8 ms·

EFF and Eight Other Privacy Orgs Back Out of NTIA Face Recognition Talks

131 points by jdp23 11y ago

kefka 11y ago
Yes, and? With OpenCV, I already have face detection, face recognition, eye detection, cascade creation (for detection of any feature I wish), a retinal model in conjunction with retinal scanning via webcam, and other power tools in that bag. And it's all open source. It's easy enough, I made it myself: https://github.com/jwcrawley/uWHo https://github.com/jwcrawley/uWHo
- therobot24 11y ago
  > a retinal model in conjunction with retinal scanning via webcam You probably mean iris. The retina is the back of the eye, very few if any real biometric systems use this. The iris is the colored area of the eye that surrounds the pupil. It's very texture rich and less invasive to obtain.
  - kefka 11y ago
    Acccording to the documentation, OpenCV contrib indicates a retinal model. http://docs.opencv.org/modules/contrib/doc/retina/index.html http://docs.opencv.org/modules/contrib/doc/retina/index.html
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
      If you actually read the page, you'll see it's something different.
      - kefka 11y ago
        <grumble> My understanding was that it could back-calculate the retinal map. Alas, I was indeed wrong. For those who don't mess with this OpenCV, what this does is bring the colorspace and attributes of an image to something that the eye would see. camera picture + retinal filter = simulation of how the eye would see the picture captured by camera.
        jgrowl 11y ago
        Hah, I was about to get mad at myself for not realizing retina biometrics were built in to OpenCV. As someone who has worked a bit using OpenCV to detect eye features, I can say pretty confidently that it isn't THAT easy. OpenCV can help you start off by easily being able to detect that there is an eye in frame, but I think you are on your own beyond that. My general approach was to use haarcascades to detect that an eye was in frame. Then you have to isolate the iris, and pupil. You can use Hough Circles or the Daugman algorithm for segmentation. I got a reasonable result using the Daugman algorithm, but Hough circles seemed to be more erratic. I had a huge problem with reflections though, which I think it is known that the Daugman algorithm suffers from. You pretty much have to take the picture of the eye in a controlled setting where you flash a light in the subjects eye such that the reflection in the eye is a small isolated circle. Even then I wasn't always to get a correct result. I think I may have not implemented the algorithm perfectly though. I never got farther than that, but even if you are able to capture the eye perfectly you then have to actually build up a model of the persons features and then be able to compare it. I would be interested if anyone else had better luck than I did.
    - therobot24 11y ago
      GFK_of_xmaspast is right, it appears to be an image processing technique not biometric
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  Who cares if it's easy or not? Consumer/passerby protection rules are not going to stop you, a person with nothing to lose. This is about the use of such technology in a commercial setting. It's a bit like my pirate radio station. I have it, I broadcast to a very limited distance, whatever, I don't really worry about the white vans. If I put a 400 kW TV transmitter on top of a mountain, that's a very different story.
  - kefka 11y ago
    Lets take the same analogy... So, if I buy/build a 1GP camera array, and drive it around the city, capturing all the data, "that's a very different story"? Your example is in violation of the FCC. Mine violates nothing.
    - forgottenpass 11y ago
      Your example is in violation of the FCC. Mine violates nothing. Well, yeah, that was kinda the idea. My point is that it doesn't matter what is technically possible if consumer protection rules were to come into place. The regulatory environment would curtail the largest (ab)uses of the technology as entities that would use the technology wouldn't want to take the risk. edit: So, under hypothetical regulation on facial recognition, a watchdog agency isn't going to know/care about your driveway camera, but your business based on using that 1GP array to sell person tracking and demographic data would raise some eyebrows. Was your point about the ease of implementation an expression that you'd do it anyway if the regulations came into place? Put your business on the line because you personally know how to implement it?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- CONTRARlAN 11y ago
  That it's easy to do is all the more reason to try to establish controls to prevent abuse. It's trivially easy to sell customer data for profit at the expense of their privacy. It's easy to store personal information without securing it. It's easy to take credit cards without using SSL certs. It's also easy to lock someone up and deny them due process, or to enter someone's home and seize their effects without a warrant, or to set absurdly high bail. Etc. Again, it's because this is such an easy thing to do–and it's only going to become easier to collect, store, and analyze this data-that it makes sense to establish definitions of what constitutes fair use, and what constitutes abuse, and to do so sooner, rather than later.
  - kefka 11y ago
    So, what is the responsibility for capturing faces for recognition purposes when in a public setting? It's already established that members of the public can record events like arrests legally, thanks to 1st amendment defense. But above is in public. What about "my" property? Or the supermarket? We already have cameras everywhere. Just look up. So what does it matter that they run software on the back end? The hardware is already there. Walking in gives implicit permission that "you agree to be recorded or leave". Vandalization of cameras is criminal. Many places insist you not wear masks, or they call the cops.
    - tjr 11y ago
      The difference to me is that when your presence was merely recorded on video, it required the manual labor of humans to search for your face in the recording. This isn't something that is likely to happen unless authorities are looking for you in particular for some actual reason. Now with it all automated, it just takes running some scripts on a computer system to locate your face from any number of sources, so people who are not particularly under suspicion for anything will have their whereabouts identified automatically just as if they were actual suspects. Same story with automatic license plates readers. Manual searching for a license plate is so time-consuming that it's unlikely to get done without cause. With automatic systems, records can be kept of every car that passes through a monitored intersection, whether if the car or driver is of actual interest or not.
- tikhonj 11y ago
  This isn't about face recognition technology, it's about face recognition data. The EFF and friends want to come up with standards for storing, securing and sharing face-recognition data between companies and government entities. These standards make sense—and need some minimum level of scrutiny—regardless of how easy facial recognition technology is to implement. Writing software that parses Social Security numbers into lists is even easier than face recognition, and yet we still want standards around handling the information! Okay, that was a slightly facetious example, but the point stands: it's a question of securing data, not technology.
arca_vorago 11y ago
This brings up something I've been wondering about for a while, the legality of masks and other devices for identity protection. Supposedly due to protests and anon activity I have heard of an increasingly push to make publicly wearing masks illegal, but I think it's a slippery slope to go down. If in a few years time I have to assume that if I'm in public my face is being input into recognition systems, why should I not have the right to wear a mask or something similar? Of course the knee-jerk argument is that wearing masks (both digitally in offline) creates a different personality which is more willing to engage in illegal activity, but for me, a staunch Constitutionalist, that still doesn't justify making it illegal. This is, at the bottom line, about the reduction of anonymity equally in the real world as in the digital. One more tool of control in the belt of the oligarchy.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  Isn't it better to work on having a government you can trust rather than fooling yourself by building a castle made of sand in the path of an incoming tide?
  - cracell 11y ago
    Why not both? We should retain the right to conceal our identity in reasonable ways and governments should enact laws that protect their citizens privacy from biometric recognition technologies.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      >Why not both? Reality. Information leaks all over the place, trying to legislate your way to privacy is like trying to bail out a boat with a fishing net. Public information is by definition public, so we could all walk around with wide brimmed hats and masks or we could be realistic about the challenges ahead.
      - cracell 11y ago
        What? With that attitude do you not believe in regulating anything? No laws are perfect but that's not a valid argument against having them. There's a big difference in a company legally operating a facial tracking system and a company illegally operating one. In the case of the illegal one they have to hide it, it's much harder to profit from and thus would be less widespread. In the case of the legal one they can freely advertise their services and easily setup their system anywhere that local governments don't create hurdles.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mVChr 11y ago
> Communities such as San Diego, California are using mobile biometric readers to take pictures of people on the street or in their homes and immediately identify them and enroll them in face recognition databases. In their homes? I'm pretty sure this is illegal. Or is it not if they are visible from a public area?
- abandonliberty 11y ago
  Correct - they have an expectation of privacy in their homes. Same deal applies if you use a creeper telephoto lens.
  - mVChr 11y ago
    That's good to know. Just out of curiosity, do you know how that interacts with indecency laws? Like for example if someone is having sex in their home but someone is able to see it from the sidewalk through a crack in the curtains? This is purely hypothetical of course.
    - mvgoogler 11y ago
      IANAL. My understanding is that it comes down to a "reasonable person" doctrine - i.e. would a reasonable person consider the location to be private. Another way of thinking about it is if there is a reasonable chance that you will be seen by people engaging in normal everyday activities. Personally, I would say that peeking through a small gap in the curtains would not qualify as normal behavior. Someone doing that is clearly snooping. On the other end of the spectrum, having sex in front of a window that fronts a public sidewalk with no curtains would pretty clearly be public indecency.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      It depends on a LOT of things, jurisdiction being the biggest part, so there's no universal answer, but cases like this should be indicative: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704537.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04...
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Hmm, an alternative strategy might be to start an EFF program to photograph and add to a facial recognition database every law enforcement officer. Have volunteers take pictures of people showing up at the police academy, and people in uniform doing their job, and people going into and out of employee only entrances to law enforcement facilities. They can make this data base for DefCon 'spot the fed' sessions and for other interested parties. That will certainly keep the conversation going although in a less civilized way. Perhaps it could bring enough pressure to bare on NTIA to get them to reconsider basic privacy safeguards.
- click170 11y ago
  I would volunteer my time to that program. What really bothers me is that nobody outside of our bubble will take this seriously until someone hacks in and downloads a copy of the database and posts it online for all to see. Only then will most people realize what's wrong with having your face in that database despite the absence of a conviction.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  I would volunteer my time but honestly, I'd expect extremely hostile reactions and quick and quiet legislation at the city level to make it stop.
- coleca 11y ago
  I believe the EFF and the other consumer groups are grandstanding to get some publicity in this case. I have listened to almost all of these sessions that the NTIA facilitated, and the company I work for even presented at one of them last year. I think it's important to get some points out which I haven't seen in any of the other comments: 1. The process led by the NTIA, unlike the bulk of the EFF's post, has nothing to do with the government's collection and use of facial recognition data. This process was designed to come up with a voluntary guideline that commercial facial recognition companies could choose to adhere to or not. I agree that limits need to be set for government uses, but this process from the beginning was never about that. The NTIA did not have jurisdiction for anything involving the federal government, law enforcement, military, etc. This is more akin to the voluntary privacy standards that companies on the web will agree to on their own. Once they do, if they violate their own policy they are subject to sanction by the FTC. The guidelines coming out of this process were intended to be voluntary, so companies would not have to comply if they didn't want to. However, the idea was that the working group would come up with something that the industry would volunteer for and by doing so give some level of protection to consumers. 2. The industry representation was not opposed to opt-in on some scenarios, but they were opposed to mandatory positive opt-in across the board without exception. There are a number of scenarios where opt-in doesn't make sense. For example, imagine a system that used facial recognition in a retail setting to detect shoplifters and alert management to their presence. If you had been caught stealing in the store in the past, you would be enrolled into the system by the retailer. Each person entering the store (as seen on their already existing surveillance systems) would be checked against that database of shoplifters. How realistic would it be for the retailer to get written opt-in consent from the criminal? 3. Previous sessions the consumer advocates had agreed that facial detection was out of scope, but facial recognition and facial analysis were in scope for the guideline. At the last session, they changed their position and wanted to bring face detection in scope. The difference being, face detection is just finding a face in an image, like your smartphone does in the camera app vs face recognition which would be finding the identity of a face in a picture (Who is this? or is this Bob?). Can you imagine getting opt-in consent to draw this little yellow box around the faces in the camera app? 4. The NTIA did an outstanding job in an attempt to bring this process together. They organized the sessions and brought in numerous speakers from both sides (consumer and industry) as well as from the education and research sectors. We even had representation from Canada that spoke to a similar process they went through there. The NTIA wasn't forcing any standards on anyone, they simply offered their services to organize and facilitate it as they have done in other similar multi-stakeholder initiatives. The process went on far longer than the NTIA (and any of the participants) had expected, but it was making slow progress. I don't know if this process is now dead or not. I suspect it will go on, just now the consumer groups won't have a voice in shaping this (by their own choice), which is a shame. It's also possible that the show of force by the consumer advocates will push the industry to bend more in their favor, either way it would be good for consumers to get some kind of guideline out there. It could always evolve and be revisited in the future as the technology changes.
rlvesco7 11y ago
Who are the companies that are pushing this? The article, surprisingly, doesn't say.
stox 11y ago
Actually, you can change the dimensions of your face. It is very painful, and I do not recommend it to anyone voluntarily.

131 points by jdp23 11y ago

kefka 11y ago

Yes, and? With OpenCV, I already have face detection, face recognition, eye detection, cascade creation (for detection of any feature I wish), a retinal model in conjunction with retinal scanning via webcam, and other power tools in that bag. And it's all open source. It's easy enough, I made it myself: https://github.com/jwcrawley/uWHo https://github.com/jwcrawley/uWHo

therobot24 11y ago
> a retinal model in conjunction with retinal scanning via webcam You probably mean iris. The retina is the back of the eye, very few if any real biometric systems use this. The iris is the colored area of the eye that surrounds the pupil. It's very texture rich and less invasive to obtain.
- kefka 11y ago
  Acccording to the documentation, OpenCV contrib indicates a retinal model. http://docs.opencv.org/modules/contrib/doc/retina/index.html http://docs.opencv.org/modules/contrib/doc/retina/index.html
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    If you actually read the page, you'll see it's something different.
    - kefka 11y ago
      <grumble> My understanding was that it could back-calculate the retinal map. Alas, I was indeed wrong. For those who don't mess with this OpenCV, what this does is bring the colorspace and attributes of an image to something that the eye would see. camera picture + retinal filter = simulation of how the eye would see the picture captured by camera.
      - jgrowl 11y ago
        Hah, I was about to get mad at myself for not realizing retina biometrics were built in to OpenCV. As someone who has worked a bit using OpenCV to detect eye features, I can say pretty confidently that it isn't THAT easy. OpenCV can help you start off by easily being able to detect that there is an eye in frame, but I think you are on your own beyond that. My general approach was to use haarcascades to detect that an eye was in frame. Then you have to isolate the iris, and pupil. You can use Hough Circles or the Daugman algorithm for segmentation. I got a reasonable result using the Daugman algorithm, but Hough circles seemed to be more erratic. I had a huge problem with reflections though, which I think it is known that the Daugman algorithm suffers from. You pretty much have to take the picture of the eye in a controlled setting where you flash a light in the subjects eye such that the reflection in the eye is a small isolated circle. Even then I wasn't always to get a correct result. I think I may have not implemented the algorithm perfectly though. I never got farther than that, but even if you are able to capture the eye perfectly you then have to actually build up a model of the persons features and then be able to compare it. I would be interested if anyone else had better luck than I did.
  - therobot24 11y ago
    GFK_of_xmaspast is right, it appears to be an image processing technique not biometric
forgottenpass 11y ago
Who cares if it's easy or not? Consumer/passerby protection rules are not going to stop you, a person with nothing to lose. This is about the use of such technology in a commercial setting. It's a bit like my pirate radio station. I have it, I broadcast to a very limited distance, whatever, I don't really worry about the white vans. If I put a 400 kW TV transmitter on top of a mountain, that's a very different story.
- kefka 11y ago
  Lets take the same analogy... So, if I buy/build a 1GP camera array, and drive it around the city, capturing all the data, "that's a very different story"? Your example is in violation of the FCC. Mine violates nothing.
  - forgottenpass 11y ago
    Your example is in violation of the FCC. Mine violates nothing. Well, yeah, that was kinda the idea. My point is that it doesn't matter what is technically possible if consumer protection rules were to come into place. The regulatory environment would curtail the largest (ab)uses of the technology as entities that would use the technology wouldn't want to take the risk. edit: So, under hypothetical regulation on facial recognition, a watchdog agency isn't going to know/care about your driveway camera, but your business based on using that 1GP array to sell person tracking and demographic data would raise some eyebrows. Was your point about the ease of implementation an expression that you'd do it anyway if the regulations came into place? Put your business on the line because you personally know how to implement it?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
CONTRARlAN 11y ago
That it's easy to do is all the more reason to try to establish controls to prevent abuse. It's trivially easy to sell customer data for profit at the expense of their privacy. It's easy to store personal information without securing it. It's easy to take credit cards without using SSL certs. It's also easy to lock someone up and deny them due process, or to enter someone's home and seize their effects without a warrant, or to set absurdly high bail. Etc. Again, it's because this is such an easy thing to do–and it's only going to become easier to collect, store, and analyze this data-that it makes sense to establish definitions of what constitutes fair use, and what constitutes abuse, and to do so sooner, rather than later.
- kefka 11y ago
  So, what is the responsibility for capturing faces for recognition purposes when in a public setting? It's already established that members of the public can record events like arrests legally, thanks to 1st amendment defense. But above is in public. What about "my" property? Or the supermarket? We already have cameras everywhere. Just look up. So what does it matter that they run software on the back end? The hardware is already there. Walking in gives implicit permission that "you agree to be recorded or leave". Vandalization of cameras is criminal. Many places insist you not wear masks, or they call the cops.
  - tjr 11y ago
    The difference to me is that when your presence was merely recorded on video, it required the manual labor of humans to search for your face in the recording. This isn't something that is likely to happen unless authorities are looking for you in particular for some actual reason. Now with it all automated, it just takes running some scripts on a computer system to locate your face from any number of sources, so people who are not particularly under suspicion for anything will have their whereabouts identified automatically just as if they were actual suspects. Same story with automatic license plates readers. Manual searching for a license plate is so time-consuming that it's unlikely to get done without cause. With automatic systems, records can be kept of every car that passes through a monitored intersection, whether if the car or driver is of actual interest or not.
tikhonj 11y ago
This isn't about face recognition technology, it's about face recognition data. The EFF and friends want to come up with standards for storing, securing and sharing face-recognition data between companies and government entities. These standards make sense—and need some minimum level of scrutiny—regardless of how easy facial recognition technology is to implement. Writing software that parses Social Security numbers into lists is even easier than face recognition, and yet we still want standards around handling the information! Okay, that was a slightly facetious example, but the point stands: it's a question of securing data, not technology.

arca_vorago 11y ago

This brings up something I've been wondering about for a while, the legality of masks and other devices for identity protection. Supposedly due to protests and anon activity I have heard of an increasingly push to make publicly wearing masks illegal, but I think it's a slippery slope to go down. If in a few years time I have to assume that if I'm in public my face is being input into recognition systems, why should I not have the right to wear a mask or something similar? Of course the knee-jerk argument is that wearing masks (both digitally in offline) creates a different personality which is more willing to engage in illegal activity, but for me, a staunch Constitutionalist, that still doesn't justify making it illegal. This is, at the bottom line, about the reduction of anonymity equally in the real world as in the digital. One more tool of control in the belt of the oligarchy.

happyscrappy 11y ago
Isn't it better to work on having a government you can trust rather than fooling yourself by building a castle made of sand in the path of an incoming tide?
- cracell 11y ago
  Why not both? We should retain the right to conceal our identity in reasonable ways and governments should enact laws that protect their citizens privacy from biometric recognition technologies.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    >Why not both? Reality. Information leaks all over the place, trying to legislate your way to privacy is like trying to bail out a boat with a fishing net. Public information is by definition public, so we could all walk around with wide brimmed hats and masks or we could be realistic about the challenges ahead.
    - cracell 11y ago
      What? With that attitude do you not believe in regulating anything? No laws are perfect but that's not a valid argument against having them. There's a big difference in a company legally operating a facial tracking system and a company illegally operating one. In the case of the illegal one they have to hide it, it's much harder to profit from and thus would be less widespread. In the case of the legal one they can freely advertise their services and easily setup their system anywhere that local governments don't create hurdles.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mVChr 11y ago

> Communities such as San Diego, California are using mobile biometric readers to take pictures of people on the street or in their homes and immediately identify them and enroll them in face recognition databases. In their homes? I'm pretty sure this is illegal. Or is it not if they are visible from a public area?

abandonliberty 11y ago
Correct - they have an expectation of privacy in their homes. Same deal applies if you use a creeper telephoto lens.
- mVChr 11y ago
  That's good to know. Just out of curiosity, do you know how that interacts with indecency laws? Like for example if someone is having sex in their home but someone is able to see it from the sidewalk through a crack in the curtains? This is purely hypothetical of course.
  - mvgoogler 11y ago
    IANAL. My understanding is that it comes down to a "reasonable person" doctrine - i.e. would a reasonable person consider the location to be private. Another way of thinking about it is if there is a reasonable chance that you will be seen by people engaging in normal everyday activities. Personally, I would say that peeking through a small gap in the curtains would not qualify as normal behavior. Someone doing that is clearly snooping. On the other end of the spectrum, having sex in front of a window that fronts a public sidewalk with no curtains would pretty clearly be public indecency.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    It depends on a LOT of things, jurisdiction being the biggest part, so there's no universal answer, but cases like this should be indicative: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704537.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04...

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Hmm, an alternative strategy might be to start an EFF program to photograph and add to a facial recognition database every law enforcement officer. Have volunteers take pictures of people showing up at the police academy, and people in uniform doing their job, and people going into and out of employee only entrances to law enforcement facilities. They can make this data base for DefCon 'spot the fed' sessions and for other interested parties. That will certainly keep the conversation going although in a less civilized way. Perhaps it could bring enough pressure to bare on NTIA to get them to reconsider basic privacy safeguards.

click170 11y ago
I would volunteer my time to that program. What really bothers me is that nobody outside of our bubble will take this seriously until someone hacks in and downloads a copy of the database and posts it online for all to see. Only then will most people realize what's wrong with having your face in that database despite the absence of a conviction.
fweespeech 11y ago
I would volunteer my time but honestly, I'd expect extremely hostile reactions and quick and quiet legislation at the city level to make it stop.
coleca 11y ago
I believe the EFF and the other consumer groups are grandstanding to get some publicity in this case. I have listened to almost all of these sessions that the NTIA facilitated, and the company I work for even presented at one of them last year. I think it's important to get some points out which I haven't seen in any of the other comments: 1. The process led by the NTIA, unlike the bulk of the EFF's post, has nothing to do with the government's collection and use of facial recognition data. This process was designed to come up with a voluntary guideline that commercial facial recognition companies could choose to adhere to or not. I agree that limits need to be set for government uses, but this process from the beginning was never about that. The NTIA did not have jurisdiction for anything involving the federal government, law enforcement, military, etc. This is more akin to the voluntary privacy standards that companies on the web will agree to on their own. Once they do, if they violate their own policy they are subject to sanction by the FTC. The guidelines coming out of this process were intended to be voluntary, so companies would not have to comply if they didn't want to. However, the idea was that the working group would come up with something that the industry would volunteer for and by doing so give some level of protection to consumers. 2. The industry representation was not opposed to opt-in on some scenarios, but they were opposed to mandatory positive opt-in across the board without exception. There are a number of scenarios where opt-in doesn't make sense. For example, imagine a system that used facial recognition in a retail setting to detect shoplifters and alert management to their presence. If you had been caught stealing in the store in the past, you would be enrolled into the system by the retailer. Each person entering the store (as seen on their already existing surveillance systems) would be checked against that database of shoplifters. How realistic would it be for the retailer to get written opt-in consent from the criminal? 3. Previous sessions the consumer advocates had agreed that facial detection was out of scope, but facial recognition and facial analysis were in scope for the guideline. At the last session, they changed their position and wanted to bring face detection in scope. The difference being, face detection is just finding a face in an image, like your smartphone does in the camera app vs face recognition which would be finding the identity of a face in a picture (Who is this? or is this Bob?). Can you imagine getting opt-in consent to draw this little yellow box around the faces in the camera app? 4. The NTIA did an outstanding job in an attempt to bring this process together. They organized the sessions and brought in numerous speakers from both sides (consumer and industry) as well as from the education and research sectors. We even had representation from Canada that spoke to a similar process they went through there. The NTIA wasn't forcing any standards on anyone, they simply offered their services to organize and facilitate it as they have done in other similar multi-stakeholder initiatives. The process went on far longer than the NTIA (and any of the participants) had expected, but it was making slow progress. I don't know if this process is now dead or not. I suspect it will go on, just now the consumer groups won't have a voice in shaping this (by their own choice), which is a shame. It's also possible that the show of force by the consumer advocates will push the industry to bend more in their favor, either way it would be good for consumers to get some kind of guideline out there. It could always evolve and be revisited in the future as the technology changes.

rlvesco7 11y ago

Who are the companies that are pushing this? The article, surprisingly, doesn't say.

stox 11y ago

Actually, you can change the dimensions of your face. It is very painful, and I do not recommend it to anyone voluntarily.