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."

Comments

Old News

[Oysterville]

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

Re:Old News

[rapiddescent]

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.

You mean like this?

[mveloso]

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.

Lucky for me...

[jamstar7]

I bought a Guy Fawkes mask...

Re:Lucky for me...

[shvytejimas]

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.

The most amusing thing that I see in this:

[Fluffeh]

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...

Re:Yes, because...

[Opportunist]

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".

Re:Other potential uses..

[pitchpipe]

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.

Re:Working for the government

[davester666]

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].

Oh just stop it!

[GrahamCox]

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.

Re:Oh just stop it!

[terbeaux]

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?

Re:Old News - Us too Story

[FriendlyLurker]

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).

BOSS Bad? No! BOSS Can Help!

[korbulon]

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.

Re:Other potential uses..

[erikkemperman]

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.