Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japanese CCTV Camera Can Scan 36 Million Faces/Second

Posted by timothy on from the once-met-alex-jones-at-mt-carmel-compound dept.

An of-course anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the always-fun Infowars.com: "A new camera technology from Hitachi Hokusai Electric can scan days of camera footage instantly, and find any face which has EVER walked past it. Its makers boast that it can scan 36 million faces per second. The technology raises the spectre of governments – or other organisations – being able to 'find' anyone instantly simply using a passport photo or a Facebook profile. The 'trick' is that the camera 'processes' faces as it records, so that all faces which pass in front of it are recorded and stored instantly. Faces are stored as a searchable 'biometric' record, placing the unique mathematical 'faceprint' of anyone who has ever walked past the camera in a database."

74 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. The future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And here I was thinkin' that the level of surveillance seen in GITS wouldn't be seen in my lifetime...

    1. Re:The future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ghost In The Shell.

    2. Re:The future by next_ghost · · Score: 2

      Wearing Guy Fawkes mask on the street all the time suddenly seems like a VERY good idea...

    3. Re:The future by Shifty0x88 · · Score: 1

      hahahah I was going to say the same thing!!!

    4. Re:The future by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are alternatives if you don't want to wear a mask. Some of these are also less likely to get you hassled by the police. Someone should make a version of these face paint techniques that uses national flags and national team colours, then everyone will just assume you are a sports fan.

    5. Re:The future by turing_m · · Score: 1

      ...until you realize that any decent coder should be able to figure out who the genius in the Guy Fawkes mask is who is wandering around from location to location and then spontaneously disappears in location X at datestamp Y is one of 'SELECT face_id FROM face_view WHERE location_id = "X" AND datestamp="Y";'. And for those whom that did not apply (the exceptions being able to be generated algorithmically of course) are either disappearing into:
      1. Their own address. Doh.
      2. The sewer or some other location - oh gee, where do we install our next covert CCTV?

      Unfortunately, given the fact that our society sees fit to only financially reward high IQ individuals commensurate with their ability in:
      1. Taking advantage of the idiocy or naivety of others in the financial fields.
      2. Helping/curing sick people, or preferably extracting money from wealthy old/vain people.
      3. Using the legal system to extract money from anything with money.
      3. Random entrepreneurial activity.

      and not:
      4. Catching crooks... ...this means that in most cases there will not be a decent coder employed in the catching of a crook who is doing this, nor an intelligent enough cop who realizes how to use this system to the benefit of the justice system. There will of course be a decent coder somewhere in the organization who has used company time to develop a highly novel and innovative "cup size estimation technology" that has virtually limitless applications, most of which he has also selflessly dedicated himself to pioneering.

      Murphy's Law dictates that, should you personally have sort of legitimate and moral need for secrecy, there will of course be a decent coder available who is personally involved with investigating the incident where you were running around with your Guy Fawkes mask on.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    6. Re:The future by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      Me, I was just *hoping* GITS and other such forward looking shows weren't predicting our future.

      But I really knew better since I work to develop software that enables this at times (like CALEA/lawful intercept stuff for cell nets).

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    7. Re:The future by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2

      First you're not actually allowed to walk the streets when it's impossible to identify you. Walking around in masks is an offence just about everywhere in the world (yes, even in Saudi Arabia walking around in a full niqab is not technically allowed, and people have been arrested for it (why ? well, guy in niqab blows up bank, runs outside, and they just rounded up everyone in those clothes. They didn't even catch the guy). In normal states it's not allowed and the police will not tolerate real obscuring masks under normal circumstances for obvious reasons. Furthermore, if a crime is comitted and you're walking around with a mask, good luck explaining that). Due to the history of laws, there's an exception : it's allowed on carnival. But that's pretty much it.

      And even masks and such won't work. When it becomes trivial to do this, it will make sense, and everybody will do this, without informing government or employees. Why not ? Who's going to stop them ?

      Enforcing privacy is about to become the same sort of fight as enforcing copyright is for the MPAA. There's laws protecting the "victims", who suffer no damage and can't even know if their rights have been violated, but it's impossible to use those laws due to realities on the ground.

      Even now one can read articles from hackers about how it's completely ludicrous to expect privacy in a place where you can expect cameras (what ? I can't run opencv on my own webcam ?). You can film people on/near your property, but you "can't" actually look at the film that's stored on your harddrive ? Why not ? Why can't an algorithm look at it ?

      Get ready for a hopeless fight in 3 ... 2 ... 1.

      Btw guy fawkes masks will only buy time until the resolution on these cameras is high enough. There's plenty of biometrically identifying information on a human body, some of which is near impossible to hide. The exact ratio of the distances between the circle joints in the human body is as unique as a fingerprint, and can be determined from a short movie. The algorithm has a hard part, which is identifying your limbs and head and how they move over a few seconds of video, and an easy part, which is basically drawing all the connections between the rotation points of those joins (ie. a 5-polygon and it's diagonals), then measure the ratios 2-by-2, you then sort them according to size so it doesn't even matter if the guy was upside down or hopping on a pogo stick, or managed to convince the camera his leg was really his head. As long as the camera can get decent hints about your limbs and head moving (the big ones) it can find this. Masks are a useless defense, in fact they make things easier by providing static reference points on your face. Not even long skirts work against it.

    8. Re:The future by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      And here I was thinkin' that the level of surveillance seen in GITS wouldn't be seen in my lifetime...

      Well the designers of the technology had to get their idea from somewhere. I'm pretty sure the SOAD song "Spiders" is about this technology.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    9. Re:The future by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 1

      Wearing Guy Fawkes mask on the street all the time suddenly seems like a VERY good idea...

      Actually, I think I'm going to use that as my Facebook photo. Good idea.

      --
      When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
  2. Misleading Headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "The trick is that the camera processes faces as it records, so that all faces which pass in front of it are recorded and stored instantly. Faces are stored as a searchable biometric record"

    So basically it search for a record in a sorted list of up to 36 million records in under a second? Not exactly revolutionary...

    1. Re:Misleading Headline... by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The headline might lead one to believe that one camera could identify, hash, lookup, and store information on 36 million distinct faces per second - like looking at the world's biggest mob and processing everybody present. Still, this technology will undoubtedly be on Big Brother's Christmas list. Why, just imagine the civil liberty carnage a Beowulf cluster of these things could cause.

    2. Re:Misleading Headline... by yfkar · · Score: 3, Informative
      I wondered about the headline too. My first thought was that how on Earth could you get 36 million people to fit into one second of footage AND process it in real time. Even the article wasn't very clear about it.

      Also:

      Faces are stored as a searchable 'biometric' record, storing the unique

      It seems that the writer of the article didn't even bother to

    3. Re:Misleading Headline... by RNLockwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree but it searches for a set of records that have some kind of a close match and doesn't stop with the first "hit" a la CSI.

      Wonder why there was no mention of the false positive and false negative rates? Perhaps they are a little too high?

      --
      Nate
    4. Re:Misleading Headline... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      finish his thought. The RT article is clearer: "The camera can search a staggering 36 million faces in less than a second for a match of the thumbnail photo." - http://www.rt.com/news/security-camera-hitachi-million-365/

      This too is worth reading "FBI would like to follow you on Facebook and Twitter": http://www.rt.com/news/fbi-social-networks-privacy-781/

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:Misleading Headline... by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Hitomi laughs at your silly white boy assertion.:)

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    6. Re:Misleading Headline... by wisty · · Score: 1

      From "Doctor Who" The Sontaran Stratagem:

      Luke (totally not Larry Page) Rattigan: How do you tell each other apart?

      General Staal: We say the same of humans.

      I've heard that "Sontaran" (San-Ta-Ren?) is actually from Mandarin, meaning "Outer Space Man". I can't find the exact characters, not that slashdot will accept unicode anyway.

    7. Re:Misleading Headline... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Some people were doing that type of research in last computer science department. Face recognition works on the T shaped area of the face defined by the eyebrows, nose, eyes and mouth. Things like glasses, beards moustaches and piercings could throw things off track.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:Misleading Headline... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Quite impressive, considering that Japanese look all the same...

      Yeah, sometimes you can't even tell which ones are women.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  3. faced post by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    faced post

    --
    ...
  4. Accuracy? by watice · · Score: 1

    i'd love to know how accurate this thing is. Finally, we can find Japanese Waldo

    1. Re:Accuracy? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Finally, we can find Japanese Waldo"

      Oh. WALdo. My bad.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  5. unique huh ? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    placing the unique mathematical 'faceprint' of anyone who has ever walked past the camera in a database...

    For some definition of unique known only to Hitachi Hokusai Electric.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  6. Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! by Cazekiel · · Score: 3, Funny

    If I lived in Japan, I'd walk around with THE stupidest smile ever, eyes wide as saucers, pretending that everything I'm looking at is the most fascinating thing in the universe. I mean, I do this ALREADY, but I'd up the ante severely, all so I can imagine officials watching the surveillance tapes muttering, "WTF is this chick on?"

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    1. Re:Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Doing silly/strange stuff in front of cameras increases your chances of ending up on youtube. Then someone downloads it, edits it and uploads the new version with music and effects...

      The upcoming generation better have thick skin- their peers seem ever ready to record and upload. Once while driving I saw someone peeing in public, no big deal to me, but one of his friends(?) was using a phone to record it (without his knowledge presumably)!

      --
    2. Re:Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      The scary thing is, in this day and age... you COULD be on youtube and never find out. Me and the husband have discussed this at great length. Gulp.

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    3. Re:Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Never finding out is not a problem. "Finally finding out" might be a problem... Or if you can take it, your chance of fame ;).

      Example of what I was mentioned before:
      Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU
      Remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR3PT5E0XDo&feature=related

      Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3UL_mVHHI
      Remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_40rM_L0s

      --
    4. Re:Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, yes, I've seen these! The Star Wars kid I kinda feel for. I think us geeks have ALL fallen victim to acting out our fave scenes from nerdy movies and the like ("This is our perfect opportunity to act like ninjas!" was how my brother at 13 years old put it once when we were hanging out in the clearing of the woods by our house--and yes, he MEANT it, hard), but we're old enough to have avoided worldwide-ridicule. Still, you gotta have a guilty-giggle.

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    5. Re:Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! by davewoods · · Score: 1

      There are girls on the internet now? When did that happen?

  7. Re:That's Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your racism aside, that should make this task more difficult, not easier.

  8. Clearly... by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    ...this camera was invented to prove that superman exists.

    Now I'll know for sure that Clark Kent taunts his boss at least 36 million times a day at the Daily Planet!

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  9. No expectation of privacy by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a public area.

    So maybe it's time to amend the Constitution. "The government or its agents shall not track people's whereabouts, except when a warrant has been obtained through a judge, and supported by oath or affirmation."

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:No expectation of privacy by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      The courts have said you're wrong (that cameras can record you in public). Of course that works both ways, because we can record them too.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:No expectation of privacy by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Then warrants become more of a catch 22 than they were before; One needs evidence to get a warrant one needs a warrant to get evidence. One also does not know they need to track someone until they become a suspect. If there is no record of where they were then much evidence is lost.

    3. Re:No expectation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Chicago PD and Illinois GOP.

    4. Re:No expectation of privacy by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point. If you're not bothering anyone, law enforcement has no business keeping tabs on you. It was designed that way, erring on the side of letting guilty people go free.

      When the Constitution was written, such abuses of power were a big enough deal that they put it in the Bill of Rights.

      It's the same idea behind "âoeBetter that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."
      http://works.bepress.com/alexander_volokh/9/

    5. Re:No expectation of privacy by ankhank · · Score: 1

      > no business keeping tabs on you.

      Unless, back then, you were someone's property.
      Fortunately, they later outlawed slavery as well.

      Customer retention, however, remains legal.

    6. Re:No expectation of privacy by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      How does one suffer when someone else logs one's location? In fact it is a two edged sword; a suspect can be found near the place the crime was committed and possibly convicted. The suspect could just as well as being found far away and cleared.

      The ten 10-1 ration are just numbers. It is possible that tracking people could solve hundreds of crimes, clear hundreds of people and be misused in very few cases.

      I have np problem with the government tracking where I am. I have nothing to hide.

      Please quote where is the Bill of Rights that the government can not retain the location you were when in public?

      The ten 10-1 ration are just numbers. It is possible that tracking people could solve hundreds of crimes, clear hundreds of people and be misused in very few cases. Where does the line get drawn? 10-1, 50-1, 100-1,?? Just because a technology can be misused does not mean that a technology should not be used. If possible misuse was the criteria the police would never be given weapons because they could be used on innocent people. Proper safeguards and penalties for misuse of technology is what is needed.

    7. Re:No expectation of privacy by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      No, the 10th Amendment doesn't say anything about what the government isn't allowed to do. It's astonishing the ignorance of people who claim to know what the Constitution says, and the breadth of the things they think it implies.

      US 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      That means the Constitution doesn't change the rights of the States or the people in any way other than those described in the document. If you had a right to do X in 1788, you still had it in 1789.

      In contrast, the 4th Amendment SPECIFICALLY addresses the right of people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

      But I don't think people ever were presumed to have a right not to have their pictures taken in public places. Certainly not in the USA.

      To establish such a right would require a change in the law.

    8. Re:No expectation of privacy by ffflala · · Score: 1

      What is the point of this amendment, when private citizens will remain free to do the same? And then, of course, to sell the information to whoever will pay for it, be they private companies, the government agencies of *any* state, or interested individuals?

    9. Re:No expectation of privacy by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      You have no problem with it until the day comes when you are in someone's way. Then someone will "give" you something to hide. Only you won't have a chance. Sure the chance that this will happen to "you" is infinitesimal, but the chance that it will happen to someone is nearly certain. Do I really need to extend my line of thought here any further? Or are you OK with powerful people being able to eliminate anyone who threatens their power?

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    10. Re:No expectation of privacy by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Someone has been watching way too many action movies. They are not reality. If someone is powerful enough to "eliminate anyone who threatens their power" they would not need facial recognition to do it; they have people for that.

      The chances that cameras can help solve crimes is absolutely certain thousands of times over.

      You seem to think that possible misuses override all other considerations. You can be the one to tell that to the families of every person killed even though their killer was wanted and walking boldly around on the street. Facial recognition could have stopped it but because of you their family member is dead.

  10. Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    And if you're a normal person not doing anything illegal (unlikely given how many laws there are), you'll always have cameras watching you. Paranoia of criminals is nice, isn't it? No different from terrorist paranoia.

  11. Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    If I would ever become a criminal or terrorist I'm already prepared for dumb technology like this. I have long hair, a moustache and a goatee. After I committed my crime I will simple shave and cut my hair. And that's simply the easy, quick and painless change.

    Oh, now you've done it...now they'll fit their cameras with sonar and/or radar and/or infrared to see "through" facial hair.

    Oh, well..should create a booming market for the security pics.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  12. Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Mustache and goatee removal ( or adding ) wont fool modern facial recognition software.

    It might fool software from 10 years ago, but things have advanced, quite a bit.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  13. The headline is wrong!! by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Come on editors do your job. The headline is "Japanese CCTV Camera Can Scan 36 Million Faces/Second". That is not even close to what this system is doing. System does the following;
    1. creates a thumbnail picture of the face. How long this takes is not noted.
    2. Searches a database for matches. This is where the 36 Million faces/second comes in and is not done by the camera at all.

    A better headline would have been "Japanese CCTV Camera Can Search Through 36 Million Faces/Second". That is a much less impressive feat than scanning as it is just a way of encoding a face for faster searches.

    1. Re:The headline is wrong!! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The interesting part isn't even the camera, it's the database that can search 36 million biometric data sets, accounting for errors and variations due to things like perspective and lighting, in under one second with any degree of accuracy.

      The UK government is probably close to doing this already. Traffic cameras capture every car number plate that goes past and stores it in a database. It's only a matter of time because a biometric face database is set up, if one doesn't already exist somewhere in the bowels of MI5/MI6 or the Met. Privacy and rights are dirty words here.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:The headline is wrong!! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Japanese CCTV System Can Search Through 36 Million Faces/Second"

      The camera doesn't search anything.

    3. Re:The headline is wrong!! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what I said in my point #2.

    4. Re:The headline is wrong!! by burne · · Score: 1

      The UK government is probably close to doing this already.

      You're sure of this? Because they need a million camera's to solve a thousand crimes per year, and Burroughs without CCTV do better when it comes to solving crimes. (Google it! Find your own facts!)

    5. Re:The headline is wrong!! by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      There's no telling whether it's ACCURATE. It just compares it to other faces, and probably comes up with a set of 1000 or so possible matches.

    6. Re:The headline is wrong!! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      It is all just numbers until you put up actual references ("Google it" is not a reference). If you want to refute something put up a real reference and you may change opinions. Otherwise you are just pulling stuff out of your butt.

    7. Re:The headline is wrong!! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      And yet you still managed to get the headline wrong. Maybe it's not such a stupid mistake after all.

    8. Re:The headline is wrong!! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I see the difference ... finally. Even though I posted "This is where the 36 Million faces/second comes in and is not done by the camera at all" I didn't change enough of the headline. Damn, I thought I was perfect. ;) Oh well, better luck next time.

  14. Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists by Gaygirlie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Indeed. However, there are still ways of fooling them with makeup and a few bits of silicone, and both are easy to apply and take off. For example adding a wee bit of skin-coloured silicone on your cheekbones and forehead totally changes how you look. Then apply some slightly darker blush on your cheeks and eyesockets and you'll look like an entirely different person. Then just wipe the makeup on your sleeve, pick the silicone off with your fingers and you'll be your old self in less than 30 seconds.

  15. For pete's sake, can we get a decent source by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The link is to a paranoid source (Infowars), citing a disreputable newspaper (The Daily Mail), citing (but not linking to) a press release, for a product which the abysmally sketchy article is available "within the next tax year". None of which even begins to mention its actual capabilities beyond the misrepresented data point of "scanning 36 million faces".

    In other words, unless somebody has a link to something of value, the entire thing seems like fiction designed to give people something to be pleasantly outraged about on a Saturday afternoon.

    1. Re:For pete's sake, can we get a decent source by MobileC · · Score: 2

      The entire thing seems like fiction designed to give people something to be pleasantly outraged about on a Saturday afternoon.

      Works for me. Although it's Sunday here...

      --

      Fran
      :):):)
      1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

    2. Re:For pete's sake, can we get a decent source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The source is one of the videos posted by DigInfo from the 2012 Security Show in Japan (http://www.diginfo.tv/v/12-0040-r-en.php).

      Apart from the misleading headline, scaremongering and other examples of bad journalism, the Daily Mail also got the name of the Japanese company wrong. It's Hitachi Kokusai Electric, not Hitachi Hokusai Electric. Their article includes uncredited screenshots of the DigInfo video.

  16. This + previous story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but can it shoot 36 million faces per second with a super soaker?

    Captcha: winces

  17. That's an easy one to solve by MaxToTheMax · · Score: 2

    Guy Fawkes masks. Everyone should start wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

    1. Re:That's an easy one to solve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or just medical mask which is quite popular there when people get sick or don't want to get sick.

  18. Re:That's Easy by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, this is a funny joke! I think it would make it harder for the camera....

    Searching face database...30,000,000 faces
    Filter for almond eyes...30,000,000 faces
    Filter for black hair...30,000,000 faces

    Damn it, we need to narrow this down!

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  19. Burqa by jamesh · · Score: 1

    Maybe those Muslims are just ahead of their time... are you allowed to wear a burqa in Japan?

    1. Re:Burqa by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Now THAT is and interesting and insightful thought! What would be the equivalent defense strategy for males?

      No reason why a burqa couldn't work for males too. I mean who'd know?

      A Guy Fawkes mask would work just as well but it would be a bit of a stretch to claim it was part of a religious dress code...

  20. Re:That's Easy by CMYKjunkie · · Score: 1

    Boy, tough crowd!! It was a J O K E people! The stereotype is "they all look the same" so.... oh. never mind. I guess I am a -1 Troll.

  21. Re:That's Easy by CMYKjunkie · · Score: 1

    Next time I'll add tags so people know that I'm kidding. Jeez!!

  22. Re:That's Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    this site is full of weeaboos who don't find your "joke" all that humorous

    next time try making fun of niggers or jews instead

  23. Company name is wrong by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure it's Kokusai, with a K, not H. We went by HiKE (Hi Kay Eee). I worked there for almost five years.

  24. Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    The silicone is likely to work. The makeup, maybe not. It depends on how they're measuring and encoding facial data.

  25. Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Gets harder if there are cameras "everywhere".

    For example say you do that change in a rest room and there are cameras monitoring the corridor outside the restroom. The system will know that Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Silicone went in. But Mr Y, Mr X, and you came out.

    --
  26. Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists by kaladorn · · Score: 1

    Yes, but there are imaging technologies out there that can image things like facial structure and sub-surface capillary maps. Those things are not easily disguised (as far as I am aware) because they are penetrative imaging and they map sub-surface features.

    If this kind of thing can be made to operate all over the place (high CC camera density) and married to a highly capable data sifting system, it will be very hard to fool (or seems so at present). Face makeup and even prosthesis or fake hair won't cut it.

    Furthermore, such a system could likely tell that you had on fake hair, etc. (potentially)

    This system by itself isn't a horror, but as another step along the path to the government keeping you under the microscope at all times (when of course the heads of government will live in microscopeless gated communities). That's not so cool, IMO.

    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  27. Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

    Yes, but there are imaging technologies out there that can image things like facial structure and sub-surface capillary maps. Those things are not easily disguised (as far as I am aware) because they are penetrative imaging and they map sub-surface features.

    It sounds like you've read about something you haven't actually understood. There is no such a thing as "penetrative imaging" unless you mean X-ray or gamma ray imaging. There does exist software that tries to discard features like hair, glasses and whatever extra assortments and guesses one's facial structure, it however does not somehow magically penetrate your skin or such, it is all just mathematics based on visual data.

    Furthermore, such a system could likely tell that you had on fake hair, etc. (potentially)

    No, they do not.

  28. Hmmm... I forsee Muslim religion catching on there by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 1

    Nniqabs for everyone.

  29. Re:Easier solution by davewoods · · Score: 1

    You hand in a photo for that?
    I always assumed it would be just like a drivers license, where they take your picture on the spot.