Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Public Facial Recognition Is Making Gains In Surveillance

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-see-you dept.

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."

82 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Old News by Oysterville · · Score: 3, Funny

    CTU showed this technology like two years ago. Even works on vending machine reflections.

    1. Re:Old News by rapiddescent · · Score: 4, Informative

      even older news! I saw the anglo-dutch company Logica demonstrate this at a PSV Eindhoven football (soccer) match where it picked a dozen volunteers (who were photo'd before the match) out of the 20,000 strong crowd using the stadiums own crappy cctv footage - this was in the early to mid 2000's. It wasn't perfect but was above 90%.

      Sadly, the UK is way ahead when it comes to CCTV technology.

    2. Re: Old News by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      Yes there is no benefit to mankind when this tech is repurposed and turned against innocent people.

    3. Re:Old News by rapiddescent · · Score: 1

      It's a big difference searching through a database of 9 faces than through a database of millions.

      luckily computing power and searching ability has increased a little bit in the last decade. Sure, the pilot programme was able to take clear photos of the football fans as they went in (I seem to remember the volunteers were given free stuff as an incentive). In 2005, the London Underground tried out the technology with not great results but that was an awfully long time ago.

    4. Re:Old News by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I imagine coupling even barely adequate facial recognition with ubiquitous surveillance and coherent location tracking would get some pretty accurate results. How often do two "lookalikes" pass close enough to each other to cause tracking confusion? More importantly, how often do you pass near a lookalike when neither of you is carrying a cell phone whose location data can be easily used to retroactively resolve any confusion once you part ways?

      I'm not sure "luckily" is the word I'd be using though.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Old News by shiftless · · Score: 1

      It's a big difference searching through a database of 9 faces than through a database of millions.

      Not when you're the NSA, and you have a huge facility full of supercooled supercomputers ready at hand to do all the work for ya! Oh yeah and I forgot to mention....it's all paid for by us, the taxpayers!

  2. You mean like this? by mveloso · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:You mean like this? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Your link doesn't seem to have any stats on accuracy. If you are going to scan hundreds of millions of faces a day in poor lighting from odd angles your algo better be 99.99999% accurate, or expect a lot of false positives.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:You mean like this? by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      "They" are killing innocent people now. This way "they" can say the software told them it was ok.

    3. Re:You mean like this? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, this.

      Enforcers have been dreaming of facial recognition good enough to match faces from a database of millions to faces in crowds scarcely smaller. Every time there's been improvement in facial recognition, they're eager to try to scale up massively. They don't seem to appreciate how good the facial recognition has to be to avoid thousands of false positives. I don't know where facial recognition is now, but 6 years ago, 90% accuracy was the best I'd heard of, and the method was that good only with lots of outside help to remove variations in lighting, viewing angle, facial expression, and so on. No one was anywhere close to 99%, let alone 99.99999%.

      Also, lot of the news about facial recognition has been overhyped. Companies always try to make their products sound better than they really are. The media is also eager to report on the next big breakthrough, and is prone to reading far too much into research results.

      Treat this news with healthy skepiticism.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    4. Re:You mean like this? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      For "finding bad guys", it's good to have lots of false positives. This gives you lots of suspects and then you can expand your surveillance to many more people. Since there are lots of laws, everyone can be considered a criminal.
      Expect this to lead to lots more people questioned, arrested and plea bargaining their way to a "short" stay in jail.
      Big win for the surveillance state and the securocrats.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:You mean like this? by cundare · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe that the Vegas and Atlantic City casinos have been using facial recognition in this way for over a decade. I remember reading a piece some years ago about how the technology had been applied, either in a trade magazine or in some mainstream mag, like Wired. Supposedly -- and this is how far back this goes -- a person of interest (like a reported purse-snatcher or card-counter) could be identified by the software upon entering a casino -- based on facial characteristics shared by the casinos via a cooperative fax (!) network.

  3. Working for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Working for the government by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are not doing this for the gov't. Big business simply must have this, to be able to present the right ad to you as you walk by any given billboard/sign/shop, because you might not have your cell phone with you [or horrors, you might not have one].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Working for the government by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      If you're not constantly typing on a cellphone in your waking hours while saying "OMG!" out loud, you're probably not in their demographic...

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Working for the government by Immerman · · Score: 1

      There's a long historical precedent of "wizards" hooking their cart to one king or another. If it's a bad king that may suck for everyone else, but it tends to go pretty well for the wizard.

      As far as stopping the government from using it - I'm not sure that's realistically possible. Sure, we could pass all sorts of laws about it, maybe slow things down by a few decades, but cameras are getting ever smaller and cheaper, and *someone* will be collecting and collating the data. That someone will then have all sorts of leverage on any government official who isn't squeaky clean to begin with, which will make the "shadowy NGO" the de-facto government.

      The best option I can see at this point is to do everything we can to make sure our "masters" are under at least as much scrutiny by the public as they inflict upon us. Personally I'd be in favor of having something like Google Glass surgically attached to anyone elected or appointed to a significant government position, with 24/7 public streaming* for as long as they hold the office. With great power comes total lack of privacy.

      *inserting a delay of at least several hours in the stream would neatly sidestep any risks to their personal security.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  4. Mask, anyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So now people will use the material printers to print a random mask before going out.

    1. Re:Mask, anyone. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. I believe most modern facial recognition focuses on unalterable skeletal characteristics. Inter-occular distance. Cheekbone position, etc. A good makeup artist/ultra-realistic mask can conceivably alter many of those things, but if your own skin/skeletal structure is visible you're sunk.

      Figure that Carey can do some pretty crazy contortions, but you can still easily tell it's him. Computer facial recognition leans heavily on everything we've been able to learn about how we recognize faces, and couples it with measurements far more precise than the human visual system can perform.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  5. Lucky for me... by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bought a Guy Fawkes mask...

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    1. Re:Lucky for me... by jmhobrien · · Score: 2

      A reactive approach screws everyone. This needs to be prevented before resources are unneccessarily wasted and the tentacles of BigGov extend any further.
      It is better to win without fighting - Sun Tzu.

      --
      Where is moderation: -1 False?
    2. Re:Lucky for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll go with blank face.

    3. Re:Lucky for me... by shvytejimas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wearing a mask is rather blunt. I think surveillance evading camouflage make-up instead will turn out to be a fashion trend during the next decade.

      As with any trend, only a handful of people would dare walk around looking like that at first - privacy supporters, activists, etc. - and they would stand out in the crowd. But the idea of camouflage might catch on as more people opted-in (some because of privacy concerns, others because it just looks cool and futuristic). Kind of like torn jeans and facial piercings from punk - they used to look shocking to some a while back, but nowadays are completely mainstream and disconnected from the originating subculture.

    4. Re:Lucky for me... by SGT+CAPSLOCK · · Score: 1

      I don't think it matters so much what attire The Resistance wears; it just matters that it will exist.

    5. Re:Lucky for me... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Or you could just be like Hi and put a panty on your head.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    6. Re:Lucky for me... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Nixon mask might be more appropriate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Lucky for me... by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      Thats awesome. I'm going to be sad when I find out it for a coke ad or something.

    8. Re:Lucky for me... by Inda · · Score: 1

      I've looked at this theory before. I even go as far as to grayscale my face and enlarge the eyes on the only single profile photo of me on the internet.

      The algorithms will adapt. They'll stop looking for eyes and other facial features. They'll start looking for face paint.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    9. Re:Lucky for me... by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      "FACELESS ALIENS SPOTTED AT HIGH PROFILE EVENTS"

      Clearly it was not the lack of eyes, nose and mouth, but the dark suits that made them stand out. To me, they looked like normal government agents whom are trained to have the people not pay attention to their features. This way they later cannot be identified in any court room.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    10. Re:Lucky for me... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Nixon mask might be more appropriate.

      But, quote to the contrary, Nixon really was a crook...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  6. The most amusing thing that I see in this: by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:The most amusing thing that I see in this: by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      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...

      "The government" is not monolithic. It may not be perfectly representative but that is the goal.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:The most amusing thing that I see in this: by Threni · · Score: 1

      > It may not be perfectly representative but that is the goal.

      It most certainly is not.

  7. Other potential uses.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Other potential uses.. by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      It'll just be "metadata". They won't be able to see what you're actually thinking, so that'll make it okay. At least until the next scumbag America-hater comes along and exposes how they were lying to us and spying on us for our freedom, cuz yanno, the terrorists hate our freedom.

      Er, 9/11 and stuff. LOOK! BOMBS and BAD GUYS!

      Here's a kitten.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    2. Re:Other potential uses.. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Er, 9/11 and stuff. LOOK! BOMBS and BAD GUYS!

      It's actually fascinating how completely Obama copied this strategy from Bush. I kind of figured it would stop working 12 years later.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Other potential uses.. by phayes · · Score: 1

      That would be one of you anonymous coward bastards who like to whine but are too karma banned from their constant trolling to use their account to post stuff. AQ as radical Muslims, hate anyone who is not a radical Muslim. The fact that that coincides with the western democracies is an accident. Were we to disappear in a puff of smoke, they would merely turn to the next most predominate political system to hate.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    4. Re:Other potential uses.. by erikkemperman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AQ as radical Muslims, hate anyone who is not a radical Muslim.

      That might be true for the hard core, for the ideologues. But AQ would have a hell of a hard time recruiting their footsoldiers if they did not have the (valid, as in factually true) argument that the US (and other Western powers, but almost always at US direction) are propping up the dictators who repress them and their families.

      Which has been true for decades. That it is not widely known, or accepted, inside the US might be because this doesn't really fit well with the narrative that the States are, as a matter of definition, the Good Guys and endeavour to spread democracy, and all that. So it gets ignored or glossed over by the mainstream media. Media that, compared to global standards, spend astonishingly little time on "foreign news", anyway.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    5. Re:Other potential uses.. by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Not just storing. You can be assured they won't leave it to simply that.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    6. Re: Other potential uses.. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Wanting to not believe something like that it is perfectly understandable. Failing to adapt those beliefs when confronted with evidence is willful blindness. That's officially grounds for criminal culpability in US courts. It's the difference between the Deist who believes in God without solid evidence, and the young-Earth creationist who holds their beliefs *despite* the evidence.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Other potential uses.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was me, so you can mod this comment down, too. The GP's comment I quoted above was ignorant and offensive.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    8. Re:Other potential uses.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Oops, apologies to the moderators, that -1 was not moderated.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    9. Re:Other potential uses.. by phayes · · Score: 1

      The problem with AQ isn't with those that have a mere dislike for western democracies, but for the radical muslims at the top of AQ that actively push for forced islamisation of everyone & use terrorism to do so. As I stated initially, they will not stop until all the infidels have been eliminated/converted & western democracies are just the biggest target. Iran & the recently evicted Islamists that were pushed out of northern Mali shows that dictatorships (& western support of such) are not the problem in their eyes as the radical muslims readily accept repressive dictators -- as long as they are the same flavor of Islam that the radicals are pushing.

      Your point that it is US/western support for dictators just isn't born out other than as an excuse.

      Please don't make the mistake of assuming that I use the US press as my main source of info & again attempt to knock down that strawman.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    10. Re:Other potential uses.. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, long tradition there. Wolfowitz sure has the real-politik down to a T. It all makes sense and seems reasonable in those terms, and I try to understand full well that there are bad actors out there and will certainly be more, yet I have the nagging question: just what are we really afraid of? That we have some competition? We claim to base our economy upon it, yet want it only if we control the game.

      Running the planet in cheat mode - what a concept. Realistically it might even be the right thing to do, yet I find that unsettling.

  8. Propaganda Piece by cartel1982 · · Score: 1

    This article is nothing but propaganda B.S. made to make you think they don't already have this shit deployed.

  9. Meet the new BOSS by Cryacin · · Score: 2

    Now 30% better at facial recognition than the old BOSS.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    1. Re:Meet the new BOSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A perfect acronym for a system which may cause violence, delusions and death within 3 to 5 years.

  10. Re:If that is the way things are going by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I think bright IR-Leds should do the trick, too. Provided a lot of people are wearing them, of course.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:Yes, because... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Usually, we're not. No, really. Yes, everyone can see you. But the expense of doing it to everyone is so prohibitive that, at least so far, law enforcement limited it to people where they had reason to do it. As they should.

    With this, it becomes trivial to do it to everyone. We have a hunch that X might have done something illegal, let's trace back his last 2 months. And it's a rather small step from "we think he did something illegal" to "he annoyed someone in power, let's find something illegal".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. *sigh* by msobkow · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:*sigh* by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Along with Stephenson's. Every time I read about Bitcoin, I end up thinking about a datacenter in Kinakuta...

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  13. OR by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    ... 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
  14. So they're building a system to BOSS us around by he-sk · · Score: 1

    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.
  15. Oh just stop it! by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh just stop it! by pspahn · · Score: 1

      I just assumed the engineers would be H1B status. Not that it should matter as far as moral compass goes, but even that is relative. It'd be a lot easier to build things that fuck over people if you did it away from your home.

      I'm not sure humanity's collective moral compass is even able to be recalibrated at this point.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    2. Re:Oh just stop it! by terbeaux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wait, what? Do you honestly believe that if an incentive is there that sentient organisms will not reach for it? I have a strong moral compass but that doesn't change the fact that you need to stop whatever the fuck you are doing right now to help us reengineer "the game" in order to reward people that do good while doing well. Aside from NWO fantasies, all the assholes that have money right now are extremely interested in keeping it, at all costs. This includes your family's ability to be healthful or be educated to a basic level. I think it was Peter Drucker that said "If you can't measure it, then you can't manage it." They are fucking managing you. How does it feel?

    3. Re:Oh just stop it! by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Haven't we had enough of this shit yet? Just because something is technically
      > feasible doesn't mean it's inevitable

      If, by throwing money at a problem, one can find a solution which stifles dissent against the ruling classes then you are wrong - it IS inevitable. There is *nothing* which is not an option for investigation and ultimately deployment. There'll be rules limiting this or that usage, and those rules will be ignored, and there's nothing you can do about it whilst the current methodology for running a country exists.

    4. Re:Oh just stop it! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I hope people do develop it and make it public domain. It's inevitable, so we might as well arm ourselves with the same tech. Imagine being able to automatically scan footage of cops and do facial recognition.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Oh just stop it! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While the only way this will stop is if no one will work on it, believing that no one will work on it is ridiculous. The software to do this sort of thing will be developed whether the goal is secrecy or not; robots need to be able to do face recognition to be able to work with humans in a human way, which is a common goal. Complaining of people developing the technology is therefore nothing more or less than a waste of time and emotional involvement. You should instead complain about the trends in society which cause the technology to be misused.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Re:Time for the face masks in public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...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...

    Better not, they might shoot you as a terrorist.

  17. For what it's worth by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    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.
  18. Re:Time for everybody to start wearing hijab. by jamesh · · Score: 1

    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.

  19. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Facial recognition with good images works just fine on a database population the size of the USA.
    Costs and speeds from the 1990s are not the issue as the measurement math is very simple and very fast per face.
    The only past limit was legal national/state database image sharing.
    You just need to get an image at the right height ie cameras on a road side checkpoints covering average passenger and driver car/truck/van face heights.
    Local Feature Analysis ~ 80 points on a face, 14-22 nodal points, in 2000 you could get searching at ~ 60 million faces a minute for a few $10 million in grants.
    Trying to rebuild a face only seen from one side over a few fames is harder but will soon be done with very complex 3d work.
    eg "Although the technology is capable of scanning approximately seventy million images per minute,.... " http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=vlr

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  20. Re:Old News - Us too Story by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

  21. Re:Time for everybody to start wearing hijab. by phayes · · Score: 1

    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
  22. "Card cheats" by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    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
  23. All kinds of gains by DJRikki · · Score: 1

    ... obligatory Hodgetwins reference - bitches.

  24. BOSS Bad? No! BOSS Can Help! by korbulon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  25. Re:Time for everybody to start wearing hijab. by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. Completing the fence by marcroelofs · · Score: 1

    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.

  27. Re:Time for everybody to start wearing hijab. by jamesh · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Ken+D · · Score: 1

    Remember the Boston marathon bombing.

    They had several specific pictures of the suspects and the quality seemed pretty good.
    They had the guy's photo in their system due to a prior terrorism related investigation.
    They had several days to match the photos, i.e. not in real time

    They failed.

  29. They don't need to stop by davecb · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:They don't need to stop by davecb · · Score: 1

      Yes, but even at work management didn't like the whole development gang traveling in the same plane or the same car...

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  30. Not your father's country by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    ...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)
  31. I guess we need to now legalize... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    ...the wearing of masks in public.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:I guess we need to now legalize... by perceptual.cyclotron · · Score: 1

      No way that'll stay legal. Fortunately you can foil these things with the right makeup...

    2. Re:I guess we need to now legalize... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      You know, now I'm wondering. How in the world did they OUTLAW masking?

      I'd think a challenge to that using 1st amendment rights would work, no?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:I guess we need to now legalize... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Or plastic surgery: http://gawker.com/plastic-surgery-blamed-for-making-all-miss-korea-contes-480907455

      --
  32. racial profiling like a BOSS by Pathoth · · Score: 1

    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!

  33. Mis-interpretation of Data by mungewell · · Score: 1

    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.

  34. Person of Interest by Pegleggedous · · Score: 1

    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/

  35. Re:Yes, because... by kermidge · · Score: 1

    Right.

    Given the imprecise or deliberately vague wording of too many laws in describing offenses and the increasing number of those laws, the "let's find something illegal" part becomes easier, even trivial.