Slashdot Mirror
Facial Recognition Fails in Boston, Too
bryan writes "Only a few weeks after cameras were found to be ineffective in catching criminals in Tampa, FL, a test of a facial-recognition system in Boston's Logan airport also came up disappointing. The cameras which were given photos of employees to detect, were only successful in 153 out of 249 random tests over the past year (about 61%). The article did not say how many false positives the tests generated. The companies involved were Indentix and Visage."
It has 39% false negatives, not false positives!
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
I think you have quite a misunderstanding of the difference between "false negative" (which is what the 61% was referring to) and "false positive" (which was not mentioned).
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
I can add a little to this...
I wouldn't call our system "overkill". Also, there are really multiple systems involved.
First, there is the subsystem that recognizes a face as being a face. There are certain clusters of neurons that fire in response to any face-like pattern, regardless of whether or not it is actually attached to a head. This is how we recognize animal faces as being faces, the man in the moon, smiley faces and emoticons, Jesus in a water stain, etc. This capacity is innate, and infants can discern face-like patterns very soon after being born.
After a face has been perceived, it must be narrowed down to an individual person. This ability is partly learned over time, and is responsible for the difficulty people have in recognizing faces outside of their own cultural group. Certain types of brain damage (from a stroke, for instance) can allow people to recognize the fact that they're looking at a face, but still be unable to determine whose face they're looking at.
Keep in mind that even before a face is perceived, you have systems that find the basic shape outlines, determine their orientations (separately and with respect to each other), and at the same time attach color information, shuttle it off to "face subprocessing", then call up any related emotional context (have you ever seen a stranger you didn't like because they resemble someone you already dislike?) -- all before you can become consciously aware of the face.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
Not quite. It would only have caught those of the hijackers who were on the do-not-fly list, which we all know is a resounding success. Since the hijackers did nothing to arouse suspicion in their initial period in the US, it's unlikely they'd have been flagged.
If a false positive indicates someone who was incorrectly identified as a positive match, then a false negative would surely mean someone who was incorrectly identified as a negative match. Brian K
It quotes the Logan report saying, "the number of system-generated false positives was excessive."
See here.
it means 31% of the employees weren't recognized as employees. It should have been a positive match, but returned a negative, falsely.
Taken from the ACLU web site:
According to the Logan report, which was written by an independent security contractor, "the number of system-generated false positives was excessive, and as a result, the operator's workload is taxing and strenuous, requiring constant undivided attention and periodic relief, which amounts to a staffing minimum of two persons for one workstation."