Interpol Pushing World Facial Recognition Database

There Already Is One by ewhac · 2008-10-20 05:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's called "FaceBook".

Why do you think they have that "tagging" feature for the photos? Didn't you know all this time that you've been training their face recognition database?

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:There Already Is One by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-10-20 06:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Here's a fairly balanced article on the CIA/Facebook connection.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:There Already Is One by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 06:10 · Score: 0

Right, but I always wear my tinfoil hat in Facebook photos and never touch dollar bills... that way, the Masons and their Eye of Providence can't touch me, thereby preventing the establishment of the High Cabal.
Re:There Already Is One by theaveng · 2008-10-20 06:15 · Score: 2, Funny

"Arrest him! On Facebook it says he's a Libertarian. We can't have these free-thinkers running around!"

--
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Re:There Already Is One by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-10-20 06:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Arrest him! On Facebook it says he's a Libertarian. We can't have these free-thinkers running around!"
Once upon a time commitment to American principles made one a patriot. Now blind support of all government policies is required.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:There Already Is One by Hoi+Polloi · 2008-10-20 06:40 · Score: 5, Funny

This is why everyone should use goatse as their facebook image.
"Sir, according to the records at the CIA this guy is a huge asshole."

--
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Re:There Already Is One by viridari · 2008-10-20 07:31 · Score: 2, Funny

That does it. I'm uploading a bunch of pictures of politicians and tagging them with my name.
Re:There Already Is One by Ihmhi · 2008-10-20 07:37 · Score: 1

"And Sir, it appears that he's married."

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:There Already Is One by OldSoldier · 2008-10-20 08:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

I try to envision the right model for security and privacy as small town America. In this model everyone knows everyone else and for the most part, when you see your neighbor, he/she sees you.
Extrapolating this to the modern world, a world-wide facial recognition database would be compatible if the following additional conditions were met:
a) everyone had access to it (Everyone knows everyone else)
b) it was trivially easy to see where the cameras were (when you see me, I see you)
c) cameras were only in a relatively few number of places. (when I'm behind "closed doors" I'm out of public view)
I'm not convinced governments can abide by these above rules, but if they could I'd be OK living in a world-wide "small town".
Re:There Already Is One by k1e0x · 2008-10-20 08:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Once upon a time commitment to American principles made one a patriot. Now blind support of all government policies is required.
Yeah, the DHS had a pamphlet out that listed the Gadsden Flag as a symbol of domestic terrorism.
The line between patriotism and nationalism is a thin one.. but I believe that a nationalist is a blind patriot.
It really disturbs me when I hear John McCain talk about "Country first".. That is absolutely UN-American. Americans believe the individual needs are placed about the needs of the state. China is a place where the needs of the state come before those of the individual people, not America.

--
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Re:There Already Is One by PopeRatzo · 2008-10-20 08:18 · Score: 1

Once upon a time commitment to American principles made one a patriot. Now blind support of all government policies is required.
Blind support of government policies has never, ever been an "American principle". In fact, if you've ever read any of the writings of practically any of our founding fathers, you'd know that it's quite the opposite.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:There Already Is One by PopeRatzo · 2008-10-20 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd be OK living in a world-wide "small town".
Me, I like to live in a world-wide "big city". I don't know if you've ever lived in "small town America", but if you happen to be a different color, ethnicity or sexual orientation from most of your other "small town neighbors" life can be an absolute hell. The problem is, there are lots of stupid, small-minded people in small towns AND big cities. But in small towns, where "everybody knows you" those stupid people can really fuck things up for you, whereas in a "big city" you can move to a part of town where there are others who are more openminded. Or (and this is important) you can just be anonymous.
This notion that somehow there is this suddenly emergent need for greater security is a complete load of bullshit being perpetrated on us by people who want to use this "security" to become more powerful.
If anything, I'd suggest that privacy and anonymity is more important now than it ever has been. I'll go a step further and say that cameras and databases are about the worst way to make a society "secure". The only people who become more "secure" are those in the security regime.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:There Already Is One by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-10-20 08:37 · Score: 1

It really disturbs me when I hear John McCain talk about "Country first".. That is absolutely UN-American. Americans believe the individual needs are placed about the needs of the state. China is a place where the needs of the state come before those of the individual people, not America.
And he has the temerity to call Obama a socialist. McCain was the first one out with 'mandatory national service'.
Not that Obama isn't a socialist, but c'mon, go after your opponent on a difference.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:There Already Is One by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-10-20 08:54 · Score: 1

Yeah, the DHS had a pamphlet out that listed the Gadsden Flag as a symbol of domestic terrorism.
Crikey, I assumed you were wrong on that, but you're not. The next page contains a couple statements of fact, so I guess that makes most people who can read terrorists. That's terribly convenient, isn't it?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:There Already Is One by k1e0x · 2008-10-20 10:53 · Score: 1

McCain called Obama a socialist? lol If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
They are BOTH socialists, that is why I can vote for neither.

--
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Re:There Already Is One by cayenne8 · 2008-10-20 11:04 · Score: 1

"I try to envision the right model for security and privacy as small town America. In this model everyone knows everyone else and for the most part, when you see your neighbor, he/she sees you."
Except for the fact that most 'small towns' in America...aren't covered with CCTV cameras, nor large databases to store this info on you and your travels.
:)

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:There Already Is One by k1e0x · 2008-10-20 11:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oh its ridiculous. The Gadsden flag is a US flag and for a time was the OFFICIAL US flag of the 13 colonies. (denoted by the 13 rattles on the snakes tail.)

Domestic Terrorists
Anti-Government Groups
Often associated with unorganized militias, the Anti-Government movement actually embraces a much larger variety of groups and causes. The extreme fringe believes that the U.S. government is either the enemy or has been subverted by the enemy and must be actively defended against.
There is nothing wrong proclaiming that you want to defend your rights from government. The prefatory clause to the second amendment also states that the local militia is a requirement to security of a free state.

Anti-Government Issues and Beliefs
Gun Control is a conspiracy to enslave us starting with the removal of our ability to either defend ourselves or forcefully change our government.
No we wouldn't want people to be able to defend themselves.

The first ten amendments of The Constitution are God given and all others are temporary, invalid or outright fraudulent.
Totally wrong interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is written in negative law. The Constitution does not GIVE the people anything at all. Paper can not grant rights. The first 10 amendments are laws that PREVENT the government from abusing the rights people already have. It is a a restriction on government not on the people and grants nothing to anyone.

All judicial authority resides with the people. The jury, not the Judge, directs trials and can nullify laws they do not approve of.
I can see how law enforcement would screw this up. They worship judges as gods.. you know those lawyers in black dresses. Truth be told a judge is not the *boss* of a trial, he is only the referee between disputing parties. The power does lie with the people, and rightfully so, for is it not right for the people to be especially true for a Representative Republic as opposed to a True Democracy.?

U.S. sovereignty is being surrendered to the U.N., World Court, and World Bank, with the U.S. becoming an economic region of this New World Order.
Anti-Government activists often believe they have never accepted U.S. citizenship or can renounce it.
Federal and State governments do not have the legal authority to levy taxes or interfere with travel or private enterprise by requiring licenses or regulating activity or conduct.
There are people who believe this stuff.. they might even have a point.. Regardless, why does the DHS think someone holding these beliefs is suddenly a "domestic terrorist"?
It's just absurd.. the war on terror is too vague.. it will never end, they will just make up "new" terrorists.

--
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Re:There Already Is One by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-10-20 11:40 · Score: 1

Regardless, why does the DHS think someone holding these beliefs is suddenly a "domestic terrorist"?
They're framing the target of the 'Terror' as the US Federal Government, as currently instituted, not its People (who definitionally must be the targets if its to be called terrorism). Merely advocating legislative change, then, is a sufficient to threaten the 'current government' as legislation makes changes to the government one way or the other, as they proscribe of terrorists, so they might as well round up 435 clear and present dangers right in their own back yard. So, anybody advocating more vociferously than writing letters to their congresscritters must clearly be rounded up and reeducated.
These idiots are conceding Bin Laden's point and not even realizing it. At least I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't.
I honestly wonder if Obama's administration will clean any of this up, or just use the existing infrastructure to organize the brownshirts.
Fuck it, I'm voting for Ron Paul.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:There Already Is One by k1e0x · 2008-10-20 11:43 · Score: 1

In whatever you decide to do.. just descent. No, I'm not voting for Obama or McCain.. their solution to every problem is the same.. "more", more government, more programs, more money, more, more, more..

--
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Re:There Already Is One by cayenne8 · 2008-10-20 12:40 · Score: 1

"Yeah, the DHS had a pamphlet out that listed the Gadsden Flag as a symbol of domestic terrorism."
That's pretty sad.....considering it was one of the first flags flown over the US in the revolutionary days.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:There Already Is One by barv · 2008-10-20 18:37 · Score: 1

I try to envision the right model for security and privacy as small town America. In this model everyone knows everyone else and for the most part, when you see your neighbor, he/she sees you.
Extrapolating this to the modern world, a world-wide facial recognition database would be compatible if the following additional conditions were met: a) everyone had access to it (Everyone knows everyone else) b) it was trivially easy to see where the cameras were (when you see me, I see you) c) cameras were only in a relatively few number of places. (when I'm behind "closed doors" I'm out of public view)
I'm not convinced governments can abide by these above rules, but if they could I'd be OK living in a world-wide "small town".
libertarian option. I agree with (a), but expand it to "and everyone also has access to the public CCTV network." In this way, everybody loses their privacy. However to balance that, people would also be able to inspect the CCTV records and recognition software and know who was watching them... I consider (b) & (c) to be irrelevant.
Re:There Already Is One by daem0n1x · 2008-10-20 22:13 · Score: 1

That would be OK, until you were leading a protest because of the bad garbage collection on your neighborhood and then, "mysteriously" footage of you smoking weed or kissing a guy would come up on Youtube, putting you out of the game immediately, for completely unrelated reasons.
They don't want to catch criminals. They want to know all the dirty little secrets everyone has.
Re:There Already Is One by jez9999 · 2008-10-21 00:29 · Score: 1

"Sir, according to the records at the CIA this guy is a huge asshole."
TBH, for most New Yorkers, they'd have the right description.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

A big book of faces.. by onion2k · 2008-10-20 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

A big database, kind of like a 'book', of everyone's face? Maybe with a stack of personal information? And make it really hard to take your details off?

Like we'd ever fall for that!

--
http://twitter.com/onion2k

Re:A big book of faces.. by daveatneowindotnet · 2008-10-20 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

That would be doomsday.

All Your Face... by Nick+Driver · 2008-10-20 06:00 · Score: 5, Funny

All Your Face Are Belong To Us!

Re:All Your Face... by TheSambassador · 2008-10-20 07:29 · Score: 2, Funny

All Your Face Are Belong To Us!
The justification? Someone set us up the bomb...
Re:All Your Face... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 07:33 · Score: 0

* Groan *

Alternate Applications by TripMaster+Monkey · 2008-10-20 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder how long it will be before this technology is utilized outside the airport gates...like, for example, with all of the myriad CCTV cameras currently infesting London.

What sort of resolution does this technology require? Could the technology be used on the CCTV images?

--
____

~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

Re:Alternate Applications by BlowHole666 · 2008-10-20 06:06 · Score: 5, Funny

What sort of resolution does this technology require? Could the technology be used on the CCTV images?
I wonder if this could also help with my porn collection and help me figure who's face is in the random porn pictures I have.

--
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Re:Alternate Applications by FourthAge · 2008-10-20 06:13 · Score: 1

This technology doesn't work well enough for CCTV. It requires decent lighting and high-resolution images; not so difficult if you're able to tell the subject to stare into the camera, but pretty useless if they're just walking past it.
Automated CCTV observation is interesting, but it's currently much better at following objects than recognising people. You need some other mechanism to link the objects with their identities.

--
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
Re:Alternate Applications by theaveng · 2008-10-20 06:19 · Score: 1

You don't want to know.
Trust me.
Finding out the cute 20-year-old from your "randomstuff" folder is now a 30-something mom who weighs 200 pounds is a real downer. Especially if she's still posing. That sight can really deflate your fantasy.

--
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Re:Alternate Applications by larry+bagina · 2008-10-20 06:19 · Score: 4, Funny

It's facial recognition software.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Alternate Applications by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 06:24 · Score: 1, Funny

You mean it's a facial recognition software.
Re:Alternate Applications by TripMaster+Monkey · 2008-10-20 06:25 · Score: 2, Informative

This technology doesn't work well enough for CCTV.
Sure about that? FTFA:

The attraction of facial-recognition records, as opposed to conventional mugshots, is that automated searching is possible. A specially-equipped airport gate - or even, in some circumstances, a security camera - would be able to sound an alert every time a person on the Interpol watch list went past.

--
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Re:Alternate Applications by FourthAge · 2008-10-20 06:28 · Score: 1

Ah, you highlighted it yourself! The camera needs to be specially configured for the purpose. You can't just apply the technology to an existing CCTV network.

--
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
Re:Alternate Applications by sexconker · 2008-10-20 06:30 · Score: 1

Yes, deflate your fantasy.
Re:Alternate Applications by TripMaster+Monkey · 2008-10-20 06:41 · Score: 1

The quote I referenced says nothing about having to specially configure the CCTV camera. It merely says "in some circumstances".

--
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Re:Alternate Applications by HuguesT · 2008-10-20 07:00 · Score: 1

The technology does not work. Yet.
Re:Alternate Applications by Darundal · 2008-10-20 07:00 · Score: 1

Yeah, but "in some circumstances" with R&D will turn into "in any circumstances." And do you think that something like this won't be developed further?
Re:Alternate Applications by TripMaster+Monkey · 2008-10-20 07:02 · Score: 1

And do you think that something like this won't be developed further?
I think you've misread my argument. Your comment would be better directed at FourthAge.

--
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Re:Alternate Applications by 32771 · 2008-10-20 07:05 · Score: 1

I have my doubts about your statement. See the following paper:
http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/2003/CMU-CS-03-119.pdf
I wrote about this earlier:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=321921&cid=20915905
Even if the current systems aren't capable of providing good image recognition from security cameras, it seems to be mainly an image processing challenge to make it work.
Notice how the first link explains that pixelisation isn't effective at thwarting facial recognition. The paper I mentioned last in the thread discusses methods of improving resolution of video sequences.
That view angle problem of yours seems to be a major issue though.

--
Je me souviens.
Re:Alternate Applications by morgan_greywolf · 2008-10-20 07:19 · Score: 1

In that case, it should work great for my collection.

--
My blog
Re:Alternate Applications by pilgrim23 · 2008-10-20 07:25 · Score: 1

I can see the tech marketing ideas; How about a holographic pic projector built into eyeglasses that creates a mask only detectable by a CCD of Joe Normal who looks just like Joe on the passport? If it does not exist yet, then make it a plot device on TV. Star Trek did that to the "communicator" making cell phones as we know them today. Next Retinal masking then, when all else fails; its back to bribing a clerk.

--
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Re:Alternate Applications by pembo13 · 2008-10-20 07:35 · Score: 1

How would you know if it wasn't already in place? They have the hardware in place, the software apparently already available, and the data willingly submitted online.

--
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Re:Alternate Applications by itsthebin · 2008-10-20 13:12 · Score: 1

if you are interested , check out the papers on www.face-rec.org/

Video Analytics is big business now

--
...I obey the laws of physics....
Re:Alternate Applications by aproposofwhat · 2008-10-20 20:02 · Score: 1

I wonder how long it will be before this technology is utilized outside the airport gates...like, for example, with all of the myriad CCTV cameras currently infesting London.
A very, very long time indeed, for a simple reason - face recognition technology isn't good enough for what Branchflower wants to use it for, and the system would be swamped with false positives as soon as it is turned on.
Branchflower is Interpol's fingerprint database expert - his experience with fingerprint matching has led him to believe some of the wilder claims from the biometric snake-oil salesmen, which is why he's put foot to mouth in such a spectacular style.
Still, it's hardly surprising given the recent pronouncements by Jaqui Smith, Geoff Hoon and the rest of the Neues Arbeit clique regarding big databases.

--
One swallow does not a fellatrix make

Here we go! by UncleMantis · 2008-10-20 06:05 · Score: 0

"I hear he undergoes facial reconstruction surgery every 6 months" - Fight Club

--
Uncle Mantis

Wrong end by larry+bagina · 2008-10-20 06:06 · Score: 4, Funny

They need to develop ass recognition software, so they can track down the goatse guy and make him pay for all the suffering he's inflicted upon us.

--
Do you even lift?

These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

Re:Wrong end by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 06:19 · Score: 0

Actually, some research was done, and his name is known. But I really don't think you want to do any research into that, because you'll get into a whole culture you're probably not too comfortable with.
In short, stop thinking about some guy's ass. Unless that's what you're in to. (Thanks, now I'm going to loosely associate Flight of the Conchords with Mr. Goatse.)
Re:Wrong end by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 06:48 · Score: 1, Funny

Also, CmdrTaco could track down all those anonymous bathroom butt buddies.
Re:Wrong end by karabaokraptastic · 2008-10-20 13:12 · Score: 1

Don't need software. People do just fine

--
I've got twins. What's your excuse?
Re:Wrong end by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 13:51 · Score: 0

And pray tell, what do you think could possibly be done to that man to make him suffer?

what is the current accurcy rate? by peter303 · 2008-10-20 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems.
An auxiliary question is whether machine accuracy exceeds humans. People make mistakes too.

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by elemnt14 · 2008-10-20 06:16 · Score: 1

Then they would probably have to put in a sub-system to verify the first. Like gait-recognition, or similar. Something the same software could process without human interaction. Then that probably would have a 1% fail rate.
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · 2008-10-20 06:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems...
Ah yes, the base rate fallacy (aka, the terrorist fallacy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
One of those obvious things that is so hard to convey.
Interesting that the 'example' used in the wikipedia article is so near to what is happening in reality.

--
Read my Very Short "Stories"
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by rpmayhem · 2008-10-20 06:37 · Score: 5, Informative

I work for a local law enforcement agency that uses facial recognition systems. I don't work in that department, but I'm familiar with the systems. A few years ago, it was still really bad, but it's made large jumps in accuracy since that time. However, we usually have humans operating the cameras and computers, so it's always double checked. Everyone who gets booked into the jail is added to the facial recognition database. Then the officers on the road can use systems in their cars to take pictures of people and find their identity (a lot of people give us fake IDs, and a lot of those people have visited us before). Also, we have to ask permission before taking someone's picture on the street.

Anyway, even at the current level of accuracy, it can't operate really well without human assistance.
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2008-10-20 06:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm uncertain - are you arguing that he's fallen for the fallacy or pointing it out?

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · 2008-10-20 06:48 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm uncertain - are you arguing that he's fallen for the fallacy or pointing it out?
I am just trying to point it out in support of his statement...and I'm not doing a very good job, evidently :(

--
Read my Very Short "Stories"
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by pla · 2008-10-20 07:07 · Score: 1

Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems

More importantly, where can I buy an incredibly realistic Osama Bin Laden mask?

They want to play games, we can play right back. Good luck tracking Joe Sixpack when your fancy automated system starts reporting that it has found Terrorist-X 20 times a minute from all over the globe...
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by The+Angry+Mick · 2008-10-20 07:17 · Score: 1

Also, we have to ask permission before taking someone's picture on the street.

How long before an officer forgets to ask, or more bluntly, insists he can? It's not the systems that worry me so much (although they do) as the people in charge of them. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

--
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 07:28 · Score: 0

Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems.
An auxiliary question is whether machine accuracy exceeds humans. People make mistakes too.
Humans of course make mistakes, but in no way are we going to have humans examining every picture stored in the huge number of photo albums it would require to store all of the database pictures. Computers, even with a lower failure rate, would still make far more errors in less time on this same task. Not to mention that once the mistake has been made it puts the person in the need to prove a negative, therein that they are not the person they have been identified as. Additionally, the database itself will no doubt have errors including deliberate ones for various reasons from assorted countries around the world plus potential cracking.
People should be able to travel in anonymity as long as they are not doing anything visibly against the law. I, for one, view it as an inherent right. We should not be giving up liberty for a false sense of security, especially when that action only brings to the fore that it still reminds people to feel insecure, accept the government as their only protection and demand more such protections which only a relative few will recognize as truely making the people less secure and subject to abuses from the government(s) and others.
Additionally, it is entirely likely that if this database contains enough information that organized crime will soon have copies of the database and accompanying software as well. Might provide great fun for criminals to discover that their new competition in town is really a sting operation since the cameras they targeted them with had images that recognized the true employers of the "competition". Even access levels can be defeated, especially with the databases ran on systems they were not intended for and thus don't have the same software tracking the access request.
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by Ihmhi · 2008-10-20 07:41 · Score: 1

Ah, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes . One of my favorite Latin phrases. Roughly translated, "Who watches the janitors?".
Last guy never did clean the bathroom properly...

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by elp · 2008-10-20 07:50 · Score: 1

This is the same Interpol whose previous president has some pretty serious organized crime connections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Selebi). I think its more about the contracts that can be awarded for maintaining the system than about actually catching anyone important.
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by Quentoli · 2008-10-20 07:57 · Score: 1

In the months following 9/11 such a system was installed in the Fresno/Yosemite International airport on a "trial" basis. I went through at about the T-plus 2 months point, and asked the (surprisingly) intelligent security supervisor what their false positive rate was. He stated "about 25%. We don't really rely on it."
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by Foobar+of+Borg · 2008-10-20 08:46 · Score: 2

Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems.

So, they screw up once in a while and get Buttle rather than Tuttle. Do you think the UK (or US, since it will soon be in the States too, I'm sure) even cares about ruining the occasional person's life? Besides, they'll get a receipt for it.

--
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by rpmayhem · 2008-10-20 09:47 · Score: 1

That does bring up a good question. Who watches the watchmen?

I know many local law enforcers (I'm not one...I just work with them) and most are very upstanding guys. But as in every group, there are, sadly, the bad apples. That's why we have Internal Affairs investigators. You could then ask, who watches them? The cycle could go on forever.

As for the officers forgetting or demanding, the lawyers around here would be all over that.
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by rtechie · 2008-10-20 10:24 · Score: 1

Does anyone have any hard numbers on this? The last numbers I've heard from the best systems under ideal conditions was around 65% accuracy. Picking faces out of the crowd was essentially impossible.
Does anyone have anything that contradicts this?
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by DrVxD · 2008-10-20 11:48 · Score: 1

People make mistakes too.
To err is human. To really foul things up, you need a computer.

--
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by aproposofwhat · 2008-10-20 20:13 · Score: 1

Besides, they'll get a receipt for it.
"And this is my receipt for your receipt".
Also from the film, and sort of on-topic:
Dr Lewis Jaffe: Faces are a doddle compared to tits and ass. No hairline.
So the tits and ass recognition software is even further off than we thought :)

--
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by The+Angry+Mick · 2008-10-21 04:37 · Score: 1

That's actually pretty reassuring to hear. I work in the city and barely a day goes by that I don't see an officer abusing his authority somehow. The worst part is that the abuse is often so trivial. The best recent example being an officer cutting to the front of a line at a diner and, when a woman asked him to go to the rear, responded with "You don't want to mess with me". Others in line got involved, and he grudgingly went to the back of the line, but the fact that we was so quick to try and throw his authority around over a place in line was deeply disturbing.

--
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by rpmayhem · 2008-10-21 05:29 · Score: 1

That's very sad to here. Thankfully, the administration here won't put up with that. If they find out, the hammer will come down.
Re:what is the current accurcy rate? by rpmayhem · 2008-10-21 05:31 · Score: 1

Well, now I'm going to grammar nazi myself.

"That's very sad to hear."

Fixed

I'm not sure... by sshuber · 2008-10-20 06:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

that this would even be a good thing for the governments involved. What about covert operatives working for a government that travel to another country? They would be instantly flagged if any one nation had the knowledge of their covert status.

In other news... by R2.0 · 2008-10-20 06:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Supplies of Groucho glasses reach a all time low...

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson

Opt-out Where You Can by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-10-20 06:10 · Score: 4, Informative

On the New Hampshire Driver's License application/renewal form, there's a checkbox on the back that requires the State to delete your photo from its database after making the license. (Now that they're mailing the licenses though I have to wonder about their backup strategies.)

Do it where you can and get your legislature to require your DMV to do so if necessary. Also get them to reject RealID. If you can't, move here.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Opt-out Where You Can by kd5zex · 2008-10-20 07:10 · Score: 1

If you can't, move here.
But it's so... Cold there.
Re:Opt-out Where You Can by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-10-20 07:28 · Score: 1

Bill, FWIW, I picked global warming. What do I win?
More people moving to New Hampshire, I suppose. ;)

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Opt-out Where You Can by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-10-20 07:31 · Score: 1

But it's so... Cold there.
Nah, half the year it's stinkin' hot.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Obligatory by Nerdposeur · 2008-10-20 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny

I, for one, welcome our international, face-recognizing over... Aw, wait a minute! No, that's creepy.

Obligatory John Woo... by TiggertheMad · 2008-10-20 06:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

...I want to take his FACE OFF...

No more drugs for this man!

So, jesting aside, how will this work with cosmetic surgery? Will celebrities getting cosmetic work abroad no longer be identified correctly? Will actual terrorists suddenly become interested in elective procedures just to fool the system? How will the system deal with the fact that people change as they age? Interesting questions.

I wonder if this will become a legitimate tool for law enforcement, or if it will be yet another big brother tool.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:Obligatory John Woo... by Stewie241 · 2008-10-20 06:38 · Score: 1

How will the system deal with the fact that people change as they age?
Well, as long as the person travels enough, I would think you would be fine so long as you stored the updated photo every time. People don't age too quickly, so you would only have to account for gradual changes.
Re:Obligatory John Woo... by darkfire5252 · 2008-10-20 07:21 · Score: 1

Facial recognition software typically relies on things that cannot be easily changed. You can reconstruct the entire skin tissue of the face, but you can't (practically) change the distance between your eye sockets, the distance from the eye socket to the ear or to the top of the head. Underlying bone structure is hard to change...
Re:Obligatory John Woo... by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 16:51 · Score: 1

Plastic surgery.
Terrorists with Tits. Big ones.
Their counterfeit travel documents will say they work for
Ringling Bros. Barnum & Baily as the "Bearded Lady".
What a lovely "Terro-Doll"!

oh crap ... by taniwha · 2008-10-20 06:12 · Score: 1

not only will I have to take off my shoes I'll have to shave my beard

Ironic by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2008-10-20 06:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Seems ironic to me that we have the international law-enforcement agencies as well as a ton of cross-border data and system sharing agreements all intended to stop people from crossing the borders themselves. They want information about us to be world wide but they don't want us to be world wide.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Note to self: by Atario · 2008-10-20 06:17 · Score: 1

Invest in realistic-mask-making companies.

--
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt

Not quite Big Brother by Jabbrwokk · 2008-10-20 06:17 · Score: 2, Informative

The summary and the Register article make it sound like Interpol wants to keep a record of everyone with a passport. This does not appear to be the case, according to the original article which the Register ripped off and rewrote.

Senior figures want a system that lets immigration officials capture digital images of passengers and immediately cross-check them against a database of pictures of terror suspects, international criminals and fugitives.

Not that I like the scheme, but it doesn't sound quite as police-state as some might think. My picture is already taken all over the place if I go to the airport, this would take my picture and cross-check it with a database of known criminals, terrorists and fugitives.

Re:Not quite Big Brother by betterunixthanunix · 2008-10-20 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
Possible outcomes:
1. "Well, we have not caught any terrorists yet, but we spent a lot on this system. Let's use it to catch people who don't clean up after their dogs."
2. "You have been identified as a terrorist by the system, so you will need to remain in custody until a human can verify that you are not a terrorist."
3. "This system works so well, we should use it domestically!"
4. "Here's a list of people known to be against the war and probably planning to attend a protest in Washington DC; they shouldn't be allowed to fly."
Surveillance is a slippery slope.
--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Not quite Big Brother by davegravy · 2008-10-20 07:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

My picture is already taken all over the place if I go to the airport, this would take my picture and cross-check it with a database of known criminals, terrorists and fugitives.
...and store your picture in a non-terrorist database, and in the event that you join a revolutionary movement to overthrow your highly corrupt government move your entry into the terrorist list, providing a convenient means to locate and apprehend you. And I don't necessarily mean your government is corrupt today, just that it could one day be.
Your picture may be taken all over the place already, but citing this as a reason why the proposed system isn't big-brother-eque doesn't make much sense. If people already routinely defacated on your doorstep, would you be apathetic about a government proposal to defecate on your doorstep?
Re:Not quite Big Brother by Jabbrwokk · 2008-10-20 09:42 · Score: 1

I don't necessarily mean your government is corrupt today
It is

If people already routinely defacated on your doorstep, would you be apathetic about a government proposal to defecate on your doorstep?
Not a great analogy, but I know what you're saying. Although the government already defecated propaganda flyers all over my doorstep during the recent election campaign, I didn't get a say in the matter and my tax dollars paid for it. Lucky me.
And I said in my post that I didn't like the photo database proposal. Not sure how that can be interpreted as me being apathetic.
Like it or not, we're stuck with this sort of shit. Apathy combined with irrational fear in the wake of 9-11 laid the groundwork and our willingness to let the government grasp broad, vague and sweeping powers for itself allowed it to embed and expand over-the-top securitythink everywhere before anyone even knew it was there.
Backpedaling now would require a major shift in thinking in Western governments, massive public outcry, lobbyists with guts that aren't on the dole from some security system manufacturer and the willingness of ordinary people to make sacrifices, like refusing to travel by air and send the message to airlines and airport authorities and governments that this is not acceptable. That we're willing to sacrifice some things to hold on to our dignity and privacy.
I think it's a safe bet none of that will happen. We'll suck it up, grumble but get in line for the man with the rubber glove like everyone else, because it's just the cost of doing business. Then we'll go home and watch Jack Bauer fight terrorists.
Re:Not quite Big Brother by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 16:25 · Score: 1

(If people already routinely defecated on your doorstep, would you be apathetic about a government proposal to defecate on your doorstep? The government already defecated all over my doorstep. Like it or not, we're stuck with this "sort" of shit)
You don't have to be stuck with their "sort" of shit. Usually, if you get a big, mean dog. Your doorstep will be his defecating territory and he won't allow any other to defecate there. You'll still be stuck with shit, but at least its your best friends shit. Think of it kind of like "gay love". Perhaps it will be the "sort" of shit which you find more preferable.
(We'll suck it up, grumble but get in line for the man with the rubber glove like everyone else, because it's just the cost of doing business)
Well, don't count me within that everyone else. But if you feel that strongly about returning the favor and having them end up stuck with some of your shit. Thats your business, but I don't see why it should cost you anything more than what your already giving up?
Re:Not quite Big Brother by aproposofwhat · 2008-10-20 20:22 · Score: 1

Not that I like the scheme, but it doesn't sound quite as police-state as some might think. My picture is already taken all over the place if I go to the airport, this would take my picture and cross-check it with a database of known criminals, terrorists and fugitives.
But what about the inevitable false positive problem?
It may not be a problem for you (perhaps you're lucky enough not to match anyone in the database), but for some people it's going to be a royal PITA.
I used to fly quite regularly from Manchester to Dublin on business, and have the unfortunate trait of looking a little like Gerry Adams' kid brother.
Guess who Special Branch wanted a chat with every single time I returned to Ringway?
It turned into a bit of a standing joke after a while - I'm reasonably patient, so a ten minute chat with SB was no problem, but I can imagine some people getting really pissed off.

--
One swallow does not a fellatrix make

Terrorist face recognition! by Banekartr · 2008-10-20 06:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does this facial recognition come with x-ray vision? How will it help with this? http://www.imcworldwide.org/blog/afghanistan/uploaded_images/IMG_0056-705316.JPG

Re:Terrorist face recognition! by betterunixthanunix · 2008-10-20 06:29 · Score: 3, Informative

The 9/11 hijackers were not dressed in traditional middle eastern clothing. They were wearing run-of-the-mill business-casual clothing, which is why they were so successful -- they looked like normal travelers, and drew no attention to themselves at the airport.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Terrorist face recognition! by gnick · 2008-10-20 06:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Solution? Demand that all terrorists wear traditional middle eastern clothing. Even the abortion-clinic and McVeigh types.
It's not fool-proof, I admit -A lot of non-terrorists also wear traditional middle eastern clothing, and some may cry "profiling", but it's a good first step. Then, at security, the screeners can ask anyone in the right mode of dress, "Are you a terrorist?" The ones that say "Yes" are then arrested.
And then I can finally make it through line without taking off my shoes. Flawless.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Terrorist face recognition! by steelfood · 2008-10-20 09:02 · Score: 1

If you ask the question with a GWB accent, some your positive response rate will be even higher!

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Terrorist face recognition! by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 15:41 · Score: 1

(Then, at security, the screeners can ask anyone in the right mode of dress. "Are you a terrorist?" The ones that say "Yes" are then arrested)
Well shit, I didn't know Terrorists were that honest. I should have guessed, being that they're so pious and all. You know, they even go out of their way to chop heads for their Head Lover. In that case, why go through all that trouble of your plan. They should just make a T.V. commercial that says:
"Hello, this is Ed McMahon, if your a killer male who's always with a bath towel on your head like my wife, between the ages of 6 and 82. And are able bodied enough, or still have enough of your body, to blow up again. And if you make your wife wear a gash-griller, gorilla costume in 135 degree weather. Then please accept our invitation to a VIP treatment, all-inclusive, 4 decades and 5 lifetimes stay, at our tropical "don't let em" getaway, "last" resort at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba"
Just call: 1-976-LUV-2DIE
Thank you.
Re:Terrorist face recognition! by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 15:53 · Score: 1

(They were wearing run-of-the-mill business-casual clothing, which is why they were so successful)
Maybe if people on welfare wore business-casual clothing. They too can be so successful? Thats what they call "dress for success".
Personally, I've never liked even the concept of Transvestite.
If one must wear a "dress for success"
Then thats why I'm just a poor boy, and the fags have all the money.
Re:Terrorist face recognition! by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 16:03 · Score: 1

X-Ray will help, because sometimes its just too difficult to recognize a Terrorist from Abu Graib with their clothes on.
There are certain people, like them and most guy's mothers-in-law, whom your just so used to always seeing without clothes. Sometimes you can be slow dancing with them, and not even recognize them until your at the hotel room naked.
Then its like, "Oh mother-in-law, its you"............again!

Me wants by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 06:25 · Score: 0

Does it mean that if they paste a photo, the program could find the porn actor/actress with the most resemblance to the person in the photo?

Nixon masks make a comeback. by SocialEngineer · 2008-10-20 06:26 · Score: 1

The choice is obvious.

--
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson

Re:Nixon masks make a comeback. by Foobar+of+Borg · 2008-10-20 08:53 · Score: 1

Also, make sure you go up to the camera and say "You're not recording this, are you?" in your best Richard Nixon voice.

--
Similar to the upcoming US election results

Mod Parent Informative by mpapet · 2008-10-20 06:28 · Score: 1

The paranoid won't agree with the parent post, but it's true.

Also remember that the facial recognition systems are all proprietary and far from effective such that it makes the notion of interoperability practically impossible.

You have more to worry about with the NSA snooping all telecom/data traffic and bank transaction clearing.

--
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html

What if I get a new scar? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 06:30 · Score: 0

So what happens if I'm mauled by a bear and get some fresh scars on my face that are not present on my passport photo? I'll fail automated recognition every time, but would likely pass the "human test" 99.99% of the time.

Is the consolate of whatever-foreign-government-using-this going to pay for me to get a new passport?

Re:What if I get a new scar? by Stewie241 · 2008-10-20 06:40 · Score: 3, Funny

How many times have you been mauled by a bear in the past 10 years?
Re:What if I get a new scar? by tripdizzle · 2008-10-20 06:51 · Score: 1

From what I read, it takes your picture then would scan against those who have been deemed as not being allowed to cross the border/fly. Unless you were mauled by a bear who cut up your face to the point that you looked exactly like a known terrorist, you wouldnt be stopped. This is not an authentication system (you are who you say you are) its something else that checks to see if you are a person on this specific list.

--
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
Re:What if I get a new scar? by compro01 · 2008-10-20 06:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unless those are unreasonably large scars, they shouldn't make any difference. Facial recognition typically relies on the size/placement of the facial bones, which generally don't change significantly, barring extreme trauma.
Though the people advocating this need to be sent home to read up on base rate negligence before they continue speaking.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:What if I get a new scar? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 09:56 · Score: 0

14! I hate living in Canada :(
Re:What if I get a new scar? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 11:50 · Score: 0

None - I wear my magic bear protection bracelet (which also happens to protect against tigers)
Re:What if I get a new scar? by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 14:47 · Score: 1

Boy am I glad to hear that about the scars. It really had me worried. Since I bear the marks of having once brought home, what I didn't know until it was too late. A lieutenant in a county wide, militant, Femma-Nazi, man-hater, ball-buster organization. I was just going to eat a little Pink Snapper. But needless to say, that thing was a Damn Great White Shark. Well, it was more like, it ate my face. Left me looking like just a plain, glazed donut.
Anyway, since this face recognition thing has surfaced. I've been worried that its going to misidentify me as Tony Montana. I'm not that kind of guy. I didn't want to have to AK the fuck out of them. Tony would want to.
Re:What if I get a new scar? by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 15:13 · Score: 1

How many times have you been mauled by a bear in the past 10 years?
Only mauled by "bear"?
Or does that also include,
mauled by "bare" naked butt cheeks?
Re:What if I get a new scar? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 22:52 · Score: 0

How many times have you been mauled by a bear in the past 10 years?
Its over 9000!
Re:What if I get a new scar? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-21 04:10 · Score: 0

Quite a few, I really should stop teasing the cubs when their mothers are near...

Re:what is the current accuracy rate? by sdpuppy · 2008-10-20 06:32 · Score: 1

I would think that if they add mastication-recognition it would lower fail rates.

Think of the fun at airport gates: "Se need to better identify you - please show use your gait and when you're finished, please masticate in front of the camera..."

(@%@$! first jackets, then shoes, now I'm supposed to masticate at the gait?)

All right! Now we're getting somewhere. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 06:34 · Score: 0

I think a world "facials" database is a great idea. Even though I'm more of a "threesome" man myself, I am confident that this technology will spread to help me find the kind of pr0n I'm into.

It's really true. All technological advances begin with pr0n.

Well, I'm screwed by interstellar_donkey · 2008-10-20 06:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Federal government has my photo from my passport stored somewhere.

It has my DNA from my stint in the Army.

It has has my fingerprints from security clearance applications and several FBI background checks I've had to go through to be a teacher.

My only solace is, in all of my photos for federal documents I'm frowning like an NFL star posing for a picture, and on all my Facebook pictures I'm smiling.

Though when it comes down to it, if the government goes to crap, I'm screwed.

--
The Internet is generally stupid

Re:Well, I'm screwed by Limburgher · 2008-10-20 07:14 · Score: 1

The Federal government has my photo from my passport stored somewhere.
It has my DNA from my stint in the Army.
It has has my fingerprints from security clearance applications and several FBI background checks I've had to go through to be a teacher.
My only solace is, in all of my photos for federal documents I'm frowning like an NFL star posing for a picture, and on all my Facebook pictures I'm smiling.
Though when it comes down to it, when the government went to crap, I got screwed.
TFTFY

--
You are not the customer.
Re:Well, I'm screwed by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 14:18 · Score: 1

(The Federal government has my:
photo from my passport
my DNA
my fingerprints
FBI background checks)
I was about to say, its a good thing the list stopped there. Because when a list like that gets any bigger, the next thing is usually that they got your ass too.
But then, sadly, you ended up saying;
"I got screwed".
I'm sorry to hear that, sounds like it couldn't have happened to a finer man. Army, teacher. Well, though they screwed you, I thank you for your service.
You merely got screwed, I got totally "FUCKED" by these bastards. Not in the ass though!
Re:Well, I'm screwed by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 14:23 · Score: 1

(The Federal government has my:
photo from my passport
my DNA
my fingerprints
FBI background checks)
I was about to say, its a good thing the list stopped there. Because when a list like that gets any bigger, the next thing is usually that they got your ass too.
But then, sadly, you ended up saying;
"I got screwed".
I'm sorry to hear that, sounds like it couldn't have happened to a finer man. Army, teacher. Well, though they screwed you, I thank you for your service.
You merely got screwed,
I got totally "FUCKED" by these bastards.
Not in the ass though!

FaceEx database query by starglider29a · 2008-10-20 06:35 · Score: 1

Samples of the new FaceEx function:

SELECT FaceImage from tblFaces where FaceEx(FaceImage) LIKE FaceEx(@MINE) SELECT FaceImage from tblFaces where FaceEx(FaceImage) LIKE FaceEx('salma.hayek.faceimage') SELECT FaceImage from tblFaces where FaceEx(FaceImage) LIKE FaceEx(@YERMOM)

Tomorrow, Class, we will discuss the JOIN, INSERT INTO, and GROUP BY operators.

Re:FaceEx database query by morgan_greywolf · 2008-10-20 07:25 · Score: 1

Exactly which database MEMBERS are these compatible with?

--
My blog
Re:FaceEx database query by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 14:02 · Score: 1

Exactly which database MEMBERS are these compatible with?
With all who's appearance attractiveness is anywhere in between Rosie O'Donnell at 5:00 A.M. after a night of too many fruity Martinis and too much face fisting. And Wonder Woman, when still a virgin and after spinning all the clothes off her body.
Sorry, that pretty much includes everybody. Since there exists no one, who is either uglier, or prettier.

Aaaa by ilikejam · 2008-10-20 06:40 · Score: 1

aaaargh.

Fuck it. I'm moving to Lovely.

--
C-x C-s C-x k

Re:Aaaa by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 13:50 · Score: 1

aaaargh.
Fuck it. I'm moving to Lovely.
What, you think they won't be able to identify you in Wikipedia, Oregon?
Huh! Yeah right, Wikipedia sounds like one of those militia towns. Big Brother probably has a whole satellite just for them alone.

I can see it working now by SupremoMan · 2008-10-20 06:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Beard: False

Next();

Beard: False

Next();

Beard: True

CheckOsamaBinLaden();

Re:I can see it working now by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 13:43 · Score: 1

Beard: False
Next();
Beard: False
Next();
Beard: True
CheckOsamaBinLaden();
Nose: False
Next >
Nose: False
Next >
Nose: "Red Alert", "Red Alert", we have a semi-positive identification. At a monumental code 1 security status. Conduct a human visual analysis. Positively identify suspect as either Malak Al Raheem or Barbara Streisand.
Come in central command, Analysis complete, its Streisand.
Immobilize immediately! Thats the Hardcore Leftist, excuse me, the Terrorist Threat!
Come in central command, how do we know for sure which nose is more Terrible? They're both immensely similar in megalithic proportions. But Malak's has a stick of dynamite hidden in each nostril.
"Aaaah", "Just bring em both in"

1984 by andy1307 · 2008-10-20 06:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Dear Brits: 1984 was a novel, not an instruction manual.

Re:1984 by megamerican · 2008-10-20 07:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Incorrect. 1984 is what Orwell thought the future would be like in the year 1984.
I always thought that Orwell was an optimist.

--
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Re:1984 by Catil · 2008-10-20 07:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

They are way behind their timeplan but they started a crash program in 2001 to speed things up.
Re:1984 by hansamurai · 2008-10-20 07:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

And so was Atlas Shrugged, I'm waiting for John Galt to interrupt my regularly scheduled program any day now.

--
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Re:1984 by riceboy50 · 2008-10-20 09:04 · Score: 1

+1 Witty Pun

--
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
Re:1984 by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 13:15 · Score: 1

(I always thought that Orwell was an optimist.) Well, he wasn't an eye doctor, but he certainly could see well. He always liked to look on the bright side of things. Like looking forward to a good, swift, boot kick to the head. Of course, in such an oppressive totalitarian world. I doubt there would be any more Starbucks to get you going in the morning. "How do you take your coffee"? "Black please". O.K. who's wearing the black boots? "Would you like a few lumps of sugar also"? "NO PLEASE" "NO, NO", "I swear I'm Diabetic" "NOOOOOOOO PLEEEEAAASE"!
Re:1984 by dkf · 2008-10-21 00:40 · Score: 1

I always thought that Orwell was an optimist.
George Orwell was a boat? That explains... umm, that explains very little at all.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-21 20:48 · Score: 0

Isn't he going by the name Obama these days?

The solution is obvious by David+Gerard · 2008-10-20 06:46 · Score: 0, Redundant

TERRORISTS are used to disguising their faces and fingerprints. But what TERRORIST will think to disguise the rest of their body? p.s.: Look over there! TERRORISTS!!!

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk

Re:The solution is obvious by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 13:02 · Score: 1

Face recognition won't weed out the terrorists. They'll just pretend to be a kitchen table moving company. They will all pull the red & white checkered table cloths down from their heads, until it covers then entirely. They can already have two white guys hired to carry all the tables through. Thats why you've seen that video where they're all full of blood from hitting their heads with a knife. They're just cutting the steak dinner on the table, thats all.

New Hampshire by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 06:46 · Score: 0

I tell you, the more I hear about that state, the more I want to move there!

Reminds of my hero... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 06:47 · Score: 0

Duke Nukem. :-P

Now who is laughing? by Hao+Wu · 2008-10-20 07:04 · Score: 1

All you who say "they all look alike" -- at least this software won't work on those you once laughed at.

Brother, I'm right.

--
I suggest you read Slashdot

Re:Now who is laughing? by MRe_nl · 2008-10-20 07:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Growing up in Malawi as a young Dutch boy, I once (age seven or so) asked my nanny, a South-African woman, how she could tell other African people apart, as they all looked the same to me. Not the one's I knew personally of course, just the other 99.9%.
This is the kind of question only a child can and will ask, and after laughing, she confided in me she had the same thought about Europeans (that they all looked alike).
Somehow, I don't think software is going to have this problem, allthough the prejudices of it's programmers might seep in.
All you who say "THEY all look alike", don't worry, THEY think exactly the same thing about you!

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Re:Now who is laughing? by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 12:16 · Score: 1

All I want to know, is if you had one of those funny hair cuts like the "Dutch Boy" paints boy? (This is the kind of question only a child can and will ask) You better rethink that shit, Mr. Van Conversion I'm not from South Africa, I'm in Southern California. Around here, if they don't ask, then they just take it anyway. "How can you tell other African people apart"? Well, first, you can tell which ones are from Jamaica, because their eye's are always bloodshot red. Then, you can tell which ones are from Brazil, at least the female ones. Because they're always dancing.....Naked! You can really tell those apart from the ones in the gospel choir down in the deep south. Though very musical also, you'll never see them naked. Finally, you can tell which ones are rappers, because they all work in department stores at Christmas time. p.s. if you see one with a big afro, he's the one that invented the time machine.

Troll alert by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 07:46 · Score: 0

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=999923&cid=25422001&threshold=5

Australia has similar... by HJED · 2008-10-20 08:30 · Score: 1

"The UK already has airport gates equipped with such technology, intended to remove the need for a human border guard to check that a passenger's face matches the one recorded in his or her passport.

Australia has similar technology for Australian passport holders over the age of 18, you put your passports e page in the machine and it uses facial recognition to check who you are, also no border guard is required to check the results.

--
null

Re:Australia has similar... by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 11:56 · Score: 1

What the fuck does the UK need to have all that high tech. security at their borders for? Or any security at all, for that matter? London's and the UK's governments have already invited every Muslim Terrorist group in the entire middle east to be Honorary, Knighted Citizens of perpetual privileges. "Sir Ladenelot". What, are they worried that their special guests might miss the dunes of doom?

Yeah, right... by Locke2005 · 2008-10-20 08:37 · Score: 1

Good luck with the AI trying to tell those over 1 billion Chinese people apart... and wouldn't anybody that was up to no good simply wear sunglasses, facial hair, and a hat? Or have cosmetic surgery? Or wear Groucho glasses?

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:Yeah, right... by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 11:42 · Score: 1

If your going to go through all that trouble. Why not just chop your legs off, pull your pants down, and go through walking on your hands with a Cigar sticking out of your ass. Then tell them your name is Danny DeVito. Or any other butt-ugly, cigar smoking guy thats under 4'10". That would be easier! As for the Chinese, since the Chinese do everything; sleep, bathroom, travel in containers etc.... in groups of at least 15 or 20. Then the systems recognition accuracy rate only has to be at about 1 in 15-20, when used in China, and thats cool. If 1 is going to do a crime, 14-19 others will be doing it with him also.

What about facial hair by speroni · 2008-10-20 08:44 · Score: 1

I like to wear a giant mutton chop, but only on one side. Can I fool face recognition by switching the sides while even my wife probably wouldn't notice?

--
Eschew Obfuscation

Re:What about facial hair by Prof.Phreak · 2008-10-20 09:19 · Score: 1

Depending on how they go about it, you can probably fool facial recognition by wearing an eye patch (and if it's a skin-colored eye patch, they probably wouldn't even recognize your face as a face).
Also, distance between eyes indicates proportions of other facial features---hide that distance, etc.

--
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Re:What about facial hair by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 11:15 · Score: 1

If eye location or placement is that critical, then you can probably just wear a Marty Feldman mask. That ought to throw those Totalitarian faggots way the fuck off. You say they probably won't even recognize your face as a face. If you use a skin colored eye patch? In that case, if you couldn't get a hold of an eye patch, with no time left. You can probably just drop your boxers and Moon the Mother Fuckers. Between your natural, skin colored brown eye and they assuming that your just butt-ugly. I think it will work. Either way, patch or brown eye, your still going through as a Cycloptic Optic Monster.
Re:What about facial hair by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 11:27 · Score: 1

Mutton Chop? No! It needs to be bigger than just a chop, and with hair on it. If you walk through with your pants tucked inside your boots and a sheep's back legs inside of there also. The only thing that the face recognition will see, is a familiar sight that it became used to seeing. From when it was being secretly developed within the CIA or NSA or FBI maybe even the ACLU? NBC: Rainbow-Butt-Bird Faggot Network? Clinton's Oval Office? Some place like that.

And it's being done... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 09:35 · Score: 0

...For Great Justice!

Fecal Recognition by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 10:23 · Score: 0

Am I the only one who read that as Fecal Recognition software? ...sigh

I work in a by stimpy · 2008-10-20 10:45 · Score: 1

porn store. I can always recognize a facial.

Kentucky Blister Fried Buttholes by Chuichupachichi · 2008-10-20 10:58 · Score: 1

This report is light years behind. Those bunch of degenerate fagott, Marxist Jackass Communists have long had the ability to look up everyones butt holes. Even when your in the supposed privacy of your own home. For which you pay a monthly arm and a leg. Since you supposedly own it, and you determine who can and who can't be in that home. For what is their need to be physically present, when a criminal intruder's remote, long sticky fingers of the lawless are just as effective/destructive/criminal. Not to mention, it was way back in the 70's when Kentucky Fried Movie showed how the perverted, stalker, looky loo, Homofuxuals in the indoctro-news room see couch fucking. You all thought it was a joke. As long as ignorance of it remains, it is a joke. But the dummy-you-down faggots are the only ones laughing.

Where this world goes? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 11:37 · Score: 0

How long before we all start wearing a chip when going into UK or US? For now I decided to avoid paranoid cultures.

Unfortunately there are some extremely bad trends here in Croatia when it comes to surveilance and police measures. Starting a few years ago, they brought a new "drug war" law, so people now get two years of jailtime for selling *any* amount of drugs, even weed. To make a matter worse, government tends to actively crack on it, streets got literally full of "civillian" patrols. Of course it never works, it just shifted a market to higher grade drugs.

They're also bringing anti-mafia laws, but I don't see any "mafia" around. So it's is just a pretext to impose a stronger police surveillance.

Well, well. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 12:10 · Score: 0

Call me a backward-thinking arrogant American, but I've got something for Interpol to recognize.

It's in my pants, and these foreigners can suck on it.

Sovereignty; do you speak it bitches?!

mod parent spam by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-20 12:17 · Score: 0

David, you need to stop spamming your blog on slashdot. You've been doing it every day, and you're not adding value to slashdot's discussions. Your comments are just blatant ads for your blog. What would you think if everybody started spamming their blogs in comments all over slashdot? What you're doing degrades the commons - our commons. So, please, stop. Okay?

Random laptop searches? by AHuxley · 2008-10-20 12:51 · Score: 1

Great for long term linking of people.
Your face turns up in an internet image of interest.
The image is entered into the database.
Your laptop is searched at the airport on arrival back home.
All your contacts are noted and your laptop returned as nothing of interest is found.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Facebook ?! by tayofr · 2008-10-20 13:57 · Score: 1

I know everything about you without you knowing! Welcome to Paradise! Welcome home, Big Brother

--
.:. Done ! .:.

Good idea by Kanasta · 2008-10-20 14:06 · Score: 1

Now what we need:
1 change passport photo into teddy bear suit
2 go thru customs in teddy bear suit

libertarian view by barv · 2008-10-20 19:07 · Score: 1

Government. It is not a good resource management system if there is a need to rely on the authorities or anyone else to behave in a trustworthy fashion.

Extrapolate. If CCTV and facial recognition technology are combined, then we don't just have a database of everyone, we actually have a database-recording of where everyone was and is, & who they have associated with.

Results So if there is a suicide bomber, we can probably find cohorts and supporters. Most property crimes would vanish overnight. Crimes against the person would become rare.

Options. The horse is out of the stable. The technology exists. CCTVs could be made near invisible, and then the government (or whoever) has exclusive access to that data. Or we bite the bullet, and demand that everybody (well those computer literate enough) has access.

who's gonna steal... by polle404 · 2008-10-20 20:24 · Score: 0

Automatic airport security?

But...
Who's gonna steal my laptop and do a full cavity search on me then?

--

~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~

Facial recognition? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-10-21 00:02 · Score: 0

Recognize that I gave your wife a facial, Taco, and then sent the pic to Interpol.

Slashdot Mirror

Interpol Pushing World Facial Recognition Database

171 comments