Slashdot Mirror
Facial Recognition Could Be Coming To Police Body Cameras (defenseone.com)
schwit1 quotes a report from Defense One: Even if the cop who pulls you over doesn't recognize you, the body camera on his chest eventually just might. Device-maker Motorola will work with artificial intelligence software startup Neurala to build "real-time learning for a person of interest search" on products such as the Si500 body camera for police, the firm announced Monday. Italian-born neuroscientist and Neurala founder Massimiliano Versace has created patent-pending image recognition and machine learning technology. It's similar to other machine learning methods but far more scalable, so a device carried by that cop on his shoulder can learn to recognize shapes and -- potentially faces -- as quickly and reliably as a much larger and more powerful computer. It works by mimicking the mammalian brain, rather than the way computers have worked traditionally.
Versace's research was funded, in part, by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA under a program called SyNAPSE. In a 2010 paper for IEEE Spectrum, he describes the breakthrough. Basically, a tiny constellation of processors do the work of different parts of the brain -- which is sometimes called neuromorphic computation -- or "computation that can be divided up between hardware that processes like the body of a neuron and hardware that processes the way dendrites and axons do." Versace's research shows that AIs can learn in that environment using a lot less code.
Versace's research was funded, in part, by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA under a program called SyNAPSE. In a 2010 paper for IEEE Spectrum, he describes the breakthrough. Basically, a tiny constellation of processors do the work of different parts of the brain -- which is sometimes called neuromorphic computation -- or "computation that can be divided up between hardware that processes like the body of a neuron and hardware that processes the way dendrites and axons do." Versace's research shows that AIs can learn in that environment using a lot less code.
Because they never have them turned on - it would make them accountable for their deliberate law breaking.
I can already picture the scene. We're getting some sort of hybrid human/cam cop. The body cam will give constant instructions.
Cop at side of road: *holds up his hand*
You: *brake, roll down window*
You: "Uh hi officer"
Cop: "Hi, nothing to worry about, but I just wanted to tell you that your left brake lig"
Body cam: "SUSPECT RECOGNIZED"
Cop: *covers body cam* "Sorry, sometimes it malfunctions"
Body cam in muffled voice: "SUSPECT NAME C. R. IMINAL, HIGHLY DANGEROUS SHOOT ON SIGHT, CERTAINTY INTERVAL AT LEAST 83 PERCENT"
Cop: "Sir, please step out of the car" *unholsters*
You: "I'm just on my way to pick up the kid from daycare"
Body cam: "KILL KILL KILL"
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
And to think Psycho-Pass felt over-the-top creepy. That magic diagnosis box bolted onto a gun at least had some vague semblance of objectivity left. When totalitarian dystopian anime start looking more appealing than reality... yeah.
Before facial recognition: - the guy reminds me a pic from the station, not sure that's him though, let's check first
After facial recognition: - the camera says that's him and he's dangerous, shoot!
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Of course, any face in public is recordable and searchable. When drivers start getting the technology, they can photograph cops (legal), access software that can match the facial features and name tag with Facebook, as well as all information in a public phone book - and probably in a high school yearbook. Imagine what will happen when a cop stops a driver, who then asks him, "Good evening officer. How is your daughter, Jenny?"
Crazy, man.
I know, that cop should never have been given a gun. A lot of cops are like that. They don't get fired/banned, they get citations, promoted. Crazy, man.
Cops make ID errors all the time. Facial recognition is not perfect and depends on lots of things. So what happens when the camera reports a false positive? Will that include a liklihood estimate? Will the procedures be standardized?
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
endless compassion vs. endless violence,, what options? cease fire stand down.. we all look the same to creation.. sing along.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKvNtAVZyOc
Future kids song.
either can be more trouble than they're worth... kindness is not a sign of weakness.. song along.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M
The "birthday paradox" causes facial recognition to report matches far far more often that you expect. Assume you have 1000 crooks pictures. Instead of 1 change in100 of an error and 1 comparison when you scan a person, it's 1 chance of an error in 100 on _1000_ comparisons. That makes one out of every 10 people you scan show up as a crook, whether they are or not.
The german federal security service and my emplyer tried this a long time ago, but no matter how good the recognition got, there were thousands of crooks and hundereds of thousands of people to try to match. They reputedly gave up when they identified someone's grandma as a member of the Bader-Meinhof gang (;-))
davecb@spamcop.net
Is similar to this except there is an additional micro payments feature for bribing them to look the other way
It will be sold under the premise of recognizing individual people, but once deployed, they'll discover that it simply determines whether something is donut / not donut.
So as soon as they implement this, they'll have everyone's image who has a valid driver's license, and be able to reference them quickly.
Then they'll know the arrest record and everything else attached to your permanent record, which may be good or bad for you.
Cue Orwellian comments, some of which are justified.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
He was a trigger happy Somali Muslim with a long record of complaints in a short career. Where is the audio from the dashboard camera? Surely his partner had some choice and incriminating words.
I believe its already been deemed a violation of the 4th amendment that protects against illegal search, for a cop to randomly stop someone and take fingerprints to run against a database. They will most likely see this as an extension of the same thing. Its one thing for a human to recognize someone from a stack of APBs or sketches. Its entirely different for AI to perform facial recognition. Even wearing a disguise the AI can identify the correct person with an alarmingly high rate of accuracy. Forcing someone to submit DNA, fingerprints, retina scans, or any other uniquely identifiable genetic marker, without already being suspect of a crime, is not constitutional. Facial recognition needs to be limited to booking, processing, and interview rooms. It should not, and currently cannot, be used as a fishing expedition of the general public.
I think it would be a popular product
Let me explain how these things work, and what MAY of happened. The car dash cam comes on when you flip on the lights/siren. It's automatic. It can be turned on manually, but typically it isn't needed unless you instigate a traffic stop. The body cams, are activated when you get out of the car. It's like a habit, you don't even know you turned them on, it's an automatic thing. Now, from what I've been able to read, the two officers involved, rolled up on this report of an assault, NON CODE. They had just arrived, and this lady comes up to the vehicle in her PJ's. For whatever reason, she either made some movement, maybe a loud voice, perhaps someone discharged fireworks...right now, WHO knows. But, something caused the officer in the passenger side to draw and fire his weapon, ACROSS HIS PARTNER and it struck the woman. The officer in question I believe, had only been on the job a couple years, but has already racked up several complaints, or which I do not know of the severity. But, something spooked him into discharging his weapon from the passenger side, in front of his partner, to strike the woman. I'd wait for the investigation, before I pass judgement, but, it sure looks to me, that man won't be an officer any longer.
I'm working on an image classifier neural net and have gotten the opportunity to do a ton of review of different ones, and I have to say that this story describes the algorithm as scalable, however, I'm not sure that's true for millions of people. Maybe you could have it looking for a few thousand most wanted people, but beyond that, I'm not sure how.
This builds on previous tech on board police body cameras to identify donuts partially obscured by scene objects.
Requiem for the American Dream
Want to reduce the number of killings? Rein in the cops. They kill more than 4x the number of civilians than total police killed by civilians..
Of course police kill more civilians than the other way around! I know you're using that as a statistic to suggest the police are all corrupt,...
Your trivializing a serious issue here and no he is not suggesting police are corrupt you are the one jumping to that conclusion.
The point he is making is that the police are killing far too many innocent people.
Could it be that the police are turning into a paramilitary force and these "statistics" are just Collateral damage?
They kill more than 4x the number of civilians than total police killed by civilians..
Yet there's far more citizens than police.
Conclusion: The civilians are undertrained.
BRAVO to you sir.
Touche .. Touche
someone with mod points ....
please mod this up +1 take down +1 for the class
Where did you get that information? It seems suspect to me.
You haven't seen his dozenother "police are bad" posts on this thread then?
Of course the police are killing way too many innocent people. One person would be one too many.
390 people killed by police on average a year. Over 1.2 million police officers. So on average only 1 out of about 3100 police officers killed someone. 390 people is too many... but it's not like your average policeman is going out there killing people all the time- only one out of 3100 make a kill (and that's assuming all the shots are fired by unique officers). The vast majority of those killings are probably justified.
If there are a dozen cases of a police office killing someone each year that wasn't called for, that's still only one out of 0.000001% of cops. Some would say that's still too high... and it probably is, my point is, let's not exaggerate the problem. The way some people carry on on slash dot you'd imagine cops just swing their weapon out and shoot people randomly every day.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Makes you wonder why doesnt it ? What happened in days gone by ? ...
Are the cops more scared now ? The never do wells nowadays are they "packing" more often ?
Within 100 miles of national boarder all those can be collected without cause on anyone.
Look up, our national boarder is closer than 100 miles so everyone is covered by the exception!
Unlike the case in Minneapolis, responding to a 911 call about a potential incident in progress, presumably with a gun drawn in the car (never a good idea), and they STILL didn't turn on their cameras.
Best use of IOT I can think of:
Enable gun when camera operating.
Else enable stick.
Now we just need the face recognition to overlay a mask on each face it scans with a text like I-am-rich, I-am-poor-as-F, I-am-an-idiot, I-am-an-asshole and I-am-brain-dead.
Now watch as the cops accidentally stare at their colleagues for too long.
This is not checking a list to see if you are a match; it is checking you against a list.
"These people as guilty - are you one of them"
vs
"What are ***you*** guilty of????"
Also what happens to the data, could it be used to track your movements and identify your personally? "There was a murder near where we stopped you last month - what were you doing?"
Erm... if 1 in 3100 civilians killed someone each year it would be called a Crime Epidemic and people would be demanding that government Did Something about it. Based on current US population that would be roughly 100,000 murders A YEAR rather than the 16,000 it currently is.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
So, this was developed under public funding of DARPA, and yet he still gets to patent it? WTF?
Just another day in Paradise
1 in 3100 civilians don't work directly apprehending criminals every day. The police officers are directly interacting with people who hate them and are trying to break the law every single day.
Your average programmer, teacher, librarian, engineer, etc, isn't going to have a gun drawn on them for trying to do their job.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Just another case of publicly funded research going into private private profits. Who's the real welfare leech here?
There was a story in Analog science fiction magazine, probably back in the 60s, on this topic. The gist was that a police officer was given a new "law wagon" with face recognition. Early in the shift, it "recognized" a notorious and dangerous criminal, called out "Not so fast, John Harrison" (or whatever the criminal's name was), then proceeded to arrested, try, convict, and execute him. The officer was impressed. Later in the shift, the law wagon "recognized" a criminal again. Again the "Not so fast, John Harrison". The officer realized something was wrong, but couldn't stop it in time. He attempted to disable the law wagon, and it turned towards him and said, "Not so fast, John Harrison".
I wish I could find that story...