AVG Announces Invisibility Glasses

BrianFagioli writes So what do these glasses from AVG Innovation Labs actually do? The security firm claims it can protect your identity in this new era of cameras everywhere. From the article: "'Through a mixture of technology and specialist materials, privacy wearables such as invisibility glasses can make it difficult for cameras or other facial recognition technologies to get a clear view of your identity', AVG claims. This is still in the prototype phase of testing, though it has been officially announced at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. There's a lot of science behind this -- a series of infrared lights surrounding the eyes and nose is not visible to other people, but cameras will pick it up making recognition difficult at best. There's also reflective materials involved, which aids in the blocking, or so it's claimed."

Comments

*sighs*

[Barny]

Well, expect there to be signs all over banks and other secure locations, from now on, telling people to remove helmets, glasses and all articles of clothing.

Seriously, fucking with security cameras is really a needed thing?

Re:*sighs*

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

They are 'surveillance' cameras. Sometimes, surveillance is, indeed, an ingredient in the production of 'security'. Other times, not so much. In either case though, the camera only ever handles the surveillance, possibly with some other component producing security from it.

Re:*sighs*

[Jane Q. Public]

BUT, also...

Regular old glass blocks the vast majority of infrared. No special IR "emitters" are necessary. The lenses just look black to IR cameras.

Here's just one example which illustrates this very well.

Re:*sighs*

[Savage-Rabbit]

Well, expect there to be signs all over banks and other secure locations, from now on, telling people to remove helmets, glasses and all articles of clothing.

... all of that and anal probing.

Re:*sighs*

[sociocapitalist]

Well, expect there to be signs all over banks and other secure locations, from now on, telling people to remove helmets, glasses and all articles of clothing.

Seriously, fucking with security cameras is really a needed thing?

Traffic and other types of cams that shouldn't be used to track people should certainly be fucked with.

Re:*sighs*

[Anonymous Coward]

My credit union has had a sign on the door asking people to remove hats and sunglasses for more than a year.

Re:*sighs*

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, signing the legal document is supposed to identify you. Many of them are signed with date and location too.
Hiding from security cameras makes sense if you have no intention of signing any documents that day.
I can't see any reason to why one would like to remain unidentified from cameras while still getting identified by signing a document, unless the intention is to commit fraud by claiming to be someone else.
On the other hand I think it would make even more sense to take a picture separately.
You sign the document, you take a picture with yourself, the other party and the document and attach it to the document itself.
If the signature ever comes into question later you can use the image to verify or disprove that you agreed to the contract.

Re:*sighs*

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, expect there to be signs all over banks and other secure locations, from now on, telling people to remove helmets, glasses and all articles of clothing.

Seriously, fucking with security cameras is really a needed thing?

Seriously, have you been living under a rock for the last 10 or so years?

What part of facial recognition did you miss in the article?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/7/5878069/why-facebook-is-beating-the-fbi-at-facial-recognition

I'll let you rethink that last post.

Re:*sighs*

[wonkey_monkey]

Regular old glass blocks the vast majority of infrared. No special IR "emitters" are necessary.

How would you imagine than an IR emitter would block IR, in any case?

The emitters are there to dazzle IR-sensitive cameras.

Re:*sighs*

[DarkOx]

The point of the emitters is not block IR but screw up the camera's exposure. Ever take a picture of someone standing in front of bright light source, and had the subject come out all dark? Its fooled the camera's light meter.

Same kind of deal here, either the IR will wash out the image of the rest of your face, over exposing, or fool the camera into thinking the reflected light is greater than it is, under exposing. Either way the resulting image will be less detailed. There are darkroom/photo editing tricks to overcome this to a degree but it will complicate the process greatly for automated systems.

How the TSA will feel about it remains to be seen.

Re:*sighs*

[MitchAmes]

... remove hats and sunglasses for more than a year.

I hope you sue them when you get skin cancer or cataracts after going all summer without protection from the sun.

Re:*sighs*

[Anonymous Coward]

These signs have been up for not years, but decades. Does anyone ever go to a bank?

Re:*sighs*

[invictusvoyd]

I dont believe that this is gonna work as claimed .

Re:*sighs*

[monkeyzoo]

Some cool thinking by AVG, but the ideas presented have significant limitations, as they themselves acknowledge if you click through and read their actual link.

A more reliable (and perhaps feasible?) line of inquiry has been started by CV Dazzle through their use of "camouflage" glasses, facial markings, and/or hairstyles.
Very interesting stuff here: http://cvdazzle.com/

Re:*sighs*

[oodaloop]

I don't know if this the joke and I just missed it, but there are already signs in banks that say to remove helmets and sunglasses so that video cameras can get a good view. Have been for years.

Re:*sighs*

[Barny]

Never been asked to remove my sunglasses in a bank. There are times when I leave my normal glasses (short sighted) at home and the only way to see at all is with my prescription sunglasses on. In this case, any requests for me to remove them would be met with me asking to talk to a bank manager in regards to stopping my accounts and withdrawing all my money.

Basically, for those of us who need such devices to see well (I need to wear the damn things nearly all the time, a hefty and constant dose of immune inhibitors require it), this is going to make our lives a little more full of suction.

Re:*sighs*

[fustakrakich]

How the TSA will feel about it remains to be seen.

If they work, they'll be banned, if not, they will sell them at the TSA's airport duty free souvenir shop.

Re:*sighs*

[michelcolman]

Or: please step aside, follow me into this room where somebody will meet you in an hour or so to question you about why exactly you are using this high tech device to keep your identity hidden from our security cameras and what you were planning to do here. Then someone else will come and ask the same questions all over again. I hope you didn't have any other plans for today.

You might as well wear a balaclava.

Re:*sighs*

[TooTechy]

Sure - they will just attach an infra-red filter to the camera.

Re:*sighs*

[geoskd]

If they work, they'll be banned, if not, they will sell them at the TSA's airport duty free souvenir shop.

Why can't it be both? The TSA aint too bright...

Re:*sighs*

[Barny]

Yeah I am pretty sure I will need more than sunglasses an a request to see the manager to rob a bank.

And no, not all banks do this. Mine (NAB) never has.

Re:*sighs*

[bws111]

Seriously? All they do is ask you to remove them for a moment so the camera (or the receptionis, or the teller) can see you without the glasses. Then you put them back on.

And guess what? The manager isn't going to do a damn thing until he can verify your identity, which will involve removing the glasses.

Re:*sighs*

[Mr D from 63]

Combine these emitter glasses with a tin foil hat for improve results.

Re:*sighs*

[morgauxo]

Sell
Confiscate
Sell again

Sounds pretty bright to me!

Re:*sighs*

[bws111]

Your bank lets you perform transactions without being able to verify your identity via photo ID without sunglasses? Sounds like you should find a better bank.

Re:*sighs*

[geekmux]

Well, expect there to be signs all over banks and other secure locations, from now on, telling people to remove helmets, glasses and all articles of clothing.

Seriously, fucking with security cameras is really a needed thing?

I'll let you politely check yourself after you review your local city budget for "camera management".

Once you see just how much taxpayer money is being poured into watching your every move, you might understand the need to try and dismantle these Orwellian efforts now.

Oh, and please don't be ignorant and start asking shit like how could this possibly get any worse when that army of stationary cameras today will be mounted on an army of flying drones tomorrow. Believe me things can get much worse.

Re:*sighs*

[Immerman]

Except that, as I recall, they can now do high-accuracy facial recognition based on bone structure alone - something that can't be hidden by dark glasses, hairstyles, or any amount of face paint. If you want to protect your identity we're now in the territory of masks, veils, and facial prosthetics. Just be sure to stand still, because they've made great strides in gait recognition as well.

Re:*sighs*

[Immerman]

Not too bright like a fox... where do you think they get their stock for the gift shop? You don't think they actually *buy* all those pocket knives, knitting needles, and 2.5oz and larger bathroom products, do you?

Re:*sighs*

[PPH]

I'm fine with this. The First Naked Bank of Washington.

Re:*sighs*

[wonkey_monkey]

Except that, as I recall, they can now do high-accuracy facial recognition based on bone structure alone - something that can't be hidden by dark glasses, hairstyles

It can be quite easily hidden by hairstyles if they cover up said bone structure.

or any amount of face paint.

If they're inferring bone structure from visible light images, then this sounds like just the job for face paint. People have been enhancing/redefining their cheekbones with make up for years.

Just be sure to stand still, because they've made great strides in gait recognition as well.

Walk without rhythm. Don't attract the DHS.

Re:*sighs*

[operagost]

They make you take off your EYEGLASSES and stumble around blindly?

Re:*sighs*

[Opportunist]

Depends. Do you want to have at least a little bit of privacy?

Re:*sighs*

[Mr D from 63]

I was referring to the reflective qualities of tin foil helping with the scheme. Lighten up.

Re:*sighs*

[Opportunist]

Gait recognition?

Dammit, THAT's what the ministry of silly walks was about! Those sneaky Brits!

Re:*sighs*

[Opportunist]

If they're banned, the "no IR emitting glasses" sign doubles as the "here your privacy will be voided" sign.

Re:*sighs*

[Opportunist]

The question is not why I wear it.

The question it why it bothers you.

Re:*sighs*

[Opportunist]

Pah! False advertising! Here I was, taking a flight and looking forward to all the juicy TSA agent fondling that I was promised but when I stand there with a "do me, stud" pose and look on my face, he just kinda looked rather ... annoyed and barely touched me.

I want my money back!

Re:*sighs*

[Opportunist]

He didn't state whether the sign was at the door when you're entering or leaving. Considering the silly rules some banks have today, I would not expect them to put it on the sensible side.

Re:*sighs*

[ganjadude]

no, expect this to be outlawed, because you know, terrorists....

Re:*sighs*

[ganjadude]

reminds me of a concert I went to. I saw korn back in 98 and bought a korn bottle opening at the show. I went back to see them again in 99, the bottle opener was on my keychain. Security tried to make me give them the bottle opener saying i couldnt bring it inside. I went and explained how i bought it at this exact venue at this show last year, and they are selling them inside he wasnt having any of it. eventually i took it off my keychain and put it in my shoe and lo and behold. it was for sale inside!!!!

Re:*sighs*

[bored]

I saw korn back in 98 and bought a korn bottle opening at the show. I went back to see them again in 99, the bottle opener was on my keychain.

Did you actually think the security at a concert is there to protect the concert attendees?

Eye rolling... Their primary job is to protect the revenue streams inside the concert. Hence the focus on busting people with hip flasks and the like.

Re:*sighs*

[ganjadude]

i was a concert promoter myself for a few years, and you are right there. I thought it was funny because it was a tiny keychain, the carabiner it was on was more of a weapon than the bottle opener haha

Re:*sighs*

[Jane Q. Public]

How would you imagine than an IR emitter would block IR, in any case? The emitters are there to dazzle IR-sensitive cameras.

You missed my point.

I simply meant that large glass lenses -- even those clear to visible light -- will serve to hide any facial features behind them to IR. It probably wouldn't stop recognition of a face, but it would probably be sufficient to obscure your face.

I noticed in the pictures given as illustration, that was not true. Eyes were clearly visible behind the lenses. So either the lenses are not normal glass, or those pictures weren't actually involving much in the infrared spectrum.

Re:*sighs*

[Jane Q. Public]

The point of the emitters is not block IR but screw up the camera's exposure.

The point of my comment was that with IR cameras, that's probably not necessary.

If you had large, flat, regular glass lenses, IR cameras would not see your facial features behind them.

But if it's about screwing up regular cameras with IR (because most digital cameras are sensitive to IR to some degree), that's a different matter. But the idea still has problems because most "regular" digital cameras have IR filters on them anyway, for precisely the reason that IR screws up exposure. So I still don't see the point.

Re:*sighs*

[wonkey_monkey]

I simply meant that large glass lenses -- even those clear to visible light -- will serve to hide any facial features behind them to IR.

The IR emitters aren't meant to hide features - how would they do that, anyway? They're meant to dazzle the camera, break up outlines, and possibly - if they strobe - confuse tracking. And they work on visible light cameras; no-one brought up IR cameras until you did, though they'd probably do the same for them as well.

So the emitters aren't trying to do the job of glass.

or those pictures weren't actually involving much in the infrared spectrum.

The fact there were in more-or-less natural colour should have been your first clue ;)

Re:*sighs*

[dcw3]

Does anyone ever go to a bank?

As someone who hasn't used an ATM in twenty years, I go to banks maybe a couple times a year. It's rare because I hardly ever use cash, so it's those few times when someone writes me a check, or want some extra cash while on travel.

Re:*sighs*

[Jane Q. Public]

My point was that IF they were being used to dazzle IR cameras, they're pointless because IR cameras wouldn't see your face behind the glasses anyway. They might recognize A face, but not YOUR face.

Also, not mentioned earlier but just as cogent: IR blasters wouldn't work on most halfway decent cameras anyway, because they have IR filters on them... precisely because IR messes up the exposure.

Streisand effect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this looks like just the way to get attention and get people manually making the effort to identify you.

Privacy is fundamentally not a technical problem but a social one, and needs to be protected with promotion of a privacy-conscious social contract and ultimately with laws (both to sanction private entities which abuse privacy and to limit the powers of the state to use any information gathered inappropriately).

Re:Streisand effect.

[LessThanObvious]

Agreed, this is a good way to get people very interested in watching you. Someone going this far out of their way to evade surveillance is naturally going to draw suspicion. I'm still holding out for the pattern shifting masks the cops wear in "A Scanner Darkly", those would at least be more fun. I started a petition once to ban the use of facial recognition on the public, maybe I didn't publicize it enough, but I didn't get many signatures. I thought there would be more people who would feel strongly that we shouldn't end up in a world where every photo online and every step into public space is connected to identity and subjected to tracking.

Re:Streisand effect.

[LessThanObvious]

I was wrong about the IR filters on digital cameras, as another poster mentioned, a remote control IR emitter shows up bright as day on my camera. I'm confused by the result as I understand digital cameras do filter IR so the sky doesn't look purple, etc.. but oddly the IR emitted from an IR LED shows up as bright as any visible light source. Between reflectivity to thwart flash photo's and IR emitters I'd have to say this gadget technically may be quite effective.

Needs several people to wear them

[Jamu]

Assuming your identity isn't given away by the fact that you're the only person wearing infrared emitting glasses. Anyway, for the full effect, you should walk around naked so you can't be identified by the clothes you're wearing.

Re:Needs several people to wear them

[Anonymous Coward]

Also paint your genitals fluorescent green, in case of TSA recognition software.

Re:Needs several people to wear them

[Savage-Rabbit]

Assuming your identity isn't given away by the fact that you're the only person wearing infrared emitting glasses. Anyway, for the full effect, you should walk around naked so you can't be identified by the clothes you're wearing.

That depends on your use-case. If you are Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi you might be better off just shaving your beard off and avoiding cameras. If you are a private citizen who is not trying to hide, not wanted by the police and is just plain old creeped out by being under constant surveillance then this might be a product you want even if it makes you stick out like a sore thumb. It also depends on how commonly accepted this technology becomes. If the public at large eventually gets so creeped out by being under constant surveillance that half of them wear a device like this there is very little the security services in most western democracies could do about it without looking like the Gestapo or NKVD.

Re:Needs several people to wear them

[Anonymous Coward]

You should go everywhere accompanied by a young, nubile swimsuit model in a revealing costume.

No matter how many cameras there are, any cameras directed by a male surveillance team won't be looking at you....

Re:Needs several people to wear them

[wonkey_monkey]

Then we'll look for the house next to the house with no numbers.

Anyway, for the full effect, you should walk around naked

I'm waaay ahead on this one.

Re:Needs several people to wear them

[sumdumass]

Eh.. wont work. They will just tag you as the dork with the hot chick for easy reference to find the hot chick to show thier buddies. You will eventually have to list it as an alias if ever investigated for antthing.

Re:Needs several people to wear them

[Jamu]

You should go everywhere accompanied by a young, nubile swimsuit model in a revealing costume.

I completely agree.

Re:Needs several people to wear them

[Skylinux]

Get with the program...

May I interest you in this privacy enhancing penis cover? Knobbed for her pleasure and "his" privacy ;)

Re:Needs several people to wear them

[camperdave]

You should go everywhere accompanied by a young, nubile swimsuit model in a revealing costume.

No matter how many cameras there are, any cameras directed by a male surveillance team won't be looking at you....

[Cough]Ron Jeremy[/cough]

Re:Needs several people to wear them

[umghhh]

They all surpoassed NKWD and GESTAPO as well as STASI in their efficiency and reach. Considering so called enhanced interrogation and killing of some (mostly wanted) people with drones they are already far ahead. But of course they are working on a license from democratically chosen government albeit one must accept that gerrymandered elections districts in some areas of US democratic system are not really all that democratic and rather unproductive.

So can I get a version that looks less stupid?

[Mobius Evalon]

Also, these aren't actually doing much to conceal the identity of the wearers. This is equivalent to sticking a piece of that reflective tape they put on schoolbuses over your eyes.

How soon will it be made illegal ..

[lippydude]

I recall reading somewhere that a driver in the UK was brought to court over using a device that rendered license plates invisible to cameras and ANPR readers, but not to the naked eye. could anyone here find the link?

Re:How soon will it be made illegal ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Polarized plate covers. And they are readily available online. Get caught using them in Canada as well and you're in shit.

Re:How soon will it be made illegal ..

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Polarized plate covers.

OT. I wonder (with little thought) whether they could be engineered to show one number to the naked eye and another to an infared sensitive camera?

Re:How soon will it be made illegal ..

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Wouldn't surprise me especially since most of those devices for obscuring license plates are covers or paints and are easily dealt with in accordance with the law. For example Minnesota State Statute 169.79 sub section 7 states:

All plates must be (1) securely fastened so as to prevent them from swinging, (2) displayed horizontally with the identifying numbers and letters facing outward from the vehicle, and (3) mounted in the upright position. The person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the plate legible and unobstructed and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so that the lettering is plainly visible at all times. It is unlawful to cover any assigned letters and numbers or the name of the state of origin of a license plate with any material whatever, including any clear or colorless material that affects the plate's visibility or reflectivity.

So in my state any cover one were to put over their plate, including those license plate frames dealers put on, would be illegal. At the same time if one were to rig up a system where one was dumping out massive amounts of IR around the plate in an effort to flood the image that would be legal. Also for the record there are no laws covering the IR emission from vehicles in Minnesota as all light emissions regulations deal with specific colors (white, blue, amber, and red) light, or with flashing lights.

I have done some digging into seeing if flooding ALPRs with IR is possible and while some people seem to say it isn't it seems like their efforts have been fairly half assed. They only put out a few watts of power instead of going for a few hundred watts of power. I want to build a frame that covers no part of my plate but will draw 20 amps at 12V and dump it into a large array of these IR LEDs. From the pictures I have seen where people photograph a 100 equivalent watt bulb showing that even that doesn't flood the image they just didn't take it far enough so ~200W going into some IR LEDs would be about as bright as a 1000 watt bulb which now is starting to get up into the range of back lit by the sun range type of power which will mess with the picture.

Re:How soon will it be made illegal ..

[arth1]

It is unlawful to cover any assigned letters and numbers or the name of the state of origin of a license plate with any material whatever, including any clear or colorless material that affects the plate's visibility or reflectivity.

In other words, it is legal to cover the parts that don't have letters and numbers or the name of the state? Cover those parts with the same black paint that they use for the letters and numbers.

Re:How soon will it be made illegal ..

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Never thought of that, but to do it would take someone more ballsy than I as it seems to skate awfully close to the line where a judge would rule against you. That and I don't know where I would get IR absorbing paint like what is used on Minnesota's new license plates which are designed to be easily read by ALPRs with very high contrast in the IR spectrum. This tells me that the cameras they are using don't have IR filters and with enough power being dumped out around the plate it will hopefully screw up the sensor for all the other vehicles around as well.

Until it hits Facebook...

[PhilHibbs]

So when someone takes a picture of you wearing these glasses, uploads it to Facebook and tags you...

It will be trivial to overcome

[iceco2]

These glasses may foil current face detection techniques (I'm not even sure about that),
but based on the pictures provided they do not actually conceal from the camera a significant part of your face,
and do not introduce significant variable noise. It should be trivial to adjust face detection and recognition to overcome this
should these ever become popular enough.

Transparent material that blocks cameras?

[Nutria]

Didn't Mythbusters do an episode on that?

Re:Transparent material that blocks cameras?

[Lumpy]

nope. They can block IR thermal cameras, but 99.987641% of all security cameras are not the multi thousand dollar FLIR type camera.

Re:Reminds me of a comic book idea

[Demonoid-Penguin]

...but one thing is clear both in reality and in that comic book, that there was no doubt the person with the skull for a face was the punisher.

Are you sure? Or is this like arguing about hobbits? I'd have thought in reality there would be no doubt the person with the skull for a face was someone wearing a punisher suit..

... or just wear a sack over your head

[gsslay]

Or any number of other things that can obscure your face. Far cheaper and more effective.

I personally favour a bandana, enabling me to look like I'm about to hold up the stagecoach.

Re:... or just wear a sack over your head

[GameboyRMH]

Bandanas and other face coverings make you look like a criminal about to commit a crime, and aren't allowed in many places. Weird glasses just make you look like a hipster or Kanye West fan.

Re:... or just wear a sack over your head

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wear the Muslim veil; problem solved.

I have a demo for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a regular TV IR remote control and point it at your smartphone camera. You'll notice on your phone's screen that the LED lights up quite brightly.
 
You will be walking around a town with several of these things attached to your face, shining away happily. Do you not think anybody will notice?
 
This is the tech equivalent of Peter Griffin dressing in the clown costume while in the jungle, stating that "they're going to be looking for Army guys."

I've come up with something similar...

[lazlo]

I also have developed a type of invisibility glasses, though they're slightly different in terms of technology and function. Instead of making me "invisible" to certain types of camera, it makes all of *you* invisible to *me* when I'm wearing them. Also everything around you. And also it's really a blindfold. But hey, I like it...

Re:Reminds me of a comic book idea

[CrimsonAvenger]

And here I thought the Punisher wore a skull symbol on his chest. The Red Skull was the guy with a skull for a face.

Why are you hiding?

[JeffOwl]

This will end up being considered suspicious behavior and you will be stopped and ID'd, doesn't matter that you haven't done anything wrong. Not only that but now you have made it EASIER for the network of cameras to track your movement because unless significant numbers of people are wearing these you are going to stand out like a full moon, at night, with clear skies, viewed from somewhere at high altitude away from light pollution.

Dollar Store Equivalent.

[camperdave]

You can already buy identity concealing glasses. They work by projecting a false set of the facial landmarks used by facial recognition software while obscuring your own.

Best of all, you can get them at the dollar store.

AVG malware

[simplypeachy]

Are these the glasses that AVG big-wigs wear when they set up their affiliate toolbar installer program, or the "AVG Secure Seal" badges they use to endorse malware sites as "secure"?

Not thinking practical enough.

[denzacar]

I'm guessing a "designer" came up with those hipster glasses?

Why bother with glasses when there are rechargeable button cell batteries that you can fix with double sided tape or a clip, to any pair of glasses?
Cameras come from the sides too. Where one could wear IR LED clip-on earrings.

And why point your week LED at a camera (which can be too far for the light to reach the lens) when you can point it AT THE FACE and "wash it out"?

It will age your skin though so additional facial creme might not be a bad idea.
Also, wearing a hat to minimize both sunlight and camera exposure.

Oh, sure...

[Overzeetop]

"...could be engineered to show one number to the naked eye and another to an infared sensitive camera?"

Yeah, because intentionally falsifying your license information instead of just selectively obscuring it is so much less illegal.

Re:Oh, sure...

[Immerman]

Possibly even more illegal, but less likely to be noticed. I'd love to listen in on the conversation when the police realize there's an awful lot of different cars in the surveillance footage all featuring the license plate number "FCK YOU"

Re:Might only work with digital cameras

[Overzeetop]

When we talk about things being like 1984, we don't literally mean 1984.

Effectiveness?

[Greyfox]

Would they be more or less effective than these? It'd be hard to beat that price point.

Re:Effectiveness?

[Greyfox]

Huh, did I screw up my link or is New Slashdot just being retarded?

unfortunately...

[slashmydots]

Unfortunately, they install the AVG toolbar on your forehead when you put them on.

Re:They Live

[umghhh]

Obey, Consume, Sleep, Bend, Conform.
Here Iftfy.

Do they make my butt look big?

[LOGINS SUC]

And do they go well with my tin-foil hat?

Re:Cataracts anyone?

[Secundo]

This uses IR light though, opposite end of the spectrum. At any rate, this kind of technology would only be useful against current facial recognition technology and only if most people use it. Otherwise it's just "track the douche with the glowing face."

Lights the wearer up like a Christmas tree??

[gurnec]

If the point of the IR lights is to overexpose a camera that's IR sensitive, wouldn't this light them up like a Christmas tree? I wouldn't think that the kind of person who wants to hide their identity would be interested in wearing a big neon sign that says "Look at meee!!!" to any security guards monitoring those cameras....

Tin Foil Hat

[BlackHawk-666]

So, this is an announcement for a product that doesn't actually exist, and which wouldn't even work given the two points made on the site! You need the photo to be taken using a flash, and for the camera to not have an IR filter or decent exposure software. I guess that does take out a lot of the crappy photos of people our partying at least.

Personally, I think a better idea for a time when this might actually be useful, say attending an anti--capitalism rally, would be to cut out a mask using the front packaging of some name brand product. Think of how much the manufacturers would hate to see a sea of faces, hidden behind "Coco Pops", "OMO Washing Powder" (stronger whites, lol!) and other brands they've spent billions enforcing into our psyches. Frosty the Tiger is smashing in that store-front! Captain Crunch just got a face full of mace and clubbed by those cops! Oh the humanity! Is that Princess Elsa walking topless down the street!

Standard mirrored lenses...

[Lumpy]

a $1.00 pair of mirrored lense sunglasses will also do this. Sorry AVG, your best and brightest are way behind the curve.

If you want to make their version, buy retroreflective tape and apply to your face or a set of cheap sunglasses.

Had one _for years_

[nospam007]

http://goo.gl/gnbG5c

All you need is just lemon juice

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is very well known that if you smear face with lemon juice the security camera can not record your face. Don't believe it? Have you done the invisible writing trick when you were a kid using lemon juice. Same principle. Many well known crooks have used this method. Big universities are studying the method.

More citations:

http://awesci.com/the-astonish...

http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgag...

Re:All you need is just lemon juice

[mark-t]

By all reasoning, if the trick actually worked that well, then the crooks that used the technique wouldn't be "well known" at all.

License Plate Readers

[jcdenhartog]

Can this be used to block license plate readers? I can see that being a useful application for this technology.

Re:Reminds me of a comic book idea

[Immerman]

Ah, see so it does work - The Red Skull can now walk around anonymously, safe in the knowledge that everyone will assume he's someone walking around in a Punisher suit...

This guy's wearing a pair!

[jddj]

Looks very chic!

no need

[frovingslosh]

Once you can convince people to wear bright flashing beacons that label them for extra special attention, you win. Clearly anyone who wants to protect their privacy is either a bank robber or a terrorist.

Useless in the long run

[davidwr]

If someone in a high-security environment such as a a major sporting event wants to take your picture to run it through a face-matcher program, they are going to spend the money use* a camera which behaves like the human eye, ignoring frequencies outside of the range of human vision.

Basically, if you are still recognizable to a trained cop who has seen a good photo of you, someone can make a camera and computer that will recognize you with about as good an error rate as a trained cop.

*Or design one themselves, or pay someone to design one themselves.

But they will be made from solid lead

[EmperorOfCanada]

Seeing that AVG is now in the bloatware business they will have to make these from solid lead.

Joking aside, this might be the first AVG product that I have wanted in years. The only problem is that camera people can solve this by putting IR filters on their cameras.

Prescription Glasses Confound It!

[lloy0076]

In Australia, when returning to the country at a major international airport one can go through the express lane. This uses facial recognition software to recognise one's face. However, in a passport photo one is not allowed to wear glasses and I'm significantly short sighted and can never actually see well enough to press the relevant buttons, get back in time and take my glasses off.

Ergo, I can only do it with glasses on and the machine's simply cannot recognise me.

Then, I have another problem as well, which is totally irrelevant to this thread but I'm an Asian looking guy (i.e. genetically Asian), in Australia with long hair (it's at least half way down my back). But I refuse to wear it in a pony tail like most other long haired Asian men in Australia and thus am easily mistaken as a woman. It doesn't hurt that I'm completely comfortable with my sexuality and refuse to participate in the sexist, male chauvinistic culture that would also identify me as a man.

So, all it takes is glasses to fool the machines and hair to fool the humans.

Bobby Tables to the rescue! Again.

[Thud457]

Just make some glasses with some cryptic incantation on them, and all the sudden, WE'RE ALL FREE AGAIN!
http://a.fsdn.com/sd/firehose/010/779/180-1.png

Re:Bobby Tables to the rescue! Again.

[HiThere]

Ah...Little Bobby Tables.

So THAT'S how Clark Kent did it....

[mark-t]

I always wondered how the heck a pair of glasses could make it impossible for everyone around him to realize that he was Superman...

Re:So THAT'S how Clark Kent did it....

[LessThanObvious]

Dress a little nerdy, put on some out of fashion glasses and lose Superman's confidence and bingo he's socially invisible. Being mild mannered, as Clark Kent makes him as attention grabbing as a potted plant. Anyone thinking that bright lights that obscure your image on camera will lower your surveillance profile could take a lesson from Clark Kent. Infrared lights might have some value to someone actually committing a crime, but that just makes them that much more attention worthy for a daily wearer wishing to side-step ubiquitous surveillance. Digital cameras and camcorders generally have IR filters in place so that their recordings look more like the colors perceived by the human eye, so I'm not sure if this technology would do much to keep a protestor's face off the nightly news.

already illegal

[cstacy]

Many states have laws on the books, rarely enforced, that make it a crime to hide your face by wearing any kind of mask in public. In the past, this has been about masked bandits. In the near future, you will be arrested for wearing these "invisibility" (IR or whatever) glasses in public. There will be sensors to detect when you're wearing them, and a handheld app for tagging you. The result will be a physical intervention (guard or policeman comes over to you) or correlation with your communications device emissions, photo/video stream as you walk around past public cameras, and license plate tracking. And once you've worn the glasses, there will be plenty of evidence to come knocking on your door for the "masking" crime. Whenever they feel like coming to get you, since the statute of limitations will be 6 years or something. I wonder what the catchphrase will be in the advertisements admonishing people not to "mask".

I'm already invisible

[ksheff]

At least to women in any bar or any other social setting in the US.

Re:I'm already invisible

[ksheff]

I know. But it's not so much about "complain about not getting in their pants" as much as the total absence of anything resembling politeness by most people, especially women these days. Oh well, I guess I can always charge up with some greasy chili containing lots of beans & onions to make their evening a memorable one. :) That was usually a good way to keep the drunks away when I used to record shows for bands.

I want mine to look like this

[Kubla Kahhhn!]

http://www.fandompost.com/wp-c...