identification. (Not that identification is impossible, only that they're claiming they didn't do it in this case, of course.)

They can choose to sell the database at any later point. For charity, even. If anyone complains about such practices, they're supporting violence against women.

[eggplant]

69. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims that this information is being harvested?

It is far from "self-evident".

[JackRiddler]

76. It is self-evident that they harvested phone numbers.

SMS texts are sent = the numbers have been harvested.

They have your number = they have your identity, in 99+% of cases.

Thus they know who's in the plaza.

The rest is not just feasible but common practice. They may not be doing it, but the next user of the same billboard space (now that it's set up) will do so. Ever been on Facebook and seen how well facial recognition works already? If they access that database (which is for sale - that's the FB model), they can match the name to the face harvested by the plaza cameras. They can also match that to other data usually relevant to consumer profiling, such as amount of time spent looking.

I'd ask whom you are trying to fool, but from the looks of it's yourself.

In some ways this stunt is a favor, since it's merely revealing what was already there. The most important thing is to get over denial.

[JackRiddler]

31. Stunt promo usurps and trivializes real issue.

Media whores (most of whom would as easily promote Halliburton or Monsanto if the money was right) congratulate themselves for being so noble and smart.

Some PR manager gets a prize and acts like they're Momma Theresa or Harriet Tubman.

Further push-advertising intrusion within public space legitimated.

In subsequent buzz, anyone who doesn't express wonderment at this nonsense is accused of being insensitive to important issue, or of supporting violence against women.

Apologists predictably dispense platitudes about technology being value-neutral. The demonstration of new surveillance technology is altogether harmless and if you don't think so, you're paranoid!

(Okay, so the facial scanners in this case may not have done bio-recognition and individual targeting. Surveillance cameras already do, and future billboards obviously will!)

[one_voice]

35. Women's aid has been around since 1974

We work to end violence against women and children, and support over 350 domestic and sexual violence services across the country. Find out about our history, who we are, and what we believe.

Please note that Women's Aid does not have a budget for advertising. To promote our work, we rely entirely upon donated advertising space for our campaigns and are unable to pay for any advertising whatsoever.

They are hardly media whores. Nice word choice by the way.

Your paranoia gets in the way of the message so you puke all over my thread.

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/landing_page.asp?section=000100010019§ionTitle=About+us

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/page.asp?section=0001000100190001§ionTitle=Who+we+are

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/landing_page.asp?section=000100010015§ionTitle=Media+Centre

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/landing_page.asp?section=000100010013§ionTitle=Useful+links

[ND-Dem]

38. so with no budget, they came up with this expensive thing? i wonder who's paying?

it must be someone who really, really, wanted to make such a billboard, because obviously an organization 'with no money' would come up with more cost-effective use for the funds.

[JackRiddler]

40. Has nothing to do with your thread, or Women's Aid.

You posted an article from Ad Week - the magazine of the media whore industry - about an ad campaign devised by PR specialists.

"Media whores" is a common term to refer to members of the advertising and PR industries, and it accurately describes their profession: they sell their integrity to paying customers. They will always pose as though sincere, and say whatever they're being paid to say, without regard for its truth value. (It may be true, it may not. Doesn't matter.) As a professional matter they cannot care for the consequences, good or bad, but of course they'll congratulate themselves when the consequences appear to be good (as in this case).

"Media whores" here does not refer to Women's Aid.

Sorry that Women's Aid, which may be a very legitimate group (I don't know) took advice from whatever PR specialists recommended using clearly unethical means to gather data from random passers-by.

Sorry they chose this highly manipulative means to grab peoples' attention. (Really? Keep looking or the bruises get worse?!)

It is probably a fairly expensive campaign, although I don't know, at this point the technology may be mostly off-the-shelf. There's been a lot of development in the surveillance sector. This trend, as we see, has its apologists.

My point stands: Stunt promo usurps & distracts from a real issue. Good people make mistakes too.

[ND-Dem]

37. the billboards also display a video feed of passers by and text those who stop to look at the

video.

so you get 3! 3! 3! surveillance techniques in one!

[cwydro]

34. Freaky.

I never had a tin foil hat before, but I may make one now.

[cbayer]

45. Excellent. I love it when technology is used for good.

[ND-Dem]

46. yeah, right

I personally love it when good people are manipulated and spied on, and their goodness used against them, but I'm perverse like that

[cbayer]

47. Tell me how you think this results on people being manipulated and spied on?

There is, of course, facial recognition technology all over the place that is being used in ways that are questionable, but this seems like a pretty cool way of drawing attention to an issue that is usually neglected.

[one_voice]

49. I'd say you're a tad...

obsessed with this OP. You're 30% of the response here. Why don't you start you're own thread and discuss the spying that the UK is doing using domestic violence billboards. I bet it would go on for days.

[eggplant]

70. +1

Enough tinfoil.

[JackRiddler]

84. How will you feel when these techniques...

are being used in campaigns for burgers and cars, as is inevitable? The technology is now there for billboards to harrass people by name, oh hooray, and its roll-out in a worthy charity campaign is a PR coup.

[cbayer]

86. They are not harassing people by name.

[JackRiddler]

88. I did not say "they" are.

You are harrassing the simple act of reading what someone writes.

[cbayer]

89. Sorry. I do not know what you are saying and am signing off.

Perhaps tomorrow.

[Jamastiene]

54. It would be even better if they made it so each person made her "heal" as they

went by. That way she would either stay bruised and beat up if they didn't look for long, but if they look for longer, they see her heal.

[one_voice]

90. I'm deleting this. It has been turned into...

an obnoxious bunch of tin foil kookiness. It would have been nice if those people had started their own thread and discussed the issues they were concerned with, but instead they continued to derail and shit all over my thread.

Contrary to what some would think it was about more than an ad. In the thread I included links to Women's Aid.org.

I've decided to donate $150 Women's Aid.org. Here's the original OP with added links to Women's Aid.org.

The Bruised Woman on This Billboard Heals Faster as More Passersby Look at Her

Facial recognition technology used to fight domestic violence

Here's an interesting use of facial recognition technology on billboards—to do something a little more inspiring than target you with the right products.

To coincide with International Women's Day this Sunday, London agency WCRS teamed up with Women's Aid and Ocean Outdoor to create some remarkable digital billboards about domestic violence. They use facial recognition to recognize when people are paying attention to the image of a bruised woman. As more people look at the ad, her bruises and cuts heal faster, communicating the benefit of not turning a blind eye to the problem.

The campaign premieres today at Canary Wharf, but it's actually already won an Interactive Award in Ocean's annual Art of Outdoor competition 2014. The video below is the case study made for those awards—with a different image, as you can see.

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/bruised-woman-billboard-heals-faster-more-passersby-look-her-163297

edited to add another link:

http://www.bustle.com/articles/68179-this-billboard-heals-domestic-violence-victims-bruised-face-as-passers-by-take-notice

A single image can speak volumes if used to its fullest advantage. This Sunday, March 8, the world will celebrate International Women’s Day — but one group has already taken the initiative and planted that seed of change early. London marketing and advertising agency WCRS released a set of billboards intended to shine a spotlight on domestic violence this week, and according to AdWeek, which reported on the campaign, they’re more than your average public awareness poster.

The billboards, the first of which premiered today at Canary Wharf in London, are meant to draw attention to the growing trend of domestic abuse by employing facial recognition technology. The billboard itself shows the image of a woman’s face, marked by bruises, cuts, and a black eye. As passersby stop to look at the board, a small camera captures their image and prompts the billboard to change, slowly “healing” the woman’s wounds as more and more individuals look at it.

If no one looks at the billboard, the image remains the same. The campaign has already won major accolades at British ad-space company Ocean’s annual Art of Outdoor competition, which rewards organizations for their digital creativity in advertisement, in the Interactive category.

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/landing_page.asp?section=000100010019§ionTitle=About+us

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/page.asp?section=0001000100190001§ionTitle=Who+we+are

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/landing_page.asp?section=000100010015§ionTitle=Media+Centre

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/landing_page.asp?section=000100010013§ionTitle=Useful+links