14 ms·
This is the reason that even the makeup, glasses, etc. that people have come up with to counter facial recognition are going to be completely ineffective in a f
by fencepost 9y ago
This is the reason that even the makeup, glasses, etc. that people have come up with to counter facial recognition are going to be completely ineffective in a few years.
Contemplate if you will a hallway immediately past Customs in an airport. Equip it with multiple sensors of this type to provide complete coverage and redundant imaging/sensing. While you're at it, set up gait recognition as well. Then correlate the received profiles with the passport/identity data of the people just passed through customs.
Congratulations, you've just started building a database of everyone entering the country with biometric data that can be checked in the field with equipment costing less than $1000, and which can later be cross checked to find people traveling with false or multiple IDs ("this facial structure comes back as matching (person x) and (person y), and the gait is almost the same. Pick him up."), and it could all be done with technology that exists today.
Edit: autocorrect
- webkike 9y agoHere's one fool proof way of countering facial recognition: a paper bag
- aluhut 9y agoNo face, no access.
- qbrass 9y agoDraw a face on the bag.
- paulsutter 9y agoThat and a passport under the name "Unknown Comic" should work just fine, right? https://www.google.com/search?q=unknown+comic&hl=en-US&prmd=visn&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=unknown+comic&hl=en-US&prmd=...
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoOr those masks in mission impossible.
- gutnor 9y agoEntering any place where there are armed security personal with a paper bag on your face is a good way to get shot.
- sgustard 9y agoWomen in societies that require face veils will be the only ones who can move around freely, which will be ironic.
- olegkikin 9y agoNot until they start putting QR codes on them. Not that women in those societies can move freely, they must be accompanied by a man in most countries that do that to women.
- jsemrau 9y agoBut QR Codes are dead ? Isn't that what I have heard over the last 20 years?
- jsemrau 9y agoNo it won't. If you are not able to identify yourself you won't be able to enter[1] and will be deported. [1] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/brussels-airport-deports-danish-woman-wearing-niqab-170916144241639.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/brussels-airport-depor...
- victor106 9y agoHow about women wearing burka and niqab?
- bsenftner 9y agoDoes not matter, we already have hi-resolution IR that images through clothing. (and paper bags.)
- maxerickson 9y agoThe US is already moving to overtly image the face of everyone visiting the country during passport control. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometric-security-initiatives https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometric-security-initiatives
- sveiss 9y agoThis is already happening. People visiting the US and entering through airports have had their fingerprints and facial biometrics captured since 2004, and it's been progressively expanded since then. All visa applications have the same information captured at interview, too. The current large expansion planned is capturing facial biometrics at exit, and using this to confirm departure (instead of relying on airline manfiests).
- EGreg 9y agoBut that's nothing compared to IDing people by their license plates, face, gait, etc. as they pull up to the airport, to catch them earlier.
- bsenftner 9y agoPeople need to stop thinking gait is a useful metric. It's been disproved as an effective biometric, and is largely ignored by the (non-fraudulent) biometrics research community and companies offering products based on said research. There are simply too many trivial things that significantly alter an individual's gait to make it a meaningful metric.
- dawnerd 9y agoPretty sure PDX captures faces when exiting. They force you through a series of doors/lanes, and if you look up two cameras (at least) per lane facing you. Since they're spaced apart I wonder if they're using it to make a 3d image.
- robocat 9y agoThey take iris scans I think - that's why you have to gaze into the scanner. Iris recognition is very accurate (they prefer better than 1 in 1000000 accuracy!), and hard to modify.
- idlewords 9y agoWorrying what governments will do with this is a little backwards. Worry what Google's and Facebook's ad networks will let their paying customers (including political campaigns) do with this.
- jyrkesh 9y agoAs wary as I am of Google and Facebook, governments can arrest me.
- endymi0n 9y agoIt will probably turn out just like the rest of the history of the internet - as a huge "public/private partnership" (/s) FB/Google jump on the train and enable new possibilities you don't want to miss, meanwhile Government gets nothing done, so in the end the three letter agencies will just arrive at the doorstep snagging all data anyway (formerly known as PRISM). I mean why go to the trouble of installing expensive hardware identifying anyone if they all incriminate themselves for free on Snapchat? Welcome to the new world.
- rectang 9y agoEquifax has been showing us just how hellish private companies can make our lives, without any recourse. The state may have a monopoly on violence, but private companies have more than enough power to ruin us even if they don't arrest us.
- bsenftner 9y agoIf a corporation chooses to, there are numerous ways they can ruin you, with little to nothing a human can do about it. The legal system is stacked to trust corporate entities far beyond the legal power a single citizen or any family of private citizens that may try to defend them. Most criminals never actually generate the notice of a corporation for their interest to focus on them. They are very aware of organized crime, but there is little corporations can do about them. However, the economic combat taking place in some industries actually is the stuff of espionage spy novels. This thread has a lot of sensor speculation about what if scenarios. As a person working in FR and security, I can tell you we already have giant databases with millions of people in them. They are actively searched 24/7 with cameras located in public high traffic areas. Private spaces are filled with them. Retail is filled with them. You already see the cameras everywhere and do not think about it. We have systems that can search a 8 billion facial records on a single server in under 10 seconds, working with more realistic sized galleries, we have deployed and operating systems performing real time searching of everyone in a sports stadium or retail mall repeated 30 times a second for the duration of the public use of the space.
- blitmap 9y agoI wish as technology becomes available which could be used for more Orwellian surveillance someone stood back and thought about ways it could be used for good rather than defending some absurd fear of terrorist attacks. Like... I remember a few years back there was an article about using high framerate cameras to detect the heartbeat of people the camera viewed in hospitals. I wish surveillance could be used to watch people at risk for heart attacks, bring it to their notice if one is detected in the early stages, and direct them to their nearest hospital - in a way that involves a concert of technologies/devices. Instead of CCTV cameras on every corner being used for criminals, use them to watch for health risks? Alert the person through their Apple Watch, send directions to the watch and phone, alert nearby first responders, notify family, etc... A route could even be established for an ambulance ahead-of-time, rather than as an ambulance rolls up to a signal. I'm tired of worrying about terrorists. Maybe I want to be blind to the small chance a carbomb is possible. I know the most innovative stuff is often a result of defense spending/planning, but I hate thinking a driving force behind technology today is people afraid of other people. </end-rant>
- Tsiklon 9y agoUnfortunately the cynic in me says there's more money in keeping people fearful.
- iammyIP 9y agoNah, i don't think that's it. Fear is a feeling, which is per default not any more or less connected to "i need to buy this thing" than any other feeling. So why should fear encourage spending money more than any other feeling. How about the idea that a joyful person is much more inclined to spend money - but on different things. Just imagine a world without any fear, just with different kind of markets and the same amount of money.
- astrobe_ 9y ago> Nah, i don't think that's it. Fear is a feeling, which is per default not any more or less connected to "i need to buy this thing" than any other feeling It seems to me that a significant part of the press and TV news are selling just that - fear. It doesn't take long to find a word like "threat", example taken at random, on the first page of the NYT ("Shinzo Abe: Solidarity Against the North Korean Threat").
- Mr_P 9y agoThey already check fingerprints. I don't see how this would be significantly different.
- icebraining 9y agoThis tech can be incorporated into public CCTVs.
- eCa 9y agoAs 'icebraining alludes to, finger printing requires consent or force. Face/gait recognition via camera does not.
- secfirstmd 9y agoThere are a few people doing studies on whether or not automatic passport gates in some countries are more likely to fail you if your mobile phone is switched off.
- throwaway613834 9y ago> Congratulations, you've just started building a database of everyone entering the country with biometric data that can be checked in the field with equipment costing less than $1000, and which can later be cross checked to find people traveling with false or multiple IDs ("this facial structure comes back as matching (person x) and (person y), and the gait is almost the same. Pick him up.") I assume you believe this can be done accurately, or you wouldn't be suggesting this scenario. In that case—what exactly do you see as the problem here?
- madeofpalk 9y agoActually, this is literally 100% what Australia is looking to introduce in the next few years in its airports - gateless immigrations. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/22/facial-recognition-to-replace-passports-in-security-overhaul-at-australian-airports https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/22/facia...
- ianhowson 9y agoRight now, if you hold a friendly passport, the only reason you stop at all for immigration is to answer "Have you been to Africa in the last three months?" and have your face scanned. Customs will still delay you for not particularly good reasons.
- madeofpalk 9y agoYou still need to go through the 'SmartGates' or whatever it is. They're aiming to completely remove all of that.
- rem1313 9y agoIs it because of some potential illness?
- AJ007 9y agoI would not want to be an in the field spy for any country right now or at any time in the future.
- jdavis703 9y agoTo some extent, technology is making "in the field" spies redundant. Instead of paying someone to break into a secure facility and steal paperwork, you can pay a hacker sitting in their home country to hack your opponent's data.
- dx034 9y agoDon't think so. For many hacks you'll probably need physical access to a phone or computer.
- shpx 9y agoIf it means I don't have to carry a driver's license or credit card or cash, sign me up.
- nextstep 9y agoWow, is surrendering all privacy in public a fair price to pay for the inconvenience of carrying a wallet?
- shpx 9y agoI was being facetious, sorry.
- nextstep 9y agoAh sorry, misunderstood.
- zo1 9y agoI'm perfectly fine with it. Including license-plate cameras on every street corner. 24/7 aerial surveillance and cell-phone tracking, too. Why do I need privacy, exactly? Sure, privacy from being spied-on without reason by random low-level government employees, sure. But I don't care about privacy from automated systems, or systems that are used in criminal investigations after the fact, or during the fact. Also, I'm fine not having privacy from detectives and criminal investigators that are investigating crimes. That distinction is an important one, though, and is usually lost in discussions of tech and privacy.
- tryingagainbro 9y agoRemember reading how biometrics essentially ruined the old-style spies, they can no longer get through the airports. And once they get burned, they're out! I am pretty sure that each country already runs the same face but two different IDs check. Ironically, the poorer countries probably have better tech since they started fresh, countries like USA keep patching their decade old systems.
- scottlegrand2 9y agoAnd I suspect as with all deep-learning based solutions to date, there will be subtle modifications to one's face that will serve as robust adversaries to all networks simultaneously. The phase space for inputs is amazingly huge, so huge that it is nearly impossible to cover all of it with a finite training set, doubly so if one has a gradient for locating such adversaries... https://blog.openai.com/robust-adversarial-inputs/ https://blog.openai.com/robust-adversarial-inputs/
- mbzi 9y agoThis has been in airports for years - mainly for advertising/targeted adverts. There is no point in trying to block it.
- dx034 9y agoI'm very worried about face recognition technology but don't think that FaceID will play any role in it. Apple is the only large company that appears to take privacy seriously. There won't be a big database with all FaceID information. There are enough companies selling face recognition tech to states but Apple isn't one of them. So the iPhone X shows how much is possible but in itself won't change surveillance.