Slashdot Mirror
What Are You Looking At?
Ensign Stinky writes "The NYTimes has a story, with some spooky-cool pictures, about software to extract exactly what image a person is seeing with their eyes, just from the reflection on their cornea. You can see even a wider image than the subject and tell what they're specifically focusing on. It's too bad the coolest tech is immediately subverted for evil. The possible applications listed include 'surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior.' Remind anyone of that scene in the movie 'Wild Wild West' where they extract the last thing the dead guy saw?"
It's too bad the coolest tech is immediately subverted for evil. The possible applications listed include 'surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior.'
Hey guys, like much of the popular sci-fi literature will illustrate, its not what you might be looking at or visually or cognitvely attending to or even thinking.......its what you actively do with those thoughts or attentions. Prosecuting folks for visual attention to things that stand out (like items folks covet such as that rather nice looking Porsche below and outside my window) will be fruitless. Same goes for prosecuting "thoughtcrimes". However, cheating on exams.......could be more easily documented I suppose.....
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Why is surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior bad? It seems like it would be good, because the cameras will not be watching the vast majority of people walking by. Just the ones that are darting from person to person, or back and forth looking for cops.
Also, why didn't the poster mention "use in interfaces for quadriplegics who use their gaze to operate a computer". Sounds like that is a lot more interesting to the Slashdot crowd than surveillance cameras.
Sounds kinda nifty to me. As far as the surveillance part, they won't learn that much from me. Guys look at breasts a LOT. Wow. Newsflash.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So I need to wear my tinfoil hat AND dark sunglasses!
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
This is really going to get me in shit with the wife.
this kind of reminds me of the photograph analyzer in blade runner. i wonder if the scene in the movie would be considered prior art if a similiar machine or process were developed today.
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
(bit about 'Wild Wild West')
Hmm.. No, I think I can safely say that I blocked it out of my memory.
As long as I don't watch it before I die, no one will ever know that I saw it!
...don't get any real-time version of this, i'm in the clear.
Now, we can finally answer the age old question.
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU STARING AT?!
BEEP!
Female worker: Stop looking at my breasts!
Male worker: I wasn't!
BEEP!
Female worker: Argh! You did it again!
BEEP!
Old trick, new tech. When I was a kid, I discovered that sitting in the right light allowed me to see my opponents board in their eyes while playing battleship. I never let out the secret and I always won.
Women have been able to detect what men are looking at for centuries.
(.)(.) ---> Hey you, read the comment above first
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Very cool! Seems like this might be used to help spot Photoshop modifications -- for example, in a group picture, just compare the reflections in each person's eyes.
I'm betting that glasses (sunglasses or regular prescription) will throw this off. Without knowing the prescription of the lenses, it's hard to compute the refraction angle to get an accurate look at what the cornea is seeing. If it's anything like the "face recognition" software, this will pose no threat. Nothing to see here, move along.
I'm going to get this and become I-Spy Champion of the world! Mu ha ha ha ha (etc).
----
Do you know that spiders are the fiercest killers in the insect kingdom?
I can imagine it now...
Spy1: What is he looking at?
Spy2: Hang on...it's still processing...
Spy1: Well?
Spy2: He's looking at two guys wearing shades and dark coats operating a massive camera and computer!
Spy1: Doh!
John
GF: "So, why were you staring at her? And her? And her? You didn't even *look* at her face! And that one? Another? How many women *do* you stare at walking to work???"
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
did you ever see that list of similarities between the assassinations of JFK and lincoln? well, there's one that has been newly discovered!
the night before his death, lincoln was in monroe, maryland.
I strongly doubt any archival photo negatives or digital replicas have the quality or the resolution to be able to do work like this.
In the realm of digital photos, I seriously doubt the 3 pixels representing the eye of a world leader from a 640x480 image would be enough to reconstruct a reflection from.
In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
Oh wait...
There is a lot of good research out there on how to use the data gathered form eye tracking. You can test web site designs and expose weaknesses in design, for example. You can also use eye tracking as an input device (PDF). I like that it can tell you what people read on the internet.
Just remember, what matters is how the technology is applied, not the technology itself. Without users, you just have slabs of technology sitting there. People make this stuff interesting.
How to Download YouTube Videos
quote only half of the sentence (and spread FUD by doind so) at least use the *whole sentence*. "Because the algorithms can track exactly where a person is looking, the system may one day find use in surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior or in interfaces for quadriplegics who use their gaze to operate a computer."
Well, mostly it's breasts.
- NY Times
Friday, 7/30/04
....was a military targeting device. If you could calibrate a device to fire a computer-controlled gun at whatever the operator was looking directly at... well, that's kind of scary.
You know how sometimes you can stare at something and not realize it? That's me and my daft self most of the time. So... even though you look you don't see, right? No one can prove you actually noticed it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The article indicates that this technology may one day be used in high-end surveillance systems or (further down the road) in retail stores where retailers track what you look at the most.
I wonder if an evidence extracted using this technology can be used in a court of law. Specifically, if this technology can say, "Yes, you were picking out the face of our undercover cop in the crowd whom you thought was your dealer", versus "No, you were just sort of looking over the crowd but not at anyone particular." On one hand, the judge could admit the evidence since it was not extracted by coercion or by torture (you may not even be aware that you were under surveillance). But the judge could also throw it out based on privacy laws and "unreasonable search and seisure".
De Niro may have been able to pull it off, but "There is a 93.245% probability that you are looking at me" just wouldn't have the same ring to it.
Although the author of the article declares that "the system can automatically recover wide-angle views of what people are looking at" (emphasis mine), to me one of the most exciting potential applications is to further human understanding of what animals choose to look at.
With our current knowledge of ocular biology we can make some assertions about what color ranges different species can see, but being able to study more precisely what they choose to focus on and what conditions attract their attention would advance our understanding of other species tremendously.
Talk about seeing a glass half empty - did the poster just ignore the second half of that paragraph:
Because the algorithms can track exactly where a person is looking, the system may one day find use in surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior or in interfaces for quadriplegics who use their gaze to operate a computer.
Which do you think is more likley to make it into use first? Do you know how tight most exisitng cameras would have to be zoomed in to get any kind of detail from a reflection in the eye or to be able to determine focus? The focus thing might be easier, but even so we'll probably see accisable interfaces from this before spooky security cams that can tell what everyone in a crowd of hundreds is looking at.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I find the statements about "we can go back to old pictures of JFK and see what he was looking at" to be questionable at best.
You need a LOT of pixels of the eye itself from which to reconstruct an image. Now, look at how much of a given normal picture the eyes of a person represent.
You *might* be able to reconstruct where the person is looking. You probably aren't going to have enough pixels to reconstruct what they saw.
To do that level of imaging you are going to need a picture of the person's eye at high resolution.
So the government spy cameras will have to zoom in on your eyes - call it about a 500 to one zoom. They will have to track your eyes as you move about.
And yes, if you wear sunglasses you can defeat this.
Now, what this WOULD be very useful for would be in combinatino with a head mounted display - since the display device has to subtend a large angle as viewed from the eye, the display device must have a good view of the eye. So combining the display device with an imaging device would allow the system to see what you at what you are looking, so you now have a pointing device. Theoretically, a wink or slow-blink could be a "select" operation.
Now, if they could get the focus point of the eye, they could REALLY make an interesting system - if you are focusing past the image, they could mute it - reduce the brightness, possibly even reduce the amount of information (iconify apps, reduce update rates, show only "critical" items, etc.) When they detect you've shifted focus to bring the display into focus, brighten up. Think of looking through a dirty windshield, then shifting focus to the dirt on the glass.
www.eFax.com are spammers
it was being developed with the US air force. to help train pilots and to investigate causes of crashes. the goal was to use the technology along with the black box so that they could tell how long the pilot was looking at each gauge. possibly allowing a bit more insight early on, like he was checking the fuel gauge more often. maybe it was going down to quickly. also to help pilots more efficiently scan their gauges. they found they could shave off a few seconds every minute if they adjusted the order they scan the gauges, that wasn't very long but found inefficiencies and were able to shave precious seconds off seconds that if were spent looking in the right places they could save lives... that sounds like a benevolent use of the technology to me...
There is no way you can tell what the person is mentally processing by virtue of the fact that a particular image happened to be reflected in their eye. All you can reasonably conclude is that they were facing in a particular direction. What if, for example, someone was merely staring into space, with their thoughts wandering between and betwixt something completely unrelated? Isn't that what we call daydreaming? What rational conclusion could you you possibly draw in a situation like this, and how could you refute someone's claim to the contrary?
When "Bladerunner" first came out I called bullshit on the "photothingamizer" that let Deckard scan around in a photo and pick up and enhance images from a convex mirror in the photo.
Once again, it looks like I was wrong.
This technology shit is just plain scary.
Being Modd'ed (Score:0, Troll) for telling an idiot to RTFM before modding? - Priceless!
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
Well now if there's actually a camera there that happens to take a high resolution photo of an eyewitness, wouldn't it be much more likely that the actual incident gets photographed. You don't really need eyewitnesses so much if there's actually photos of a scene. On the off chance that there happens to be a camera around, and on the slight possibility that the photographer ignores whatever event is going on and just snaps high quality photos of people's eyes then by all means this could be a revolutionary tool. Sure.
Vote Quimby.
There is no way you can tell what the person is mentally processing by virtue of the fact that a particular image happened to be reflected in their eye. All you can reasonably conclude is that they were facing in a particular direction.
You CAN however correlate what a person is looking at with a brain waveform called a P300. That waveform is essentially an evoked potential that signals recognition. It does not tell you anything else about that recognition, only that the person has seen the image or object or person before.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Would be cool if this could work with a computer. Instead of "focus-follows-mouse", I'd like to have "focus-follows-eyes". Lots of times, I'll look at a window and start to type in it, then realize that I hadn't moved the mouse over it to get focus.
Remind anyone of that scene in the movie 'Wild Wild West' where they extract the last thing the dead guy saw?
Someone else saw this movie? I thought I was the only one.
The last thing we need is for them to learn how to attract MORE attention to their displays and ads. They would be able to survey people without even asking them any questions, just watch their eyes as they walk by.
regardless of privacy/big-brother/thoughtcrime issues, this doesnt seem that impressive to me.
algorithms have existed for a number of years for facial recognition that keys on features of the face, most notably eyes. being able to find irises in a picture with faces has been done; and not even requiring a picture of just one face as the article seems to suggest.
from there, its extracting a transparent reflection off of a constant backing with multiple frames. again, previous work. nothing new.
yes, its a neat application, but this is no breakthrough. this article is like someone going out and taking a picture of something nobodys taken a picture of before, and then saying they invented a new camera.
Even better, what about people like me (who are colorblind) or those with Opsoclonus (Eyes vibrate back and forth rapidly)?
Truly colorblind people lack the fovea. It's the massive cluster of cones near the center of your retina. When you "focus your eyes on something" you are actually setting it so the image of what you are looking at lands on your fovea. I on the other hand, tend to look over people's shoulder's when talking to them or even near 90 degrees away. This is cause I have a much better detail recognition when people aren't directly in front of me. I've trained myself to look at faces and such when on the job because it's more comforting for the other person.
People with Opsoclonus have eyes that vibrate left to right rapidly. They have aa tendancy to need to tilt their head sideways when focusing and have a tough time keeping focused. It can get severe enough that their head starts twitching as well to counter act the process. I had 2 friends in college that had this problem as well.
On either set of people (and colorblind is much more common) this tech would be rather useless.
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
I imagine that the first economically-driven application of this technology would be market research. (Evil, evil, market research.) Imagine walking into a store and having a high-res surveillance camera tracking what products catch your eye, how long you ponder over them before making a purchasing decision, what kind of packaging is most effective, what kind of store signage grabs your attention, etc. I can already see advertising folks drooling over this kind of feedback.
To add to this, my eyes have a condition (I'm not sure what it is actually called, unfortunately) where my eyes actually center to the right of where "normal" eyes would. Basically, when looking straight it appears to everyone else that I'm looking to the right (and slightly up they say, but looking in a mirror I can't see it, but that's probably just me). Looking to the left results in the "normal" appearance of looking left and likewise looking right appears "normal." This behavior was caused by some rather severe retina damage around the center of the eyes, so I guess the eyes recentered themselves to get a better picture. The eye is an amazing thing, isn't it? :)
:)
Interestingly enough, I also have a tendancy to tilt my head to the left, but I don't know if that is related to my eyes being off-center or if it has more to do with the fact that I only ever use the right eye. This, too, is kind of hard to explain. The right eye has far, far better visual acuity (20/100 in it compared to the 20/400 in the left eye) than the left, and as a result somehow the brain has managed to simply not use the image from the left eye. If I want to I can still look through it, but then focus shifts nearly exclusively to the left eye. If I really work at it I can use both at the same time, but then I find it impossible to focus on any one thing in particular. Bizarre, isn't it?
I was trained to use my peripheral vision - exercises like counting fingers further and further out from the target you're looking at progressively increase your ability first to discriminate detail that you usually don't process, and progressively widen the field of view so that you take in more at a glance.
In martial arts sparring, it is very useful to see something coming, essentially, to see it early. There is plenty of reinforcement, both positive and negative, in that environment. Learning this well pays numerous dividends in the arts. It is an interesting general ability as well.
At this point in my life, I can "look" right at you in the sense that a centered axis out of my pupil draws a line to one of your eyes. At the same time, I can actively study something I can see very clearly that is considerably off that axis, behind you, somewhat off to your side, and way out of the same focus plane your face is in. You won't know, and gear like this wouldn't know either. I'm "looking right at you" as far as any observer is concerned.
I learned to do this - I certainly couldn't do it at all before actively training to do it. I teach my students to do it. The initial level of ability varies from person to person, but I've yet to encounter anyone who couldn't improve markedly over six months or so of daily exercises. I suspect that if the technology being discussed here comes into any kind of use where it is actually a social/legal issue, others will learn it just as well. You could probably detect the focal plane being different (the eye's physical configuration after all does change based on the focal plane) but this whole center of attention thing is absolutely defeatable.
I have high confidence that until or unless you can actually read minds and determine cognitive intent, this kind of technology will be very limited in application and reliability. We should ask, who will be motivated to learn to defeat such a mechanism by it becoming a law enforcement tool? It seems to me that the most obvious answer is those who have some kind of subversive orientation. Criminals, to put it more bluntly.
Action, reaction.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The first time, the woman was smiling at me. The second time, the woman was glaring at me.
The third time, I had mace in my eyes.
Evil is the money of root.
For example, if a murderer/kidnapper takes pictures/video of their victims they could possibly use the images in the victim's eyes to trace where they are, who killed them and who was in the room... Especially since the corneas capture more of the room than what the eye is looking at.
This technology is awesome for law enforcement and solving old crimes where photographs/video were invovled.
I hope someone runs with this.
Hadesan
No. Was it a rip-off of the Dr. Who episode where they extract the latent image from a dead guy's retina?