Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Glass Will Identify People By Clothing

Posted by Soulskill on from the nudity-is-anonymity dept.

recoiledsnake writes "This article notes, 'A new technology built into Google Glass, dug up by New Scientist, takes Google Glass from interesting to down right creepy. Google Glass can now pick a person out of crowd based on their fashion style. The system, InSight, developed in partnership with Google, will take a nice little moment to assess the clothing in frame, and then point out exactly where your friends are in busy settings like a bar, concert, or sporting event. It could probably point you out in a protest, or shopping mall too.' We previously discussed the disorienting effects on the wearer of the device."

68 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Goodbye Anonymity by invid · · Score: 2

    Lets face it, very soon everyone is going to know where everyone else is all the time. Unless you wear some sort of Scanner Darkly blur suit.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    1. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      At least Google will. I wonder how long until they gain the ability to determine how close your friends are to you, and who's offended by what. Then: automated blackmail. "User invid, it looks like you haven't cleared friend google to remove 15 future credits from your account this month, would you like your browser history from the date of July 10th, 2017 forwarded to your mother?"

    2. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      So we'll not only have to undergo Alpha Legion cosmetic surgery, but also all dress the same?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by Jamu · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not going to work on me. I don't have any fashion style.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    4. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by detritus. · · Score: 1

      And I can't hit a guy with glasses when he continues to stare at me. We're screwed.

    5. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by F9rDT3ZE · · Score: 4, Interesting

      i hear from acquaintances who work in Google that the algorithms they run on emails do something much like this. among other things, they know when you are thinking of taking another job almost before you do. word is, among the things you must not say on the phone inside the pure-freedom, do-no-evil world of Google, is "let's take this offline" or anything else indicating you don't want to talk about something on the phone, since that's an instant tip that you want to say something unsurveilled. coming soon to our entire society!

    6. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by Molochi · · Score: 1

      I am Alpharius.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    7. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a feeling these things are going to be relying heavily on Google's cloud storage services. I also have a feeling that black market short-range pocket-sized mobile phone frequency jammers are going to become a hot commodity. :)

    8. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      And I can't hit a guy with glasses when he continues to stare at me. We're screwed.

      Just don't hit him in the face. Kneecapping works wonders.

    9. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering if Google has a Financial arm/division that makes a lot of money from this sort of thing.

      Being able to figure what a lot of investors/speculators are going to buy/sell can make you a lot of money.

      --
    10. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by F9rDT3ZE · · Score: 1

      obviously you have no reason to believe my testimony, and i'm not going to risk the anonymity of the people who told me this, but they were real google employees. I presume there are many real Google employees on Slashdot and maybe some of them will weigh in, if they feel comfortable doing so. Google's internal philosophy that algorithms solve everything is well-known. So is its investment in a variety of predictive technologies; even reading through the documentation of its cloud-based Prediction API (likely much less extensive than Google's own internal systems) suggests many services that, when applied to the workplace itself rather than interactions with customers/projects, would make this sort of capability not just possible but even likely. Look especially at things like "sentiment analysis" https://developers.google.com/prediction/ https://developers.google.com/prediction/docs/sentiment_analysis Third-party companies sell related technology as well: http://toatech.com/company/ Google (and the CIA, if you want me to play the excited alarmist) have both invested in a company called Recorded Future, apparently a successful purveyor of "predictive analytics": http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/ Recorded future appears to be a real company: https://www.recordedfuture.com/this-is-recorded-future/

    11. Re:Goodbye Anonymity by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      I work at Google, and have no idea where you came up with your claims.

      i hear from acquaintances who work in Google that the algorithms they run on emails do something much like this. among other things, they know when you are thinking of taking another job almost before you do.

      While I cannot disprove that HR is running sentiment analysis, we have company-wide surveys every year that they could use, biannual reviews by co-workers, and quarterly short reviews from managers. All of those probably have much higher signal/noise ratio than rummaging through peoples' email. Also, they type of people who can do that kind of NLP are probably better off working on NLP-related areas that help the company such as Android, Search, or Ads.

      word is, among the things you must not say on the phone inside the pure-freedom, do-no-evil world of Google, is "let's take this offline" or anything else indicating you don't want to talk about something on the phone, since that's an instant tip that you want to say something unsurveilled. coming soon to our entire society!

      This is not at all true. First of all, for internal communications hardly anyone uses phones anymore -- chat, voice chat, and hangouts are a simpler and faster options. The only people frequently on the phone are those talking to external people (sales folks, customer reps, etc). I guess those "calls could be monitored for quality" but that has little to do with the panopticon-like claim you are making.

      Also, in the context of meetings, people say the phrase "let's take this offline" all the time, indicating that they don't want to start some (possibly long) side discussion in a meeting with multiple participants.

  2. so fracking cool by alen · · Score: 4, Funny

    first foursquare told me where all my friends are
    now google tells me who my friends are and i don't have to look at their face

  3. Meh. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    If it can't detect facecrime, I'm just not interested.

  4. so now my friends are like my girlfriend by alen · · Score: 2

    i don't have to look at their faces when i see them

  5. Google Glass feature that no one is talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a great read: http://creativegood.com/blog/the-google-glass-feature-no-one-is-talking-about/

    From the article:

    The Google Glass feature that (almost) no one is talking about is the experience – not of the user, but of everyone other than the user. A tweet by David Yee introduces it well:

    There is a kid wearing Google Glasses at this restaurant which, until just now, used to be my favorite spot.

  6. Doesn't seem that bad by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

    So then the moment you DON'T want it to pick you out, you just change clothes. Why yes, that IS my protest suit, thank you very much.

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  7. The real fun will start... by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...when the malware hits these things.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  8. Re:Great for avoiding, bad for privacy by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the one hand that's great, especially if there's someone in the crowd you'd rather avoid. On the other hand (and in a more serious light), this is just horrible for privacy.

    I really think we need a different word for "people's desire for public interactions to be mostly ephemeral" than "privacy".

    I'm not saying its not an increasingly important concern (a fairly novel one raised by the increased ease of recording, analyzing, storing, and indexing information about public interactions), its just not the same thing as the traditional notion of "privacy", because it largely rests in things that are deliberately exposed publicly.

  9. So why not by face? by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    I thought that the proportion between eyes and all that type of stuff was more pretty accurate. Also faces don't tend to change in a short period of time. Note that I'm not against two or more different methods being used to identify someone.

  10. Already can be creeper sorry creepy by Fencepost · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've seen a bit of mention of this, but not much.

    Anyone remember a furor not too long ago about assorted "creepershot" forums on Reddit? Google Glass will make creepershots trivial - at least now it's (generally) obvious if you're following people around photographing them.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
    1. Re:Already can be creeper sorry creepy by detritus. · · Score: 1

      Imagine future incantations of this that could put an overlay of flesh over clothing simulating everyone you're looking at as being nude in real time.

    2. Re:Already can be creeper sorry creepy by detritus. · · Score: 1

      It's all voodoo.

  11. Re:i want to see by game+kid · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, Google Glass can only augment reality as seen through the glasses; it can't actually place labeled boxes around the wearer or other wearers nearby.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  12. A closet full by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

    So do they think that real life is like cartoons, where people usually wear the same outfit every day?

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  13. Haha by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

    As long as people are either metallers or candy ravers.

    I have a doubt or two about the efficacy of this technology.

  14. Oh well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Forget about identifying Ferengi women, they're not allowed to wear clothing.

  15. Re:It'll never spot me. by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

    Finally, an excuse for me to pull out the old disco era mirror-ball suit! And the matching tin-foil hat accessory.

  16. Do Not Track Fashion Line by esten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do not track option for clothing. Coming soon

  17. Useful by The+Raven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is very useful to me; I often have trouble picking my wife out of a crowd. Mom, who has prosopagnosia (unable to identify faces) will also appreciate it. This kind of task, supplementing human failings, is exactly what we need. Many people don't need it; I'm sure most people will be as good or better than Glass at seeing friends in a crowd. But for those of us who are not? Useful!

    I don't need a calculator to figure out which package of rice is the best-per-pound at the supermarket (when it is not labeled clearly), while my wife does. Should I say calculators are useless or stupid, just because I don't need them for that use case?

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    1. Re:Useful by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      I love the glases too! The algorithm actually works by digitally stripping a person's clothing, and then rapidly making them wear a whole bunch of alternatives, until there's a match with a previous photo. (BTW, if during this process you move your eye in the sequence up,up,down,down,left,right,left,right, you get to watch the whole process happening in debug mode). I've picked your wife out from the crowd several times now, the system works flawlessly!

    2. Re:Useful by Mathness · · Score: 1

      Should I say calculators are useless or stupid, just because I don't need them for that use case?

      Your comparison of the calculator and the Google gadget is flawed, as one is made for a specific purpose (calculator) and the other have additional benefits (which I hope work out for those in needed of them). It would be more prudent to compare the calculators additional purposes. For instance the calculator can be used as a dildo, but like the Google gadget, doing so in public will make you look like a freak.

      The problem is not the gadget in itself, but the way it works and who controls the data, and how it affects everybody around the user whether they like it or not. It is an invasion of peoples lives on a massive scale.

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    3. Re:Useful by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      This is very useful to me too. Now I can finally find out where Waldo was hiding all this time...

  18. Does no one actually read the articles? by tilante · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article explains that the application works like this: you have to start off by IDing your friend to it. It then analyzes the clothing they're wearing and their dimensions. When you want to look for them, it scans for a match, and picks out the person (or what could potentially be the person) for you.

    The article goes on to mention a couple of reasons that they chose to do it this way: one is to protect privacy! By not using facial recognition, they make sure that the app can't easily be pre-loaded with a database of people and look for them all the time. For another, humans are already good at facial recognition. If you can see your friend's face, there's a good chance that you'll recognize them. This, however, helps when you're scanning the crowd and their back might be to you.

    Honestly, it sounds like a good idea to me. Sure, it's going to have problems if you're surrounded by identically-dressed people, but you're not left any worse off by that than you were without it. Since it uses their bodily dimensions as well, it may still be of some use. And I know from times that I've been shopping with my wife and was looking for her that I, personally, have a horrible memory for what people are wearing. If I see her face, sure, I'll recognize her - but I often find myself remembering not the outfit she was wearing today, but the one she was wearing yesterday, or the one she was wearing when I met her for lunch.....

    1. Re:Does no one actually read the articles? by detritus. · · Score: 1

      The article explains that the application works like this: you have to start off by IDing your friend to it. It then analyzes the clothing they're wearing and their dimensions. When you want to look for them, it scans for a match, and picks out the person (or what could potentially be the person) for you.

      I'll need to see the source code to be sure, and this is only the first generation of these glasses.

    2. Re:Does no one actually read the articles? by cjc25 · · Score: 1

      If your friend tells you that, and you still ID them, they will:

      1. Change
      2. No longer be your friend.

    3. Re:Does no one actually read the articles? by Pale+Dot · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The problem is with the second link to the science-ficulation of an obvious Mac fanboy, not the most unbiased source. For the benefit of those with (chiefly mobile) browsers that hide links, here's the naked url of the blog post that puts a negative spin on the largely positive New Scientist article:

      http://www.macgasm.net/2013/03/08/creepier-the-minute-google-glass-will-identify-people-clothing-choices/

      This fashion ID technology sounds less creepy to me than the tracking already being done by the wireless devices you already can't live without.

    4. Re:Does no one actually read the articles? by nazsco · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wrong.

      It works like this: Google makes you scan several of your friends in several outfits and tag them.

      Now Google has a database of, your friends and social circle; your friends faces; your friends cloth shopping habits for direct ad targeting

      And you have nothing because this feature will probably only work 5% of the time

    5. Re:Does no one actually read the articles? by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      It works like this: Google makes you scan several of your friends in several outfits and tag them.

      Now Google has a database of, your friends and social circle; your friends faces; your friends cloth shopping habits for direct ad targeting

      The original sources in the TFA don't agree with you:

      This fingerprint is constructed by a smartphone app which snaps a series of photos of the user as they read web pages, emails or tweets. It then creates a file – called a spatiogram – that captures the spatial distribution of colours, textures and patterns (vertical or horizontal stripes, say) of the clothes they are wearing. This combination of colour, texture and pattern analysis makes someone easier to identify at odd viewing angles or over long distances.

      Usefully, in terms of protecting people's privacy, the fingerprint changes every time you change your clothes, so you can be anonymous again whenever you wish.

      "A person's visual fingerprint is only temporary, say for a day or an evening," says Nelakuditi.

      And you have nothing because this feature will probably only work 5% of the time

      Also from the TFA:

      In early tests using 15 volunteers, the team identified people 93 per cent of the time, even when they had their backs to the headset user.

      I guess it is easier to make stuff up than to read.

  19. It's not part of Project Glass... by Dotnaught · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...It's technology that Google has had a hand in funding. The Project Glass connection is because the researchers used Project Glass as an example in their paper. Google may be able to use the technology, but it has not been included in the Glass software.

    Google Funds Fashion Recognition Research
    http://www.informationweek.com/security/privacy/google-funds-fashion-recognition-researc/240150399

  20. Re:It'll never spot me. by Skapare · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally ... Anonymous Coward revealed!!

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  21. oh boy, now i have by nimbius · · Score: 1

    an excuse to dust off that tank top made solely out of malicious QR codes and porn links.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  22. Re:Great for avoiding, bad for privacy by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    How is this a change? Any camera "could" pick someone out based on face recognition, the difference here is that they use something more coarse than face to find a match. Finding a match is nothing new. Just a tweak to make the find easier from a distance in a crowd, but no new functionality

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  23. Technology is getting smarter, but... by Darth+Twon · · Score: 1

    We're just getting more reliant and stupider.

    --
    Take this sig and smoke it.
  24. Re: you have to start off by IDing your friend... by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    re: you have to start off by IDing your friend to it.
    .
    Ha. I misread your "IDing" as "iDing" ( or more clearly: "I-D-ing" as "i-Ding" ) as if it were a new electronic interactive way to ping or ding somebody. That would really be a cool new thing to trademark and create: iDing which pings and dings someone in real life, and if they're physically close enough to you IRL then you can hear the little submarine "ping" come out of their cell phone! Quick, Robin, off to the App-Mobile (TM, moi) to write this app!!!

  25. Not that far fetched... by jythie · · Score: 2

    Actually, this is not quite as far fetched as it sounds.

    I have partial facial blindness, and over the years I have gotten better at identifying people based off their cloths and hair style. Even when people do not intend it, many people stick to certain colour types and cuts, and it is not unusual to pick people out based off those patterns, or be really confused when they do something out of character. I have never really been sure _what_ the patterns are, but something in the back of my brain has built up some rules that work better then pure chance.

  26. Kinda brings new importance to the question by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 1

    "You wouldn't punch a guy with glasses on would you?"

  27. Re:Great for avoiding, bad for privacy by Immerman · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure. I mean I agree that a dedicated word could help clarify the conversation, but at the root we're still talking about privacy. By rendering your public actions non-ephemeral it makes it possible to composite the data and gain considerable insight into your non-public actions. Anyone who has lived in a really small town has seen the "light" version in action - the pool of available gossip is shallow enough that available data gets shared around and almost everyone knows almost everything about everyone they care to know about. Throw out the "telephone game" lossy data channel and add computer analysis and it promises to be downright scary. Not to mention that long-term retention would mean that long-term snooping could be done retroactively on any "people of interest".

    I think though that David Brin may have been right in his "Transparent Society" essay though: the genie is out of the bottle - recording devices are getting cheaper and more unobtrusive at a phenomenal pace, and long-term there's nothing we can do to deprive opportunistic corporations, oppressive governments, and other "bad guys" of the ability to record and analyze our every move. In which case the battle we should *really* be fighting it to make sure just as many cameras are trained on the folks running the show and that we're free to watch them back.

    Privacy is a fairly recent phenomena for anyone except hermits, and while I personally enjoy it it may not be a sustainable luxury. But if we can't keep it, let's at least make sure its loss doesn't grant an asymmetric power advantage to a select few.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  28. Bounty Hunting App by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't wait to earn free money by wearing by my Google Glass. Collect bounties just by having them turned on. If someone with a warrent is spotted the app will send your location and a photo to the goverment. The app splits the reward with you 50/50. I am sure there will also be an auto census application that gives you money. Turn it on and the application counts the number of people in your location, includes stats on gender and wealth. Free money.

  29. Re:It'll never spot me. by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    For some reason, the captcha that followed that comment made me laugh.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  30. Re:It'll never spot me. by Garridan · · Score: 1

    Sorry, pal. HDR neatly defeats pretty much any such optical tampering.

  31. I know how to foil this evil design. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Declare entire America a nudist colony ;-)

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:I know how to foil this evil design. by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Oh for the love of god don't!
      No kit could survive the sheer onslaught, nay, stampede of ...
      Or at least put filters on YouTube!

      I will have to pour bleach on my eyes to get rid of that particular mental image.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  32. Re:It'll never spot me. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    Foiled again, damn you, High dynamic range imaging! (shakes fist)

    All right, that gaudy suit goes back into storage, for now... There is hope, I just saw a commercial where the cool kid exclaims, "And I hear that Disco's making a comeback!"

    I'll just patiently bide my time...

  33. Fashion ID by Pale+Dot · · Score: 1

    The creepy part of p

  34. Prosopagnosia by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    For people with Prosopagnosia (the inability to identify faces) this bit of technology will be a boon.

  35. You still gets ads even if you have no style by perpenso · · Score: 1

    What if I have no fashion style?

    Then google will target you with ads from vendors offering clothes with no style.

  36. It still works for google's targeted advertising by perpenso · · Score: 1

    It's not going to work on me. I don't have any fashion style.

    It may not work for your friend hoping to recognize you in the crowd but it still works for google and their delivery of targeted ads to you. Unless you are wearing homespun somebody is selling what you are wearing, fashionable of not.

  37. lol by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I've been wearing the same 9 shirts for 2 years at my work and a recent survey has revealed only the women noticed :P

    1. Re:lol by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      I always do my shopping in bulk.
      Yes, ma'am. I like the fit and the pattern. I'll take 20. And about those pants: do you deliver? I'm not sure I can fit them into my car.

      I once was taken shopping during lunch break by one of my female coworkers. For my sins, I reckon. She won't do THAT to me any time soon. I bought 3 shirts, 2 pairs of trousers, new shoes and lotsa socks within 30 minutes. She was struggeling with the decision between two sweaters.

      None of my girlfriends went shopping for clothes with me. Twice.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  38. What if I wear blue jeans, black turtleneck by ikaruga · · Score: 1

    and white sneakers?
    But on a serious note, I'm really curious about the output for people with similar clothes. Specially if you work in Japan, with all these salaryman in black suits or in any hospital with all doctors and nurses using nearly the same outfit(or any workplace that requires an uniform). Artists and celebrities may do their best to use different outfits in front of the cameras, but in the real world there is quite a significant overlap of clothing even between different people.

    1. Re:What if I wear blue jeans, black turtleneck by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      We need this to tell those 'celebs' apart. After a couple of years they have the same face. Starting with the nose.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  39. What exactly... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

    What exactly isn't downright creepy in those Google Glasses?

    1. Re:What exactly... by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      What exactly isn't downright creepy in those Google Glasses?

      A cute bunny wearing Google Glasses?

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  40. sifi clothing by metalmonkey · · Score: 1

    This is the real reason for those jumpsuits common in depictions of the future.
    If everyone looks the same they won't be as easily tracked.

  41. Re:Google Glass feature that no one is talking abo by bfandreas · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking about getting one myself. But wearing it continuously?

    Taking out your smartphone in a restaurant while you are in company is bad style. Taking out your smartphone while in restaurant to photograph your food is bad style.
    Walking around with those glasses is akin to a tourist walking around with their Canon fuck-off photobrick dangling from their neck. Annoying but non-threatening.

    We already have a functioning etiquette for stuff like this. Let's just stick to it.

    That could be one of the first apps for that thing. Process what you see and tell you to take it off!

    Public lavatory.Wang spotted. PLEASE PUT ME AWAY! I DON'T WANT TO SEE EITHER YOUR GENITALS OR THE GUY'S NEXT TO YOU!
    Or the passive-aggressive variant: His is a little bit less crooked and considerably bigger than yours, you know?

    Is that your face? Lucky I live on your nose and don't have to see it all the time.
    Or how about its mother-mode:
    You know you should really wash those dishes.
    I've counted the beers you already had and you may have a bit of a problem
    Watching sports again? There is a nice programme about knitting on the other channel.
    The girl next door is really nice and has always clean laundry.
    You should eat more salad. Urine is only supposed to look that way when you are Mr Spock.

    I might do just that...

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  42. Woah Momma!! by blueboy13 · · Score: 1

    So will it still identify that person if they wore a bandana all the time, but wore nothing but that bandana in the privacy of a home? Hmm., it's experiment time!!

  43. Re:Great for avoiding, bad for privacy by socceroos · · Score: 1

    Yes and no. The user will disappear from visible sight, but this is because Google has entirely removed that person's existence from the fabric of the universe with a flux capacitor.

    The problem then becomes this: Everyone will be racing to block all their friends first so that they can survive. Eventually, the human race will be distilled down to a few individuals that remain after the Great Google+ Block. These users will be then forced outside their circles (since they no longer exist) and will form a new society based on mistrust and knee-jerk reactions. Humanity will be saved.