Slashdot Mirror
Face-Scanning Loses by a Nose in Palm Beach
Rio writes: "A story from myCFnow.com reports that Palm Beach International Airport officials said
face-scanning technology will not become part of their airport's security system."
Looks like
the ACLU was right.
Checking a database of 15 employees, the technology gave false-negatives -- failed to recognize the test subjects -- over 50% of the time. A spokesperson said, "There's room for improvement." The Pentagon said
the same thing
in February. The false-positive rate is more important -- it isn't mentioned, but even if it were just 0.1%, Bruce Schneier argues,
it'd be useless.
Perhaps this is why I can't remember anyone's name - half the people look the same
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Airport face identification isn't practical? Try telling the Australian Government that. They are trialling a hybrid face-recognition/biometric passport system that sends shivers up my spine.
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
but delay its deployment for a couple years? this isn't really a victory at all.. I mean, I bet this will only delay the technology two years.. maybe less.
If anything, it should be a call for all Americans to protest this kind of thing (should you disagree with it).
If it is a small sample then a high false negative rate is even worse.
If it can't identify 1 of 15, then what chance has it got of finding 1 person out of millions?
Not using faulty technology is a great idea! Now all they need to do is repeal the law taking away school or library aid if they don't use filter technology, since the filters don't have open lists of sites and often block sites they shouldn't and don't block sites they should!
A similar system in Florida (not an airport, but probably a vaguely-similar number of people) had 14 false positives in the first 4 days of operation.
(Two of the false positives even got the sex of the suspect wrong)
Since they state that it was the first days, perhaps it just needed tuning?
I don't necessarily understand the objections to face scanning technology. To be sure, I don't want computers flagging people to be arrested. But computers sift through enormous amounts of information, making them ideal for a first pass. If they are used to flag people to be scrutinized by humans, I don't have any objections. In fact, if a computer can flag 20 of the hundreds of thousands of faces so that human experts can give a closer look, so much the better.
Incidentally, by this reasoning, it is in fact the false negatives that are more important. False positives can presumably be discarded by humans providing closer scrutiny. False negatives in this scenario, however, present a major difficulty.
Face scanning technology isn't innately evil. Like everything else, if we use it wisely, it can help. If we use it irresponsibly, it can hurt. No surprises there.
-db
Let's see if you think a false positive is ok when the guy with the rubber gloves is up your ass to the elbow looking for explosives.
False positives are as bad if not worse then false negatives.
Atta (the scary looking ringleader) had previously been arrested in Israel for being a terrorist. He was relesed as part of Bill Clinton's mideast "peace" initiative, but was still on various US gov't list of terrorists.
If the INS wasn't totally useless, if the FBI, FTC etc. shared information, they would have been deported when they were caught being here illegally, driving with an expired licesne, failing to show up for court, or buying airline tickets.
Tom Daschle and the democrats want to blame George Bush because the FBI and CIA, in hinsight, had the information to see this coming.
The real tragedy is that they, and thousands of others, were here illegally, and we did nothing.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
As noted, there can be no "get past ID check free" letter or ID card, since those would immediately be forged. And with a 50% false negative rate (missing a suspect 50% of the time), the system seems hardly worth using.
I have not traveled by air since returning from Europe on September 19 (delayed from Sept. 12).
In the past, I would have flown between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles area (a 1-hour flight, using any of the airports on either end), but now it's actually likely to be faster to drive (around six hours each way), after including all the "waiting in line time," the increased flight delays, and of course the time to get into and out of the airports (park here, rent a car there).
To be fair, of course, a system with a 50% false negative rate is presumably able to detect "known suspects" 50% of the time, which is almost certainly much better than human beings will ever do. Of course, the tests are probably being conducted under very favorable conditions, with an extremely small sample of "suspects." And of course, if the false-positives were equally distributed, we'd all be willing to suffer a one-in-a-thousand delay, if it actually had any meaningful benefit. (But we know that the false-positives won't be equally distributed, they will mostly affect persons in certain ethnic groups or with beards, etc., and while that means I'm less likely to be inconvenienced, I can't tolerate a system that punishes people for their skin color or ethnic background.)
What's scary, to me, is that we are giving up so much (in many little bits and pieces) for so little benefit. On Saturday, I discovered that I couldn't use the restrooms in the BART (train) stations again, because they were closed to prevent someone from planting a bomb in them. Okay, so I had to hold it for an hour until I got home, big deal. And armed troops in the airports, and on bridges, okay, I can live with that one thing. And I can't drop off my express mail without handing it to a postal clerk now.
But ding, ding, ding, we add up all the little "show-off" gimmicks and what we face is a huge impact that provides pretty much zero actual benefit. All the gimmicks combined might provide about 1% or 10% improved safety, at a much greater cost.
While I was stuck in London during the week after September 11, I worried that things would change for the worse, not because of things that terrorists did, but because of the things we would do out of panic and fear and prejudice and idiocy. Things are nowhere near my worst fears, but I think things are very bad, and ultimately I believe that the terrorists have already "won" by causing most Americans to change multiple aspects of our "way of life."
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
Actually, true story: I was at Fred Meyer's a few weeks ago (for those not fortunate enough to live in the Northwest, they sell pretty much everything, at decent quality and decent prices). In addition to my groceries, I'd picked up a pair of khaki pants. They've now got those self-checkout scanner things, in addition to the regular checkout lines, so I decided I'd try it. I didn't do so well. Anyway, in particular, I hadn't noticed that the pants had a security tag on them, and I neglected to remove it. I'm not sure how I would have removed it anyway, but the really large man keeping an eye on the self-checkout lines would surely have taken care of it.
So I cram the pants and half my groceries into my backpack, the other half in plastic bags. I leave. The alarm goes off. It occurs to me that the pants must have a security tag that I didn't remove. I glance around, and nobody even looks my direction. I proceed to leave the building.
Then I remember that I've forgotten to buy a bus pass. I go back in. The alarm goes off. I head over to the customer service counter, and shell out $56 for a little card that will enable me to get to/from work for the next month. I leave again, and the alarm goes off. I wait a few minutes for the bus, and go home.
I completely forget about the security tag until I'm wearing the pants and am on my way to catch the bus to work. I've gotten about a block when I hear a noise as I'm walking. Sure enough, there it is. I run home, try unsuccessfully to get it off, give up, change pants, and run to catch the bus. I arrive at work 15 minutes late. When I get home I finish mutilating the tag. Tough little buggers.
So anyway, the moral of the story is that those little tags are absolutely worthless if store security is asleep at the wheel.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Here's one for you: What would you do if you looked like a terrorist?
Let's say, some time in the future, they get the face-scanning technology to work right. 0.000001% false-positive rate. And it's implemented all over the US.
Let's also say that, among the 250 million people in the United States, one or more people had facial structures similar enough to terrorists' that they would trigger those scanners. In fact, they'd trigger every scanner that person was surveiled by. And let's say that person were you.
What would you do?
You couldn't go to an airport. You couldn't go to a major public attraction. You probably couldn't go to a public place without fear of some alarm going off and people waving automatic weapons in your face. Would you cower at home? Would you wear a bag over your head? Would you sue the US government? How would you cope?
I suspect that your own accuracy rate is not nearly as high as you believe it is.
First, as you state, that 99.99% accuracy rate only applies to a group of people you meet regularly; this probably includes perhaps a few hundred people, and a significant part of your total memory and processing capability is devoted to recognizing and updating your memory of those faces (check out a brian map for how much of our cortex is dedicated to face recognition.) Even duplicating that feat (i.e. identifying a small group of faces) would be a major undertaking for a computer system.
Second, that 99.99% isn't nearly as impressive as it sounds, because it represents the positive rate, i.e. the chance that you will correctly identify an individual in the target population. That corresponds to a false negative rate of 0.01% -- you're saying that once in ten thousand times, you'll actually fail to recognize somebody you see on a regular basis. Not too encouraging, that.
Third, that figure says absolutely nothing about the false positive rate, which I suspect is much higher. In other words, how often do you see somebody that you think you recognize, but can't quite remember exactly? From my own experience, I would say that number is as high as one in a hundred. Our own built-in face recognition system is simply designed that way -- to generate a large number of "near misses".
So, the bottom line is: even the supposedly high accuracy of human facial recognition isn't accurate enough, and undoubtedly doesn't scale very well.
We're not talking about using this technology to make courtroom identifications. We're using it to notify security that you MIGHT have someone in front of you that is of less than reputable character. This doesn't mean you immediately cuff him and throw him in jail, but if he tries to walk through a screener checkpoint it MIGHT be a good idea to do a little better check than a simple wand wave. In the meantime, someone can be checking the pictures to see if that person's face actually matches the match the computer made. With a .1% false positive rate, you could have a couple paid employees just looking at matching pictures to see if there's really cause for concern or not. At the rate people go through screening checkpoints now, they'll get a "match" about once every 10 minutes or so, your mileage may vary with larger airports, its all a matter of scale.
As for false negatives, even 50% is better than nothing as long as the false positive is much MUCH lower. Imagine catching 50% of the hijackers on September 11 before they boarded the planes. A lot of red flags could have gone up, and flights could have been delayed, the rest of the passengers could be more carefully scrutinized. No, this is not the solution to any problem. And no, it should not be used legally any more than a lie detector can be. Its a guide. It tells us where we might need to concentrate more of our efforts on.
As far as threats to privacy go, this makes sense in an airport, but it does not make sense out on the street. People go into an airport expecting to be searched, questioned, carded, etc. They do not have the same expectation while walking down the street. So unless the cops are currently chasing someone, they lose him, and you have a striking resemblance, they shouldn't bother you at all.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
What bothers me isn't just the "false positives," but the plain positives as well. Most of these things, like the ones getting deployed in NYC at "possible terrorit targets," are using parts of the FBI database for their facial recognition capabilities. Well, any American who's ever even been accused of a felony in recent years, even if he was never convicted, is in the FBI database.
I'm in that database because when I was an 18 year old high school senior I committed the high crime of having had consensual sex with my girlfriend, who was a year and a half younger than I was. It's bad enough to get charged with a felony for consensual sex with a partner who's within 2 years of your own age, but now maybe I'll get harassed when I go to national monuments or big events because of hits in facial recognition software. In theory the facial recognition technology will only be hooked into a partial database of certain types of people. In practice, I doubt they'll be very selective.
What if you got arrested as a teenager for having a small amount of marijuana? What if you were accused of assault for a minor altercation? What about any number of minor infractions which still would have landed your face in the FBI database? My guess is, as technology gets better and more discriminating in the field, the parts of the FBI databasde used will get wider until the full database gets scanned.
So, it's not just false-positives that are a worry, but positives against people with very minor infractions that have still landed them in the FBI database. Should you get shaken down by some overzealous dweeb who thinks you're dealing drugs because 10 years ago you got caught with your personal stash of green? And what of the potential for abuse of sensitive personal data?
Now that this particular can of worms has been opened under the excuse of 9/11, it's only going to get bigger and more invasive. First they'll assure us the database they're using only has "violent" criminals in it. Then it'll only be felons. Next it's the whole FBI database, including all the pictures of people whose parents were stupid enough to fingerprint and photograph their children and submit a packet voluntarily "to protect your chuildren in case of abduction", and DMV databases as well.
Is it just me, or is it getting kind of Orwellian in here?
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Bruce talks about 99.9%, so there's 0.1% left, not 0.01% as the story says right now.
No, sorry, just read Bruce's Cryptogram
Suppose this magically effective face-recognition software is 99.99 percent accurate. That is, if someone is a terrorist, there is a 99.99 percent chance that the software indicates "terrorist," and if someone is not a terrorist, there is a 99.99 percent chance that the software indicates "non-terrorist." Assume that one in ten million flyers, on average, is a terrorist. Is the software any good?
No. The software will generate 1000 false alarms for every one real terrorist. And every false alarm still means that all the security people go through all of their security procedures. Because the population of non-terrorists is so much larger than the number of terrorists, the test is useless. This result is counterintuitive and surprising, but it is correct. The false alarms in this kind of system render it mostly useless. It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" increased 1000-fold.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Where were you guys in stats class?
If you took this technology, made it match on too many faces and then had someone manually double-check the potential match, you would have a kick-ass system.
Like all powerful technology, its use must be ethical.
Stop the brainwash
Without human supervision, there will be too many false positives for the average person to stand for. Without *diligent* human supervision, the false negatives will slip through too easily.
Not that I'm necessarily being critical of the security employees. It is only human nature. How many security checks and stops did you happily (or at least understandingly) endure in the months after September 11th that you grouse about now? Keeping security personnel at top alert all the time is the problem they should be working on. That and getting the INS to do their job.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Because when they finally get it working right, with a really high degree of accuracy, then it'll positively identify me, and I'll be allowed to exercise my rights to have and bear arms on an airline for the purpose of forming a well ordered militia. Surely this situation exemplifies the purpose of the second amendment; an armed populace defending itself from attack.
What's that you say? That this won't happen? That security will still be something performed by bored and disinterested employees on the ground, not by the people under direct threat? That all this technology will do is to remove rights and further entrench the mentality that We, the People must be protected by a tiny minority of largely unanswerable and self appointed professionals.
Sometimes I wonder why we bother even pretending that the Constitution still applies. If anyone can think of a more relevant application for the Second Amendment short of a full scale invasion, I'd like to hear it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
By reacting the way we are in the U.S. Osama Bin Laden is getting exactly what he was aiming for. He wanted to destroy the American way of life, and by removing the freedom and civil rights the way we are, he is achieving his goal. There is no longer any need for him to act. We have met the enemy, and it is U.S.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If you start to think about it, wouldn't you say that the Bush administration should be thankful for the 911 attack? Now, Bush can do what he does best, show strong leadership. We all remember his campaign speeches, right?
However, what kinds of strong leadership has he given? He has reconfirmed his alliance with Pakistan, the country run by a general that got his power in a military coup, under the banner of "protecting freedom". He needed to do this in order to punish the Taliban.
Now, his poor judgement may very well be biting him in his ass. Pakistan has long offered support for the resistance movement in India-controlled Kashmir. How this support has manifested itself in real life is a matter of debate. However, India does not think Pakistan has done enough to crack down on the separatists in Kashmir after the attack on the Indian parliament in December. Consider it comparable to a band of terrorists attempting to storm capital hill, and then have the nation the terrorists came from refusing to stop supporting the same forces.
What else goes on in Pakistan? Ever once in a while, you'll see small or large reports about how parts of the Pakistani intelligence service is sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Wonder how Mullah Omar got away? He travelled with a pile of money, paying off warlords that the USA trusted for free passage.
Rather than effectively fighting terrorism abroad, your government seems to favor disclosing every non-specific, non-corroborated terrorist threat, complete with security checkpoints that close down this or that because of a suspicious package.
It's looking bleak, folks. Any good conspiracy theorist (or reader of 1984 by G. Orwell) will tell you that keeping people afraid is a good way of controlling their ability to think rationally.
Oh, and would you like to know what I believe to be the ultimate terrorist strike? Trigger a landslide off the continental shelf along the Californian coast. According to Discovery Channel, the ground shows signs of previous landslides. One or more large-scale landslides could trigger a huge tsunami that could wipe out portions of the coastal areas along the Californian coast. What materials are required? Honestly, I don't know, but I'm guessing a few recreational boats with primitive depth charges or timed mines would have a pretty good chance of triggering something if they had a good geological report.
I hope I didn't make any Californians piss their pants. I'm just speculating. And I hope I won't have any government agency knocking on my door tonite.
Then again, the most effective portion of the WTC attack might be the fallout. America is marginalizing itself, giving the rest of us ever fewer reasons to really like the American government. (I like Americans, btw).
Stop the brainwash