Slashdot Mirror
Is the World Ready For Facial Recognition On Google Glass?
An anonymous reader writes "Since the first demonstration of the plausible future abilities of Google Glass, instant facial recognition has been one of the most exciting ideas in the pipeline. According the the development group Facial Network, the time for real-time facial recognition through Google Glass is coming a lot sooner than we originally expected. This isn't an app developed by Google, it's a 3rd party developer group — they've gone and done it first!"
The application is not on the Play store due to the ban on facial recognition. It performs real time recognition, and pulls information from public databases. The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.
How to Beat Facial-Recognition Software
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I don't much care for face-recognition, in fact I can imagine a lot of venue's banning internet-connected (full-time recording) head mounted camera's (for guests), but AGE-recognition would be a useful feature on the door if you have a liqueur-license or some other age-related barrier.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
It will be a god-send for people with prosopagnosia (face blindness). Can you imagine the awkward social situations in which you don't recognize people? Your colleagues, friends or even family?
This sort of application is like file shaing: it's just gonna happen, whether you like it or not. You can't legislate it away, and you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face. In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster, and you'll be none the wiser.
Get ready to live in a panopticon world. It'll happen. It's already happened in fact...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
So if I don't want my name popping up on some random Glass-hole's screen whenever I have the misfortune to be in one's proximity, I have to go find some random app's website and opt out? How is that supposed to actually work in practice?
Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?
#DeleteChrome
It shouldn't be opt-out, it should be opt-in.... People wearing google glasses should really be carefull, as more and more people will not stand you wearing one while facing them (and I don't blame them)..
I hope you're ready to get the shit kicked out of you, because that's inevitably what's going to happen. I can't really see how it isn't going to happen.
I suspect it'll happen so frequently, that the police in any state won't even bother to charge anyone doing so with a crime after a short while.
Good luck!
Just tattoo the standard robots.txt entries on your forehead, and Google Glass will obey. Don't want to be indexed at all? Disallow: * Or perhaps you just don't want people to see your stomach? Disallow: stomach. You can also keep stalkers at bay with a simple "Noindex,nofollow" above your lips.
I am completely unable to remember the names of people even in my small office. "Oh, you need to talk to Sam about that"... Shit. Sam who? I can't ask; I've been here three years! And the name's gender neutral even!
The ten or so people I interact with on a daily basis; fine - but beyond that? Argh!
So yes. Yes please. This is a WONDERFUL aid for an uncommon disability. And pretty much EVERY feature of wearable computing that was promised to be useful; context-based calenders, noting down things you're asked to do as you're asked to do them, showing who you promised to do stuff for and what it was - it all requires recognising who someone is.
This can't come quickly enough. If this actually works (and I doubt it, facial recognition always goes wrong at first), I'll buy one.
It all depends on what society at large thinks is a worthwhile price to pay. Take file sharing (of copyrighted files) for example. It's perfectly possible to stamp it out: just legislate to allow the MPAA and RIA to demand all ISP's to install monitoring software and match whatever you upload to a database of signatures of copyrighted works. The Snowdon papers show that it's very likely that the infrastructure is available to do just that.
Encryption is of course to be outlawed for use by private citizens. US-style "damages" will pay for the enforcement effort and file sharing will be killed in short order.
Of course there are such pesky things like the first amendment that would get in the way, but those are only *legal* and *political* obstacles, not technological ones. Which means they can be removed whenever people feel like it. And people's perception of what is or isn't acceptable can be changed by abuses of technology.
For example, it's perfectly possible to legislate that whoever uploads your mug without your consent is liable for damages (freeing the ones pictured from having to prove any actual damages) and legislate that all and any ISPs and hosting companies must give their full cooperation and assist anyone who can show that their picture has been uploaded without their consent to identify the perpetrator. That would also necessitate the end of anonymous internet access.
What you really mean is that you don't wish for this to happen, not that it can't happen for technological (or political) reasons.
If you thought that no amount of political pressure can effectively take away your rights to upload pictures of people, just wait until the first pedophile ring is discovered scouting schools for attractive "candidates" using Google Glasses and putting the lot online for perusal.
Unfortunately people have a way of abusing new technology in ways that lead to hitherto unheard of legal constraints.
you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face.
No. But you can make one person at a time stop using it.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
The boys at the Fort Meade KGB (oops, I mean NSA) HQ are throwing a party, while the local pigs are ordering extra sprinkles on their doughnuts as we speak.
Glass is the ultimate (to date) example of why "because we can" technology is a very bad thing.
And yes, even though I don't befriend the kind of narcissist that would use Glass, if one shows up at my home or office they will be asked to leave and never return. No exceptions. None.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
When did Slashdot become so full of luddites?
Years ago there would have been nothing but comments full of ideas for amazing things you accomplish using a device like this.
Now it seems like the site is populated almost entirely by pubescent teenagers acting macho and boasting how they'd beat someone up and break their glasses.
Assault and battery at a minimum.
More likely get sued and have to pay their support for a couple of months.
Some might even see that as a way to make a living. A bit painful for couple of days... but each lawsuit would pay for a months wages for three or four people.
At your expense.
The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.
How about letting us opt in to the database?
No sig today...
In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster
There's a hard limit on personal technology. It can't advance beyond the point where putting a pocket knife on someone's throat to steal it becomes a profitable job. That's why in most cyberpunk scenarios one of the technological advances is in self defense.
i.e.: There won't be ultra-tech glasses/contact lenses/etc unless someone thinks of a way of protecting the clients form increasingly profitable mugging.
1. goto the airport check for people which take a long distance flight
2. check a few names
3. lookup facebook&co to get an idea whether they live alone or not
4. search the local phone book (or similar) to check where they live
5. drive over to their home and rob the place if no one is there
note:
step 1. could be replaced with a static camera
step 2.-4. could be replaced with a script
Also monitoring someones home with a static camera (could also be mounted on a drone) should make it really easy to create a general schedule plan for when which people regularly come and go -> no more man power intensive stake outs! :)
Face recognition has so many nice applications, can't imagine anything going really wrong. :D
I want glasses with facial recognition. In fact, if it worked the way I want it to, I'd buy them tomorrow.
I don't want this 1984 "we'll stalk everyone on the Internet for you" bullshit. I couldn't care less what the guy opposite me on the bus posted on Twitter this morning. I really, really don't give a fuck.
All I want is my own personal database of the people I know. They come in three categories:
And /. doesn't do ordered lists. wtf?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Seems like some of the easiest public sources to recognize and associate faces from would be police mugshot databases and sex offender databases. Will former criminals be actively shunned everywhere they go in public, or even subject to mob violence?
This space intentionally left blank
No, laws about assault, battery etc. mean you can't punch people in the face.
That and being a decent human being.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Assault someone in view of a wirelessly connected camera. That's a genius plan.
+1
Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?
This looks promising, it's an IR based 'camera blinder' that hides your face:
http://www.slashgear.com/surveillance-cam-blinder-2010369/
Dunno how effective it is against different camera types and it does require you to wear a dumb-ass headband but it looks like a promising concept.
I've been playing around with various IR LED types, such as this one, at a couple wavelengths, and I found that in darkness and twilight, you need only very few to become a huge blob of ghostly light, but in good lighting conditions, a good camera like an Axis P3367 and even some of the crappy webcams I tried will see them as merely little points of red light. So I'll integrate a bunch in my backpack's straps and on it's surface, to at least get that commute, including subways etc.. covered, but with little hope of completeness.
So the real challenge may be: can we build a device that automates lens detection, focuses a small laser on the lens in question, and keeps it there while both the lens and the wearer of the countermeasure laser move along. +1 for a switch that will briefly increase laser power to burning strength. As in using a 2W Laser diode at low power. Capability :-)
I even wonder how opting us all in automatically is even legal in my country. I don't care about the US but I'm pretty sure that here in Belgium there are laws against this. Sorry for the Dutch article, but here is an example of it: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portretrecht
If there won't be a consensus that wearing something like Google Glass with even just the potential for facial recognition or other data extraction is unacceptable, then most people will just have to live with it. There are however people who can and will evade this surveillance, simply by owning everywhere they go. Private, gated communities, holiday resorts, beaches, theaters, clubs, boutiques and wherever else the privacy conscious rich flock will forbid this intrusion. The rich and famous have plenty experience in this, as people are already openly trying to invade their privacy at any opportunity. So this will be one more divider between the plebs and the wealthy.
I have prosopagnosia (face blindness) to the extent where I can’t identify myself in photographs. I’ve been to the store with my mother and got separated from her, only to start talking to a woman who had a similar haircut and clothing to her, who was getting very confused as to why some stranger was calling her ‘mom’.
Some kind of facial recognition software would be invaluable to me, but I could not in good conscience use something that did not use just a limited, pre-approved, personal database of people.
That... and the fact that some of us carry guns... if you punch us in the face, unless you're prepared to follow through and kill us, we'll shoot you dead...
Rest assured if someone ever walked up to me and just punched me in the face and knocked me down, if I'm still breathing and able, I'd draw and fire at them, assuming they mean to kill me.
And the laws here allow me to do it. The minute you use physical force against someone, deadly force is a legal response.
However, I suspect the poster above you was just trying to be a funny troll. :)
Probably, but you are scary. You honestly think it is ok to shoot someone for punching you in the face? I guess this explains why US gun deaths are on par with 3rd world countries and war zones.
How about letting us opt in to the database?
No one would opt in so it's not a good idea.
Anyway there's good ways to do this, for example ID the person IF they are in one's contacts. I have lousy memory. Of course I know my friends, but in places are a conference I meet lots of people that I eventually find the next year or whatever, they ring a bell and I know we even talked for a bit but I can't remember their names. I don't think it's too intrusive since I've met them and they told me their names that Glass reminds me - maybe even some extra info, such as "You know them from Google I/O 2012.".
By the way, to all the idiots saying they would punch me if I was wearing Glass close to them: First, eventually you will be outnumbered. Second, the fact that you would hit someone for no reason other than you don't like what they might be doing says a lot about you. And third, things might go wrong for you, Glass is hands free so I'm likely to return the punch.
If it were feeding into your own personal storage and prevented from being phoned home I wouldnt even care. But we both know that isnt how it works and isnt how its going to work. And given the reality, your actions constitute assault on everyone around you. You shouldnt really be surprised if some of them defend themselves physically.
"No one would opt in so it's not a good idea."
In other words you realize that "no one" consents to this, so what makes you think it's ok to do it anyhow?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The same things that are supposed to prevent you from glassing people to begin with, which at this point in our hypothetical have obviously already failed, are supposed to prevent those people from retaliating when you do?
Kind of a twisted view of the world you have there.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
No one would opt in so it's not a good idea.
Maybe that should be a social cue, that it is unacceptable behaviour on your part, your attention is unwanted.
People are not computers most of them have feelings they like some people they don't like others and most people respond negatively to being catalogued and targeted for adverts, this would be similar behaviour.
knowing my name will not be a positive thing for you, as you obviously do not give a monkeys about me just how you can use me to your advantage. At a minimum I will ignore you, if you persist I may do something negative this might be as passive as choosing your competitors to do business with instead of your company.
Maybe meeting and greeting is just not your strong suit, perhaps somebody else should be doing it instead? I'm not saying this because I am good with names and faces, far from it. If you want to get people on side with you then you talk to them not stalk them.
You do not want to be known as the creepy socio-path with Google glass.
Being prepared to enter a situation with relative strangers prepared to assault them is rather worrying. If I had a problem with you and your creepy behaviour. I could complain to the event organisers who would probably ask you to remove your google glass or have you ejected from the building if you refused. There is no need to get involved with you in a physical confrontation. In fact if I really wanted all I need to do is mention to a female colleague that you are scanning her with google glass and you will be ejected and possibly police called.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
This will make redundant all those claims of "I value my privacy that's why I am not on Facebook." Well you are now.
This is definitely not a good thing. OTOH, someone should develop a small projector that will project ads onto my forehead, so I can turn it on when a 'glasser' comes up to me. Yeah annoy the crap out of them, and/or hopefully get my image blocked, and/or earn some ad revenue. Yay, win/win.
Bitter and proud of it.
...saying they'll punch someone in the face if they wear Google Glass near them.
Without looking at any other comments, was I right?
You do not want to be known as the creepy socio-path with Google glass.
Well good thing for privacy advocates that early technologies like Google glass can be noticed. But the next generation will not be as conspicuous. Just wait until regular glasses have this technology and are completely unnoticeable.
And beyond glasses we have artificial retinas. We have had artificial retinas for a while, and they keep getting better each year. Since 2010 researchers have been having success even intercepting the connection from the retina to the brain. I wouldn't be surprised if we are only a decade or two away from putting technologies like the Google glass directly into your eye. It won't need a camera, because it will just record what your eyes are actually seeing and inserting a HUD into your normal vision. It will start with blind patients, but it won't stop there.
The privacy concerns which arise from these technologies are real, but they are coming and will become a ubiquitous part of our society. Trying to stop constant recordings and facial recognition software from mainstream use will be harder than stopping pirated music.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Gun nuts are like tweeny boys waiting for their bits to grow.
I agree with this - and I often think exactly the same when reading pro-gun posts on Slashdot.
I can recognize that there are advantages to allowing gun ownership. Unfortunately, the gun proponents often sound like the real reason that they want a gun is that they're really, really hoping that they will get the chance to shoot someone dead.
your actions constitute assault
That's a very unusual definition of "assault" you have there.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Look at how many people say this. Look at how many people do stupid things right in front of cameras, or commit obviously detectable crimes because they're very angry. Look at how many people get punched in bars with no legal consequences. Look at how if you get punched in the street in the UK on a Saturday night you'll probably get arrested (a blogging policeman once said this happens because there's always a counter-accusation and it's easier to arrest everyone vaguely related and sort it out in the police station). Hell, look at how people react when you take a picture of them in public....and look at how policemen react to cameras, too. People HATE this. People might end up in jail, but glass wearers are still going to get hurt, pushed around, threatened, stolen from, abused, harassed, thrown out of places and generally maltreated.
The minute you use physical force against someone, deadly force is a legal response.
(Concealed Weapons Permit instructor here)
Bullshit. There is no state in the the US which permits use of deadly force in retaliation for a punch, nor even to prevent less than deadly force being used. Deadly force is only justifiable to prevent the use of deadly force, plus a few select other violent felonies (e.g. rape).
If you shoot someone for punching you in the face, you'd better hope that you can convince the jury you had a reasonable fear that they were going to follow up by beating you to death. Personally, I expect (and hope) that you fail to convince the jury.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Perhaps not.
But yanking the Google Glass off of her face, dropping it to the ground, and stomping it into a twisted, useless jumble of tangled metal? Don't see a problem with that.
So you are going to assault someone and commit distruction on private property because you don't like a app they may or may not be using? Prepare for them to own your ass(ets) after the lawyers get involved.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Interesting that you should mention "piracy". If you can store what you see and hear, all media that you consume will be copied.
Which makes you a complete idiot, because a huge number of people have died from being punched in the head once.
That's not to mention how you can blind them, create permanent disabilities etc.
And you know, on top of "beat some sense into them" as a worldview making you functionally indistinguishable to fascists.
sarcasm detector: failure indicated.
"It doesn't know anything about you that isn't out in the public."
I find it difficult, nay impossible, to believe that that is *and will always remain* the case.
This thing is taking pictures and phoning them home for identification. You really believe the system it sends them to will not keep them and store them and use them to the fullest extent?
I have never put a picture of me on the web. Nonetheless google manages to find a couple (one they grabbed out of my account and put to nefarious use without permission.) How much worse will that get when a significant number of people become walking surveillance points for them?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Google Glasses brings out the Internet Tough Guys.
On the one hand, sure, there are "Internet Tough Guys" who talk big online but would never back it up in the real world.
On the other hand, there are "realists". The simple fact of the matter is that the world is full of people who have ZERO problem with assaulting somebody for invading their space. I don't have to claim that I'll punch anyone personally in order to point out that it is an absolute FACT that Glass wearers are going to face physical consequences for their invasive behavior.
I find it difficult, nay impossible, to believe that that is *and will always remain* the case.
That is certainly something to consider, and I cannot argue against that. I hadn't thought about it, but I know far too much to think you're on the wrong track.
I do know that even if you never upload a picture others will, and once it's tagged back to you the cat's out of the bag. I didn't upload any pictures for a long time, but after someone privacy unconscious (to coin a phrase) tagged by in a photo I said "hell with it, the damage is done". You can try, but you just can't control other people.
Google Glass, at this point, isn't a constant roaming recording camera. The battery life doesn't permit that. I can't say the same about the future.
Honestly, I don't think anyone wants a society where you can't do or say something in the moment that is meant to stay in the moment.
It's nice to have the freedom to do something embarrassing when those who saw it saw it, but no one else will be able to see it out of context. Others can tell stories, but they will often be told in context. Clips on YouTube, however, don't always retain context. Compilations, even less so.
I refuse to sign
No one would opt in so it's not a good idea.
Rubbish. There's no shortage of narcissists out there. All you have to do is come up with the right marketing strategy ("Let everybody know where you are!") and your database will be full in no time.
No sig today...
There are 19 states that impose some "duty to retreat".
It is not reasonable to think that deadly force, or any force for that matter, is a justified response when "any" physical act is visited upon you.
However, a duty to retreat is very complicated and requires a jury to agree with your point of view; whether you are the prosecutor or the defendant.
I teach defensive firearm classes and concealed handgun permit classes. One of the things I teach is that if you're paying attention you should never have to draw your weapon and, if you do, it is unlikely you will have to fire a shot. However, students always raise a ton of "what if" questions.
I always answer the "what if" questions by explaining that if you're able to stand there and objectively go through a check list justifying why you're in fear of losing your life or of grievous bodily harm then you are probably not justified in using deadly force. When faced with impending death or serious bodily injury you will not be analyzing legal options; you will be trying to survive. When trying to survive, the firearm becomes one of many tools available to you to aid in your survival. Another tool includes tactically retreating.
I apologize when someone bumps into me even when it's their fault. I back away from aggressive drivers to avoid road rage incidents. I tend to be quite deferential to jerks and their rude behaviors. I want to avoid trouble and I go out of my way to make sure I do. I understand that someone might be acting like a jerk because they've had a rough morning or are just having a bad life in general. They aren't my problem and I will do whatever I can to keep them from becoming my problem.
On the other hand, if someone punches me it will be difficult for me to believe it is anything other than the start of an ongoing attack and will do whatever I have to do to survive. If increasing distance from my attacker is possible then I will do so because it is the safest, most efficient way to stop the immediate threat and to ready myself to respond with greater force if necessary.
In force-on-force simulations it is not unusual to see someone "run away" from the danger presented. The analysis and de-brief after the exercise centers on whether the person being attacked ran away in the safest and most effective way possible. The de-brief doesn't include admonition on why the student should have used their gun to stop the attack. Running away safely is a valid tool to survival.
I get nervous and become uncomfortable when someone, even joking, threatens violence. I winced when I read the parent post that started this discussion where the poster said, "doesn't mean I can't punch someone in the face." That attitude of justifiable violence for being offended is what scares me and it's fairly prevalent in these comments. Then again, I suspect that most of the people advocating a punch to the face are, as you call them, "internet tough guys" and, I hope, wouldn't actually commit the act of violence they are so quick to advocate.
Actually, deadly force IS an appropriate response to a punch or attempted punch by a stranger on the street. There are many cases of one-punch kills, and even more of people simply being beaten to death. Once you're dazed from a solid punch it's very difficult to defend yourself from the next, which will daze you even more. If you don't end the fight immediately your life is at your attacker's mercy.
You'll want some luck when you argue that in court. Absent some other circumstances like wounds on the back of your head from an assailant pounding your skull on concrete, or other evidence that you had reasonable cause to believe the assailant intended to kill you, you're at risk of going to prison. In most jurisdictions it's on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person in your position would not have expected deadly intent, but in practice it can seem like the burden ends up on the defendant. In analysis of justifiability of use of deadly force you have to keep in mind that there are many gray areas. If you shoot someone you're committing yourself to a game of chance, with your freedom as the stakes.
That's why I teach that you should assume that any time you shoot someone, you'll go to prison. That isn't actually true, obviously, but it's a good assumption to make because in the moment of a violent encounter you don't have time to sit back and examine your legal position. You have to react immediately, which means your decision is going to be an emotion-based one. By balancing your fear of what will happen if you don't shoot against your fear of years in prison, and only shooting if the former is greater, you have a very good chance of making the legally-justifiable decision, which won't send you to prison. And if you happen to roll snake eyes in the courtroom, well, you believed at the time that prison was the better option.
Again, the uncertainty is why it's a very good idea to carry a non-lethal defensive tool beside your lethal one. Pepper spray to the face is approximately as effective as a gun for stopping an assault, but it's dramatically less likely to land you in jail.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Just recognizing people on the street is perfectly OK, you do it all the time with your built-in eyes.
Way different concept there - let me put it in similar terms: you only recognize those people who have "opted in" and given you (or more specifically, that database behind your eyes) their personal information. Also note that the information those individuals give you is often incomplete.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
FWIW, my friend who is a former LEO who shot someone in the line of duty and is now a criminal defense attorney who has defended civilians who have shot and killed others in self defense, is the primary source of my opinion, backed up by statements from officials at the Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigations, who specifically covered these issues in my instructor training course.
Keep in mind that in many states (such as my current state of residence, Colorado), the only thing that is required for instructor certification is an NRA certificate, and the NRA instructor course is all about teaching target shooting and doesn't address the legalities of self-defense at all. So many CCW instructors, unless they've taken the initiative to personally study these issues or consulted with someone else who has, aren't really any more informed on this topic than any other random person.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Likely not as easy as that...
Sure, he'd probably eat a assault/battery charge (though getting a conviction off it is not 100% certain),
You're assuming the police ever get involved. Unless there happens to be one right there when everything is happening, there's unlikely to even be an arrest. Around here reporting an assault after the fact will accomplish nothing aside from you having a 10 minute conversation with a cop who is annoyed that you're wasting his time with your petty crap.
As for the broken Glass, he'll fill out a report for you so you can submit it to your insurance company. That's pretty much as involved as the police like to get with minor stuff.
Regardless of what I, personally, may or may not do, I feel quite confident in my prediction that once people realize the creepy shit Glass is capable of, unpleasant incidents, up to and including violence, against Glass users will not be "rare". I also predict that prosecutions will represent a very, very small percentage of actual incidents.