Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facial Recognition Could Be Coming To Police Body Cameras (defenseone.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the say-cheese dept.

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.

26 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. No it won't by redcliffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because they never have them turned on - it would make them accountable for their deliberate law breaking.

    1. Re:No it won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Outstanding warrants

    2. Re:No it won't by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about a body cam with no off switch? Or a drone to follow them around all day and catch everything, because these killings happen in public? Or just post a bounty for the first camera to capture a police shooting? That should have a bit of a deterrent value.

      Either that, or everyone is going to have to start wearing body cams.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:No it won't by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      You can catch outstanding warrants when you stop someone for cause. No need to waste billions of dollars (because you know it will be billions) on "AI body cams" that still won't do the job if they can be turned off, or "oops, the battery died".

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re: No it won't by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      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..

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:No it won't by redcliffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Police unions and associations will never allow that.

    6. Re:No it won't by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Either that, or everyone is going to have to start wearing body cams.

      which will simply "go missing" after the cops assassinate you

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: No it won't by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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, but even with 0% corruption where all the killings were bad guys trying to hurt good people, you'd still have more cops killing civilians than the other way around. They're organized, they outnumber the bad guys, they're better equipped and better trained.

      I'm not saying there isn't police corruption. Any time you have power, you invite corruption. Obviously there is a problem with police corruption. Obviously, innocent people get killed by police each year. And certainly lethal force is used even when it needn't be in some cases. The vast majority of those killed aren't lily-white innocent.

      Not saying we shouldn't avoid deaths, I think better training needs to be given the police to give alternatives to lethal force and every death should be investigated by an independent body; but if it's the choice between a cop (who 95% are decent people doing a job to protect us) and an armed robber- I'd rather the cop survive. (I'd rather they both survive, but if two people have guns out that's rarely going to happen).

      As long as criminals have guns in this country, police officers will have guns too. There will be deaths. I certainly hope that those who (majority are decent guys) survive more often.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re:No it won't by thereitis · · Score: 2

      Better feature than face recognition: remove the on/off switch.

    9. Re:No it won't by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      This is dumb,. Why do you need to identify someones face on the spot by a computer?

      So this doesn't happen again
      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

    10. Re:No it won't by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They can't stop the offering of a bounty for those capturing police wrongdoing on video.

      Use their "do you have something to hide?" right back at them.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re: No it won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A cop friend of mine says they treat every traffic stop as a potential violent situation because while it rarely becomes one the cost of making a mistake when ot is is to high. Yet he doesn't see the reverse. If only 1% of cops are bad we must assume they are all bad because it only takes one "blinking tailight" and an agressive reach for their insurance to end up dead. Since the odds of something bad is greater for the citizen than the cop then we have to treat all cops as if they have personal motives while on duty. Nothing changes that until you start letting citizens directly vote on each cops salary.

    12. Re: No it won't by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as guns exist anywhere, criminals will have guns too.

      There FTFY and don't claim I'm lying, I'm a former criminal sorry to say.

      Different topic for a different day... but yes guns can be smuggled into countries where they are outlawed. Definitely lowers their presence though. Gun crime is almost unheard of in the UK or Australia nowadays. (and Australia had legal guns fairly recently)... ... but yes, some criminals will always have guns regardless.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    13. Re:No it won't by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Yep....they don't want to be filmed going "pee-pee".

      Presumably it would provide concrete (if not hard) evidence that cops are overcompensating for their minuscule genitals.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:No it won't by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Folks, you're missing the point here:

      so a device carried by that cop on his shoulder can learn to recognize shapes and -- potentially faces -

      Donuts are a shape.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re: No it won't by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      The USA Is not like any other country. What works for other, smaller countries with far less diversity, most likely will not work in the USA.

    16. Re:No it won't by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      You don't need a camera with face recognition to catch outstanding warrants. Just checking IDs will do that. That is currently standard practice.

      It would be tedious and unconstitutional for officers to stop every person they pass and ask for ID. If they have a device scanning every single person they walk past it would be more efficient.

      I suspect there would still be constitutional challenges. Does face recognition software violate the 4th constitution as an "unwarranted search"? I suspect a clever lawyer might be able to make a case.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  2. Cool by cerberusss · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?
    1. Re:Cool by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      "Sir, please step out of the vehicle. You have 20 seconds to comply."

      That's 19 second more than some people get now ... or you're an Australian woman who calls the police to report a possible sexual assault, and they kill you - and of course their body cameras are off.

      We already know what their excuse will be - "I felt threatened so I shot her."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Cool by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe he dosent want to kill innocent bystanders or steal thier money with asset forfeiture.

      With Sessions at the helm, asset forfeiture is going to get even worse. Sessions said "we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures". If you think the american public is being robbed now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

      --

      Enigma

    3. Re:Cool by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      Really? It's a direct quote by Sessions but since it's from the evil "liberal media" you immediately dismiss it? Fine, here's the same fucking story from Fox News, so that partisan shitheads like you can believe it. It's people like you, who only believe facts if they are reported by their "team" that make shit like asset forfeiture (and "economic policies, a congress too willing to tax-and-spend-like-the-world's-gonna-end, and special legislative 'regulations' that really do more to protect a single corporate interest") possible. Try actually analyzing the issues yourself instead of just parroting what the party puppetmasters distribute as their "talking points" and you'll be a lot better off, and so will the country.

      --

      Enigma

  3. Before & after by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    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...
    1. Re:Before & after by Riceballsan · · Score: 2

      Isn't that a bit of the problem already though? I mean it isn't unheard of for someone to get shot because the police thought they looked like a suspect. Sounds to me the biggest change is whether it's a human or a computer making the assertion, and how accurate/reliable those assumptions might be.

  4. Re:Type 2 errors by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

    >So what happens when the camera reports a false positive?

    They stop and question you. They check your ID. Depending on who it thinks you are, possibly after putting cuffs on you.

    And - after the first innocent person is harassed to the edge of sanity and sues - they eventually stop using the cameras as anything but a small portion of their decision-making process.

  5. Re:Type 2 errors by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    And - after the first innocent person is harassed to the edge of sanity and sues - they eventually stop using the cameras as anything but a small portion of their decision-making process.

    The police are already harassing many people past the point of sanity, but they're not being forced to change their decision-making process (brown? open fire!) now. What makes you think they'd be forced to change their decision-making process in that case?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. The photo database is the DMV by Hussman32 · · Score: 2

    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."