8 ms·
This is a very cool use of facial recognition. It could also be expanded to the complete history of photographs. So lets say trying to identify all people on al
by mosselman 8y ago
This is a very cool use of facial recognition. It could also be expanded to the complete history of photographs. So lets say trying to identify all people on all historical photographs. Wouldn't it be funny to see some of the same people pop up in different pictures around the world in events that were previously thought unrelated?
For privacy issues you'd want to limit this to periods in time that are far back enough for most people to have passed though. So I could imagine the Second World War to be a (somewhat arbitrary) limit for now.
This limit would eventually need to be expanded, because I wouldn't want my photographs to be examined like this in 70 years time.
- laumars 8y ago> This is a very cool use of facial recognition. It could also be expanded to the complete history of photographs. So lets say trying to identify all people on all historical photographs. Wouldn't it be funny to see some of the same people pop up in different pictures around the world in events that were previously thought unrelated? My issue with that is faces aren't that unique, so you might get unrelated people identified as the same individual.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoMy issue with that was parsing your sentence structure ;o) Isn't English so deliciously versatile. Paraphrase: Faces aren't entirely unique. So, you could identify unrelated people as one person.
- albertgoeswoof 8y agoI didn’t notice the double negative until I reread the original statement, but I did parse the sentence correctly first time.
- laumars 8y agoI don't think your paraphrase version is any easier to parse than the original. However I have taken your advice onboard and tweaked my original comment.
- retSava 8y agoAnd older pics are typically very grainy and blurry in general due to bad optics.
- ghaff 8y agoThe optics are not typically the biggest issue. It's much more that film was very slow and grainy. We've been able to make good lenses for at least 100 years and probably longer.
- mosselman 8y agoSolving some of the quality issues would be interesting as well as studying the similarities of faces over time across the world. All in all it would be an interesting field of study for the hobbyist.
- jnty 8y agoGiven the likelihood of coincidences like that actually happening, you'd surely end up finding lots and lots of pairs of completely unrelated people that look remarkably similar, with no way of knowing if any of them are actually the same person.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoCould you not use metadata to create a confidence score? For example, if two people look similar but the dates of the photos are 100+ years apart, it’s unlikely they’re the same person. This is how we find the time travelers :)
- froindt 8y agoI think this is key. Figuring out a name from a photo with no additional data would give a high probability of incorrect identification. But any metadata attached to the photos could be useful. Date the photo was taken. Where the photo was taken (e.g. the annual family reunion in SmallTown, Illinois) Photographer. They're likely taking photos of the same general set of people or in the same geographic area. Time+location of other similar photos. Back in the days of the civil war, it wouldn't be possible for someone to be in to locations 1,000 miles apart in 2 days. Side note: I recently saw a video from ~1910 in New York City. Everybody in the video had a similar physical build and would make the "average" person today look fat. I wonder how this would affect the confidence of photo grouping? Overall, did people look more homogeneous back then?
- jnty 8y agoCynically, I'm going to say you either find unsurprising matches (eg. photos of the same group of people taken on different days) or even more convincing and hard-to-detect false positives. If your goal is explicitly to find something extremely rare - unexpected face matches in different places - you will be flooded with false positives even if the false positive rate is fairly low.
- gwern 8y agoYou have a lot of context/metadata like date taken (or at the worst, date acquired for a historical collection, giving a terminus ante quem) and can easily figure out the false positive rate. You may not know if two matches are the same person, but if one photo is dated to 1850-1860 and another photo is dated to 1931, you can safely infer that you have a false positive. Over a dataset of matches, that gives you an idea of how reliable each one. Give people access to all the other clues like "insignia and inscription" and probably a lot of reliable identifications can be made, and the remainder flagged as 'possible but uncertain'.
- GuiA 8y ago> This limit would eventually need to be expanded, because I wouldn't want my photographs to be examined like this in 70 years time. Wait, why are you fine with doing it with other people’s 70 year old pictures, but you don’t want people 70 years from now to do it with your pictures? (sorry if I am missing the sarcasm or some such)
- Brockenstein 8y agoFortunately, when you're dead the living will do whatever they want and you're too dead to care.
- mirceal 8y agoI will disagree. Being alive or dead should not impact what others can do as far as your privacy goes. I would also extend this to any technology available in the future. Facial recognition is interesting, but let’s think about more advanced biological things that could be available in 50-100 years.
- mulmen 8y agoThat’s pretty short sighted. Do you take that view of everything that can happen after you die? Should terminal patients still vote?
- lostapathy 8y agoIt could be argued rights are something a person has. Once you die, you are no longer a person. Dead people don't have a right to vote. I think a much stronger argument is to be made that your surviving family/friends have a right to privacy that somehow includes aspects of deceased relatives lives staying secret. But that makes it a right for the living, not the dead.
- mulmen 8y agoWhile I disagree with the idea that the dead have no rights I do understand it. Even if we accept that I still think it is short sighted for the living to only consider consequences up to their own death and not beyond.
- goodcanadian 8y agoI have seen 100 years commonly used as a limit for census data and the like. It seems like a good number as any individuals are very unlikely to still be alive. (Those few that are would have been very young).
- emiliobumachar 8y agoWalk before we run, eh? AFAIK it's not even illegal in most of the world to identify us in yesterday's pictures, including for commercial purposes.
- thanatropism 8y agoDo you think there's no risk of harm (or at least inconvenience) for people who are suddenly discovered to be descendents from baddies of History? I'm sure the Hitlers and Görings of this world changed their names in due time and took steps to insulate themselves and their offspring from their forefathers' bad rep, but what if it turns out your pop-pop was a guard at Auschwitz?