9 ms·

Facial recognition technology is everywhere, and it may not be legal

88 points by SimplyUseless 11y ago

williamcotton 11y ago
The scramble suit was an invention of the Bell laboratories, conjured up by accident by an employee named S. A. Powers... Basically, his design consisted of a multifaceted quartz lens hooked up to a million and a half physiognomic fraction-representations of various people: men and women, children, with every variant encoded and then projected outward in all directions equally onto a superthin shroudlike membrane large enough to fit around an average human. As the computer looped through its banks, it projected every conceivable eye color, hair color, shape and type of nose, formation of teeth, configuration of facial bone structure - the entire shroudlike membrane took on whatever physical characteristics were projected at any nanosecond, then switched to the next... In any case, the wearer of a scramble suit was Everyman and in every combination (up to combinations of a million and a half sub-bits) during the course of each hour. Hence, any description of him - or her - was meaningless. From A Scanner Darkly, by Philip K. Dick. Published by Not Known in 1977
- chopin 11y ago
  It might be simpler to just wear a Burka. Although at least in Germany this will collide with masking regulations (you are not allowed to mask in public gatherings).
  - omginternets 11y ago
    I don't think the point was that we should all go to the scramble-suit store and buy a scramble suit...
    - marincounty 11y ago
      No, but we need to keep ahead of this technology, and fight it whenever we can--for those that care? I'm beginning to think most people just don't care? What I find ironic is any criminal with any forethought is going to become a master of disguise--without going to that much trouble.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Not just in Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws In France in particular, there's a full ban in public places, even if there's no gathering.
  - therobot24 11y ago
    periocular recognition is also a thing :)
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  I would imagine that were this published in 2007, he would also include shoes with actuators in them that are constantly working to alter your gait; perhaps something that also affects how you move your hips or arms, although I'm not sure how this could be done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gait_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gait_analysis
venomsnake 11y ago
Can you carry a small laser on you that can fry the sensor? It is not that hard to make it invisible and automated.
- IshKebab 11y ago
  No, a small laser won't fry a normal camera. And how will you know where all the cameras are anyway? Also that would be very illegal.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    A green laser will happily burn out sensors, but you'd have to really work at it to burn up all of the sensor because the laser light will typically only fry a couple of pixels at the time. It's not a magical 'point and fry' solution, more like a take up position and stand around for half an hour or so while the laser systematically hits every bit of the sensor long enough to fry it. A hammer would be a lot more effective (assuming you can reach the camera).
    - pjc50 11y ago
      What it can do quite easily is mess with the AGC / white balance while a big part of the image is obscured by a bright green blog. As a temporary effect this may be good enough, and has the advantage of not being property damage.
    - NoGravitas 11y ago
      > A hammer would be a lot more effective (assuming you can reach the camera). So would a can of spray paint.
    - MikeTV 11y ago
      For confirmation: [1] is a video of someone assaulting their webcam with a 1.5w blue laser. All it does is create a few horizontal lines, burn a few tiny marks on the image, and discolor the highlights. [1]: https://youtu.be/zNUgO1Npihk?t=130 https://youtu.be/zNUgO1Npihk?t=130
- 11y ago
NoGravitas 11y ago
Obligatory link to CV Dazzle (a site exploring the use of avant-garde hairstyles and makeup to foil facial recognition): http://cvdazzle.com/ http://cvdazzle.com/
- crottypeter 11y ago
  https://xkcd.com/1105/ https://xkcd.com/1105/
  - serf 11y ago
    Now imagine the cops in that comic have an unlimited amount of post-its which catalog the most minute and esoteric details about the faces of everyone in their city. Also imagine that the cops have the ability to sift through and read those post-its at mechanical speeds. Also, instead of cops they are Wal-Mart greeters. Then you get closer to reality than the comic did regarding the topic of computer vision.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      I hope you aren't implying a comic strip glossed over some details in an effort to reduce the message to a small, easily consumed and memorably sequence of events, just so they could fit within the limits of the form. I hold the medium in far to high a regard to consider that a possibility! ;) Joking aside, I think you were primed to interpret the comic in a specific way which may not have been the intent. I don't think it was saying much about the state of surveillance using computer vision as much as it was showing the absurdity, at this point, of using a method that prevents computer vision from working but also makes you uniquely and easily identifiable. Eventually, if enough of the populace takes up a similar method of obfuscating their identity, then it's useful, as you are again anonymized as one among many, but until then you are an anonymous member of a very small group (possibly containing only you), which itself isn't very hard to identify. Not all that useful.
sageabilly 11y ago
I've spent the last three years either working for a company actively implementing facial recognition (and other biometrics) into both security/identity products and consumer retail products or just researching biometric technology in general. I've come to the conclusion that there won't be a great shift forward in these technologies until someone comes along and completely reinvents the concept of privacy itself. I've seen retailer after retailer try to implement improvements to consumer experience (either through beacons and directed coupons or through some sort of identity recognition) only to be met with ENORMOUS backlash [1] from consumers freaking out because the store can tell where they are in the store at any given time. In security, iris recognition, voice recognition, and facial recognition are all methods of identification that cannot be stolen and yet all are methods of identification that freak people out to no end. They'd rather carry around an ID that can be stolen, copied, and sold on the black market thus ruining their financial livelihood for the rest of their lives than switch over to a more reliable biometric based method of identification Privacy as we knew it is dead. It died a long time ago; hell you could probably argue that it started to die the first time anyone published a phone book because if I knew your name then I could figure out where you lived. Biometrics, to me, is a recapturing of privacy and personal identification because you no longer have to worry about relying on third parties to protect your identity (which is obviously not working [2]), YOU ARE YOUR IDENTITY. Your face, your voice, your fingerprint, your iris, all of these things cannot be spoofed and are uniquely yours and cannot be taken away from you. As for the article, this is a perfect example of the kinds of things that require a reinvention of the notion of privacy. Used to be if you were captured on camera in public no one knew who you were unless someone you knew saw that picture and could identify you. Now with facial recognition, that's not possible anymore. But Pandora's box has been opened and it cannot be shut again so articles like this just seem totally pointless in light of that- they're missing the fundamental issue that facial recognition is a thing that exists and it's not going to stop existing just because we're all unsure how we feel about it. Yes I absolutely agree that facial recognition needs to be an opt-in where it can be, like on Facebook or Twitter or whatever. However we're living in a time when absolute right to privacy and anonymity in public no longer exists, and we need to figure out how to navigate that fast or else all of this biometric technology that can and should be used to make life easier is going to be regulated all to hell and we'll be stuck in paranoia-ville and afraid to leave our homes. [1]http://consumerist.com/2013/05/10/nordstrom-decides-to-stop-tracking-customers-smartphones/ http://consumerist.com/2013/05/10/nordstrom-decides-to-stop-... [2]http://www.cnbc.com/id/102752205 http://www.cnbc.com/id/102752205

88 points by SimplyUseless 11y ago

The scramble suit was an invention of the Bell laboratories, conjured up by accident by an employee named S. A. Powers... Basically, his design consisted of a multifaceted quartz lens hooked up to a million and a half physiognomic fraction-representations of various people: men and women, children, with every variant encoded and then projected outward in all directions equally onto a superthin shroudlike membrane large enough to fit around an average human. As the computer looped through its banks, it projected every conceivable eye color, hair color, shape and type of nose, formation of teeth, configuration of facial bone structure - the entire shroudlike membrane took on whatever physical characteristics were projected at any nanosecond, then switched to the next... In any case, the wearer of a scramble suit was Everyman and in every combination (up to combinations of a million and a half sub-bits) during the course of each hour. Hence, any description of him - or her - was meaningless. From A Scanner Darkly, by Philip K. Dick. Published by Not Known in 1977

chopin 11y ago
It might be simpler to just wear a Burka. Although at least in Germany this will collide with masking regulations (you are not allowed to mask in public gatherings).
- omginternets 11y ago
  I don't think the point was that we should all go to the scramble-suit store and buy a scramble suit...
  - marincounty 11y ago
    No, but we need to keep ahead of this technology, and fight it whenever we can--for those that care? I'm beginning to think most people just don't care? What I find ironic is any criminal with any forethought is going to become a master of disguise--without going to that much trouble.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Not just in Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws In France in particular, there's a full ban in public places, even if there's no gathering.
- therobot24 11y ago
  periocular recognition is also a thing :)
pavel_lishin 11y ago
I would imagine that were this published in 2007, he would also include shoes with actuators in them that are constantly working to alter your gait; perhaps something that also affects how you move your hips or arms, although I'm not sure how this could be done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gait_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gait_analysis

venomsnake 11y ago

Can you carry a small laser on you that can fry the sensor? It is not that hard to make it invisible and automated.

IshKebab 11y ago
No, a small laser won't fry a normal camera. And how will you know where all the cameras are anyway? Also that would be very illegal.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  A green laser will happily burn out sensors, but you'd have to really work at it to burn up all of the sensor because the laser light will typically only fry a couple of pixels at the time. It's not a magical 'point and fry' solution, more like a take up position and stand around for half an hour or so while the laser systematically hits every bit of the sensor long enough to fry it. A hammer would be a lot more effective (assuming you can reach the camera).
  - pjc50 11y ago
    What it can do quite easily is mess with the AGC / white balance while a big part of the image is obscured by a bright green blog. As a temporary effect this may be good enough, and has the advantage of not being property damage.
  - NoGravitas 11y ago
    > A hammer would be a lot more effective (assuming you can reach the camera). So would a can of spray paint.
  - MikeTV 11y ago
    For confirmation: [1] is a video of someone assaulting their webcam with a 1.5w blue laser. All it does is create a few horizontal lines, burn a few tiny marks on the image, and discolor the highlights. [1]: https://youtu.be/zNUgO1Npihk?t=130 https://youtu.be/zNUgO1Npihk?t=130
11y ago

NoGravitas 11y ago

Obligatory link to CV Dazzle (a site exploring the use of avant-garde hairstyles and makeup to foil facial recognition): http://cvdazzle.com/ http://cvdazzle.com/

crottypeter 11y ago
https://xkcd.com/1105/ https://xkcd.com/1105/
- serf 11y ago
  Now imagine the cops in that comic have an unlimited amount of post-its which catalog the most minute and esoteric details about the faces of everyone in their city. Also imagine that the cops have the ability to sift through and read those post-its at mechanical speeds. Also, instead of cops they are Wal-Mart greeters. Then you get closer to reality than the comic did regarding the topic of computer vision.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    I hope you aren't implying a comic strip glossed over some details in an effort to reduce the message to a small, easily consumed and memorably sequence of events, just so they could fit within the limits of the form. I hold the medium in far to high a regard to consider that a possibility! ;) Joking aside, I think you were primed to interpret the comic in a specific way which may not have been the intent. I don't think it was saying much about the state of surveillance using computer vision as much as it was showing the absurdity, at this point, of using a method that prevents computer vision from working but also makes you uniquely and easily identifiable. Eventually, if enough of the populace takes up a similar method of obfuscating their identity, then it's useful, as you are again anonymized as one among many, but until then you are an anonymous member of a very small group (possibly containing only you), which itself isn't very hard to identify. Not all that useful.

sageabilly 11y ago

I've spent the last three years either working for a company actively implementing facial recognition (and other biometrics) into both security/identity products and consumer retail products or just researching biometric technology in general. I've come to the conclusion that there won't be a great shift forward in these technologies until someone comes along and completely reinvents the concept of privacy itself. I've seen retailer after retailer try to implement improvements to consumer experience (either through beacons and directed coupons or through some sort of identity recognition) only to be met with ENORMOUS backlash [1] from consumers freaking out because the store can tell where they are in the store at any given time. In security, iris recognition, voice recognition, and facial recognition are all methods of identification that cannot be stolen and yet all are methods of identification that freak people out to no end. They'd rather carry around an ID that can be stolen, copied, and sold on the black market thus ruining their financial livelihood for the rest of their lives than switch over to a more reliable biometric based method of identification Privacy as we knew it is dead. It died a long time ago; hell you could probably argue that it started to die the first time anyone published a phone book because if I knew your name then I could figure out where you lived. Biometrics, to me, is a recapturing of privacy and personal identification because you no longer have to worry about relying on third parties to protect your identity (which is obviously not working [2]), YOU ARE YOUR IDENTITY. Your face, your voice, your fingerprint, your iris, all of these things cannot be spoofed and are uniquely yours and cannot be taken away from you. As for the article, this is a perfect example of the kinds of things that require a reinvention of the notion of privacy. Used to be if you were captured on camera in public no one knew who you were unless someone you knew saw that picture and could identify you. Now with facial recognition, that's not possible anymore. But Pandora's box has been opened and it cannot be shut again so articles like this just seem totally pointless in light of that- they're missing the fundamental issue that facial recognition is a thing that exists and it's not going to stop existing just because we're all unsure how we feel about it. Yes I absolutely agree that facial recognition needs to be an opt-in where it can be, like on Facebook or Twitter or whatever. However we're living in a time when absolute right to privacy and anonymity in public no longer exists, and we need to figure out how to navigate that fast or else all of this biometric technology that can and should be used to make life easier is going to be regulated all to hell and we'll be stuck in paranoia-ville and afraid to leave our homes. [1]http://consumerist.com/2013/05/10/nordstrom-decides-to-stop-tracking-customers-smartphones/ http://consumerist.com/2013/05/10/nordstrom-decides-to-stop-... [2]http://www.cnbc.com/id/102752205 http://www.cnbc.com/id/102752205