6 ms·
The comments about the "attention" detail make it sound like they have tested this extensively with diverse groups. But I've wondered if they had anyone "red te
by sigmar 9y ago
The comments about the "attention" detail make it sound like they have tested this extensively with diverse groups. But I've wondered if they had anyone "red team" to see if they could fool it. Faces are less private than fingerprints, and I imagine the police would jump to buy a tool that can unlock phones. Statistics about the false-positive rate are mostly meaningless in an adversarial case. Maybe it is mentioned in the forthcoming white paper.
- lsadam0 9y agoOf course they did. This was even briefly touched on in the announcement demo.
- macintux 9y agoThe photo of the masks they had Hollywood make for them for testing was quite memorable.
- naravara 9y ago>But I've wondered if they had anyone "red team" to see if they could fool it. It would be a phenomenal oversight on their part if they failed to do this. As in, the only reason I wouldn't deem it criminal negligence would be because the legal bar for that WRT people's personal data is so low.
- ianamartin 9y agoCriminal negligence if Apple fails to do it. Par for the course if Samsung doesn't do it.
- Osmium 9y ago> Faces are less private than fingerprints Possibly, but it's also easy to pick up someone's fingerprint from anything they've touched after the fact. With faces, you have to actively record/3D scan someone. It's not clear whether e.g. security cam footage will be sufficient fidelity to reconstruct a 3D face in enough detail, but this will be interesting to find out. In case anyone missed it, Apple claimed false positive rates for Touch ID were 1 in 50,000 and for Face ID were 1 in 1,000,000. > Statistics about the false-positive rate are mostly meaningless in an adversarial case. I imagine what those special effect masks were for, to test for the adversarial case. I also imagine that's why there's an IR camera too -- I'm not sure what wavelength of IR this is, but it seems distinct from the depth mapping, and would be more difficult to fool on a mask.
- macintux 9y ago> It's not clear whether e.g. security cam footage will be sufficient fidelity to reconstruct a 3D face in enough detail, but this will be interesting to find out. That would be NSA-grade security cameras, and based on the photorealistic masks they tested, even that shouldn't be good enough.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Osmium 9y ago> photorealistic masks But it's not yet clear how much photorealism matters vs. 3D shape, which may be a lot lower fidelity.
- lbotos 9y agoThe thing I've been wondering about is the "invisible dots" that they map to your face, obviously they are visible to something, and if someone wanted your face info could we build something to capture that data either en masse or say with a sensor built into a doorway or such. edit: or even a fake iphone and I hand you mine and ask you to play a game that I'm building that steals your face data.
- MBCook 9y agoLook up Microsoft's Kinect. The basic idea (as I understand it) it to project a grid of even dots (or some other known pattern). Once they land on a 3D surface you can tell how close the surface is by how close together the dots are and how angled the surface is based on how the dots skew. It requires the projector, a camera, and the distance between the two. But it's relatively simple (in theory, I imagine it's quite hard in practice).
- lbotos 9y agoright, that's my point, what does an iphone face id-ing in the vicinity of a Kinect look like? I'd can't wait to read about what fascinating ways people figure out to attack this.
- djrogers 9y agoIt was mentioned in the introduction presentation, they hired top Hollywood mask makers and makeup artists to try to fool the depth mapping sensors.