Slashdot Mirror
Public Facial Recognition Is Making Gains In Surveillance
dryriver writes in with a link to a Times story about the U.S. government's capabilities when it comes to facial recognition. "The federal government is making progress on developing a surveillance system that would pair computers with video cameras to scan crowds and automatically identify people by their faces, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with researchers working on the project. The Department of Homeland Security tested a crowd-scanning project called the Biometric Optical Surveillance System — or BOSS — last fall after two years of government-financed development. Although the system is not ready for use, researchers say they are making significant advances. That alarms privacy advocates, who say that now is the time for the government to establish oversight rules and limits on how it will someday be used. There have been stabs for over a decade at building a system that would help match faces in a crowd with names on a watch list — whether in searching for terrorism suspects at high-profile events like a presidential inaugural parade, looking for criminal fugitives in places like Times Square or identifying card cheats in crowded casinos."
CTU showed this technology like two years ago. Even works on vending machine reflections.
I think the article and DHS are a few years behind the curve on this. See these guys:
http://www.nicta.com.au/media/previous_releases3/2012_media_releases/australian_face_recognition_technology_wins_major_international_ict_award
Also, there are a couple of live systems out there that I've heard about in airports. They could add facial recognition, but mainly they're used for object detection.
It's just a shame that these otherwise bright individuals choose to advance technology for the government in ways that move us ever closer to a police state... But then again, it's going to happen eventually, and what we really need is to stop the government from using it.
So now people will use the material printers to print a random mask before going out.
I bought a Guy Fawkes mask...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I find it so ironic that it's cute and I just want to give it a big cuddle...
That alarms privacy advocates, who say that now is the time for the government to establish oversight rules and limits on how it will someday be used.
Are these privacy advocates aware that the folks who want this most are the government that they are going to ask to curtail the ability to do it? It's like asking the playground bully to ask for permission to steal your lunch money...
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
It is time to start thinking about wearing a hat. Broad brim will cover most of the face as cameras are usually high so they point down on people.
...being in public is one of the final Fucking places we aren't under surveillance. We can't let THAT happen.
whether in searching for terrorism suspects at high-profile events like a presidential inaugural parade, looking for criminal fugitives in places like Times Square or identifying card cheats in crowded casinos
Or just recording where everyone goes and storing it for 5 years in case they need it.
If the government is going to keep taking away constitutional rights then it is time for me to go into public in clothing covering my entire body and with a face mask on and something covering my eyes. I just won't believe there is ANY reason to take away someone's right to privacy on the off chance you might catch one bad person in scanning through 50 million. If that is true then we should put this system into the pentagon and white house, it will find criminals every second of the day.
This article is nothing but propaganda B.S. made to make you think they don't already have this shit deployed.
Now 30% better at facial recognition than the old BOSS.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
William Gibson's writing seems to be coming closer to reality every day. Unfortunately.
Because the technology will be abused. No doubt of it.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
... or to sell any information they have on you to the highest bidder
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Source FOIA document referenced from TFA provides no useful information.
Facial recognition is currently little more than a toy. Sure demos seem to work except in reality there is a huge difference between finding a match to a single face in a crowd and finding matches to a lot of faces in a crowd.
Recognition outcomes get progressivly worse as you add more candidates to the list.
I'm sure with enough time and effort the picture can be improved somewhat however there does not seem to be any actual information to support such an improvement having actually taken place.
BOSS = Bush/Obama Surveillance State
Bill Gates has worked with the NSA to give the Xbox One a primary ability to implement facial recognition on the entire 'crowd' of people present in the same room as the console for EVERY console currently powered and connected to the Kinect spy sensor block. In fairness, the Xbox One merely uses its movement tracking depth sensor and high definition camera to identify each different Human in the room, and sends 'headshot' photos to NSA servers via the cloud connection, so the NSA can attempt to do the facial recognition their end.
Imagine this. Millions of Xbox One consoles will, every day, monitor, record and transmit data to the NSA in an experimental attempt to track as many occupants of as many homes as possible. It is an expansion of NSA spying powers into the one place they never before were able to consistently enter- people's own homes. Of course, the dispersed 'crowd' of people in the vicinity of Microsoft's NSA spy boxes have their unique geographic locations known by the NSA, helping immensely with the ability of the NSA to assign names to faces.
Microsoft had already seeded technical sites with 'plausible deniability' over the issue- namely that Microsoft patents described Xbox One spying of room occupants for the purpose of limiting the number of viewers of a DRM protected video stream, or the purpose of presenting 'targeted' ads to named individuals currently present in the same room. These pre-announced 'commercial' outrages were to be the excuse MS shills would use to explain the pattern of always on spying that researchers and hackers would discover when they examined the operation of actual Xbox One consoles in the home.
Simple tests will show that Kinect is ALWAYS processing data, and that the console consistently sends encrypted data to computers in the cloud. Likewise, tests will show that if disconnected from the Internet for a time, the console streams the same encrypted data to dedicated areas of the included HDD, data that is later uploaded when the connection is restored. How would Microsoft explain this. As I said, their cover story will be the afore mentioned patents describing spying on room occupants for 'commercial' reasons.
If you find the actions of the NSA, Obama administration, and Microsoft to be evil and against the interests of ordinary citizens, then work to ensure Bill Gates gets as little of your business as possible, and if you need to buy a next-gen console, you choose the vastly more powerful (and cheaper) PS4. Also take some time to Google inBloom and the database service they provide intended to spy on every child - a service created by Gates in partnership with Rupert Murdoch (yes, the Fox News guy). Don't do the NSA's work for them, and don't pay to bring NSA spy equipment into your own homes. Ensure your school district rejects Gates' despicable attempt to spy on your children via inBloom.
You know you lost the war when the surveillance isn't subtle anymore.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
Excuse me, I'm gonna huddle in a corner and cry...
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Haven't we had enough of this shit yet? Just because something is technically feasible doesn't mean it's inevitable. If you're an engineer or developer working on this shit then please, do us all a favour and STOP, NOW. And don't give me any shit about having to earn a crust, etc. that just shows your moral compass needs recalibrating.
It increasingly looks like the government, any government, cannot be trusted to oversee itself. Something about computerised toys that makes them completely lose any and all self-restraint. I don't know what to do about it, but if we'd like to have a viable society, to keep one down the road, we can't afford to keep this kind of "governing" around.
This will be one of the first apps on Google Glass. It will be halting and clumsy at first, but it will get better and your view will just auto-pull up names of anybody you look at if you desire.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
After all, wearing a mask of the president might get you accused of racisim.
I think the facial recognition would probably still work on a typical hijab (outfit covering head and chest, but not necessarily the face), maybe you meant burqa or niqab. In any case, if someone questions your wearing of it they get accused of racism instead.
Before all of this ever went down
In another place, another town
You were just a face in the crowd
You were just a face in the crowd
Out in the street walking around
A face in the crowd
Out of a dream, out of the sky
Into my heart, into my life
And you were just a face in the crowd
You were just a face in the crowd
Out in the street, thinking out loud
A face in the crowd
Out of a dream, out of the sky
Into my heart, into my life
And you were just a face in the crowd
You were just a face in the crowd
Out in the street, walking around
A face in the crowd
Face in the crowd
A face in the crowd
A face in the crowd
CTU showed this technology like two years ago. Even works on vending machine reflections.
Yes it is old inconsequential news but that is a feature not a bug. The Times really really really needed a security surveillance state "story" to try and keep itself semi relevant in the eyes of their readers but at the same time not bite the hand that feeds them (i.e. more than a cosy relationship with the goverment).
Negative be making gains anywhere?
What they are making gains on is our tax dollars! It only works if you
1. Stand still.
2. Have a blank look on your face.
3. Don't do anything to change your facial characteristics.
IE, it only works on DHS employees...
Except in France where the wearing of fully obscuring vestments in many public situations has been outlawed in the name of women's rights & public security.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
or identifying card cheats in crowded casinos
Casino card cheat definition: Anyone who is good at cards and causes the house to lose.
Summation 2
... obligatory Hodgetwins reference - bitches.
What if you're at the amusement park and your child gets lost in the crowd and is nowhere to be found? BOSS can help!
What if you have Alzheimer's and you wander off the reservation? BOSS can help!
What if you suspect your hubby is dipping his stinger in some floozie's honeypot and you need to know? BOSS can help!
Can't stand it when you see people you don't recognize? BOSS can help.
What if you're a humble multinational bank that needs to track down deadbeat student loan defaulters? BOSS can help!
What if you is a notorious drug kingpin and you wants the po-po to hunt down your bitterest of rivals fo sho? BOSS can help!
What if you just don't like it when people look a bit "funny" or "suspicious" or "dark"? BOSS. CAN. HELP.
BOSS. Because you have nothing left to hide.
Iris scan technology is good enough to identify people at quite a long distance these days as well. Even a garment with only the eyes exposed won't help.
The fence that will soon surround the US needed another layer. This is probably it.
This, crossrelated with the limitless collection of metadata in the NSA vaults will make it possible to build patterns of 'normal' behaviour and use those to automatically spot anomalies as soon as they happen.
In a few years, if you even try to prepapre organizing an Occupy-Whatever movement you will be stopped before anyone has heard about you.
Once this is in place NO one will be able to switch it off.
Iris scan technology is good enough to identify people at quite a long distance these days as well. Even a garment with only the eyes exposed won't help.
Fine then, burqa + highly reflective sunglasses.
Telling government to stop finding new justifications for spending is like telling walmart to stop assimilating every small town in the country. As long as they benefit (financially) from it, they will continue to do it. No amount of logic or protest will ever stop it.
That is because the people who run the business of government are driven by profit. There is no solution to this, except to limit the scope of government (which, as history shows, is next to impossible).
You are a lonely government employee:
Suppose you see a really hot chick. You see her walk past a camera you know you have access to.
Go back to the office, pull up the photo. Run it against the DMV and get name and address.
Cross it with credit cards, and other camera meta data to locate favorite spots.
Now you can just show up ahead of her and order her favorite drink.
And that guy she was walking with, call 911 to his house (S.W.A.T. him out of the picture)
What could go wrong with thousands of young agents having access to this information?
The German security service tested an older but still good version from Siemens (my employer) years ago, and stopped as soon as they discovered that the "birthday paradox" made it totally unsuitable for large-scale use.
If you scan for one particular person out of thousands in an airline terminal, you get a certain small number of false positives, so it sorta works for that case. If, however, you search for the entire Baader-Meinhoff gang and all the other terrorists of the day in the same terminal, you get an insane number of false positives, because you're doing (N*M)! comparisons, each with a small chance of a false positive.
This is the same thing that causes the "birthday paradox", where you get a 50% probability of two people at a party having the same birthday when you have only 23 people present. One would normally expect it to take 367 people, but you're actually comparing (23 * 22) people, not (1 * 23)...
There has been some good work done with the technology, and the Ontario Privacy Commissioner has successfully used it to identify small numbers of self-selected problem gamblers at casinos, but until the technology literally becomes perfect, it will fail by creating false positives for any N * M problem where both N and M are large.
The German BND took one look at the in-the-large problem and said "No thanks, that will have us arresting my grandma as a Baader-Meinhoff member, and she'd never forgive me".
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
my iphone can do this.
I would say, having had discussions with folks who are funding this kind of work, that they are quite aware of the scalability problems, and the "registration/enrollment" problems. There's a couple factors at work which are obvious to those in the business, but not necessarily to the reporters or public at large..
1) Government agencies spend a fair amount of money on speculative research that never goes anywhere practical. A $50k grant to a university to work on facial recognition algorithms feeds a couple grad students for a year, and it might come up with something useful. In the over all context of millions of dollars/day spent on various operations, this is small potatos (in the noise floor of the overall budget). Just because they're paying for research, and because the super optimistic researchers can come up with potential usage scenarios, does not mean that they're getting ready to roll it out next year nationwide. Abetting the hype is the university technology licensing folks. They see "hmm, 5 billion people in the world who could be indexed, maybe someone will buy the technology from us, and pay us a dollar per user as a royalty. Yeah, lets use that as an estimate"
2) Congress gets involved too. Not just with earmarks ("The DHS shall develop a biometric recognition capability using the Framostat algorithm", when Dr. Framostat happens to be in Congressman Smith's district) but just with the whole "Oooh disaster, *something* must be done." I think that's where a lot of the security theater at airports comes from. Government agency head gets hauled up in front of a subcommittee on the hill and asked "What are YOU doing to prevent a recurrence of shoe bombers?", and they say, "Why Senator, we have instituted new policies and procedures designed to detect shoes, bombs, bombs within shoes, and shoes within bombs. We have 3 research projects in progress to improve shoe bomb detectors. And we are procuring 3 different shoe bomb detectors from the leading companies in the field, which we will install at all airports as soon as possible." What you don't hear in the testimony is the discussion at the office "Ok, all these machines are PoS, but we have to do something, so which ones should we buy"
It is widely acknowledged that if you were to propose, today, a system where peoples' fingerprints are recorded and stored in a national database, it would never get implemented. And fingerprints are pretty unique as a biometric identifier. Unlike all the other ones (iris, retina, finger length, signature motion dynamics, etc.etc.etc) it's stable throughout someone's life (you might lose your fingerprints, but they don't change). The arguing about fingerprints is more about how fast can you do a comparison, how can you compress the database, and what is defined as a "match" on partial fingerprints. Where you are looking at "good" prints and comparing them (say, you've got two fingerprint cards in front of you with complete sets), I doubt there's much argument about the incredibly low false positive/false negative rates. Compress those fingerprints to a 32 or 64 byte "feature space" or try to match a corner of a print on a rear view mirror to one of 100 million prints on file, that's a different matter.
Realistically, what you want in a facial recognition system is "ok" accuracy that you then combine with other data to figure out what you need to know. It is a pipe dream of "detecting terrorists walking into the super bowl".. that's a nice use case, and easy to describe and conceptualize, but unlikely to ever occur in real life: it's too easy to beat, for one thing.
OTOH, "flagging people walking into passport control" is a heck of a lot more practical, and useful. Constrained activity, already a presumption that you're going to be talking to them. It's a potential labor and time saver. Oh, we see John Smith on the passenger list, we see that John Smith's passport was presented at departure, we recognize John Smith's face at the kiosk in the exit ramp, so send him to the "cursory ch
You know, the good old days when the Stasi were the bad guys.
The BOSS man is watching you!
...building a system that would help match faces in a crowd with names on a watch list.
This sentence struck me. This is what shouldn't happen in America. Am I just getting old? Am I just a little tired this morning? I mean, what the fuck?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
...the wearing of masks in public.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
the future of targeted advertising. not enough big nosed people walking by... time to switch the advertisement from plastic schnozz surgery to plastic boob surgery. white and want to be black? tanning bed advertisements! black and want to be white? skin whitening cream!
Whilst it is possible to place a 'snoop' on every street corner, it is costly and impractical. This technology takes away that barrier. What I'm more concerned about is the mis-interpretion of the data.
For example, for a while I used to regularly drive into a known prostitution area of the local town and exit with a young lady in my car.... it just so happened that I was collecting my girlfriend (now wife) from her University evening class. Place this snippet of mis-information into a database, and it could seriously affect my ability to get a government/classified job - and I might not even be given the reason as to why I am being declined, so as I could challenge it.
...and all good people will be spied on for no reason
Praise everybody you're finally getting what you want! Your elected leaders are making good on the promises they made to you during their election campaigns. Aren't you glad we live in a country where we can vote?
Every heard of a TV show called Person Of Interest? It acts like a sci-fi show, but the technology is based on facial recognition. This article suggests it's one step closer to being more "sci" than "fi". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1839578/