Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Will Soon Be Able To ID You In Any Photo

sciencehabit writes Appear in a photo taken at a protest march, a gay bar, or an abortion clinic, and your friends might recognize you. But a machine probably won't — at least for now. Unless a computer has been tasked to look for you, has trained on dozens of photos of your face, and has high-quality images to examine, your anonymity is safe. Nor is it yet possible for a computer to scour the Internet and find you in random, uncaptioned photos. But within the walled garden of Facebook, which contains by far the largest collection of personal photographs in the world, the technology for doing all that is beginning to blossom.

153 comments

  1. Like increasingly often, the real question begs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The possibility is neat technologically, but do we want to put up with the consequences?

    1. Re:Like increasingly often, the real question begs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The possibility is neat technologically, but do we want to put up with the consequences?

      There. I fixed it for you.

      The possibility is neat technologically, but do *they* care about the consequences when can get a profit?

    2. Re:Like increasingly often, the real question begs by radl33t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      facebook probably can't generate sufficient profits off an activity like this. since their IPO they have essentially been squandering equity in all directions, including this one, to chase potential revenue. their growth targets are probably impossible (by a factor of 10 or more) without a massive change in revenue model. And so they chase whats app, flying drones, and spy tech. Its an impossible, hilarious, and economically inefficient circus, that is now playing out for the second time in 20 years, with mostly the same people involved. And these are the prized achievements of a system for which most here even express ideological preference.

    3. Re:Like increasingly often, the real question begs by nosfucious · · Score: 1

      I guess now, short of plastic surgery every other day, there is nothing standing in the way of a totalitarian state - everywhere.

      Nothing you do out side of your home is private and anonymous. Every thing you say or do will can be used against you.

      Because, you know, no one wants/is able to police the police.

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    4. Re:Like increasingly often, the real question begs by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      The question is moot, Any information gleaned is money.

  2. What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You uploaded all the photos and did all the tagging they needed for this yourself, didn't you?

    1. Re:What's the problem? by Sir_Substance · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, I didn't.

      Other people have been uploading and tagging me whether I like it or not, despite my not having an account.

      So fuck you it's not been my decision, but I'll be copping the consequences. If I could burn down every data center facebook owned I'd do it in a second, no hesitation.

    2. Re:What's the problem? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No problem. You see that nice girl in the street, take pic and immediately FB gives you her address and phone number. Cool. The next day you step on the foot of this unsympathetic guy in the train. He takes a pic of you and during the week-end your house is burned to the ground. Everybody knows everyone, that's great!

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You chose to leave your basment....

      You chose to know other people....

    4. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's kind of retarded, actually. In both situations there would be a "____ has uploaded a photo of you, would you like to be tagged?" prompt that would occur on your end.

      If nothing else, Facebook is incredibly law enforcement friendly. If there's the a warrant or subpoena they're more than happy to oblige. I guess that doesn't stop the rape or arson, but they would totally get caught.

      Unless, y'know they were under a fake account hidden behind 7 proxies or something.

    5. Re:What's the problem? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Quantity has a quality of its own. Scale matters.

    6. Re:What's the problem? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's what SHE said.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    7. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >That's kind of retarded, actually. In both situations there would be a "____ has uploaded a photo of you, would you like to be tagged?" prompt that would occur on your end.

      I've never ever ever gotten one of those. Not having an account probably has something to do with that. Fuck FB.

    8. Re:What's the problem? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Not on Facebook, but on Google+ one of the first things I did was to disallow tagging of me in photos. It's just a really really stupid thing to tag yourself or someone else in a photo, or from my view anyway (it's been too long that I can't put myself into the mindset of a kid).

    9. Re:What's the problem? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      But he did not choose to allow a company to profit from his name and likeness.

    10. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you know google is doing it behind your back for their own data mining goals, right? and regardless of whether you give your picture to them, or even your real name.. they've figured it out anyway.

    11. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Batmanwoman approves.

    12. Re:What's the problem? by stoploss · · Score: 1

      If I could burn down every data center facebook owned I'd do it in a second, no hesitation.

      Hm, I wouldn't. I'd auction off the hardware, then I would invest half of the proceeds in low risk mutual funds and then take the other half over to my friend Asadulah who works in securities...

    13. Re:What's the problem? by markass530 · · Score: 1

      if you don't have an account people can't tag you

    14. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but our superheros are now all screwed, they can't lead a double life now. Batman will have to move.

    15. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You chose to leave your basment....

      You chose to know other people....

      Well, now that we've established the floor in which the government has the authority to rape your privacy...

      ...good luck finding this thing we call a society in the future.

    16. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't.

      Other people have been uploading and tagging me whether I like it or not, despite my not having an account.

      So fuck you it's not been my decision, but I'll be copping the consequences. If I could burn down every data center facebook owned I'd do it in a second, no hesitation.

      It may be more practical to lynch anyone holding a mobile phone in the air with the deliberate intention of photographing you for said sites.

    17. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but that feature still requires an account.

    18. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >That's kind of retarded, actually. In both situations there would be a "____ has uploaded a photo of you, would you like to be tagged?" prompt that would occur on your end.

      I've never ever ever gotten one of those. Not having an account probably has something to do with that. Fuck FB.

      This is why FB is retarded, they should only allow tagging for registered accounts without exception.

    19. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to elaborate, by registered I mean one cannot input an arbitrary name to tag anyone, the tag in question must point toward a valid account or the tag doesn't get saved on FB systems.

      Anonymous guests cannot tag anyone at all; just as well... But if FB allows anonymous users to be tagged, they should allow said anonymous users to un-tag themselves.

    20. Re:What's the problem? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Whereas you exercise perfect control over everyone in the world who happens to know you, I'm sure.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    21. Re:What's the problem? by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      correction you can't UN TAG yourself if you don't have an account.

      the problem is facebook has a great number of "phantom" accounts for folks that do not have an actual account.

      If your friends/coworkers/enemies ect tag your face (or anything else) with your name FB records this and if you someday do sign up for an account you will by way of your friends and such be linked to the data in your "phantom account".

      so lets say Krystal Rainbyrd does not have an account but a Jade Morningstar does. Jade does a picture during a party and tags herself AND KRYSTAL. Coworkers and others do the same. If Krystal does sign up (to get the party invites or something) then all the tags with her name will light up as being HER.

    22. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What works for me is making an account with a goofy alias. Facebook doesn't allow it but I've gotten away with it for about 5 years so far. Everyone tags me as the alias, and voila. Sometimes friends make fun of me for using a stupid name but I laugh it off. I'm sure my real identity could be figured out by someone actively looking for me, given post content that might mention my name, but why make it easy for them?

    23. Re:What's the problem? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      So you have a woman's name and phone number. Good for you. I have a large book full of them. It still gets dropped on my porch now and then.

      So some guy has your address. Good for him. He could have just as easily followed you home, and there's a very good chance that you never would have noticed.

      Now, both of you have a choice to make. What will you do with that information? Will you get on with your life peacefully, as a law-abiding member of society, or will you jump the line over to being a criminal stalker or arsonist? That's the question that really matters, not whether some third party recognized you and announced that recognition to the world.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    24. Re:What's the problem? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      ACs can do that you know. The rest of us, not so much.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    25. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People keep acting like this means that FB will tag you without your consent. What will almost assuredly happen rather is that it'll ask whether you want to be tagged in it.

    26. Re:What's the problem? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    27. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a config option.Turn it on if you want it. I'd wager that it'll *always* be on for autotagging, if only to eliminate false positives.

    28. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a bit of a dumbass, aren't you? He didn't exchange names with these people. You kind of need that critical information to use your awesome book.

    29. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have an account where can I turn that off? That's sort of the point, the assholes that run FB are getting information from the assholes that have accounts and the rest of us have to suffer the consequences of those assholes not understanding how to respect other people's privacy.

    30. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're already doing it. In order to opt out of the system you have to have an account, which means you have to agree to their ever-changing privacy policy where they flip settings around at times to try and catch you off guard.

      Until they tie the tags into real accounts that people create, there's going to be no way of opting out. This is much like those stupid like buttons that they've been using to spy on people. But unlike those like buttons, you can't just disable it because it doesn't run on your own computer at all.

    31. Re:What's the problem? by markass530 · · Score: 2, Informative

      you are very, very confused about how facebook and its tagging system works

    32. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not on Facebook, but on Google+ one of the first things I did was to disallow tagging of me in photos. It's just a really really stupid thing to tag yourself or someone else in a photo, or from my view anyway (it's been too long that I can't put myself into the mindset of a kid).

      Nice try, but Fail. If G+ works like what my mother's use of Facebook shows, you're just blocking them from leaving a direct link to your exact account. In FB, if you don't have an account, the tag remains without a link (this is how I know even I have FB presence --the only good thing is that searches do not appear to locate this type of non-member, but with FB you're never safe).
      Now that a label with your full name exists for several 'friends' who compulsively tag everyone, there's enough data for FB. The day you finally crack and join FB you'll sooner or later connect to your tagger 'friends'. This happens whether or not you know of the existence of the picture of you. The ancient non-linked tags likely get replaced with a real link to you, especially knowing that face recognition can ensure the names and faces match YOU directly.

      Game over.

    33. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Need to start mass tagging random people. If we can't prevent them getting the signal can we add noise?

    34. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to elaborate, by registered I mean one cannot input an arbitrary name to tag anyone, the tag in question must point toward a valid account or the tag doesn't get saved on FB systems.

      Not what I have seen. My mother has me tagged in a lot of places. My name is unique. Even if facebook hid this somewhere, they still have that previous tag data.

      Even if you didn't know this is how it works (or had worked in the past) I'll point out here that saying 'or the tag doesn't get saved on FB systems' is naive. This is the same Zuckerberg that was found this past year silently saving *unfinished* posts that users give up on sending to an intended target. The same posts that by sheer volume and statistics, must include various ill break-up ultimatums, venting to bosses that might lead to fire-able offense and several hundreds of 'vulgar' posts that are mistakenly addressed to a non-vulgar person (someone who wouldn't appreciate the joke / cursing and AT LEAST be totally confused at the error) before one notices the would-be blunder.

    35. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you didn't know this is how it works (or had worked in the past) I'll point out here that saying 'or the tag doesn't get saved on FB systems' is naive

      No. I was pointing out how FB should work, not how it currently works.

      When Google said their motto was do no evil I didn't realize that they offshored that evil to Mark Zuckerberg.

    36. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People keep acting like this means that FB will tag you without your consent. What will almost assuredly happen rather is that it'll ask whether you want to be tagged in it.

      And if doesn't matter if you don't have an account, you will be tagged anyway as FB allows tagging of arbitrary names, not just names of registered accounts.

      You as an anonymous guest, cannot remove said tagging at all. This is the way Zuckerberg likes it. Don't like it? convince your friends to move on from FB.

    37. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tag people incorrectly at random. That will mess with the algorithm.

    38. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite easy if you aren't a pussy.

    39. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Score:4, Informative)? What the fuck...

      GP is wrong about the tags automatically becoming linked if the tagged person creates an account - but he's right about it being possible to tag people who don't even have an account. Which might not be worth worrying about if your name is John Smith, but some of us don't have that luxury.

    40. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let people take your photo that's what I do. Really if I am some where and see a camera pointed my way I turn my head. These days my friends have a lot of photos of the back of my head.

    41. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he should first settle this with his friends who took the photos and uploaded them on FB and possibly other social sites as well. FB is not the only social site.

    42. Re:What's the problem? by markass530 · · Score: 1

      they can only tag a name , they can't tag "you"

  3. I don't think this is really true. by eexaa · · Score: 2

    Postgrad students at our faculty were developing face-recognition stuff that can easily and percisely tag almost all photos we were able to stuff in it. In microseconds. I guess it would be really weird if facebook didn't have this technology available long time ago (it isn't really that hard either).

    1. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Brulath · · Score: 2

      Were these rather generous photographs or partially obscured faces wearing hats in a crowd? Was the database of potential people in the billions? Identifying the subject of a selfie at your university might not be the most difficult task, but identifying everyone in an arbitrary crowd is going to be a lot more involved. The process could probably benefit from being able to map relationships to narrow partial matches down, hence Facebook.

    2. Re:I don't think this is really true. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      1+ for easily and percisely tag almost all photos we were able to stuff in it. In microseconds.
      This tech is old for the 2d face work. Its fast for local police Privacy concerns? UK police test 'faster-than-ever' facial recognition software http://rt.com/uk/173292-facial... (July 16, 2014)
      Or just read the public info on records per second in the 10,000 records/sec http://www.nec.com/en/global/r...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:I don't think this is really true. by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've got facial recognition software running on my netbook. It really is not that difficult to get hold of some very sophisticated shit. It even has the capability of reducing any face to a photofit string.

      If you're thinking "Bullshit!", let me throw some titles past you that a: I use for facial recognition features and b: I consider worth mentioning because they actually work (for some metric of "work" which for me is "enough to differentiate between 60 million individuals").

      Windows Live Photo Gallery
      Google Picasa
      DigiKam
      Adobe Photoshop Elements
      Sony Picture Motion Browser
      AmCap
      IrfanView
      OpenCV
      EvoFIT
      E-FIT
      Faces LE (Law Enforcement edition)

      (those last three are compositors, I do use them to reduce found faces to photofit strings - they're much easier to index that way).

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    4. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Also very hard if there is not a set of reference photographs.

    5. Re:I don't think this is really true. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      passport/DVLA database is replete with reference photographs.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    6. Re:I don't think this is really true. by eexaa · · Score: 1

      Whoa, good list. There are also very good methods to recognize people by non-facial features (especially the ears are something that computers can "fingerprint" very easily and reliably), but I haven't seen that in any software package yet.

    7. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem, I have a hat lined with IR LEDs. Invisible to the human eye, but blinding to cameras. The next thing I'm going to make is an IR necklace.

      That reduces your pile of expensive software to approximately worthless.

    8. Re:I don't think this is really true. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I've got facial recognition software running on my netbook.

      Everybody does.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:I don't think this is really true. by rmstar · · Score: 1

      Were these rather generous photographs or partially obscured faces wearing hats in a crowd? Was the database of potential people in the billions? Identifying the subject of a selfie at your university might not be the most difficult task, but identifying everyone in an arbitrary crowd is going to be a lot more involved.

      Even if identifying someone from a bad photo is nearly impossible, if you have enough bad photos and enough additional information, the task can become a lot easier. For example,

        - if you have a lot of photos from the same event, your database might find a string of photos of the same person that can, in the end, amount to a lot more information that what you could get from a single picture (for example, 3d cranial shape).

        - Additional circumstancial evidence will likely restrict your database. It the pics are from a concert by a certain band, the "crowd" is not billions of people but maybe just a handfull thousands.

        - There is another one based on cell phone tracking data. I leave that one as an exercise.

      Basically, people have to understand that total surveillance is just around the corner, and that nothing short of a revolution will prevent a dystopia.

    10. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were these rather generous photographs or partially obscured faces wearing hats in a crowd? Was the database of potential people in the billions? Identifying the subject of a selfie at your university might not be the most difficult task, but identifying everyone in an arbitrary crowd is going to be a lot more involved.

      Even if identifying someone from a bad photo is nearly impossible, if you have enough bad photos and enough additional information, the task can become a lot easier. For example,

        - if you have a lot of photos from the same event, your database might find a string of photos of the same person that can, in the end, amount to a lot more information that what you could get from a single picture (for example, 3d cranial shape).

        - Additional circumstancial evidence will likely restrict your database. It the pics are from a concert by a certain band, the "crowd" is not billions of people but maybe just a handfull thousands.

        - There is another one based on cell phone tracking data. I leave that one as an exercise.

      Basically, people have to understand that total surveillance is just around the corner, and that nothing short of a revolution will prevent a dystopia.

      The hope is that it will be a peaceful revolution based on people realizing what's looming above them and deciding, in numbers, to say no to it. If enough people do that, the legislation and case law will follow.

    11. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Set it to strobe to save on batteries, and instead of a necklace, might I recommend a brooch one could pin to their clothing?

    12. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Also very hard if there is not a set of reference photographs.

      Fortunately your friends, relative, and coworkers are willing to help out with that. Each photo uploaded to Facebook with your face tagged in it is a reference photo. Setting your privacy settings to not display those tags doesn't mean the data point wasn't saved.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    13. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, I get it.

    14. Re:I don't think this is really true. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      All shot from almost exactly the same angle, which makes them a terrible source of reference data. To do facial recognition well, you need multiple shots of each person, taken from multiple angles... like Facebook already has.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Postgrad students at our faculty were developing face-recognition stuff that can easily and percisely tag almost all photos we were able to stuff in it. In microseconds. I guess it would be really weird if facebook didn't have this technology available long time ago (it isn't really that hard either).

      Would you mind sharing a link to the github repository for this code? It sounds like others are struggling to reproduce your work and the community as a whole would benefit if you wouldn't mind.

    16. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My theory is that the push to move to automated immigration gates at airports is to collect reference data to aid the development of face recognition algorithms.

      Yes, the photos are take from the front (are you sure though? I haven't been able to ID all of the cameras on the systems I've been exposed to recently) but they capture change over time.

      If I used the gates each time I travelled then my government would have at least a dozen "ideal" photos of me taken every year.

      It is for precisely this reason that I don't use the gates. I don't care if it takes a bit longer to talk to a person, it's worth it.

    17. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Like I said earlier, I don't get my face tagged as I disabled it (and I'm not on Facebook).

    18. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How? You have to have an account in order to get that disabled.

    19. Re:I don't think this is really true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could also correlate people appearing multiple times together or who are friends on FB. That would pinpoint/help discriminate between possible matches. They could also use GPS data embedded in the photos themselves to raise the accuracy of the photo id match.

  4. Good think I don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And I don't believe the article either. At least not for practical purposes. Show me the numbers for misses and false positives please.

    1. Re:Good think I don't use Facebook by siddesu · · Score: 2

      Even if you don't use it, they probably have your shadow account, managed by the very same kind of machine learning algorithms that automatically tag your pictures, even when you choose 'do not tag'. http://www.digitaltrends.com/s...

    2. Re:Good think I don't use Facebook by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's no "probably" about it.

      And that shadow account garbage was why I quit Facebook, for all the good it does. I have no illusions that they have any less of my data now than they did when I was a member... but at least I'm one fewer set of eyes to count as an impression on their auto-playing video ads.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Good think I don't use Facebook by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      EvoFIT, pretty much the best photofit software there is, has a 70% naming rate (automatic and correct naming of individuals based on a reference set of file photos such as passport database), it's one of the systems the Metropolitan Police use purely for the fact that it can run a photofit against a reference set.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    4. Re:Good think I don't use Facebook by houghi · · Score: 1

      I not only have keft Facebook, I am actively blocking it, Using pdnsd as my DNS server, I have added the following:

      neg {
      name=facebook.com;types=domain;
      name=fbcdn.net;types=domain;
      name=fbcdn.com;types=domain;
      name=fb.com;types=domain;
      }

      And besides being able to block facebook, I also use mvps that I add to it with a little bit of scripting.
      A third plus is that the domains that my provider is required to block are still available.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Good think I don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook and Craigslist never truly delete anything.
      Thay both have ALL your posts, pictures, emails, chats, etc, since the day they went into business.
      Don't believe me, google it.
      They have no legitimate reason over you for keeping your mindstream.
      STOP USING THEM.

  5. I'm A Cross-Dresser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With two Facebook accounts (the real and my secret life). Will anyone now be able to identify me and do things like blackmail or slander me?

    Sometimes Zuckerberg doesn't understand the boundary between "being able to do something" and "whether you should do it." I wonder if he will be pleased if I stood outside his house and recorded his activities and followed him everywhere to post his whereabouts online? What if I went through his bin and post pictures of that?

    1. Re: I'm A Cross-Dresser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a suggestion you may not have considered.

      Shut the fuck up.

    2. Re: I'm A Cross-Dresser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you can *already* block people from tagging you without your consent?

      IF you sign up.

      Also, by the time you get the message, you're already tagged. The only question is whether anyone but facebook gets to see it if you block it.

  6. Show me my doppelgangers! by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd like to be able to ask Facebook:

    "Out of all the hundreds of millions of Facebook users, which ones look the most like me?"

    Wouldn't that be cool?

    1. Re:Show me my doppelgangers! by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      "Out of all the hundreds of millions of Facebook users, which ones look the most like me?"

      There is already a third party app on Facebook that does that.

      It only works on the most contrived examples thought, where the lighting is the same and everything is aligned the same way.

    2. Re:Show me my doppelgangers! by gijoel · · Score: 1

      Facebook, Facebook, what's on my Wall. Who's the fairest of them all?

    3. Re:Show me my doppelgangers! by pz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd like to be able to ask Facebook:

      "Out of all the hundreds of millions of Facebook users, which ones look the most like me?"

      I'd rather ask, out of all those people which ones look like Mark Zuckerberg enough to pass for him at the corporate headquarters? Just to make a point.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    4. Re:Show me my doppelgangers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I could see where that would be useful for adoptees searching for their birth parents or possible siblings.

    5. Re:Show me my doppelgangers! by mambodeath · · Score: 1

      Actually FB already tags one of my friends as her identical twin...

      --
      if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
  7. soon? by sahuxley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, that mean the NSA has been able to do this for a decade or so?

    1. Re:soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So that's the reason why London and by extension the UK, has a CCTV camera at every major intersection...

    2. Re:soon? by Threni · · Score: 1

      No, because NSA didn't have all the photos. Perhaps some which match those in official documents, in a good light, at some angles, but even they're not going to be able to compete with the billions of photos of people on facebook. Also, their "match or no match" is not as useful as "this person is known to these people"; there's a whole network of people they can hit up/monitor to find where someone is.

    3. Re:Soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK could probably help you with that.

  8. Credentials no take the place of competence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CHIC was right the Bar codes are here

  9. It can't by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It can't even find me in my own photos.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:It can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never let your enemy know your true capabilities.

  10. Privacy NOT Datamining, Duhr! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You should NEVER post pictures of your face on the internet, not even "just for" restricted groups of friends. Because someone is ALWAYS there selling you out. Social, dating, employment... all these types of sites. NEVER POST YOUR FACE. There is absolutely no good reason to post your face on the internet. Social... your friends and family already know what you look like. Dating... if people are shopping for looks you will not find love. Employment... that's illegal.
    Too bad you SUCKERS bought the privacy policy BS. Everyone is whoring you out. HAHA!
    Now go delete all your stupid photos and use your damn brain the next time.

    1. Re:Privacy NOT Datamining, Duhr! by ardor · · Score: 1

      Won't help you much if somebody else makes a photo with you in it and tags you, will it?

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    2. Re:Privacy NOT Datamining, Duhr! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be aware of people with cameras around you and flat out refuse to be in their pictures and order them to delete any they have of you.
      Initially they will be like, WTF, but once they realize you're serious as a heartbeat, they'll delete it. Otherwise they're not your friend anymore. And did you really want people who disrespect your wishes and thoughts and basically betray you as your friends? That's right, you don't.

  11. Cross-Dressers are people, too by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's a suggestion you may not have considered.

    Your "secret" life? Don't post it to social media.

    So because someone is socially different they have to forego socializing and connecting with others?

    One good thing about the internet is that it allows people to be who they really want to be - by actions, words, and accomplishments - without it threatening their personal welfare. One bad thing about the internet is that it allows many people to put undue pressure on the few who stand out.

    If Facebook bridges that gap, so that our anonymous personae are always connected to our real selves, then we all become subject to enormous societal pressure. It'll be the equivalent of the "old boys club" everywhere and in everything we do. You mist be the right type, have the right behaviour or you won't succeed.

    It will be impossible for (for example) a secret cross-dresser to hold down a job. I know lots of people in the scene who would absolutely be fired if their employers found out, and they take great pains to keep their private lives separate from their public ones. I know people who play LARP who are in the same boat; for example, a Connecticut supreme court judge and at least 2 policemen.

    One only needs to go back 30 years (some of us can actually do that) and note how society dealt with homosexuals, non-violent deviancy, even communism and long hair. Even further back was how we (the US) dealt with the Japanese, although Islamics are probably in that position right now. If someone wanted to be heard without being identified as Islamic, shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

    On the flip side, is it possible to create a program that replaces faces in images with other faces? If such a program existed, and if there was enough interest we might create a movement to make facial recognition unreliable. Sort of like how "AdBlock" extensions fought against advertizing, we could have a Facebook app that grabs random faces off of other pictures and pastes them into the "gay bar" image mentioned in the summary.

    This is a troubling development. I'm not a big fan of government regulation, but I think there's a clear need for delineating the privacy of people who *want* to keep themselves private.

    People who do not have an account shouldn't have to deal with Facebook's particular brand of evil.

    1. Re: Cross-Dressers are people, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually defeating the algorithms would be incredibly simple for a drag queen, as all it requires is strange makeup choices.

      google it, it looks like camo. You're breaking up the lines and contours that it uses to figure out where cheekbones, nose bridge, chin etc are.

    2. Re: Cross-Dressers are people, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Rubbish.
      Totally wrong.
      Perhaps you might like to read about the 'Golden Number' (1.618)
      http://www.goldennumber.net/facial-beauty-new-golden-ratio/

      Makeup, glasses, facial hair are all defeated because of this number

      I predict an increase in people wearing balaclavas and burka's. These really do beat the facial recognition devices but it ain't gonna work if you are in France.

    3. Re: Cross-Dressers are people, too by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      uh... nope. EvoFIT can literally see through makeup. One of its sorting algorithms is based on a genetic evolutionary algorithm, which means it's fucking clever.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    4. Re: Cross-Dressers are people, too by vpness · · Score: 1

      You're brilliant! So poison the well by grabbing pics of folks that you know - but might not like, or pics of public figures. Put 'them' in gay bars, kkk ralies, with hot girls, etc. Watch hijinks ensue. Wait. Someone here has to have done this already.

    5. Re:Cross-Dressers are people, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the flip side, is it possible to create a program that replaces faces in images with other faces?

      I've seen photo edits like that. It looks little off to the human eye (although that may be just because I've seen it used for intentionally silly purposes where the two people looked very different), but who knows if a computer could detect the change.

    6. Re:Cross-Dressers are people, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that there aren't that many CT Supreme Court judges, you haven't done that person any favors by using that example.

    7. Re:Cross-Dressers are people, too by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      "How society dealt with communism" yeah about that, turns out it was the right way to do it. Communism wasn't just some competing political ideology, it advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government and its replacement with a dictatorship. So, let's not get things confused around. They didn't want a better life for the American people, they wanted to burn the country down.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Cross-Dressers are people, too by Megol · · Score: 2

      Eh... most American communists weren't Soviet ideologists. While they probably wanted a dictatorship it would be one of the proletariat. Which mostly equals direct democracy.
      And the treatment was not only wrong it was extremely so. Even a rumor that one once associated with someone that was (probably falsely) accused of being a communist was enough to make one unemployable. Witch hunt is the proper term for such behavior.

    9. Re:Cross-Dressers are people, too by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      While they probably wanted a dictatorship it would be one of the proletariat. Which mostly equals direct democracy.

      Only a fool would believe that remotely possible. Funny thing about dictatorships, once in place, democracy of any form is the first thing to go.

    10. Re:Cross-Dressers are people, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps their attorneys should have to deal with FB's huge market cap. While it's still there. ;-)

    11. Re:Cross-Dressers are people, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the flip side perhaps our society will accelerate to accept such "outside" behaviour once it becomes apparent that EVERYONE is doing something odd?

    12. Re: Cross-Dressers are people, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the irony.

    13. Re:Cross-Dressers are people, too by Megol · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that's because you don't understand the terminology.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
      Not saying the communist idea is realistic - but for this discussion it needn't be to be relevant.

  12. not only have Facebook been doing this for a while by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Informative

    but Google have also recently taken to autotagging faces in photos you upload to G+.

    Incidentally, a 2013 report from the ITC says that you are 6 times more likely to have your bank account emptied by an identity thief via data taken from Facebook than you are to be the victim of a house burglary. http://blog.identitytheftcounc...

    I hate it when I'm right. AGAIN.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  13. Re:not only have Facebook been doing this for a wh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  14. Ass Recognition by De_Boswachter · · Score: 1

    Facebook already had ass recognition up and running. Whenever I try to post this picture, http://i.imgur.com/4FcyrcO.jpg , Facebook will remove it automatically and instantly.

    1. Re:Ass Recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crack is the wrong way. Turn it sideways then draw two eyes and a nose.

    2. Re:Ass Recognition by De_Boswachter · · Score: 1

      Facebook already had ass recognition up and running.

      I have to retract that claim. I converted the image to .png and it uploaded fine. Turns out Facebook already has their advanced file name recognition technology up and running instead.

    3. Re:Ass Recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offtopic, sorry, but damn, this lady wishes she could find an ass like that for herself.

  15. I left FB years ago, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of things like that. My prediction is that people will be so upset in the next coming years, they will just abandon the whole annoying social media bubble within 5-8 years from now.

  16. Technology nudging Society? by eibo · · Score: 1

    Could it be that this is indicating society has to evolve, allowing more freedom of personal expression rather than trying to keep the old ways?

  17. Soon? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    "Shelly Sxxxxxx was tagged in Lisa xxxxxx Xxx's photos." came across that a few days ago.

    Shelly is one of few people in my friends list, she and her sons were part of the same COD4 clan as I was.

    Yes, I had to join facebook to become involved with my family, took 182 edits to my HOSTS file just to get in.

  18. NSA being the paymaster ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The possibility is neat technologically, but do *they* care about the consequences when can get a profit?

    With NSA being the paymaster the profit will indeed be handsome, very handsome

    1. Re:NSA being the paymaster ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA has been doing this for over a decade.

  19. Location and time usually in photos too. by InterGuru · · Score: 1

    Even worst, most photos are done with smartphones, whose default settings ( which most people do not touch) tag the photos with time and location.

    Imagine some over ambitious prosecutor ( are there any other kind?) going on a fishing expedition using these photos.

  20. Facebook = The devil incarnate by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Facebook consists of the single largest privacy invasion ever invented. And they offer nothing that is not free elsewhere on the Internet, if not linked up under one password.

    If the government asked people to do what Facebook asks, there'd be another revolution. But offer them minor services that they could do themselves and they willingly throw away everything Thomas Jefferson fought so hard to give them.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  21. Interesting what's used as the big scary by jpellino · · Score: 1

    lead in the first graf of this post: "a protest march, a gay bar, or an abortion clinic" like those are automagically bad things?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Interesting what's used as the big scary by Livius · · Score: 1

      Not universally or objectively bad, but they are examples of things that a certain number of people might want discretion about. Other people would have different things that they would feel that way about but the underlying anonymity concerns would be the same.

      But of course you already knew that.

    2. Re:Interesting what's used as the big scary by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I think it's more like, "Might be problematic if you're planning to visit or, even better, *return home* to some country whose authorities regard these as acts worthy of a thousand lashes, afterwards".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Interesting what's used as the big scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lead in the first graf of this post: "a protest march, a gay bar, or an abortion clinic" like those are automagically bad things?

      Children like you live in a world where they naively believe everyone else shares their
      belief systems. But such childlike beliefs are very much mistaken in the REAL world, which
      is full of nasty characters, who do things like hang gay boys on a fence and leave them to die,
      or bomb abortion clinics.

      This isn't rocket science. The Nazis first made LISTS of people before those people were
      rounded up. And a list of people from Facebook using a photo ID database could in theory
      be used in the same manner. Perhaps the data won't be used by Facebook directly to commit
      abuses, more likely it will be used by the government after Facebook hands over the data which
      it most certainly will do, probably on a regular basis. Anyone who doesn't understand the implications
      of this carry FAR more bad than good is a goddamned moron.

    4. Re:Interesting what's used as the big scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha. You're right. Given the number of O shills here, "a KKK rally, a shooting range, or a private doctor's office" might have been more appropriate.

  22. Snowden: GCHQ/NSA's Optic Nerve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not only have they been doing this for decades, part of the leaks reveal they've been intercepting messaging systems to get the photos. It's a program called Optic Nerve (started in 2008):

    "One document even likened the program's "bulk access to Yahoo webcam images/events" to a massive digital police mugbook of previously arrested individuals."

    "Face detection has the potential to aid selection of useful images for 'mugshots' or even for face recognition by assessing the angle of the face," it reads. "The best images are ones where the person is facing the camera with their face upright."

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo

    Here this is GCHQ intercepting everyones Yahoo webcams, but all of the current crop of messaging apps will all be being grabbed. Do you really think that free messaging app can pay for all those servers by selling a few stickers?

    So you can pretty much assume that NSA pays for feeds to all your Line, Whatsapp, Viber etc. messaging, and its worth remembering those apps can turn on the camera and mic any time they want. Once you grant an app permission on Android, its in charge.

    There's no filtering here, its everyone stupid enough to have a smartphone with an open camera and one of the suspect apps. On the plus side, only senior spys are allowed to watch you wank. The ordinary ones can only look at your teenage daughters tits.

  23. FUCK FACEBOOK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a rusty meathook.

  24. I heard of something by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A while back, I read an article about this. Someone suggested "database poisoning".
    It sounds illegal but I am not so sure. All that everyone needs to do is to tag other people as you and vice versa. If enough people did that, it would mess up such a system.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:I heard of something by GeekZilla · · Score: 2

      When I still had my FB account, I did something similar. I began uploading random images of different people, mythological creatures and inanimate objects and tagging myself in them.

      --
      Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
  25. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm shocked that they are saying this is not possible already.

  26. Scalability matters, accuracy less so by davecb · · Score: 1

    This keeps coming up, every time someone gets a better algorithm for doing the recognition. The actual problem is that it won't scale , not that it's not accurate enough.

    If you have 23 people in a group, and you're comparing something like their face or their birthdays, you have to do 22+21+20+...+1 = 253 comparisons to cover the group. If it's birthdays, there is a 50% probability you'll find a pair with the same birthday. If your facial recognizer is 99.7% accurate, you'll have a 50% chance of getting a false match out of this tiny group.

    If you are the NSA or the German FSS, and your recognizer is only accurate 97.35 percent of the time, you'll be getting one false recognition out of about every ten people you scan. When you're looking for any one of several hundred criminals out of an airport full of people, that means you'll be constantly arresting your granny for being an Bader-Meinhoff Gang member (;-))

    If you're looking for just one face, yours, and you don't care if a few times it mistakes you for Quaku Breki Kiku, it's fine. If you're trying to run a police state, or even trying to keep problem gamblers out of a casino, it a horrendous waste of your time.

    --dave
    I ran into this years ago, when Siemens had one of the first recognizers and the FSS tried it out in an airport in Germany. A statistician colleague eventually explained why it kept generating such obviously false matches now matter how they tweaked the program. See also the "birthday paradox" on wikipedia

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:Scalability matters, accuracy less so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're trying to run a police state, or even trying to keep problem gamblers out of a casino, it a horrendous waste of your time.

      The thing is that any bureaucrat anywhere is an expert at making problems be someone else's problem instead of theirs. IOW, they'll just make the problem be the hapless victim citizen's problem. As already happens, qv. girl that fought seven years(!) to get off terror watch lists she wasn't even allowed to know she was on but that stopped her from traveling nonetheless. Which brings us back to the original question: Do we want to put up with the consequences?

    2. Re:Scalability matters, accuracy less so by davecb · · Score: 1

      The FSS wouldn't actually mind annoying the populace, but the level of false positives would have required them to dedicate most of their budget to buildings full of humans staring at screens, trying to back-stop the computers.

      Anything that doesn't scale will eat your budget, and you won't be able to do the rest of your job.

      When it gets close to 99.9997% accuracy or so it will be financially competitive with a security guard with a wand, just checking for weapons (;-))

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    3. Re:Scalability matters, accuracy less so by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      I think the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris just threw NSA monitors into a scalability tizzie fit.
      Apparently, the terrorists e-mailed each other using the subject line CONSOLIDATE YOUR DEBT!!!

      If you cannot safely throw out all the spam that infests the web, then you've got a lot more messages to sift through.

    4. Re:Scalability matters, accuracy less so by davecb · · Score: 1

      Ha! The more I hear about the NSA the more I think they have lost their minds.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  27. Fascists nudging Maoists, and vice versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Department of Social Engineering's activities here would not be so concerning but for things like:

    >O.C.G.A. 16-11-38 (2010)
    >16-11-38. Wearing mask, hood, or device which conceals identity of wearer

    >(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to >conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the >owner or occupier of the property to do so.

    >(b) This Code section shall not apply to:

    >(1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday;

    >(2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the >wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity;

    >(3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or

    >(4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.

    (Otherwise known as "that Treyvon law", due to the foolishness of both the Soros funded leftie ninnies on the one hand, and the gallus-snapping sons (and daughters) of Eugene Talmadge on the other. Reactionary tools, all. In other, just one more piece of compartmentalized dialectic from the legislature and the police industry, relieving corporations from the liabilities resulting from allowing clerks to shoot punks who come to rob the store, chipping away at everyone's property and privacy rights in the process. Source: )

    Yeah, yeah, there are plenty of good cops. Not the issue here. Now, in another feat of dazzling irony, back to work overcoming computer phobia make a sale or two.

    1. Re:Fascists nudging Maoists, and vice versa by paiute · · Score: 1

      Luckily, my religion requires me to wear a mask in public, and nowadays my profound and sincere religious beliefs trump your silly laws.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  28. My response will evolve by paiute · · Score: 1

    I resolved many years ago that I would never be myself on the net. Several years ago I added to that never to post pictures of my face to the net. I guess the next step is to never go out in public without my randomly-generated mask.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  29. and everyone wants a Oculus VR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then Facebook and the government will have everyone's retinal info on file and when bio scanners become more common....

  30. Raise the noise level. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start randomly tagging pictures of you with different names, and pictures of strangers with your name.

    If enough people do it, the noise level will make the computer algorithms useless. Probably works best if you tag a number of pictures of the same stranger as you (and vice versa) so that analyzing statistical clusters won't help.

    Probably violates some fine print in Facebooks TOS, but who gives a fuck?

  31. So, where is ... by PPH · · Score: 1
    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. Sigh by koan · · Score: 1

    Nor is it yet possible for a computer to scour the Internet and find you in random, uncaptioned photos.

    Actually that is possible, and why are you people still using Facebook?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  33. Let the hilarity begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couple this technology with police wearing body cams and militarized version of Google glass to present results of background checks for warrants and you've got a much more efficient enforcement regime!

  34. I have a solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robot arm + makeup air brush = Spray a randomly generated face on your face.
    Then you can put on a different face every time you go out.

    That should stuff up facebook for a couple of years at least, until their system is good enough to see past the surface disguise using 3D information from intelligence type cameras.

  35. news? by sterlingcrispin · · Score: 1

    This isn't new news and it shouldn't be on Slashdot. The title of "Facebook Will Soon Be Able To ID You In Any Photo" is clickbait, and "soon" was years ago. The article on "Sciencemag.org" is just a summary of a research paper by Facebook titled Deepface which was published in early 2014. https://research.facebook.com/... Additionally, this summary-story has already been on Slashdot in March of 2014, http://tech.slashdot.org/story... . I've done a lot of artwork and research involving facial recognition, but I hope that most people already realized that Facebook was doing facial recognition research.

  36. Preach it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doesn't understand the boundary between "being able to do something" and "whether you should do it."

    Oh yeah, ya mean like cross dressing? Plenty of folks don't get that!

  37. Yeah yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you sure as fuck LOVE it when you can point out just how right you were. :/

  38. Online File Backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever on the move, have your data moved too. Archive Box is an online file backup solution with up to 100GB storage capacity. Never lose your file, photo or a video again. Try Archive Box. www.archive-box.com/features