NIST Workshop Explores Automated Tattoo Identification

chicksdaddy writes: Security Ledger reports on a recent NIST workshop dedicated to improving the art of automated tattoo identification. It used to be that the only place you'd commonly see tattoos was at your local VA hospital. No more. In the last 30 years, body art has gone mainstream. One in five adults in the U.S. has one. For law enforcement and forensics experts, this is a good thing; tattoos are a great way to identify both perpetrators and their victims. Given the number and variety of tattoos, though, how to describe and catalog them? Clearly this is an area where technology can help, but it's also one of those "fuzzy" problems that challenges the limits of artificial intelligence.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Tattoo Recognition Technology Challenge Workshop challenged industry and academia to work towards developing an automated image-based tattoo matching technology. Participating organizations in the challenge used a FBI -supplied dataset of thousands of images of tattoos from government databases. They were challenged to develop methods for identifying a tattoo in an image, identifying visually similar or related tattoos from different subjects; identifying the same tattoo image from the same subject over time; identifying a small region of interest that is contained in a larger image; and identifying a tattoo from a visually similar image like a sketch or scanned print.

Comments

Coming to a neck near you ...

[amalcolm]

Barcodes :)

Re:Coming to a neck near you ...

[Anonymous Coward]

New Proposal: Encase children in giant eggs until the age of 25, at which point hatch them and then demand to know why they aren't yet employed

Re:Coming to a neck near you ...

[JaredOfEuropa]

Only if you also sport a tramp stamp (or "reetgewei" = "arse antlers" as they are known in my country)

This is going to take a lot of testing

[Minwee]

Now, as a competent, dedicated law enforcement professional who is committed to making this project work for the good of society, you're going to need to test it. Thoroughly.

You need a lot of pictures of people with tattoos, preferably not covered by too much clothing. And you're going to need to double check that the image recognition is correct for every match.

Once you've done that, you'll need to start applying the same algorithm to video sources. Again, with careful checking to verify that the system is working correctly.

Where on the Internet are you going to find a huge volume of images and video featuring people with exposed tattoos? And how, exactly, did you just convince the government that it was your job to spend all day watching them while calling it science?

Re:This is going to take a lot of testing

[Nidi62]

Now, as a competent, dedicated law enforcement professional who is committed to making this project work for the good of society, you're going to need to test it. Thoroughly.

You need a lot of pictures of people with tattoos, preferably not covered by too much clothing. And you're going to need to double check that the image recognition is correct for every match.

Once you've done that, you'll need to start applying the same algorithm to video sources. Again, with careful checking to verify that the system is working correctly.

Where on the Internet are you going to find a huge volume of images and video featuring people with exposed tattoos? And how, exactly, did you just convince the government that it was your job to spend all day watching them while calling it science?

Probably the best way to roll this out would be to target and identify repeat offenders. If you have someone currently incarcerated, you can take good clear pictures of them revealing their tattoos which could then be matched to images of tattoos from crimes committed after they are released/before they were incarcerated.

MY one concern is this:how good would it be at recognizing altered tattoos or ones that have had additional tattoos added to or applied over the original tattoo? Want to help get away with murder? Every time you kill someone just add a tattoo to your sleeve, incorporating a previous tattoo so that it is altered enough to render this method ineffective. Plus you get the added benefit of having a souvenir/reminder of each criminal act. Think the Johnny-23 character from the movie Con Air.

Re:This is going to take a lot of testing

[pr0fessor]

really? My issue with it would be how do you tell who it's on when there are places tracing and pumping out the same tattoo stencils on thousands of people.

Re:This is going to take a lot of testing

[shaitand]

"give you reasonable grounds to get a search warrant"

Bringing someone in for questioning is one thing. Raiding a private home and ripping the funiture, walls, and floors apart leaving the resident with all financial responsibility and cleanup duty... that should be a MUCH higher bar and should require positive identification to count as reasonable.

Re:666 - you know this had to be posted

[Chrisq]

Reminds me of this

:

Tattoo of Leviticus 18:22 forbidding homosexuality: £200.

Not knowing that Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos: Priceless

Not "1 in 5"

[Anonymous Coward]

That was from an survey of 1500 people in the age range of 18 to 25, who are the group most likely to have a tattoo. It in no way reflects on American society as whole.

It's like polling people in the age range of 80+ about gay marriage, and saying "1 in 5 Americans don't support gay marriage".

As somebody who crunches numbers all day, trying to pass off results from extremely narrow polls as defining "the face of America" drives me nuts.

Re:FUCK BETA! Re:THE FUCK????

[arkane1234]

"No, honest officer, I wasn't yelling. I'm an ex-COBOL programmer."

Re:You know...

[war4peace]

Your point is valid for clothing too.