4 ms·
Does it have to be the face? Just wondering if they could've used another combination of body parts with sufficient variation and use those as the "fingerprint"
by zawerf 8y ago
Does it have to be the face? Just wondering if they could've used another combination of body parts with sufficient variation and use those as the "fingerprint" instead. Rather than "the bristles, the snout, the eyes and ears" specifically.
Or are faces evolved to be unique in (social?)animals and nothing else is as easy to tell apart?
- Aromasin 8y agoThis just conjecture, but isn't the body slightly more amorphous then the face? Body-fat and muscle can make someone, even a pig, look different but variables like the eyes, nose and ears generally stay the same (at least past puberty). We also have facial recognition technology already and it may be that it's easier to adapt to another mammals face than it is to work from the ground up again.
- rpeden 8y agoI've read that ears are pretty unique. But I imagine that mass surveillance based on ear profiles would be difficult just because ears are small so it's harder to isolate high resolution pictures of people's ears. Also because things like long hair exist that would thwart attempts automated ear-oriented identification.