Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook's Face Identification Project Is Accurate 97.25% of the Time

Posted by Soulskill on from the almost-as-good-as-the-NSA's-version dept.

kc123 tips news that 'DeepFace,' the software research project created by Facebook engineers to identify people in pictures, is now accurate 97.25% of the time. In other words, it's almost as good at recognizing faces as humans, who are able to determine whether two photos show the same person 97.53% of the time. The article says DeepFace reaches that level of accuracy "regardless of variations in lighting or whether the person in the picture is directly facing the camera." It continues, "DeepFace processes images of faces in two steps. First it corrects the angle of a face so that the person in the picture faces forward, using a 3-D model of an 'average' forward-looking face. Then the deep learning comes in as a simulated neural network works out a numerical description of the reoriented face. If DeepFace comes up with similar enough descriptions from two different images, it decides they must show the same face. ... The deep-learning part of DeepFace consists of nine layers of simple simulated neurons, with more than 120 million connections between them. To train that network, Facebook’s researchers tapped a tiny slice of data from their company’s hoard of user images—four million photos of faces belonging to almost 4,000 people."

149 comments

  1. Say goodbye by danknight48 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To more of your privacy in the commercial world.
    "You've just been DeepFaced" But at least its all for a good cause, marketing and profits at the cost of our private lives!......

    1. Re:Say goodbye by gnupun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When are they planning to connect face identification with the street/store surveillance cameras? Then they could know who is where anytime of the day unless you wear big hats, large sunglasses, fake beards etc.

    2. Re:Say goodbye by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Muslims are right: Burqa's are the way to go...

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    3. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liquor and corner shops will love this. Banned people can be - banned and blacklisted effectively.
      Camera's can lock the doors before they enter, or advise guard to escort them off the premises.

      Vigilante groups can load up sex offenders pictures, and send a team over to fix the problem when one gets spotted in public.
      Meth labs, undercover cops, celebrity tracking - the uses are endless.

    4. Re:Say goodbye by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      Ads like on the Citadel in Mass Effect 2 are probably inevitable.

    5. Re:Say goodbye by zwei2stein · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, start protecting your privacy.

      You do not have to allow then to do it.

      http://cvdazzle.com/

      And, self promotion (baby steps, but working):

      https://play.google.com/store/...

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    6. Re:Say goodbye by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      While I'm not glad about this, I am glad they are publishing how accurate it is. If Facebook is able to accomplish this, it should be serve as another example of the dangers of letting the NSA (or anyone else) record our lives without our consent.

      The safety used to be that the NSA had way too much information and too little manpower to ever make use of it against average citizens. When you read stories about what Facebook and Google can do, you realize the NSA doesn't need the manpower to effectively catalog each of us.

    7. Re:Say goodbye by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      CVDazzle is an interesting idea, but one would need to change their hair and face style randomly, and fairly frequently, to defeat algorithms that try to match the dazzle style. Razzle-dazzle worked well for military camouflage because it takes advantage of problems with the human brain's pattern matching abilities. However, it does not work as well against neural net algorithms that know that they are looking for objects that are camouflaged this way. Still, this could make for an interesting fashion fad.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    8. Re:Say goodbye by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Poison the database with images of people tagged with the wrong name. Make it worthless.

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

      Muslims are right: Burqa's are the way to go...

      Muslims were right and they're right again. In between, they were wrong.

      You know, kind of like don't eat pork, or don't eat shellfish. Was true, not any more. Of course, I don't buy just any pork or shellfish, so I guess it's true again. For a while there you could just eat anything that was in the store. Now food commonly ain't actually food, and you have to keep a lookout.

      Too bad the Muslims are right now for the wrong reasons. That makes them not actually right, just accidentally correct.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Say goodbye by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Well, that was actually the jews. You do understand jew, christian, muslim is basically all the same (except the 'church' 'interpreted' jesus words as meaning sinning is fine).

      It seems you also don't understand the wearing of the burqa. There is no right or wrong about it, it is to show devotion to god. You know, exactly how nuns cover their hair. It's just that most 'christians' are godless heathens whose religion means nothing to them.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    11. Re:Say goodbye by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      No, start protecting your privacy.

      You do not have to allow then to do it.

      http://cvdazzle.com/

      And, self promotion (baby steps, but working):

      https://play.google.com/store/...

      sure. it works now because these computer vision algorithms are crude. I, and most people, would have little problem identifying those people. It's only a matter of time before a system is sophisticated enough to recognize that's a dude with some paint on his face and a silly hairstyle.

    12. Re:Say goodbye by LoRdTAW · · Score: 2

      Those two food items can cause severe illness if eaten uncooked. My guess is a long time ago the Jews saw a connection between certain food items and illness and thus banned them. Its likely Islam then copied those laws as the two religions share a very similar set of rules concerning food.

    13. Re:Say goodbye by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, that was actually the jews.

      Yes, I know, I was just spitting out miscellaneous religious rules which made sense and then didn't make sense, etc.

      You do understand jew, christian, muslim is basically all the same

      Well, no.

      (except the 'church' 'interpreted' jesus words as meaning sinning is fine).

      Right. That's pretty fucking major. It's the difference between an orthodox religion and an orthoprax religion. Christianity, of the three, is the only orthodox religion, with belief being sufficient to gain entry to the afterlife.

      It seems you also don't understand the wearing of the burqa. There is no right or wrong about it, it is to show devotion to god

      Yeah, right. That's what Christians were told about when they should eat fish, but it was just a bunch of bullshit with an economic purpose. So, why did the leaders of the Muslim faith want some of their followers to dress in a black bag? You're just reading what it says on the tin and nodding your head sagely, I want to know the real reason. History shows us that there always is one that has nothing to do with belief and has everything to do with either happenstance (tradition) or with intent, usually profit-related.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Say goodbye by pr0nbot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Burqas are also handy for hiding one's stash of apo'strophe's.

    15. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually think that "Jew, Christian, Muslim is basically all the same", then you are deeply ignorant of each of those religions.

    16. Re:Say goodbye by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Hair are antennae. That's the real reason.

      It's why sadhus knot their hair, monks shave it, and others cover it.

      What you seem to be getting confused about is the difference between those that choose to wear the burqa because they are muslims and those who get forced to wear it because they belong to a backwards culture who can't control their sexual urges upon sight of a woman. These are two very different things.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    17. Re:Say goodbye by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hair are antennae. That's the real reason.
      It's why sadhus knot their hair, monks shave it, and others cover it.

      Could be. Many have suggested so. I'm not aware of any hard evidence that it's relevant to anything, though. Any effects so far (that I am aware of) can be explained away by the placebo effect.

      What you seem to be getting confused about is the difference between those that choose to wear the burqa because they are muslims and those who get forced to wear it because they belong to a backwards culture who can't control their sexual urges upon sight of a woman. These are two very different things.

      Wait, you mean those who were brainwashed into wearing a black bag by their muslim parents and neighbors, and those who they attempted to brainwash but failed, and are forced to wear a black bag anyway? These two groups are not as different as you think they are, though there is a major difference.

      And let me just rewind a tad:

      who can't control their sexual urges upon sight of a woman.

      Is that the real reason? I mean, it may well be. But maybe it's just about preventing women from exerting power over men, while enshrining male power over women. That seems more likely.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Say goodbye by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There is no right or wrong about it, it is to show devotion to god.

      Actually, there are two things that are wrong with it. First, that people seem to have tendency to force that unto others, or hold them in contempt if they don't follow the example, distorting their relations with burqa-non-wearers (that goes for any kind of clothing culture, of course). Second, in some cultures, face-to-face eye contact - literally - is considered basic politeness (as a schizoid, I don't fully grasp the notion, but there it is), and the introduction of burqas for whatever reason feels overwhelmingly intrusive.

      Oh, there's of course the third notion why it's wrong - that the whole god notion is a load of ridiculous bullshit - but I was mostly talking about practical, real-life issues in the two points.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:Say goodbye by grahamm · · Score: 1

      Or to learn the techniques used by the Faceless Men in the Song of Ice and Fire series.

    20. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Scanner Darkly.
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405296/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_12

      the whole movie is made as if filmed by security cameras, only special agents get a complete mask to go undercover.
      good movie and worthy to check out. hits the nail on the head regarding surveillance

    21. Re:Say goodbye by VorpalRodent · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When this happens, think of the convenience! All you'll need to do is look at the nearest camera and give a thumbs up, and Facebook will automatically mark that you Liked [whatever you're standing near].

      Two people could become friends by finding the nearest Big Brother station and doing a thumbs up together.

      One of (many) problems will be how they contextualize all that data. You know, this started as a joke, but seriously, if Facebook had a feed of this kind of data, it would be interesting to see the hypothetical profile they build based on what they would see an individual near vs. what they claim to like on their public page.

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    22. Re:Say goodbye by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      For a while there you could just eat anything that was in the store. Now food commonly ain't actually food, and you have to keep a lookout.

      We have far better methods of detecting contaminated food today. But that does not mean that food used to be better. Do you also believe that it never got cold until thermometers were invented?

    23. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Don't you think the NSA is already doing this? The capability is there, all it takes is the impetus and funding - and the NSA has plenty of both. The NSA has a system with a silly code name that hacks into any cameras it can find, runs facial recognition, and stores the results in a database that's tracking where everyone in the US is. A system that is also tied into the licence plate reading that the police are using along with agreements with cities like Chicago and NY to use their cities camera systems, toll booths, airports, business, baby monitors, etc. Heck, they probably have back doors into all the popular wifi camera's people are putting on their houses too.

      There are *so* many camera's out there, do we really think the NSA isn't running FR on them and collating the data? It shouldn't take another Snowden leak to tell us that's going on in today's spy v JQP climate. Do we really think today's NSA wouldn't try to capture that data? Do we really think some analyst said something like "how about a program where we use that facebook facial recognition in combination with all of the web cams we have access to and build a database out of that?" and the response from the NSA bigwigs would have been "No, that's going to far!" or would their response have been "gimmie! gimmie! gimmie!".

      Speaking of, what really puzzles me about the Snowden leaks is how surprised and shocked everyone seems. I just don't get that. I'm not surprised at all - I'm sure quite a few of us here could easily be Evil Internet Overlords with unlimited funding and zero accountability - both of which the NSA has in abundance. When you mix those two, only bad things come about - today's NSA was inevitable.... as is the fact that they're already doing this in the wild with every camera they can get eyes on.

    24. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect some other ignorant poster is going to claim that Catholicism and Protestantism are the same also. Gee.

    25. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, start protecting your privacy.

      You do not have to allow then to do it.

      http://cvdazzle.com/

      And, self promotion (baby steps, but working):

      https://play.google.com/store/...

      sure. it works now because these computer vision algorithms are crude. I, and most people, would have little problem identifying those people. It's only a matter of time before a system is sophisticated enough to recognize that's a dude with some paint on his face and a silly hairstyle.

      Plus, if you wear that mask all the time, it will become part of the recognition as well. And don't think that we can create a unique mask every day, because we humans cannot do that, well except if you're a 14 year old girl with hormones going up the roof.

    26. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poison the database with images of people tagged with the wrong name. Make it worthless.

      Yeah like that is going to work. After a while it starts to see that 98% of the pictures are too different and ignores them. For the other 2% it sees that they are similar, et voila!

    27. Re:Say goodbye by PRMan · · Score: 1

      except the 'church' 'interpreted' jesus words as meaning sinning is fine

      That must be a different church than I have ever gone to...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    28. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you actually think that "Jew, Christian, Muslim is basically all the same", then you are deeply ignorant of each of those religions."

      Perhaps, but he's very informed about people with delusions.

    29. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What [the parent] seem[s] to be getting confused about is the difference between those that choose to wear the burqa because they are muslims and those who get forced to wear it because they belong to a backwards culture who can't control their sexual urges upon sight of a woman. These are two very different things.

      EXACTLY.
      I have female Muslim friends from Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia. Even to most of them, the religious tenant of 'modestly' means the same thing as it does to me (a white, approaching-middle-aged agnostic American): simply dress respectfully and appropriately. Many even (gasp!) wear beachwear to the beach, if not the skimpy dental floss some bathing suits have become. A couple of them prefer to wear a hat or scarf over their hair outdoors or during services, because it is considered respectful or humble to cover your head before god -- just like many Jews and a few holdout Christian sects do.

      Burkas were imposed by extremists with too much power as another means to control women, no more and no less. In many cases, that is still the case, in others it has just become tradition. I have a real problem with the former, but the latter I can really only sigh and leave people to believe what they believe, as long as their beliefs don't stem from fear of harm.

    30. Re:Say goodbye by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      "DeepFaced"?

      I propose we call it "FaceFucked".

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    31. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your face is private?

    32. Re:Say goodbye by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you have to follow all the rules in Leviticus? No, you probably don't even know what they are. Why? Because the church interpreted jesus' words as meaning that sinning is fine.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    33. Re:Say goodbye by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try being a nudist in USA and see how much people respect your right to choice. In some cultures eye contact is considered threatening. In most xenophobia like yours is quite offensive.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    34. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then there is still eye recognition!

  2. DeepFace by BisuDagger · · Score: 5, Funny

    It sounds like the next capital hill scandal. Fortunately for teenaged girls, their faces are always scrunched up and lips pursed, when they turn 25 and take a normal picture Facebook won't be able to recognize them.

    1. Re:DeepFace by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "their faces are always scrunched up and lips pursed"

      Hey what-eva!, Didn't you know doing faces is like so like TOTALLY hilarious and original? Duh! Like get with the program!

    2. Re: DeepFace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who works on computer vision, I have a hard time believing those accuracy
      numbers.

    3. Re: DeepFace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe you should get your computer some new glasses then.

  3. Facebook is all about photos by felipou · · Score: 1

    Facebook is, among many other things, the top photo sharing service on the web. And face recognition plays a very important role in this aspect. They must invest a lot in this kind of technologies, so it's no surprise skynet will be born from them.

    This news was showing in a lot of sites lately, couldn't wait to see what discussions it would spark here! Let me grab my popcorn!

  4. DeepFace? Megalomaniacal much? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    And our privacy slips away a little bit faster with every innovation.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  5. Fuck Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Fuck Facebook

    1. Re:Fuck Facebook by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fuck Facebook

      So, you're saying that "Deep Face" is a euphemism?

    2. Re:Fuck Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Deep Throat" would be more appropriate.

    3. Re:Fuck Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not me, you stole my comment.
      Anonymous piece of... fuck you and Facebook.

  6. Almost as good as humans they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humans, despite having a lot of specialized hardware for it, suck at it under many conditions.

    Remember, Charlie Chaplin once lost at a Charlie Chaplin look alike contest.

    Let us not forget how good Reddit was at identifying the Boston Bombers.

    1. Re:Almost as good as humans they say... by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Remember, Charlie Chaplin once lost at a Charlie Chaplin look alike contest.

      So did Harpo Marx.

      (He didn't look a thing like Charlie Chaplin.)

  7. Some of us saw this coming by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    Which is why there is not a single photo of me online that is linked to my name. So even though I may well be in a few tourist shots they can't find out who the ugly looking guy in the background is.

    Yet.

    However I suppose its only a matter of time before [select government here] matches up driving licence/passport photos using this tech against any street scene photos it can find on the internet and give a rundown of places you've been and possibly when. If they haven't done so already.

    1. Re:Some of us saw this coming by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All it takes is to be identified once. Just one friend snapping a picture of you & pals at a wedding,who then posts the picture on FB, and dutifully identifies each person in the photo. After that, every image of you available on the web will be linked to you. That picture of you puking your guts out at some drunken frathouse blowout that you hoped everyone had forgotten about will now be on the first page of a Google search on your name.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Some of us saw this coming by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      Well there is that, but there's no point making it easy for them.

    3. Re:Some of us saw this coming by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Considering the poor quality of most photographs, I don't think most people's face are that identifiable. Especially once you run into the millions and billions.

    4. Re:Some of us saw this coming by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Guess it's good that FB allows you to not have anybody tag you in posts, or to allow you to review it after it's tagged, or even to review it before it get's posted.

      FB won't be the problem unless you're an idiot who doesn't even know there are privacy settings. Then again, if they're not paranoid people thinking the government is out to get them they aren't looking for those settings anyways.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    5. Re:Some of us saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and give a rundown of places you've been and possibly when.

      Of course, most people already voluntarily carry a tracking device at all times.

    6. Re:Some of us saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't even *use* Facebook, so how could I make use of these features?

      Then again, if they're not paranoid people thinking the government is out to get them they aren't looking for those settings anyways.

      So if you don't want your picture and information plastered everywhere, you're paranoid. Okay.

      And it seems as if you're one of those amazingly ignorant idiots who have full trust in the government for absolutely inexplicable reasons. Enjoy your complete ignorance of history.

    7. Re:Some of us saw this coming by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have my picture on FB, and even I don't recognize me.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    8. Re:Some of us saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen Brother! sorry no modpoints :-(

    9. Re:Some of us saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact 97.25% of faces in photographs are identifiable. Didn't you even read the headline?

    10. Re:Some of us saw this coming by skids · · Score: 1

      It's not quite clear what the 97.25% figure actually means. They trained it on just 4000 faces. What number of faces they tested it on to derive that figure is not stated. It's a lot easier to be accurate within a smaller set than a larger set. Of course other intelligence could be used to prune the list of candidates down for some usage scenarios.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    11. Re:Some of us saw this coming by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      97.25% isn't very good, really. Think of the use case of trying to find someone specific in the airport......that means out of every hundred people, you are messing up 3 times. Does that mean human investigators are going to need to check it out?

      Secondly, I'm not convinced their statistics take into account false positives (and other potential errors). It happens fairly often than Facebook thinks a tree or something is a person to be tagged.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Some of us saw this coming by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      It doesn't allow you to tag people that do not have a facebook account.

    13. Re:Some of us saw this coming by PRMan · · Score: 1

      People can do this to you even if you don't have Facebook. I am identified in Facebook pictures even though I don't have an account and try to maintain an anonymous online presence. Fortunately I have a relatively common name.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    14. Re:Some of us saw this coming by akozakie · · Score: 1

      In other words it's time to start publishing your photos through your own account and others with false identification. Use different names. Make sure to reuse them at least often enough to make several options likely - if you use a different one every time, your own name on several photos will be enough to identify you. Use existing names, best ones would be of other people using this technique.

      Build a large enough group of real people sharing their names and an even bigger pool of fake identities, automate selection of name to tag the photo. Let them sort THAT out.

      Of course this is only good enough for screwing with their business data mining. For "targeted attacks", such as NSA trying to identify a person from an ananymous photo it doesn't help - they have different sources, you can't poison them all. Plus, if they can narrow it down to a short list of possible names, you're no longer facing this algorithm. After crosschecking with other, non-visual databases the most likely options will be reviewed by a living person. No, this approach is too weak to hide effectively.

    15. Re:Some of us saw this coming by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      The message close below yours, http://tech.slashdot.org/comme..., claims that it does.

  8. I am the 2.75% by retroworks · · Score: 2

    Or at least I hope so. I've been falsely tagging myself in Facebook, reversing and randomizing the tags, for years. I wish more people would poison the well instead of trying to go "invisible", we just need about 1/3 errors to discredit positive ID as a method.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:I am the 2.75% by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      There is no mention in the article of their testing methods; I'll wager that they mainly used caucasian faces. If you're asian, I'd bet that your chances of staying anonymous are much higher.

    2. Re:I am the 2.75% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My strategy has been to use photo manipulation tools to distort photographs of my face (especially important aspects for facial recognition such brow ridge, relative distance between facial features, etc.), then upload them and tag myself. By uploading photos with subtle changes first and then gradually making the changes more drastic, my hope is that it will be enough to make the training data useless without setting off any alarms and having the distorted photos discarded as outliers.

      To keep my friends from thinking I'm crazy or succumbing to some terrible disfiguring disease, I upload the distorted photos to a private album so they can't see them. By doing so, I'm wagering that Facebook uses public AND private photos to train its algorithms, but that doesn't strike me as too unlikely given FB's track record.

    3. Re:I am the 2.75% by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...because they all look alike? I heard they were all really smart and know martial arts, too.

    4. Re:I am the 2.75% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution set in this case is anyone that is not Caucasian (I prefer the term Occidental-American myself). Asian is just one of many within that solution set. Please, instead of jumping on the slightest misinterpretation to be snarky and self righteous, use your educated mind to derive the logic of statements.

    5. Re:I am the 2.75% by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You know they've actually researched this and asians are no worse at identifying other asians than caucasians are at identifying other caucasians, it's got nothing to do with genes either just who you've grown up with. Obviously if you grew up with 95 out of 100 caucasians and five asians you don't need to record much detail about the asians to figure out who's who, but then when you're suddenly flooded with very many asians your mind can't cope. Over time if you lived there you'd start noticing more and more differences, but as a tourist it's just mental overload.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:I am the 2.75% by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that if they are ~97% accurate among their entire dataset (Which includes Asia, Europe, North America, and South America) that they can already handle some portion of the 38,929,319 'African American' population, the 14,674,252 'Asian American' population, 2,932,248 'Native American' population, 540,013 'Pacific Islander' population, 19,107,368 'other race' population, or 9,009,073 'two or more races' population just in the US right...?

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    7. Re: I am the 2.75% by Jmc23 · · Score: 0

      The girl is cute. I'll give her my 2.75"

      FTFY

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    8. Re:I am the 2.75% by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I'm white and have grown up almost exclusively with Hispanics. When I took a trip north, most white people looked the same to me. It was a surprising experience.

    9. Re:I am the 2.75% by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a silly term. Occidental refers to the western world, of which the Americas, and "America", are a part. Neither has much to do with facial structure. There are lots of occidental people who are not caucasians, and lots of Americans who are not caucasian. If you're speaking anthropologically, the original residents of the Americas are very much non-caucasian.

      Caucasian refers to people who are presumed, based on appearance, to be related to groups that lived in Europe. It's not a bad term to use in this context since it's specifically based on appearance. You might have also meant "white" (caucasians tend to have lighter skin but are not necessarily what most people mean when they say "white").

      It's highly unlikely that Facebook grabbed a bunch of white (or even caucasian) pictures though. It's almost certainly a fairly random sample their archive, or at least of the US.

    10. Re:I am the 2.75% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually it's because the developers are white Americans so they have a bias towards being familiar with how to distinguish caucasian features and have an easier time getting test data that's mostly caucasian faces. That results in the end result working poorly on non-caucasian faces.

    11. Re:I am the 2.75% by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Some links from the Straight Dope... entertaining reading..

      http://www.straightdope.com/co...
      http://www.straightdope.com/co...

  9. Re:DeepFace? Megalomaniacal much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And our privacy slips away a little bit faster with every innovation.

    Our privacy has been gone for a long, long time.

  10. Privacy nutjobs take note by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please notice that this feature can be disabled in you Facebook account options. I'm at work and can't access it right now but I know the option is there, which takes care of both auto tagging (i.e. DeepFace) and manual tagging (i.e. your friends tag you on photos).

    And It's not like your Facebook ID was issued when you were born, like your SSN or birth certificate. You willingly signed up for the service, so quit complaining about privacy bullshit, or quit using Facebook.

    1. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't have a facebook account. So how I can disable the option of my face being recognized and tagged by facebook in pictures uploaded by others?

    2. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      Having never had a Facebook account, this still worries me as I know I have been identified in photos posted to others' Facebook accounts. It would be nice if everyone read the terms of service and privacy policy beforehand, but we all know that's never going to happen.

    3. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe you forget or are a little ignorant of how Facebook works. If one does not sign up for Facebook, their friends who have will probably tag them in a photo. Now Facebook knows you exist and they are tracking that. They know your face as more photos are tagged -- granted it's harder because you are not uploading photos of yourself more often.

      The auto tagging is not all of Deep Face. It is only the result of Deep Face. You get to opt not to show what Deep Face has learned. But your face (and everything else Facebook has learned about you, whether you joined Facebook or not) is being used for training data to their various AI and Machine Learning systems. It most likely can be subpoenaed without your knowledge. Thus, by extension, the Government has a database.

      Facebook, knowing that facial recognition software is highly sought after in the government and military will sell it or access to it to them. Their shareholders will demand it.

    4. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with you to a point the problem is that Facebook may end up purchasing, or partnering with a company who then give them access to all their profile images and associated data.

      Bearing in mind Facebook can already know who you are even if you don't have an account the influx of new data may give them enough to profile you to other people and generate links between services without your knowledge or consent.

    5. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I never signed up to facebook. A number of my friends however did. They 'invited' me to join facebook by giving it my email address to facebook. It got a little insane with the facebook reminders so I 'unsubscribed'. In doing this, I created a hidden profile which is blacklisted.

      My friends upload images of me to facebook. Facebook cookies on my computer track me when I visit any page which has the facebook button on it. My email provider Yahoo may well be sharing information about me with facebook (without my knowledge). Eventually facebook will gather all the connecting pieces of information on me to have a face, an email, and a browsing (possible purchasing) history.

      Just because you can 'opt out' doesn't mean that they're not doing it anyway in the background. I'm not comfortable knowing that these people know more about me than I remember about myself.

    6. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by coofercat · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is that person X who has never signed up for Facebook ends up in a picture with someone (Person Y) who did. No one yet knows who Person X is, and Person Y doesn't identify them, and has all the recognition/auto tag features turned off. Good thing too, because Person X looks like they're so drunk they've lost the ability to control their bowels and keep their clothes on properly.

      Rinse and repeat.

      Remember, facebook still runs the recognition on all photos - they use such information to surface the posts you might be most interested in. If you're in a few photos with Person X (even if unidentified), then Facebook still wants to surface your friends photos with Person X because (quite reasonably) you might be interested in them.

      Years late, someone identifies Person X. Now all pictures of Person X can be found by using Person X's name, even though they never signed up for Facebook.

      This is a specific case of the general concerns that always come out whenever there's a privacy/facebook story on slashdot. You don't even have to play the game to lose on Facebook.

    7. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    8. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by gsslay · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are blind to the fact that this is not a matter of going online to facebook. This is the reverse. This is the point where facebook starts coming to you. In real life. In the street, at the airport, in the store, at the dentist. And it'll know you, not necessarily because you've told it, but because all your acquaintances have.

      Facebook will pass that information on to the airport/store/hospital because they'll pay to know who you are before you even approach the counter. "So they can better serve you."

    9. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Facebook won't [at least, publicly] autotag you unless you actually have an account, because otherwise there's no account to associate your face with. They may well do this internally, but that information isn't available to users if so. Of course, someone else can create an account "on your behalf" and then those photos can be associated with that identity, and thus with one another; that's linked to your identity practically but not directly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by badzilla · · Score: 1

      Not so sure about "years later". I have an Asus laptop that I bought three or so years ago and it has facial recognition login. That was cool at the time and I figured what the hell I paid for it already so I trained it to login using my face. It worked really well.

      That was three years ago, I haven't changed the configuration but now it doesn't work any more :(

      --
      "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    11. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The technology developed by Facebook will soon be used everywhere. Why don't you understand that?

    12. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by schlachter · · Score: 1

      disable your face.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    13. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Good! So they'll know I'm not a consumer and will have to offer me deep discounts to buy anything.

      What a perfect world!

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    14. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so sure about "years later". I have an Asus laptop that I bought three or so years ago and it has facial recognition login. That was cool at the time and I figured what the hell I paid for it already so I trained it to login using my face. It worked really well.

      That was three years ago, I haven't changed the configuration but now it doesn't work any more :(

      Dude... your laptop is trying to tell you something. Haven't you ever seen "The Faces of Meth"?

    15. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Khoa · · Score: 1

      Even if it's disabled, your "friends" can still type in your name. It might not appear on your feed or Photos... But they already learned your face.

    16. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Facebook is famous for creating ghost accounts for those who are not registered "yet" but have been tagged or recognized.

    17. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Discounts are a lie.

      While I mean that to be funny, the concept isn't. They will simply tailor their offers to better match your socio-economic expectations. Economics calls this price discrimination and it is about charging you as an individual the maximum they can get away with. And if your rate is to low to appeal to them you are excluded from buying at all.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    18. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's now about reputation management more than anything else. Many people sign up for Facebook just to do damage control and not be at the whim of whatever shadow profile Facebook creates so they can go in and turn off / lockdown whatever new way they decide to fuck everyone over again every 6 months.

      I'd love my privacy back, and I'd kill you or Facebook to do it if I could go back to what was like before they were ever created.

    19. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they keep track of what you try to hide. You know that's why they allow you to modify your timeline right?

    20. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by PRMan · · Score: 1

      NoScript helps greatly with the Facebook button.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    21. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a facebook account. So how I can disable the option of my face being recognized and tagged by facebook in pictures uploaded by others?

      You could either create an account and set the privacy settings while leaving the profile essentially blank.

    22. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NoScript doesn't block requests or cookies, although some tracking is only loaded via Javascript, I'm not sure if that's true of Facebook's. Ghostery or RequestPolicy are what you want to stop tracking via Facebook and other social media buttons around the web. (Ghostery even has an option to load them on click, so they're still useable if you want them for some reason.)

    23. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      They don't sound like "friends" to me.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    24. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by gsslay · · Score: 1

      During any price negotiations, the company wants to best maximise their profit. Any inside info they have on you will be used to their benefit, not yours. It skews negotiations in their favor, because you don't have the same inside knowledge on them.

      All from just looking at your face before you even open your mouth.

    25. Re:Privacy nutjobs take note by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      ...and if they want ANY profit whatsoever off me, they'll have to give me deep discounts. What's so hard to comprehend about this, they're already doing it! When you're doing large volumnes the amount of profit is to some extent inconsequential as long as you're getting turnover.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  11. Can't wait by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Soon Dazzel Paint will be a fashion!

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Can't wait by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      That is not concealing enough, I suggest one of these: Auto darkening welding helmet

      --
      Time to offend someone
  12. What about those not on Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't had a Facebook account in three years. Wonder if any of my photos lingering around will have any effect on me.

    1. Re:What about those not on Facebook? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      I'd be concerned about the one at the DMV.

      Perhaps at license renewal they'll now be requiring photos from angles, much like a mug shot.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  13. I'm waiting for version 2.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... Deep Throat!

  14. Creeps selling something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Etc.

  15. Surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook are now effectively doing an even greater amount of significant surveillance work for the U.S gov, seeing as how they are required by "law" to hand over all data. There will be a Facebook Protection Act, just like there was for Monsanto, because they are both essential to the expansion of U.S politics and control. Luckily you can still opt out.

  16. Scientific result based on closed data by benob · · Score: 1

    I read the paper and while the approach of learning a representation for faces, and then classifying in that new space whether the face is the same as model is sound, the representation is trained on a closed dataset (the 4m faces from facebook).

    So it means that there is no way for the scientific community to check whether the results are correct or not. The results in the paper lack a comparison to a reproducible result, like using the youtube or faces in the wild datasets to train the representation, and then report results given that representation. This way researchers could validate the approach.

    I would never have accepted such paper if I were to review it.

    1. Re:Scientific result based on closed data by jittles · · Score: 1

      I read the paper and while the approach of learning a representation for faces, and then classifying in that new space whether the face is the same as model is sound, the representation is trained on a closed dataset (the 4m faces from facebook).

      So it means that there is no way for the scientific community to check whether the results are correct or not. The results in the paper lack a comparison to a reproducible result, like using the youtube or faces in the wild datasets to train the representation, and then report results given that representation. This way researchers could validate the approach.

      I would never have accepted such paper if I were to review it.

      I don't believe them anyway. It rarely suggests the right names for the people in the photos that I upload. I only upload pictures of specific groups of people, and they are all somewhat similar pictures. So If its 97.5% accurate then I must account for most of the 2.5% of the inaccuracies.

    2. Re:Scientific result based on closed data by benob · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that their result is on a controlled dataset ("labeled faces in the wild," http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/lf...) for which a lot of training data is available and on which previously proposed systems already perform well.

      So this 97% number is a bit of an adventurous extrapolation. Think of it as only polling in NYC and stating that you can predict the result of the next presidential election. The paper was clear on that point, only the summary made it look catchy as usual.

  17. Math by coinreturn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    4 million photos of 4 thousand people. That is an average of 1000 images of each person. Wow. It's really hard to imagine people have that many photos of themselves on Facebook (okay, the teenagers do take selfies daily, but that would still be 3 years of daily selfies). I also see a lot of occurrences of people being "tagged" in a photo just so that person will be alerted to the existence of the photo - for example, photos of their kids doing something cute. That's gotta fuck with the algorithm a bit.

    1. Re:Math by swb · · Score: 1

      Thankfully my wife is like this. She will post a photo with none of the faces tagged but tags the post with a dozen people, none of which are the people in the photo. Although this is probably of limited value since the whole point of this is probably to see through this unintentional misdirection and lack of face-tagging to internally "correct" these kinds of posts so they know who the people in the photo really are.

      I have tagging in posts and photos disabled by default and the only picture of me I've ever used as a profile picture has my face very underexposed, wearing sunglasses and a large-brimmed hat. All my other profile pictures have been pictures of other people or non-faces.

  18. And false positives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems quite a technical achievement, but more importantly is the false positive rate.

  19. Time to by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Start wearing masks and disguises when out in public.

    Plus if you use a gas mask that will cut down on the pollution and allergens.

  20. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sense a spate of naked penis, and bird flipping machine learning coming on

  21. Groucho Marx masks by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    A better approach is for everyone to wear Groucho Marx masks, that makes everybody look the same.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Groucho Marx masks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better approach is for everyone to wear Groucho Marx masks, that makes everybody look the same.

      For extra protection I wear the Groucho nose-and-glasses on top of a Guy Fawkes mask.

    2. Re:Groucho Marx masks by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Guy Fawkes has pretty much cornered that market.

  22. Training the data by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I logged into Facebook for the first time in about 6 months, and it required me to authenticate myself by answering a series of questions about who was in each picture. It would display 3 pictures, each showing a square around a particular person, and it would ask who the person is. It was multiple choice.

    I wonder if this is how they confirm that the data is correct, to eliminate intentional errors. You can ask a person who doesn't own the picture and didn't tag it to confirm the person in there. By masking it as an authorization request you convince people who otherwise would not be involved in tagging to participate.

    1. Re:Training the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a bunch of the captchas I've run into lately, where there are 2 numbers to enter. One is obviously random, the other is a photo of a street number on a building. Seems like its being used for mapping. I've found that only putting in the random number works most of the time. When it doesn't I surmise that someone else did put in a number, so the system knows to expect something.

    2. Re:Training the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen that before. It usually appears if you access FB from a different computer in a different country. Generally whenever FB has a reason to think your credentials may have been stolen, which is actually a good thing.
      Those pictures were tagged by humans (i.e. your friends), so they're more likely to be correct.

      Sometimes you'd see one of those "happy birthday" or "merry christmas" pictures without anyone's face in it. That's because at some point it became popular to tag all of your friends on such pictures as a way for it to show in everyone's timeline.
      I guess they're probably being smarter about those now, since it's relatively easy to know if there's a human face in a photo, and pictures with dozens of tagged people are unlikely to be easily recognizable even if they do include faces.

    3. Re:Training the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ReCAPTCHA isn't exactly a secret project. It is publicly run by Google with the stated purpose of OCRing house numbers from the Google Street View data.

  23. Recognize all day, if you are facebook it is okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The large corps are doing just fine, but I probably won't be able to use tech to recognize people because GLASSHOLE.
    This is a sad world.

  24. Re:DeepFace? Megalomaniacal much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And our privacy slips away a little bit faster with every innovation.

    In the immortal words of visionary Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

  25. One thing I don't understand by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    How can they recognize you by your FB picture, when half the people use pics of their children or cats?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  26. Evil twin? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    Excellent. When can I use this technology to identify and recruit my evil twin for nefariously comedic purposes?

    --
    The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
  27. This takes creepy to a whole new level. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why anyone trusts this corrupt company with the details of their life is a complete mystery.
    How could it possibly be more obvious what they really are?

  28. Why this DOESN'T work by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Recently, FB decided that it needed to verify that I was really me when logging in. To do this, it presented me with a bunch of photos from my "friends" that had been tagged and insisted that I choose a name of someone in the photo. If I got enough of them wrong, it would "lock" my account. (Not quite "lock" but I had to try it again). Not only did it pull up obscure photos from "friends" I rarely interact with so I had little chance of knowing who was in the photo. But get this: It pulled up photos of people facing away from the camera and expected me to know who the person was from behind. Da fuq, FB? Seriously?!?

    1. Re:Why this DOESN'T work by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      just drop Facebook already and get account with your frineds on small largely unknown social networking site, there are hundreds of them. Facebookk was a passing fad that more and more people are leaving behind because of its intrusive practices

  29. What is the underlying percentage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if there are 1.3 billion Facebook users with an average of 1000 photos each, thats 1.3 trillion photos, of which Facebook will incorrectly identify over 35 billion.

    That doesn't sound so good does it?

  30. Re:DeepFace? Megalomaniacal much? by cavreader · · Score: 1

    Well I don't know about everyone else but the state already has my picture and address on my drivers license. Add the information on my tax returns and the state really doesn't need to do anything else if they want to find me. Both of these sources of information were available well before the Internet ever existed.

  31. Pictures per person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "four million photos of faces belonging to almost 4,000 people" - So they need 1000 pictures per person to be able to get to 97.25%?

  32. walk much? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Which is why there is not a single photo of me online that is linked to my name.

    so you've never had a passport or driver's license?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  33. science by the numbers by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I think it's to hit the 97.53% number they have for humans...basically its PR...internal & external PR

    Internally, that DeepFace team has to justify their existence

    Externally, f/b uses these headlines to drive their ad revenue

    It's all a shell game, from a researchers perspective. It's essentially psuedo-science....it's engineering demonstrating a capability not data proving/disproving a hypothesis that is being actively tested.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  34. Re:DeepFace? Megalomaniacal much? by Zordak · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but what if the State wanted to know where you were a week from last Tuesday, or wanted to look for leverage over you based on your purchasing habits or travel habits? Now it's a bit less innocent.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  35. I'm waiting for the Glass app using this tech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That way when I'm sitting across from some asshole on a train, I can know his name, age, marital status, whether or not he has children, what his daughter's political views are, what his political views are, etc. instantly rather than having to guess. I hate having to guess.

    Course I need to get Glass too. Does it have games? I think my favorite game would be one called “NSA says”. NSA says, “Look for this guy [face pictured].”

    Yay, I found him. 5 points!

    Later:
    What was that popping noise? Hey, he fell down. That must have been it. Bubble wrap probably.

  36. time to pass more privacy laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    privacy is a human right and if you don't believe that, just wait.

  37. Deepface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that that new feature that allows me to stick my cock down facebook's throat?

  38. Well to be fair ... by drpimp · · Score: 1

    Slashdot users already promote their privacy via face and neck beards and have been for years.

    --
    -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
  39. As Bender once said by certsoft · · Score: 1

    "Up Your Face" Or something like that...

  40. Re:DeepFace? Megalomaniacal much? by cavreader · · Score: 1

    Exactly why would the government need leverage over me? That assumes the government wants force me to do something against my will but I cannot think of a single thing that would make this happen. My purchasing and travel habits get logged every time I use a credit or debit card. Just like all my phone calls get logged so the phone company can bill me. My cars are registered with the state and county along with my insurance details. Property that I own is registered in county records for tax assessments and if I was married my marriage license would be logged. My freaking dogs have county rabies inoculation licenses stored in the county database. These are all ordinary pieces of information that have been collected and stored way before the computer age. It just took longer to obtain process this type of information without computers. I think people are having a hard time understanding the difference between privacy and anonymity. All of the domestic data supposedly collected by the NSA was already being captured and stored by others. The question is whether it is legal for the phone companies or web sites to hand over call logs and other information without first obtaining a warrant. Google and other mainstream sites capture every click you make and packages up the results to sell to 3rd parties to generate revenue while also utilizing your browsing habits to "customize" the ads you see on your screen.

  41. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gosh, what if your face is recognized in public? And people find out you shop at Walmart. OMG.

  42. oh well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for leading a life of crime.