US Military Seeks Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Military Seeks Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday September 28, 2011 @05:02AM from the i'm-watching-all-the-time dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Interesting article on the upcoming efforts of the Department of Defense biometric capabilities and the ability to non-cooperatively tag, track, and locate individuals from a variety of military UAV platforms. Quoting Wired: "[The] Army just handed out a half-dozen contracts to firms to find faces from above, track targets, and even spot 'adversarial intent.' 'If this works out, we'll have the ability to track people persistently across wide areas', says Dr. Tim Faltemier, the lead biometrics researcher at Progeny Systems Corporation, which recently won one of the Army contracts. 'A guy can go under a bridge or inside a house. But when he comes out, we'll know it was the same guy that went in.'"

58 of 98 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology by aglider · 2011-09-28 05:06 · Score: 1

It's really scary!
Sounds like tortures or unlawful inspection.

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re:Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology by codeAlDente · 2011-09-28 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, they'll probably only use it to track people on the terrorist watch list.
  
  --
  He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
2. Re:Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology by Cyberax · 2011-09-28 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  INSERT INTO terror_watch_list (select * from all_people);
3. Re:Non-Cooperative Biometric Tracking Technology by aglider · 2011-09-28 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  Having duplicates is not an issue here.
  Checking twice is better that checking once.
  
  --
  Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Interesting by Antisyzygy · 2011-09-28 05:06 · Score: 2

I worked on a facial recognition biometrics project in grad school as a research assistant, the leading platform we found to compete against was Pitt-patt and even it wasn't suitable for this application. This research area is flooded with research, and most people are not taking ground-breaking steps.

--
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
1. Re:Interesting by bzipitidoo · 2011-09-28 06:06 · Score: 2
  
  Facial recognition is a difficult problem. Not just technically either. Too many people want this too much. They also don't appreciate all the difficulties. They're plums ripe for being taken in by scams.
  Something I've come to appreciate is that comparisons are relatively easy. It's the representation that's the killer. Pixels are a completely brain dead way to represent an image. Very easy to do, but not useful for the kinds of comparisons needed for facial recognition.
  Then there's the matter of scale. Can any facial recognition system handle millions of faces? Cops want to throw their entire photo collection of suspects into the system, so it can check anyone it sees against every suspect they have on file. Even if the system made an incorrect match in only 0.1% of the comparisons, that's still a match to a thousand of every million people in the database.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
2. Re:Interesting by Antisyzygy · 2011-09-28 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  I attended an interesting seminar about this, but I can't for the life of me remember who presented the material. It was essentially outlining the problem with "pixel-based" methods, since human beings and other animals don't even do this. It just happens to be the easiest way to get a machine to do things. The individual argued that pixel-based methods essentially have reached their limitations, and was instead arguing on more of an approach based on human perception through neurological research that I did not fully understand. He wrote some paper with another medical paper as reference about how the human brain actually decomposes faces into some "face space". They did actual experiments using human beings and modified pictures of people's faces to verify their theory that this "face-space" is how humans actually recognize faces.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Wow, really? by Fallen+Kell · 2011-09-28 05:10 · Score: 4, Funny

'A guy can go under a bridge or inside a house. But when he comes out, we'll know it was the same guy that went in.'

I guess until they all just wear mask... Got to love multi-billion dollar systems that get defeated by a $3 piece of clothing.

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
1. Re:Wow, really? by DrData99 · 2011-09-28 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  All wearing the same mask? That sure would be stealthy and make it easy to blend into a crowd!
2. Re:Wow, really? by MyLongNickName · 2011-09-28 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah.... having a bunch of people wearing the same mask would be a wonderful way to blend in with the natives and make it difficult to figure out who you are and who you are associated with....
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
3. Re:Wow, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-28 05:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A face is only one way to identify someone- one which humans use extensively. But not the only one. The way you walk, the way you hold yourself, your body size and shape, your voice, and a host of other attributes are all fairly unique, when you look closely enough. Combining a group of them makes it even more powerful.
4. Re:Wow, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-28 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Although TFS specifically mentions faces, they could get trickier than just face recognition, e.g. gait analysis, etc. But those are easy to defeat too, possibly as simply as putting a rock in your shoe. (See Cory Doctorow's Little Brother.)
  But if the thing's in an overhead UAV, a hat with a big floppy brim might work just as well as a mask. Or they could wear burkas.
5. Re:Wow, really? by PPH · 2011-09-28 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  I guess until they all just wear mask...
  http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/259/1202666100024xy5.jpg
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
6. Re:Wow, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-28 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.google.com/search?q=burqa
7. Re:Wow, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-28 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you read Sherlock Holmes ?
  It is not to track the face... it is to track the hands! They never change the hands....
8. Re:Wow, really? by Antisyzygy · 2011-09-28 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  There are legitimate reasons for wearing ski masks in cold environments. I doubt it would attract suspicion there. Also, men disguised as women wearing Burqa would be hard to spot.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
9. Re:Wow, really? by AJH16 · 2011-09-28 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  That also assumes other bio-metrics such as height, build, gait, etc are not analyzed to determine if the person is the same. There are more to biometrics than simply recognizing a face.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
10. Re:Wow, really? by Arancaytar · 2011-09-28 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the mask. Pick the right one, and they'll just think you're from 4chan.
11. Re:Wow, really? by kevinNCSU · 2011-09-28 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  This is a line of thinking that would declare bullets to be useless in modern combat because they could be defeated by a scrap of metal.
12. Re:Wow, really? by im_thatoneguy · 2011-09-28 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they do skeletal tracking and can tell by your gait who you are.
  And at least criminals would have to change clothing every 10 minutes to evade detection. And if you see someone walking down the street with a mask on... time for a friendly close inspection on foot.
  Expect a lot of soldiers to pay double attention to anyone wearing a mask.
13. Re:Wow, really? by vuo · 2011-09-28 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Thinking of gait analysis, I couldn't not imagine future spy training being like this, except in a burqa.
14. Re:Wow, really? by Commontwist · 2011-09-28 06:48 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Suddenly the market for my Darth Vader costume/portable air conditioning system hybrid opens up!
  "This isn't the suspect you're looking for."
15. Re:Wow, really? by radtea · 2011-09-28 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  That also assumes other bio-metrics such as height, build, gait, etc are not analyzed to determine if the person is the same.
  None of which can be defeated by anything as simple as a mask, like wearing a fat suit and/or platform shoes...
  That said, I've done a lot of work in various pattern analysis applications and have to wonder if it isn't my moral duty to separate the security-industrial complex from some of the American taxpayer's money...
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
16. Re:Wow, really? by Walt+Dismal · 2011-09-28 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  In other news, sales of wigs, false beards, hats, and makeup soared for completely unknown reasons. Not to mention sales of pirate outfits and stuffed parrots,
17. Re:Wow, really? by element-o.p. · 2011-09-28 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bet you that there are hundreds of people -- if not thousands -- breaking that law every day in NYC (although this picture was not taken in NYC, the principle still applies). While the primary intention of this "mask" is not to hide your identity, it does -- or at least, can -- serve that purpose as well.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
18. Re:Wow, really? by hawkingradiation · 2011-09-28 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  Problem: it is now illegal to wear a mask in public in some durisdictions. So it is either pay now, or pay later.
  
  --
  Society use your Sciences
19. Re:Wow, really? by AJH16 · 2011-09-29 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  And if you can follow multiple people, how many people will be walking around with a mask, a rock in their shoe, a body suit and high heels? It could perhaps make it harder to do, but it isn't exactly practical to do that all the time and that assumes that the target knows what measures are being used and can adequately compensate for all of them. Also, once the system is built, it requires many $3 masks and rocks and body suits and heels, etc and adds considerable extra time costs to evade. It makes life more difficult and raises the possible results of failing.
  You also assume that there couldn't be other possible benefits to the imaging and analysis capabilities that are developed. Military tech has a way of having real world benefits in the civilian world, and better, faster image processing will have many positive (and yes, some negative) benefits. Is it in and of itself a compelling technology to try to drive terrorists broke? No, but that doesn't make it a technology that isn't worth pursuing to advance the state of the art and give some military benefits along the way.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
20. Re:Wow, really? by swalve · 2011-10-02 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh my god, it's Nixon everywhere!
21. Re:Wow, really? by swalve · 2011-10-02 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  You could, of course, just not rob banks.
Margin of error... by I+Read+Good · 2011-09-28 05:18 · Score: 1

Scary question: at what level of certainty do they let the guy piloting the UAV push hellfire missile button based on this platform's "identification" of an enemy?
1. Re:Margin of error... by kevinNCSU · 2011-09-28 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Scary question: at what level of certainty do they let the guy piloting the UAV push hellfire missile button based on this platform's "identification" of an enemy?
  I think the idea of this is "higher then currently employed". For example, an analyst tracking a target that walks under a bridge and out the other side might be confident enough to give the go-ahead but assisted by a software bio-metrics package the analyst can be warned that based on height calculations the guy that just came out on the other side of the bridge isn't the target being tracked unless he just grew 3 inches.
2. Re:Margin of error... by swalve · 2011-10-02 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  I use Cyrix, you insensitive clod!
Trust us by sl4shd0rk · 2011-09-28 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's for military combat only. We'd never use it on our own people*
* unless those people are assembled in mass numbers representing a potential for threatening movement or when regarded by law enforcement as a public safety concern or causing a public disturbance.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1. Re:Trust us by durrr · 2011-09-28 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No special clause, the military will use it only for military purpose, but given that police are already begging for(and getting) UAVs of their own and the contractors that develop the tech are profit driven it will take approximately 20 minutes before you find it in use against the local populance everywhere.
2. Re:Trust us by Gilmoure · 2011-09-28 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Wall Street Protests?
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
3. Re:Trust us by royallthefourth · 2011-09-28 06:23 · Score: 2
  
  but given that police are already begging for(and getting) UAVs of their own.
  We don't need any exotic new scenarios to be sure it will be used against us; a hundred years ago the National Guard made it clear by turning machine guns on striking workers. They'll never shy away from violence, whether it's overseas or right here at home. Anything to keep the profits coming and above all, the system intact.
  Once they feel threatened, it only takes a minute for them to show their true face.
4. Re:Trust us by flyingsquid · 2011-09-28 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  The British police are already using photographs and videos taken during the 2011 London riots to identify suspects. I don't really have a problem with that in this particular case; it seems to me that you don't have any sort of right to anonymity if you're in a public place, rioting and looting.
  But the potential for abuse of this technology is just chilling. It can be used to identify rioters... but to a repressive regime, people assembling in public to protest the regime would be classified as "rioters". What would happen if, say, Iran were to buy this software and then install cameras by the thousands across Tehran and other major cities? Iran already has a national identity card system, so they would just have to digitize those photos and then they could create a database that would allow them to identify political protestors. Any time people assembled, the regime could run the faces against the database, and then show up at your door and arrest you afterwards. The next day, the next week, the next year... it would have a tremendous chilling effect on protests. For that matter, there's no reason they couldn't now go back and search through TV footage and photographs of the 2009-2010 protests and identify people from those images. It makes you wonder- would people have been as willing to turn out and demonstrate in Egypt and Tunisia if there had been cameras and a system to identify protestors? You have some protection when you're in a large group of protestors, but this technology would mean that the government could simply come and get you later, at their leisure, late at night at your house.
5. Re:Trust us by dkleinsc · 2011-09-28 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  a hundred years ago the National Guard made it clear by turning machine guns on striking workers
  And 41 years ago, they turned the guns on unarmed students.
  If you consider non-lethal weapons, then you can look at the videos earlier this week of police pepper-spraying people for the crime of standing on the sidewalk looking like a protester.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
6. Re:Trust us by 0xG · 2011-09-28 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  SSDD.
  First it will be used on "the enemy".
  Then on "dangerous criminals".
  Then on "senior citizens, children, and others at risk". For their own good, of course.
  Then...
  
  --
  A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
7. Re:Trust us by travbrad · 2011-09-28 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, and the whole concept of a "free speech zone" is just insane. We won't restrict your free speech...unless it's here, here, or here. Hiding protesters in places where almost no one sees them isn't how the TPM restrictions are supposed to work, but it's often the case.
8. Re:Trust us by hawkingradiation · 2011-09-28 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  My other post got deleted...but I will continue in my same "negative" stance. This is a technology that treats humans as targets, and some regimes around the world, every citizen is a potential target. Target for what? Here in Canada or the US it might be a day in prison but in other countries where US military technology has been exported it will be used for nefarious purposes. In other countries, and there are lots of them, the technology will be used for other purposes. And I am including cell-phone monitoring and electronic eavesdropping as "military technology". We only have to look to Tunisia or Egypt where the governments spied using technology which the US invented. This is why I have a huge problem with massive spending on military technology which in order to be profitable, must be profitable, as opposed to massive government spending on green technology or other technology that can be exported as well, with a far better human outcome.
  
  --
  Society use your Sciences
9. Re:Trust us by swalve · 2011-10-02 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Rules are stacked against you? Seriously? All you have to do is stay the fuck out of other people's way. The US guarantees the freedom of speech, not the freedom of fucking up traffic or getting in other people's way, nor does it guarantee you the platform of your choosing.
  
  As for this BS of bailing out billionaires, name one.
10. Re:Trust us by swalve · 2011-10-02 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  To what end?
Never enough. by Beelzebud · 2011-09-28 05:28 · Score: 2

When it comes to the military industrial complex, there is never enough money that can be dumped down the hole.

And from the right-wing lovers of the constitution, and haters of government spending: Complete silent obedience.
1. Re:Never enough. by frosty_tsm · 2011-09-28 05:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When it comes to the military industrial complex, there is never enough money that can be dumped down the hole. And from the right-wing lovers of the constitution, and haters of government spending: Complete silent obedience.
  Sad but true. "Keep the government out of our medicare." "Don't tax the job creators."
  
  But any time something is spun towards the big bad terrorists, they'll be silent when we dump billions to accomplish nothing and even bend over and spread them (literally).
Re:My suggestion for a mask by aenigmainc · 2011-09-28 05:44 · Score: 1

my burkha trumps your mask
walk without rhythm it won't attract the worm by cs668 · 2011-09-28 05:55 · Score: 1

see subject!
I think I know where this is going by TheNarrator · 2011-09-28 06:14 · Score: 2

They use a pagerank like algorithm to analyze the person's social network (links in an out) and the person's actions (page content) and then compute a "TerrorScore" much like a google "Page Rank". They then knock these guys off one by one with UAVs. The whole thing runs unattended. Nobody knows exactly why people get killed, that's just the algorithm. They can't turn it off either unfortunately, because then the terrorists would win! Quick, somebody write a screenplay :).
A terrorists wet dream. by Commontwist · 2011-09-28 06:44 · Score: 1

A programming glitch swaps the 'Dangerous/Auto Kill' tags in the hunter/killer drone targeting databases using these technologies with the 'Officers/Senators' ones.
Technology, making more high tech ways for idiots on your side to kill you.
I'd love to see this go FOSS by Rich0 · 2011-09-28 06:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've been thinking about just sticking some cameras on my property and creating a database of every face they see and when, and every license plate that drives by.
I figure everybody else is doing it, so why not private individuals.
Post it all in one big free database online, and now everybody knows where everybody lives and works and what they're doing. Maybe the solution to privacy is for nobody to have it. Since, right now the only thing I can be sure of is that ordinary people don't have it. Equality would keep everybody more honest. Social norms/etc would just have to change.
1. Re:I'd love to see this go FOSS by mr.mctibbs · 2011-09-29 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is actually the plot behind the pilot of Aeon Flux. The story takes place in Bregna, a country recently taken over in a coup and turned into an authoritarian society where everyone is under constant observation, including the power elites. Of course, the leaders and the resistance both find ways of avoiding the monitoring to advance their agendas.
Watchbird by Robert Sheckley by AndreyFilippov · 2011-09-28 06:59 · Score: 1

That reminds me of a Watchbird by Robert Sheckley - http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579
Hey Dr. Tim Faltemier, by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-09-28 07:04 · Score: 1

Can we start with tracking you and your family first? If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, right?
Adversarial Intent, really? by vawarayer · 2011-09-28 08:50 · Score: 1
....and even spot 'adversarial intent....

Two Iraqi farmers minding their own business :
- - Abdul, Abdul, look there's a f*ing drone up there again, watching us.
- - Damm drones... they have no right to be here.
KABBOOOOM! Flying crops, cows, and Iraqi farmers' body parts.
Re:The real question by PoopCat · 2011-09-28 09:47 · Score: 1

Because USA!! USA!! USA!! That's why.

Lame text to defeat the lameness filter. Slashdot, make friends with acronyms wouldaplzjusthisoncekthxbai?
Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong... by kcitren · 2011-09-28 11:07 · Score: 1

Intelligence cannot create intelligence equal to or greater than itself.
Have you never heard of intelligence fusion? Or even basic probability, statistics, and confidence modeling? There's a whole science based around enhancing the confidence of uncertain information.
Re:Live Underground by swalve · 2011-10-02 09:54 · Score: 1

"North Korea have"? How many North Koreas are there?
Re:I miss the good-ole days by swalve · 2011-10-02 09:55 · Score: 1

They tracked their citizens to keep bomb-throwing dissidents down, not for the lulz.