4 ms·

I assume he more meant accuracy at scale - if you have a large population how does the accuracy do? Do you wind up with many close samples or are things pretty

I assume he more meant accuracy at scale - if you have a large population how does the accuracy do? Do you wind up with many close samples or are things pretty good?

bsenftner 11y ago
Pretty much all FR systems generate a list of matches, ranked from closest match on down. The size of the list is configurable. It is also industry standard NOT to use the list as an authority. Given a list of high matches (greater than 90%) a human can quickly filter out obvious false positives, and then the remaining are retained for further consideration. It is also industry standard NOT to rely on FR alone; combining FR with other measures reduces the ability for a false positive. The issue I find with FR is people expecting it to be some super technology, gleaming significant information from a dust spec. Its not like that. And the media is playing it up with unrealistic descriptions. Remember the original DOOM and it's quality of graphics? That is where FR is now. We've got a ways before the journalist hype is close to reality. And the mature technology will not be FR, but a comprehensive multiple biometric measuring system capturing far more than someone's face.
- Retric 11y ago
  So, if you’re looking for 1% of a total population your false positive rate before human intervention is 99%. That's not useful for automated systems. Further, identical twins are going to show an image that would fool human verification making this questionable for many tasks even with human supervision. PS: Almost 1% of the population has an identical twin. (% of births is lower, but you get 2 twins.)
  - bsenftner 11y ago
    There is only one true match. So the system will always be generating false positives. This technology is not an authority, but a filter. Yes, identical twins will both be identified if they are both in the system and no additional biometric measures are included. Identical twins still have different retina, and due to lifestyles identical twins beyond age 30 can be distinguished apart fairly easily.
- rmc 11y ago
  What's the "industry" you speak of? This article is suggesting this be used by minimum wage (or below[1]) workers in shops, bars and restaurants. How well do you think your industries norms will be adhered to? [1] UK tried (is trying?) a "you must work for free in what would be a minimum wage job in a high street shop" scheme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499

I assume he more meant accuracy at scale - if you have a large population how does the accuracy do? Do you wind up with many close samples or are things pretty good?

bsenftner 11y ago

Pretty much all FR systems generate a list of matches, ranked from closest match on down. The size of the list is configurable. It is also industry standard NOT to use the list as an authority. Given a list of high matches (greater than 90%) a human can quickly filter out obvious false positives, and then the remaining are retained for further consideration. It is also industry standard NOT to rely on FR alone; combining FR with other measures reduces the ability for a false positive. The issue I find with FR is people expecting it to be some super technology, gleaming significant information from a dust spec. Its not like that. And the media is playing it up with unrealistic descriptions. Remember the original DOOM and it's quality of graphics? That is where FR is now. We've got a ways before the journalist hype is close to reality. And the mature technology will not be FR, but a comprehensive multiple biometric measuring system capturing far more than someone's face.

Retric 11y ago
So, if you’re looking for 1% of a total population your false positive rate before human intervention is 99%. That's not useful for automated systems. Further, identical twins are going to show an image that would fool human verification making this questionable for many tasks even with human supervision. PS: Almost 1% of the population has an identical twin. (% of births is lower, but you get 2 twins.)
- bsenftner 11y ago
  There is only one true match. So the system will always be generating false positives. This technology is not an authority, but a filter. Yes, identical twins will both be identified if they are both in the system and no additional biometric measures are included. Identical twins still have different retina, and due to lifestyles identical twins beyond age 30 can be distinguished apart fairly easily.
rmc 11y ago
What's the "industry" you speak of? This article is suggesting this be used by minimum wage (or below[1]) workers in shops, bars and restaurants. How well do you think your industries norms will be adhered to? [1] UK tried (is trying?) a "you must work for free in what would be a minimum wage job in a high street shop" scheme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499