Google Awarded Face-To-Unlock Patent

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Awarded Face-To-Unlock Patent

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday September 5, 2012 @07:51AM from the slam-your-face-into-it-until-it-unlocks dept.

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that Google was awarded a patent yesterday for logging into a computing device using face recognition (8,261,090). 'In order for the technology to work, Google's patent requires a camera that can identify a person's face. If that face matches a "predetermined identity," then the person is logged into the respective device. If multiple people want to access a computer, the next person would get in front of the camera, and the device's software would automatically transition to the new user's profile. ... Interestingly, Apple last year filed for a patent related to facial recognition similar to what Google is describing in its own service. That technology would recognize a person's face and use that as the authentication needed to access user profiles or other important information.'"

142 of 194 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good facial recognition by i+kan+reed · 2012-09-05 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Good facial recognition has existed for several years now. Using that tech for authentication is obvious. Patents continue to suck.
1. Re:Good facial recognition by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  I've only seen one implementation that didn't completely suck, security-wise...
  
  Samsung has a phone that determines that you are authorized, and then it makes you blink. It doesn't unlock until the authorized face blinks.
  
  Still not very secure, but at least it's not "hold a picture up to the phone to unlock" insecure.
2. Re:Good facial recognition by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 08:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not just "facial recognition" that they were awarded the patent on. It's the method of recognition and the technology suite behind it.
  
  I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps. Normally these are the people who are made fun of around here but really, Slashdotters aren't that much better for the most part.
  
  How long until one of you wanna-bes post something like "But I thought scientists said coffee was good fer ya!?!? These scientists don't know nothing!!!"
3. Re:Good facial recognition by h4rr4r · 2012-09-05 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Blink to unlock is a standard part of Android Jelly Bean. It has nothing to do with samsung, other than that they make at least one phone that has Jelly Bean.
4. Re:Good facial recognition by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-09-05 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  the blink feature is key, since facial recognition software will usually let you get by with showing a picture of the subject's face.
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
5. Re:Good facial recognition by TheGratefulNet · 2012-09-05 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  blink to login. ok.
  but to get to root, you have to do a full sneeze. and I can't always do that on command.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
6. Re:Good facial recognition by freakmn · 2012-09-05 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  Rootkits will now dispense pepper from your USB port.
  
  --
  warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
7. Re:Good facial recognition by olsmeister · 2012-09-05 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Picture of subjects face. Yeah, that makes more sense than what I was thinking (detached head).
8. Re:Good facial recognition by KreAture · 2012-09-05 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Blink is so easy it's silly.
  You simply do it like the classic paper-face dolls. Horisontal folds in paper and thin string or slots in paper and pulltab.
9. Re:Good facial recognition by Archangel+Michael · 2012-09-05 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  Don't Blink. Don't even blink!
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
10. Re:Good facial recognition by dgatwood · 2012-09-05 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  Steps to defeat:
  Set up a video camera with a long zoom lens from a hundred feet. Hit record. Wait for them to blink. Play back the video footage on a tablet. Steal their car or phone or whatever.
  No paper cutouts needed. Now if they had two cameras, it might actually be a slight challenge.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
11. Re:Good facial recognition by icebike · 2012-09-05 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  But its hard to steal their phone from hundreds of feet away....
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
12. Re:Good facial recognition by icebike · 2012-09-05 08:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps.
  
  Wait, Gimp now has facial recognition too?
  He said gimp!, right? I read it on the intertubes!
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
13. Re:Good facial recognition by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-09-05 09:05 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Don't Blink. Don't even blink!
  He said "Jelly Bean", not "Jelly Baby".
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
14. Re:Good facial recognition by Sporkinum · 2012-09-05 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  So says the Archangel Michael......
  
  --
  "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
15. Re:Good facial recognition by Cacadril · 2012-09-05 09:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Patents are supposed to disclose enough to enable a person skilled in the art to recreate the invention. But the problems that a person skilled in the art must overcome to recreate this invention, are thousands of times more demanding than coming up with the details of this claim. How can it be obvious to the person skilled in the art how to implement this invention if the standard of "obviousness" is such that the invention itself is not obvious to the person skilled in the art?
  
  This patent, like most modern, computer-related patents, do not describe, much less patent, the actual solution to the problem. They patent the problem itself.
  Consider, for instance, claim 12 (for increased legibility, I have added some punctuation, numbering, and line breaks):
  A computer program product
  - stored on a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium
  - and comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to:
  1. receive an image of the first user via a camera operably coupled with the computing device;
  2. determine an identity of the first user based on the received first image;
  3. if the determined identity of the first user matches the first predetermined identity,
  - then, based at least on the identity of the first user matching the first predetermined identity,
  - log the first user in to the computing device;
  4. receive a second image of a second user via the camera operably coupled with the computing device;
  5. determine an identity of the second user based on the received second image;
  6. and if the determined identity of the second user matches the second predetermined identity,
  - then, issue a prompt to confirm that the first user should be logged off of the computing device
  - and that the second user should be logged on to the computing device;
  7. receive a valid confirmation from the first or second user in response to the prompt;
  8. in response to receiving the valid confirmation,
  - log the first user off of the computing device
  - and log the second user in to the computing device.
  
  --
  There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
16. Re:Good facial recognition by reve_etrange · 2012-09-05 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  And face-to-unlock (without blinking) is in ICS.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
17. Re:Good facial recognition by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-05 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps.
  Quite so. So, let's see...
  1. A method of logging a first user in to a computing device comprising: receiving a first image of the first user via a camera operably coupled with the computing device; determining an identity of the first user based on the received first image; if the determined identity of the first user matches a first predetermined identity, then, based at least on the identity of the first user matching the first predetermined identity, logging the first user in to the computing device;
  OK, so you have a camera connected to a computer and based on the received image, authenticate the user. So far nothing new.
  receiving a second image of a second user via the camera operably coupled with the computing device; determining an identity of the second user based on the received second image; and if the determined identity of the second user matches a second predetermined identity, then, issuing a prompt to confirm that the first user should be logged off of the computing device and that the second user should be logged on to the computing device; receiving a valid confirmation from the first or second user in response to the prompt; in response to receiving the valid confirmation, logging the first user off of the computing device and logging the second user in to the computing device.
  OK, so if you get a second user, you authenticate that user too and offer to log off.
  OK, so we have face-as-biometric (not new), using this for computers (not new), multiple user authentication (not new).
  The only thing possibly new there is that if the authentication module authenticates B while A is logged on, it will offer to log off A.
  I don't know if any other authentication systems have done that minor twiddle before (e.g. card ID systems or whatever). If so, replacing one well-established auth system with another is not novel.
  I think cash registers will switch user ID when a new casheir beeps in with one od those fobs without requiring a log out first, so again nothing new.
  Onwards...
  2. The method of claim 1, wherein the camera is physically integrated with the computing device.
  Holy fuck that's novel. Hang on a mo and let me pry the camera out of my laptop so I don't have any prior art there...
  3. The method of claim 1, wherein: logging the first user in to the computing device includes permitting the first user to access first resources associated with the first user, wherein the first resources include documents that are personal to the first user, but prohibiting the first user from accessing second resources associated with a second user and wherein logging the second user in to the computing device includes permitting the second user to access second resources associated with the second user, wherein the second resources include documents that are personal to the second user, but prohibiting the second user from accessing the first resources associated with the first user.
  OK, claim 3 is what all existing authentication systems on a multi-user OS do already. Nothing new there.
  Again, using face recognition to authenticate is not new. And authentication already does 3.
  4. The method of claim 1, wherein if the determined identity of the first user matches the first predetermined identity, the first user is logged in to the computing device without requiring alphanumeric input from the user.
  Again, this describes existing authentication systems. There are many when an alternative is supplied, a password is not required. This is simply not new, and I'm 100% sure it has been done before for face regognition (I am a computer vision scientist by the way).
  So far nothing new, except for a minor fiddle. Though one possible reading is that user A and B are predetermined and can only log on in order A followed by B. Given the strangeness, probably noone has done that particular min
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
18. Re:Good facial recognition by Psyborgue · 2012-09-05 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  It'd probably be just as effective to fake the blink in photoshop. Closed eyes aren't that unique and the transitions aren't that difficult. Put the animation on a tablet, point at smartphone and boom.
19. Re:Good facial recognition by erac3rx · 2012-09-05 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  If it makes you feel better, there's no way Google patented because they want other people not to use it. They just need it for ammunition whenever Apple sues them directly. Apple's continued ridiculousness has made people realize that they should patent the s**t out of everything, obvious or not, so they can negotiate effectively with Apple when they throw their (also BS) patents around. It's clearly not 'we invented it first' but rather 'we got the patent for this obvious idea before you did,' and Google has admitted this many times. Google's stated philosophy is basically 'patent everything you think of so we can be equipped to handle all these stupid lawsuits, though we fully acknowledge the patent system is broken and will continue to push for reform'.
  
  If I'm Apple, I'm starting to recognize the ramifications of my actions. Good luck bringing an LED LCD TV to market Apple, Samsung will sue you into oblivion. They've made rounded-corner rectangle TVs for years and you haven't, hence you copied off of them (!!) and deserve to not be able to compete. And good luck sourcing displays for anything from Samsung, that $1BN tag you hung on them means they won't ever sell displays to you again. And that's why you won't be able to sell as many iPhone5's as you want, because Sharp can't even manufacture the displays they promised you, while Samsung ships millions of better ones.
  
  Apple can partner with Facebook and Twitter all they want, but only because both of those guys have the same 'screw everyone else' philosophy and it makes sense for them to work with you. They'll screw Apple in a second, just like Apple would screw them. Meanwhile, Apple can no longer partner with Google or Samsung for anything. How good of an idea is that for them in the long-term? Samsung makes the best displays, Google makes the dominant web browser...
20. Re:Good facial recognition by WillKemp · 2012-09-05 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Prior art in face recognition dates back many millions of years!
21. Re:Good facial recognition by Wovel · 2012-09-05 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. I have been locking and unlocking my house based on recognizing faces through a peephole since the 70s. My parents claim to have been doing it for decades longer.
22. Re:Good facial recognition by ozmanjusri · 2012-09-05 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  Sneeze expressions and orgasm expressions are identical.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
23. Re:Good facial recognition by tooyoung · 2012-09-05 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  The most shocking part of this entire patent is this:
  
  10. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the identity of the first user based on the received image includes determining the identity of the first user based on one or more of: a relative position, size, and/or shape of the eyes, nose, cheekbones, and/or jaw of the user in the image of the user
  
  It appears that the person who wrote this patent has no background in actual facial recognition techniques and bases their knowledge on what they have seen in movies. This would be easily circumvented by using even the most introductory academic approach such as Principle Components Analysis.
24. Re:Good facial recognition by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-09-05 11:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Google has learned how to game the system, same as the rest. The entire patent is junk and is expected to be junk. Being novel or innovative is not its purpose. Its purpose is as a defensive weapon, which the summary mentions in passing. The entire point of this piece of idiocy is in-before-Apple. And they succeeded. Now Apple can't claim they "invented" any of this shit and sue them when the iPad 3 does it. (Ok, that's not true. Apple can and probably still will claim they invented it and sue somebody using Android for it, somewhere along the line. This is just a piece of paper that a dumbshit lawyer can understand.)
25. Re:Good facial recognition by Dachannien · 2012-09-05 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that enablement is a requirement based on the entire disclosure. The claims indicate what needs to be enabled by the disclosure. Also, enablement doesn't mean that every last detail has to be disclosed - anything already in the prior art, for instance, is assumed to be within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art, and so they don't have to regurgitate some face recognition technique that's well known in the art.
26. Re:Good facial recognition by Black+LED · 2012-09-05 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  Cut out eyes from picture of person's face and hold in front of your face. Blink when required.
  
  These are the low resolution, front facing web cams doing facial recognition. I doubt they will discern one set of eyes from another.
27. Re:Good facial recognition by rtb61 · 2012-09-05 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Incorporating facial recognition in a device that incorporates a camera. Some thing seems decidedly wrong about that whole principle. Camera takes picture of persons face, hmm, have colour printer. Something just quite doesn't make sense about this whole security picture. Why do I get the feeling it's like selling locks with a set of locks picks designed to pick those locks.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
28. Re:Good facial recognition by Botia · 2012-09-05 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  This seriously can't be a patent. It may be time to get rid of software patents entirely. This is rediculous. Does someone have a patent on clicking a button to login? What about pressing enter? How about a finger print or using a password. Maybe we could patent a swipe or a pin. How about a graphical pattern. Or we could patent combinations of those. Maybe patent restrictions on passwords...requiring at least 1 capital leter and one number, or a symbol and at least 8 characters. How about clicking to follow links, or storing text as 16 bit characters.
29. Re:Good facial recognition by sumdumass · 2012-09-05 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  Well, in totally unrelated news, Apple had just received a patent for the same shit but on a phone!
30. Re:Good facial recognition by andydread · 2012-09-05 14:00 · Score: 2
  
  A computer program product - stored on a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium - and comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to:
  
  These "instructions" that are executed...where are they? I don't see any source code in the patent filing or claims. And that is the problem with these software patents. If you file a software patent then disclose the source code as part of the patent that way people skilled in the art can actually implement your invention.
  I also do not see any source code or "instructions" for the "heuristics" in any of Apple's "on a mobile phone" software patents either.
31. Re:Good facial recognition by andydread · 2012-09-05 14:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  THIS ^^
32. Re:Good facial recognition by ganjadude · 2012-09-05 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  who gives a shit about the "method" to do something??? all that matters is what can be done, patenting methods "to do something" to reach a goal is something that they shouldnt allow. I mean should I be allowed to patent "making a circle with a mouse in an app that is used for art" just because that patent isnt open yet? of course not!
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
33. Re:Good facial recognition by mbstone · 2012-09-05 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  Call BS. The output of the facial recognition software is either 1 or 0.
  By your logic you could get separate patents for:
  -- Facial recognition;
  -- Facial recognition that logs on to Windows;
  --Facial recognition that activates the "vend" relay on a Coke machine;
  -- Facial recognition for two people: two Air Force lieutenants smile into the camera, and it launches a Titan II missile (requires 74LS08 "AND" gate).
34. Re:Good facial recognition by labnet · 2012-09-05 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  You're on the money. The new art in patents, is to bags the idea but with not enough info to reproduce the item. Patents should come with source code, schematics, mechanical drawings that actually allow the thing to be replicated.
  
  --
  46137
35. Re:Good facial recognition by mangu · 2012-09-05 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sneeze expressions and orgasm expressions are identical.
  Still a security risk. There are women who fake orgasms all the time.
36. Re:Good facial recognition by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-09-05 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  but to get to root, you have to do a full sneeze. and I can't always do that on command.
  Get the nose hair plucking app.
37. Re:Good facial recognition by coinreturn · 2012-09-06 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Allow me to summarize. Apple obvious patent - bad; Google obvious patent - good.
38. Re:Good facial recognition by samkass · 2012-09-06 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Good facial recognition has existed for several years now. Using that tech for authentication is obvious. Patents continue to suck.
  You know what sucks even more? When articles claim company C patented simplistic thing Y, when they actually patented a combination of X-Y-Z that needs to be done together to infringe. If you see an article about how some company got a patent on some common thing, it's almost certainly lazy journalism... read the actual patent before getting up-in-arms.
  In this case, Google patented a method for detecting a change in who is using a device by facial recognition and responding to it by switching to the other user's account and GUI setup. Which sounds really annoying and unwanted to me; I doubt it'll ever reach an actual product. But it's not a patent on facial recognition-as-unlock as is claimed in TFA.
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
39. Re:Good facial recognition by Archangel+Michael · 2012-09-06 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, it was fair warning :-D Muahahahaha
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
40. Re:Good facial recognition by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-09-06 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  If I gave that impression, it was mostly unintentional. I'm in the Abolish Patents camp, personally. I believe patents have never once succeeded at their stated goal and have always been a detriment to engineering progress and the economy in general. My disparaging remark about lawyers was perhaps a hint. Patents are for the benefit of lawyers and no one else, and lawyers involved in patents are nothing but economic friction. Pure waste.
  That said, Apple patent--bad, obvious or not. Google patent--indifferent, given their track record. That may change in the future, but historically, Google patents don't concern me or anyone else in the tech sector.
41. Re:Good facial recognition by coinreturn · 2012-09-06 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  ...but historically, Google patents don't concern me or anyone else in the tech sector.
  Nice to know you speak for everyone in the tech sector.
My lenovo laptop by sgent · 2012-09-05 07:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.
1. Re:My lenovo laptop by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Patent Violation!
  Time to Pay THE GOOGLE
2. Re:My lenovo laptop by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2012-09-05 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  I have seen this on Lenovo laptops as well. Going back 3 or 4 years.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
3. Re:My lenovo laptop by bws111 · 2012-09-05 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Lenovo has had it for longer than that. The IdeaPad my daughter got when she graduated in 2008 had it.
4. Re:My lenovo laptop by matt007 · 2012-09-05 07:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yep I also have a Lenovo since more than a year, it was delivered with VeriFace pre-installed.
  This shit is a bit slow to load however, Faster to just type the password...
5. Re:My lenovo laptop by Scragglykat · 2012-09-05 08:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Prior art is too confusing and will only slow everyone down, therefore you must throw it out!
6. Re:My lenovo laptop by h4rr4r · 2012-09-05 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  This is not true, this is a complete falsehood.
  You are either ignorant or a lier
  .
  First to FIle only even comes into play when two inventors claim to have both invented the same item at around the same time. It has no impact on prior art.
7. Re:My lenovo laptop by Desler · 2012-09-05 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you're a moron. First-to-file does not eliminate prior art invalidating a filed patent. The very act you claim got rid of prior art actually expanded the definition of what can be considered prior art for determining patentability. But that would have required you to know what you were talking about rather than repeating nonsense. It even allows foreign, third party use to be used as prior art against a patent.
8. Re:My lenovo laptop by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 09:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Everyone seems to have a laptop that did this several years ago for one person to log in. As I read the google patent, this is for multiple people who use the same device.
  On my old dell laptop, it recognizes my face and logs me in, no problem. When my wife sits down in front of that laptop, though... I am still logged in and she can view my, um, facebook relationships, browsing for a hookup history, gambling history, online dating site history ... you get the idea.
  What this patent does is deny access to one users resources when another is sitting in front of the computer. So when my wife sits in front of my laptop, she gets to see her facebook relationships, browsing for a hookup history, gambling history, online dating site history, WITHOUT ANY ACTION ON MY PART. That is what google is claiming is unique to their patent.
9. Re:My lenovo laptop by icebike · 2012-09-05 09:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.
  But you forgot Claim #9:
  
  9. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device includes a phone.
  
  Further, the pictures may be stored elsewhere (on the network or in your google account for example). So you buy new android phone, and hold it in front of your face and it automatically logs you into your account, using a comparison against photos the phone doesn't actually contain.
  Or you borrow a phone, the owner of which has unlocked it for you, and you go thru the face-unlock (again) and for the duration of that login it is your phone with your account on it. (claim 1 and Claim 20)
  Further, fall back methods are specified in case the images don't compare, or the environment is not conducive to photos (dark).
  Google cited many if not all of the relevant patents in this field. Then they added claim 9, and claim 20, which both specify a phone.
  Its a narrow patent (not that you would ever learn that from the Slashdot summary), that applies to phones and has the added wrinkle of allowing off-device storage of the comparison set of photos which are used to make a 3d model of your face).
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
10. Re:My lenovo laptop by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-09-05 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Could you fool it with a photo?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
11. Re:My lenovo laptop by danomac · 2012-09-05 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just Lenovo. I've seen Asus laptops that have this too, the first one I saw was about 3 years ago.
12. Re:My lenovo laptop by arth1 · 2012-09-05 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Could you fool it with a photo?
  No, but a Guy Fawkes mask will let you straight in.
13. Re:My lenovo laptop by bmuon · 2012-09-05 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  How is that not obvious even under the understanding of obviousness by the USPTO?
14. Re:My lenovo laptop by Hellmark · 2012-09-10 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  So, the person to create is only the latest to claim it as their own? If so, then I now can patent a website that allows you to enter text into a box, and then see a list of web pages that are someway related to the given text.
Insert "How long until Apple sues" comment here by theillien · 2012-09-05 07:54 · Score: 2

And before any literalists jump down my throat asking why they'd sue if they don't have the patent or some nonsense like that, I know.
Not yet by Hentes · 2012-09-05 07:55 · Score: 1

I'm guessing this is a preemptive patent, which Google may or may not use in the future. Currently, their face recognition software can't even differentiate between human and animal faces, let alone two human ones.
1. Re:Not yet by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-09-05 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  If that's true - it bugs me that a company can patent something they don't even have the ability to produce.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:Not yet by Hentes · 2012-09-05 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that requiring a working prototype would make it impossible for an independent inventor to patent their product before shopping around for investments.
3. Re:Not yet by h4rr4r · 2012-09-05 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I am pretty sure it can tell the difference between two human faces. Face unlock on my Galaxy Nexus lets me in, but does not let my girlfriend unlock the phone.
  I don't use it often, but I tested this when I first got the device.
4. Re:Not yet by hobarrera · 2012-09-05 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Does your girlfriend have a face? Maybe that's why she can't log in.
5. Re:Not yet by h4rr4r · 2012-09-05 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, she is even human.
  You see when a slashdotter gets very old(30+) he has money and confidence so he can suddenly do very well with the ladies.
6. Re:Not yet by h4rr4r · 2012-09-05 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  DO NOT USE CHLOROFORM.
  Use ether, chloroform overdose is very possible with a rag based application method and will lead to cardiac arrest. For the sake of your future bride use ether!
Doesn't work unless... by PhantomHarlock · 2012-09-05 07:55 · Score: 3, Informative

...you do it with a stereo camera and verify that it's the person in person and not a photo of that person. There have been previous articles here showing that the technology has been broken using that method, simply holding up a photo of that person to the camera.
1. Re:Doesn't work unless... by fabioalcor · 2012-09-05 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  A simpler solution is to verify if the image has slightly alterations over time, or to require that the person to blink or do any other thing.
2. Re:Doesn't work unless... by froggymana · 2012-09-05 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  A simpler solution is to verify if the image has slightly alterations over time, or to require that the person to blink or do any other thing.
  If it is just looking for random variances in the face all you need to do now is video tape the person and play it back on your laptop or iPad in front of the camera.
  
  --
  "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
3. Re:Doesn't work unless... by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-09-05 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  and not a photo of that person
  Y'know, most webcams are sensitive into the IR. If they could filter out the visible, perhaps a heatmap could be built to recognize a living face.
  Use some sort of liquid crystal that's opaque to IR or transmissive of IR and opaque to visible light instead of the permanent filters typically used today.
  </priorartbitches>
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re:Doesn't work unless... by fph+il+quozientatore · 2012-09-05 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  I always knew my Bill Clinton mask would come in handy. I shouldn't have thrown it away immediately after the bank robbery.
  
  --
  My first program:
  Hell Segmentation fault
5. Re:Doesn't work unless... by FleaPlus · 2012-09-05 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  A simpler solution is to verify if the image has slightly alterations over time, or to require that the person to blink or do any other thing.
  Android 4.1 (Jellybean) has a "liveness check" which requires an eyeblink to unlock:
  http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/06/29/jelly-beans-face-unlock-asks-you-to-blink-for-the-camera-locks-out-after-several-failed-attempts/
6. Re:Doesn't work unless... by swillden · 2012-09-05 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why cant the software detect movement of the face
  It does, if you turn that feature on. It requires you to blink.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
7. Re:Doesn't work unless... by icebraining · 2012-09-05 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  The IR wavelengths that webcams can detect are not the same at which our bodies emit; the object needs to be at least at 280 degrees Celsius (536F) to be possibly detected by regular camera sensors.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
8. Re:Doesn't work unless... by tooyoung · 2012-09-05 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't work unless you do it with a stereo camera and verify that it's the person in person and not a photo of that person.
  
  I assume you didn't read the patent...
  
  7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a plurality of two-dimensional images of the first user via the camera, the plurality of two-dimensional images being taken from a plurality of different perspectives relative to the user's face, wherein the plurality of two-dimensional images, in combination, provide three-dimensional information about thee user's face; and determining the identity of the first user based on the three-dimensional information about the user's face provided by the plurality of received two-dimensional images.
  
  Well, insightful none the less!
What are the safeguards? by sconeu · 2012-09-05 07:55 · Score: 1

What's to prevent J. Random Hacker, or Ima Crookedcop from showing it a photo of my face, and thereby gaining access?

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
1. Re:What are the safeguards? by locopuyo · 2012-09-05 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  If it uses an infrared projector and camera (like kinect) that wouldn't work.
  Joe would have to get a mask or use your face.
  
  --
  The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
2. Re:What are the safeguards? by pegasustonans · 2012-09-05 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  What's to prevent J. Random Hacker, or Ima Crookedcop from showing it a photo of my face, and thereby gaining access?
  Easy, just use a type-written password.
  
  --
  And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
3. Re:What are the safeguards? by N0Man74 · 2012-09-05 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  Or use your recently severed head? Of course... he could just force you to look at it without severing it, but Joe's an asshole.
4. Re:What are the safeguards? by Psyborgue · 2012-09-05 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  All you would really have to do is trick somebody into a video conference long enough to blink, record the call, and play it back on a tablet. You could also porbably fake the blink using photoshop and some other tools.
Amazing by Dan+East · 2012-09-05 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Only muiltibillion dollar companies like Google and Apple could come up with such original, clever, and non-obvious uses for existing technologies such as this. Facial recognition?? Whoduthunkit? Logging in? Never tried that before, but it sure sounds neat.

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:Amazing by Solandri · 2012-09-05 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is the new reality that Apple has created. No matter how mundane, obvious, or silly an idea is, you have to patent it to protect yourself. If you don't because you think it's obvious, you could be sued by someone who does patent it. And if the jury is headed by someone who is gung-ho about patents, you could lose. In the coming years, I expect to see squares, rectangles, circles, ovals, triangles, etc. all being patented because the ~$10k filing and attorney's fees are a heckuva lot cheaper than fighting a patent lawsuit.
  
  Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
2. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  This is the new reality that Apple has created. No matter how mundane, obvious, or silly an idea is, you have to patent it to protect yourself.
  Apple? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
  Yeah - I'm sure IBM who patents almost 25 patents _PER DAY_ had nothing to do with this at all.
3. Re:Amazing by Dupple · 2012-09-05 08:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is the new reality that Apple has created.
  
  I think Nokia got $600 million from Apple for some fairly 'obvious' stuff, before Apple started suing for 'obvious' stuff.
  Not that it matters who started it really, the Patent system needs some serious reform and hopefully all these law suits will draw some scrutiny on the process.
  If that's a world where scrutiny is bought to system that doesn't work properly then I don't care who made that world. I'm just happy that they did.
  
  --
  Watch those corners
4. Re:Amazing by sootman · 2012-09-05 08:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Rocketing up to +5 with an anti-Apple post, I see, but this kind of stupidity in patent-land has been going on a long time. I mean, come on--Slashdot has had a knife-fork-spoon icon for "patents" for quite some time, and for a reason. 1-click purchasing, anyone?
  October 1999: Amazon.com Receives Patent for 1-Click Shopping
  May 2006: Amazon One-Click Patent to be Re-Examined
  October 2007: USPTO Rejects Amazon's One-Click Patent
  November 2007: Amazon Sneaks One-Click Past the Patent System
  March 2010: Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed ... to trot out just one example.
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
5. Re:Amazing by tlhIngan · 2012-09-05 09:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Rocketing up to +5 with an anti-Apple post, I see, but this kind of stupidity in patent-land has been going on a long time. I mean, come on--Slashdot has had a knife-fork-spoon icon for "patents" for quite some time, and for a reason. 1-click purchasing, anyone?
  That's 21st century. This patent nonsense has been around since the 19th. It's not new. Just new to high-tech. In the 19th century it was patent fights over stuff like telephones, internal combustion engines (in particular, the 4-stroke cycle), 20th century had others, and so on. And heck, the car keeps generating patents as well - hybrid vehicles - between Toyota and Ford, they've got it pretty much all locked up (Toyota and Ford only cross licensed because they ended up suing each other over hybrid vehicles).
  Also, I don't think the "non-practicing entity" lawsuits (aka patent trolls) are a new concept either.
  Interestingly, some patents are long lived - intermittent windshield wipers had a lawsuit that started in the mid-50's and only ended up resolved in the early 80s, well after the patent expired.
  Everything old is new again.
6. Re:Amazing by Wovel · 2012-09-05 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Silly patents have existed for quite some time. Blaming Apple is absurd and ignorant.
7. Re:Amazing by LordLucless · 2012-09-05 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  And how many companies has IBM sued for billions of dollars after getting their products pre-emptively banned from sale? It's not Apple's patenting stupid stuff that's causing this, it's Apple's use of their patents on stupid stuff to screw the competition that's causing it.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
8. Re:Amazing by brantondaveperson · 2012-09-05 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes that's true. One can't blame apple for creating the broken system. One can, however, condemn apple for participating aggressively in patent wars and - for instance - attempting to remove Samsung from the market by force.
  Apple could, for instance, publicly state that they are no longer going to start patent wars, and are instead going to allow their products to live or die based on their merits. They were certainly doing perfectly well before they decided to sue Samsung, and would probably have continued to do well. Perhaps they're worried that they're run out of ideas?
Cease and desist by puddingebola · 2012-09-05 07:59 · Score: 5, Funny

This story has been posted in violation of my patent 9336.121.354 (European Union patent 983123.4120.123.31234.412), patent on the posting of information on patents using patented or nonpatented electronic devices. I will settle for the sum of $54.24 or a used Samsung Galaxy SII. Also, please see my earlier post regarding your violation of patent regarding the posting of stories over the Web regarding patents.
1. Re:Cease and desist by Soulskill · 2012-09-05 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  This comment has been posted in violation of Slashdot Patent 2019.42.1337, "System and Method For Acquiring Humor-Induced Positive Moderations On an Internet Comment." For a nominal fee of approximately $54.24, we will gladly license the technology for limited personal use.
2. Re:Cease and desist by puddingebola · 2012-09-05 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  I regret to inform you that your patent, Slashdot Patent 2019.42.1337, was superceded by my own patent 1446.32.5412, filed September 2, 1996, "Instantaneous Moderation of all my comments to Maximum Rating." I will however forego all Slashdot's current intellectual policy violations in exchange for a settlement of one used Commodore 64 (with working disk drive) and a large cheese pizza (not Totino's) please.
3. Re:Cease and desist by danomac · 2012-09-05 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Jeez, why would you settle for a used Galaxy SII? Get a new Galaxy S3 at least!
Hmmm ... by gstoddart · 2012-09-05 08:00 · Score: 2

I'm sure I've seen a TV commercial for this. The kid is trying to open his dad's phone, and dad walks down the stairs and picks up the phone and it unlocks for him.
Wish I could remember who did this, but it seems like it's already in production by someone.
Heck, my XBox can sign me in based on the facial recognition. Just stand there and wave, and it knows which player I am.
This doesn't really sound like it is a novel idea, just a specific solution to something people have either been doing, or talking about doing, for quite some time.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Hmmm ... by Tr3vin · 2012-09-05 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  That commercial was in fact for an Android phone, the Galaxy Nexus. It was showing off a feature that was added in version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). Allowing for multiple users seems like the next logical step, especially for devices that are more likely to be shared by families, such as tablets.
FAIL by heli_flyer · 2012-09-05 08:00 · Score: 1

1. Find person on Facebook 2. Print out their picture on color printer 3. Use picture to login to their account
I have prior art by hawguy · 2012-09-05 08:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.
When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.
Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?
1. Re:I have prior art by gstoddart · 2012-09-05 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?
  Well, I will flippantly throw out that a lot of us have been saying for years that the patent system has become "A system for doing something obvious, but with a computer".
  There are a lot of things which are directly analogous to real world examples of things, but magically putting "on a computer" changes all of that. And they keep granting the patents.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
2. Re:I have prior art by Theaetetus · 2012-09-05 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.
  When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.
  I'm pretty sure your mom didn't teach you to provide a prompt to the person at the door who could then answer yes, and you'd let them in. Sometimes it helps to actually follow the link in the article and read the claims, rather than just immediately crying "I have prior art" based on the title.
3. Re:I have prior art by girlintraining · 2012-09-05 08:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?
  You misunderstand patents; It's not what the apparatus does that's patentable, it's how it does it. There are a few other conditions as well; However it goes about its business has to be in a non-trivial, non-obvious fashion. In other words, if it took 20 electrical engineers to build the device, if I take 20 electrical engineers and tell them what the device does, they shouldn't come back with a nearly identical device; If they do, then no matter how complex it is, it shouldn't be patentable.
  At least, that's the theory. In practice... Patents in the United States and most other countries are simply rubber-stamped and then the validity of the patent is contested in costly legal battles.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
4. Re:I have prior art by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-05 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  You misunderstand patents;
  No, he understands correctly. The patent is "unlock a computer using facial recognition". It does not describe a system of face recognition or a computer security model. It smiply says that you can plug these things together.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
5. Re:I have prior art by hawguy · 2012-09-05 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.
  When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.
  I'm pretty sure your mom didn't teach you to provide a prompt to the person at the door who could then answer yes, and you'd let them in. Sometimes it helps to actually follow the link in the article and read the claims, rather than just immediately crying "I have prior art" based on the title.
  Actually, I made my claim based on the abstract:
  
  A method of logging a first user in to an computing device includes receiving a an image of the first user via a camera operably coupled with the computing device and determining an identity of the first user based on the received image. If the determined identity matches a predetermined identity, then, based at least on the identity of the first user matching the predetermined identity, the first user is logged in to the computing device.
  How is this notably different than a child determining whether or not to open the door after looking to see who it is? What is so unique about a computer that makes this worthy of a patent? Because their claims include using some (unspecified) facial recognition technique that looks at facial features? (isn't that an obvious part of facial recognition)? Because they fall back on normal password authentication if facial recognition doesn't match a face? Because they grant different access based on who it is? Kind of like telling the child: "Johnny, if the bill collector comes to the door, slide this envelope out the door, if it's Uncle Bill, let him in"
6. Re:I have prior art by Theaetetus · 2012-09-05 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.
  When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.
  I'm pretty sure your mom didn't teach you to provide a prompt to the person at the door who could then answer yes, and you'd let them in. Sometimes it helps to actually follow the link in the article and read the claims, rather than just immediately crying "I have prior art" based on the title.
  Actually, I made my claim based on the abstract:
  Ah, gotcha. The abstract has no legal weight. It's just there to make quick searches of patents easier. You have to look at the claims which require that prompting step.
7. Re:I have prior art by Wovel · 2012-09-05 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. This patent does not specify a method of recognition. It is a basic "with a computer","with a mobile device" patent.
8. Re:I have prior art by girlintraining · 2012-09-05 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, he understands correctly. The patent is "unlock a computer using facial recognition". It does not describe a system of face recognition or a computer security model. It smiply says that you can plug these things together.
  The 17,000 word filing indicates otherwise. It does describe a security model, and I quote "If the determined identity match does not match a predetermined identity, then requiring the first user to enter first alphanumeric information that matches first predetermined alphanumeric information as a condition for logging the first user on to the computing device. Then, if the determined identity match does match a predetermined identity, one or more gestures in a touch sensitive area of a computing device can be received."
  So no, I reiterate: You, and now the other poster as well, do not understand patents. They do describe a specific process. Actually, they describe a great many processes, in an attempt to cover every conceivable method of implimenting it. But then, that's how patents these days work: Because the Patent Office doesn't do its job, the courts have to, with inconsistent and often tragic results.
  Vague and overbearing patents have become legally popular these past few years, in an attempt to achieve what you claim has been true since time immortal: Patenting the 'what' instead of the 'how'. That may be the trend, but that is now how the patent system was envisioned, nor how it started. You are still wrong, however: It isn't how patents are supposed to work, nor historically how they have worked, and if the system hadn't been so badly corrupted recently by questionable laws and equally questionable judges and judgements, it wouldn't be happening now either. Patents are supposed to only be granted to an inventor who demonstrates a truly novel method of accomplishing something. The system was designed in the 1700s, when industrialization was still in its infancy. It has adapted quite poorly to the information age.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
9. Re:I have prior art by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-05 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  The 17,000 word filing indicates otherwise.
  Really? There's a post above where I analysed the entire patent filing.
  It does describe a security model, and I quote...
  That describes a username/password to log in, or a username followed by some other authentication method (e.g. swipes).
  Plenty of systems with a variety of security models (e.g. Windows with what ever it does or Linux+PAM). It doesn't describe any kind of model. It just says to fallback to a username/password (already in existence) or username/other auth (already in existence).
  So no, I reiterate: You, and now the other poster as well, do not understand patents.
  I understand what patents are meant to do, in theory. In practice, they do not and this is a perfect example.
  They do describe a specific process.
  Again, it describes no process. It just says "do facial recognition and if it doesn't work do something else". There are meny processes for how to do those, as demonstrated by the many systems that support multiple authentication systems. It does not describe any particular process.
  But then, that's how patents these days work: Because the Patent Office doesn't do its job, the courts have to, with inconsistent and often tragic results.
  I think we may be in violent agreement here...
  The system was designed in the 1700s, when industrialization was still in its infancy. It has adapted quite poorly to the information age.
  No, it's been chugginug along same as always. It's just that "yeah but on a steam engine" transformed to "yeah but on a computer", then on the internet, then on a phone.
  For example, someone patented the idea of a crank "but on a steam engine!" which is why Watt switched to sun and planet gears until the patnet expired, at which point he switched back to using a crank.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
10. Re:I have prior art by girlintraining · 2012-09-05 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh. You're one of those kinds of slashdot posters. I'll just keep replying with the same thing, since that's pretty much all you're doing now.
  Last word Post!
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
11. Re:I have prior art by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-05 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh. You're one of those kinds of slashdot posters. I'll just keep replying with the same thing, since that's pretty much all you're doing now.
  Honestly, I don't follow. I thought we were having some kind of discussion where we don't agree on every point.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Get your masks. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 08:01 · Score: 1

Everybody get your masks ready, or your favorite movie character photo ready.
Darth Vader is mine so hands off.
Google to Apple by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-09-05 08:06 · Score: 1

"So suck it." ...?

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
1. Re:Google to Apple by Wovel · 2012-09-05 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think Apple was ever interested in this "feature".
Eye for an eye. by metrometro · 2012-09-05 08:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Lemme see if I get this: Google has a patent on face recognition to access a device, but Apple is seeking a patent on face recognition to do anything useful on the device. Both of which are for concepts that are so obvious I can understand it without RTFA.
So we either have a de facto OS monopoly (via interlocking licensing), or no product at all. Innovation!
Really? by gman003 · 2012-09-05 08:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

My Asus M50vm had that ability, back in '08, '09, one of those years.
It sucked, of course, but "working commercially-available implementation" should be hell of prior art.
Dell TOO by raymansean · 2012-09-05 08:14 · Score: 1

TL:DR the patent. However, Dell (a leader in innovation) has had facial recognition to log on to a user account for at least 2 years now, as my studio XPS 16 has the ability to do so.

--
insert inflammatory comment here!
Not prior art by phorm · 2012-09-05 08:22 · Score: 1

Now if you did that with an electronic device, it might be prior art. But there are plenty of things that a human can do that aren't intuitive/obvious with a computer.
That being said, even on an "electronic device" it seems that prior art has been around for quite awhile.
My Asus laptop has a "face unlock" feature, and it was purchased in earlier 2011 (patent is September 28, 2011). I'm fairly sure such features existed on devices long before my laptop had it as well.
Facial hair? by slapout · 2012-09-05 08:29 · Score: 1

So if I don't shave my face for a few days, I can't log in?

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
1. Re:Facial hair? by Archangel+Michael · 2012-09-05 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's nothing. I have a beard, and my dog can log into my computer!
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
2. Re:Facial hair? by AmeerCB · 2012-09-05 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  I realize you're probably saying this as a joke, but I can face-unlock all of my brother's android devices and we don't like particularly similar as far as brothers go...
3. Re:Facial hair? by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-05 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  So if I don't shave my face for a few days, I can't log in?
  No see, because they specified that you can provide your username and password in that case.
  Clearly that's not obvious^W^Wnot implemented before^W^W^Wpatentable.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
4. Re:Facial hair? by Tastecicles · 2012-09-05 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  decent facial recognition relies on bone structure rather than skin texture.
  Ergo, face fur shouldn't affect it.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
5. Re:Facial hair? by larry+bagina · 2012-09-05 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Next up: a patent on a cell phone with built in x-ray camera.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
And Alienware by goldcd · 2012-09-05 08:37 · Score: 1

although it's about as useful as the Android version..
Alienware is still there, but only as it occasionally manages to beat me typing in the password (I gave up even trying to wave myself at the camera solely)
Android is pretty much as useful. "OOh new feature" *few attempts* - and back to pattern unlock.
Face unlock useless in many contexts by Pausanias · 2012-09-05 08:43 · Score: 1

7 year old: (grabs phone off the kitchen counter) "Hey Daddy!"
Me (slicing raw pork): "Yes?"
7 year old: (phone unlocked, Runs off to play angry birds on it)
potential for injuries & other mischief by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-05 08:44 · Score: 1

I will not dispute that biometrics shall play an enormous role in our future; however, I fear more someone stealing my face (or entire head) than my password or other un-appended credentials. I'm just not up for reconstructive surgery every time a hacker gets overly determined. So, I may just continue using pass'words' until a sense of well-being becomes part of the facial authentication protocol. I can imagine things getting kind of spooky in places like Liberia, especially if a particular face is in high demand.

On a serious note, required proof of 'no duress' could be an interesting addition to multi-factor authentication. Biometrics - in capacity - are already there, but hardware lags, a bit.

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
1. Re:potential for injuries & other mischief by mjr167 · 2012-09-05 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  When my husband worked at a nuclear power plant they used biometrics and a pin number. In addition to their regular pin, everyone had a "duress" pin. The thoery was if you were being forced to open the door you would enter the duress pin and the door would open, but also notify security.
2. Re:potential for injuries & other mischief by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-09-05 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  We've had finger/palm/retinal scanners for a while now. I haven't heard of any rash of theft. That said what's to stop someone from taking your photo and holding it up to the device?
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
3. Re:potential for injuries & other mischief by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-09-05 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's actually far more clever than I would have expected from such an industry.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
4. Re:potential for injuries & other mischief by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-05 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  There was a fair amount of sarcasm in my comment. I was primarily poking at the idea that when our credentials become attached to our bodies, hacking may take on a different meaning. That's all, ...that and my general aversion to biometrics.
  
  --
  Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
5. Re:potential for injuries & other mischief by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-05 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  They do have some pretty tight security at nuclear facilities. I remember stories of traveling only on designated color-coded lines, from which if deviated from would result in termination of employment. If an ID tag did not match the color beneath someone, they were in trouble. Also, engaging one on a different color was forbidden. Don't know if it's true, but I suspect it is.
  
  Thanks for the reply; I find such procedures interesting. With looming technologies like FAST, such "duress" pins may soon be obsolete - if they aren't already. Yet, I suppose they might always serve as a backup too.
  
  --
  Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
6. Re:potential for injuries & other mischief by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-05 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  "what's to stop someone from taking your photo and holding it up to the device?"
  While it seems some scanners can actually be fooled with exceptionally high quality images, I doubt this weakness will persist for long. Biometrics is evolving with great speed. Pictures certainly don't generate much heat, at least not adequately similar to a person; and they have neither pulse or motion. Maybe pay attention to newer consumer hardware and see if it doesn't evolve in some accordance with biometric demand. Like I said, the software and hardware is available; from here on, it's only a matter of synchronizing and implementing them. I doubt there is much time between now and when biometrics simply can't be fooled by anyone but the best. But maybe I'm a pessimist ;)
  Sorry I didn't answer your question the first round; it's been an unusual day.
  
  --
  Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Re:Samsung Gallaxy S III? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-09-05 09:04 · Score: 1

Uhm. The S III is an "Android" (Google's OS) phone

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Not only facial by danhaas · 2012-09-05 09:07 · Score: 1

The patent claim includes any image generated by the user, not only facial images.
I wonder how many people already use, um, other body parts to unlock devices.
1. Re:Not only facial by Tastecicles · 2012-09-05 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Biometrics rely on parts of the anatomy that don't change (very much if at all) such as fingerprints, facial features, body proportions, palm prints, retina patterns... so pretty much any part of an adults body can theoretically be used for authentication.
  Reminds me of a skit in Family Guy (I forget the episode) where the guys were breaking into a safe in Carter Pewterschmidt's mansion...
  Quagmire: "I got this one, guys."
  Computer: "Penile recognition confirmed."
  Peter Griffin: "Oh, nice one Quagmire, how did you know that'd fit?"
  Quagmire: "It didn't. I just shoved it in there and broke it."
  I'm waiting for the new season of Ellen (unless they do it on Ally McBeal first) where the titular character is required to unlock a vault with a clit print.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Not a patent attorney... by OldSport · 2012-09-05 09:43 · Score: 1

but I have worked in intellectual property for quite some time, and have seen many patents on both facial recognition and using biometrics to authenticate computer sessions. I would be really curious to see the paperwork with the USPTO from filing to allowance – I have a hard time believing that this isn't something that a person of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at by combining some sort of existing facial recognition technique with an existing biometric authentication technique, so it would be interesting to see what was going on inside the examiner's head.
1. Re:Not a patent attorney... by EmagGeek · 2012-09-05 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  " I would be really curious to see the paperwork with the USPTO from filing to allowance"
  What is stopping you?
2. Re:Not a patent attorney... by OldSport · 2012-09-05 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Are office actions and all the related documentation publicized? I didn't know that.
Face-Time and a half. by Ostracus · 2012-09-05 10:05 · Score: 1

Google Awarded Face-To-Unlock Patent
How does it deal with ugly people?

--
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
prior art by Tastecicles · 2012-09-05 13:56 · Score: 1

My Windows 7 laptop has face recognition login capability which it's had since I bought it. Not that I've used it, I find it faster to type in a passphrase before the thing even gets as far as a login screen.

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Shenanigans by kvnslash · 2012-09-05 14:15 · Score: 1

I am officially calling out the patent system, shenanigans!
Not recommended... by Chysn · 2012-09-05 15:02 · Score: 1

...for those of us with evil twins.

--
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
2008 cigarette machine art? by mattr · 2012-09-05 16:14 · Score: 1

patents tl;dr. I wonder if it conflicts with the Japanese cigarette vending machines that use facial recognition?
From 4 years ago..
http://pinktentacle.com/2008/06/magazine-photos-fool-age-verification-cameras/
Of course researcher is Japanese or Japanese American so that is unlikely but.
Stupid patent... by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-09-05 20:44 · Score: 1

But good. Google will need to play the game to beat Apple. This is of course an obvious patent combining many existing technologies, it isn't a new idea, but who cares - fuck Apple.
Source code by mangu · 2012-09-05 22:49 · Score: 1

Patents should come with source code
Exactly! And I would add copyrights to that. If it gets the benefit of being protected by the law, it should become public property when the protection expires.
Software patents without source code and copyrighted binary files defeat the purpose of intellectual property, which is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"