Slashdot Mirror
Face Recognition (Cool or Privacy Threat?)
Hapster writes "A company called Neurodynamics based in Cambridge, England is testing face recognition technology in shopping malls and at least one British airport. Another company taunts that their technology "cannot be fooled" by disguises and hats and they're testing it on the streets. " There are 'Big Brother' aspects to this story and 'Wow, thats cool' aspects to this story. I still want a head mounted camera/monitor that can recognize people and remind me who they are: it'd be great for conferences when you see 1000 faces that you only know as email addresses...
Hello, I went to the link offered on the page:o r/docs/dg092499.htm .
:-) every fib you lie, every fake-tear you cry, every knife you buy, every scam you try, someone's recorded you.
http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/columns/gillm
Its got nothing to do with face recognition.
Too bad, I'm a firm believer in letting our computers and other systems which require authentication recognize us for who we are (biometrics) rather than what we know (passwords and PINs) because it requires nothing from us but being ourselves and makes it MUCH harder for somebody else to pretend to be us. This applies far beyond just cracking computer systems.
My wife and I have been victims of forgery and criminal impersonation because some ethically challenged old family "friend" found (stole really,) some blank checks and an SS# and ran up thousands of dollars in forged cheques, a phony credit card application and thousands in fraudulent credit card charges. (she 'copped a plea' in one case but the other has not yet come to trial so I'm not going to post her image with a large red warning on it.)
That person was not very good at running scams and she got caught for both offenses, but the crimes shouldn't have happened in the first place. They wouldn't have if the systems were vigilant and had proper recognition mechanisms. Computers are 'patient' and 'vigilant' but they are still too 'gullible' for our collective good.
Credit cards and other fiscal instruments which are tagged with biometric data constitute an excellent line of defense for financial institutions and us, their customers.
My wife and I are out a grand or so and the time and expense to go back to somewhere we don't live anymore to swear out criminal complaints. Its more than just a nuisance. But imagine if we had moved somewhere really far away, she'd have got away with being a parasite and she'd still be out there preying on others, perhaps you!
Yes there are aspects of '1984' and 'Big Brother' which are worrisome but we already live under constant surveillance. Except for certain bulk items, (fasteners, drugs, shotgun shells, boxers, biefs, lipstick and the like, which are are tracable by lot number,) every single thing we buy is given a serial number and is tracable from the manufacturing plant all the way to you.
Everything in your possession of any worth has "provenance," has a serial number or a lot number and can be traced all from you, through all others who might have owned it all the way back to the manufacturer or artisan that created it. And I do mean everything: (With apologies to "Sting"
Right now, most retrieval's a time consuming pain, (and someone's pain is someone else's profit center, crminals as well as honest companies are getting rich off of the fact that verification is still a slow process) but things like the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS)make it much easier to retrieve information based on biometrics and that's the only difference. The information's ALREADY in there!
Personally, I'm looking forward to Mac OS9 when I can just walk up to my Macs, say "Honey I'm Home!" and they'll actually let me touch the keyboard without shutting down.
The only safegard we need to put on the systems, both machine and human, already in place is that they remain passive observers or arbitrers of access and that they aren't used in predatory fashion.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Visionics ( http://www.visionics.com ) is one the 'big' facial recognition companies...
imh
--- imh
I can't even fathom a "big brother" hypothetical here. In the police example, only *wanted* violent criminals are added to the database. Unless you're a wanted fugitive, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Secondly, the article states that businesses are testing this system out by adding *known* shoplifters to its database as they are caught. If you don't want to be added to their database, don't shoplift there (or don't get caught). If you're paranoid about their security cameras, don't shop there (though you'll be hard-pressed to find a store that doesn't use cameras in some fashion).
The only difference between existing stores and these testbed stores is that in existing stores, there's a human being watching the cameras, looking for familiar faces. In this case, it's the computers looking for the SAME familiar faces.
The paranoid fears that every citizen is being labeled and tracked by these systems is just utter bullshit. I sincerely wish you people would read the article before you start up with your idiotic big brother conspiracy theories that are so obviously uninformed by those of us who HAVE read the article and UNDERSTAND what's really happening.
Some of these Slashdot comments are getting pretty pathetic nowadays.
People insist on taking something relatively benign and beneficial and keep "taking it to the next level" where suddenly it isn't quite so benign or beneficial, and then proceed to judge that thing based on where it can be taken.
This is totally unfair and just silly.
Hey, wow, you know, I have this friend that invented a thing called a "microphone" that can be used to detect sounds. But I'm kinda worried, because, you know, you could put this microphone someplace remote and using a bit of wire, you could hear what was going on in another room. In fact, you could really hide these in every single room in the city, and people could, like, memorize the sounds of other peoples voices and then compare it and that way they can track where everyone in the city is at any given time! THIS TECHNOLOGY MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS.
If there are people out there that wish to abuse technology such as this in the manners you suggest, fight those people, don't fight the technology. Write your government. Write businesses you suspect are considering using the technology as you suggest (I sincerely doubt any are).
The article states only wanted criminals will be temporarily added to their "face" database. If you aren't a wanted criminal, you're not even *in* the database, much less identified on sight. In the store example, only known, caught shoplifters are added. Don't shoplift (or don't get caught). If that store's policy of photographing the faces of shoplifters and comparing their face with patrons disturbs you, DON'T SHOP THERE.
All other applications of this technology that you suggest are paranoid fantasies. Stop judging something based on what it's theoretically capable of.
Sure the government could start to do some really scary things with this technology, but has anyone thought of the sorts of annoying things marketing people could do with this?
How's about applying the technology to mall security cameras, and linking the visual recognition with a marketing database so that a band of roving salespeople can "point you in the right direction". Or even more annoying, how's about salespeople standing outside of store doors accosting people by name to try to get them in the store, but since the faces are linked to marketing databases, they only choose people that fit their "target market".
Taking things to the next level, stores would be able to effortlessly track each individual customer that shops in their store. With this technology, simply walking into the store tells them your name, address, social security number, phone number, e-mail address, credit history, checking/savings account balances, crimminal record, sexual preference, television viewing habits, and the list of recent stores that you've shopped in. Paying cash to remain anonymous to marketing people no longer will work.
An even more screwed-up use would be using video monitors that display advertisements based on who happens to walk by them. A camera looks at your face, figures out what you like, then displays only the commercials that fit your profile. It's kinda like when you use search engines on web pages and all those porno advertisements start popping up -- except everyone else walking by sees the commercial too. Imagine cameras and LCD screens at eye-level in bathroom stalls and urinals that shove commercials in your face while you're doing your business.
Just a few paranoid thoughts...
A read about something like this a few weeks ago, though I'm not sure where. The gist of the article was that a marketing company is investigating the use face recognition to identify shoppers as they move around stores to determine their shopping habits, almost exactly as you described.
And they don't need a lame excuse like "protecting kids" to put cameras up. Most large stores already have cameras mounted to catch shoplifters.
And they don't need to get information illegally from the government. Simply watch the shoppers as they go through the checkout stand. Use a credit card and they know who you are.
Am I worried? Not really. The credit card companies know far more about me already.
Before you get too excited about this, be
aware that face recognition technology is
in its infancy.
At my company I've done an extensive evaluation
of face recognition products. Conclusions are:
(I'm not going to give any statistics here,
but I have calculated them for each point)
1. Face finding algorithms are actually
suprisingly poor. At least three face rec
products can be fooled into not finding
a face if you tilt you head 30 degrees to
the side.
2. In a Humans vs face rec test. Humans
are always better. Most humans are much
better, but the worst are just barely
better than face rec.
(Interestingly, these results show no
difference between Male and Female
face recognition performance)
3. Face rec performance with recent photos
is excellent - however with older,
poor quality photos the performance is
abysmal.
Since photos of criminals tend to be
older, this explains the
new scientist article where the
system did well in beta testing (with
recent photos) but only caught 2
criminals.
I'm not saying face rec doesn't have promise,
but don't expect it to outperform real live
neural networks soon!
My twin brother and I have tested a similar product in Comdex, 2 - 3 years ago. We are identical twins, but 'cultivate' a different look with different hairstyles.
The system shown at Comdex could not be fooled by us, even when we came back the next day, with 'swapped' looks (I looked like my bro did the day before, etc).
Nifty stuff.
This technology has as ton of cool possible uses. The problem is, paranoid or not, I don't trust the government with it. Of course, my oppinion doesn't mean jack to them, and they are probably using it allready and just haven't told us about it. That doesn't mean I have to like it. IF they are to deploy something like this the only way I would even begin to feel good about it was if the government and law enforcement had to have a warrent to use it to look for someone. A public warrent, not those stupid sealed warrents. IMO they shouldn't even get to HAVE my pattern in there unless they would have my fingerprints allready (such as an arrest, etc). There should also be PUBLIC supervision. And I do mean public. I want EVERYONE to be able to check up on big brother.
Of course, even if it were to happen, and to quote Wayne from Wayne's World "Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!".. It still requires a lot of trust on our part that they will have all the records regarding the use of the system available and not just cover it up. When they show me they can be responsible with the tech they have allready I'll reconsider my position. Of course, in the grand scheme of things even if the people voted it down (if they let us vote on it, and they probably wouldn't) they would just ignore us and do it anyway just like everything else. Am I being cynical, probably, but history gives me cause to be.
Published on 09/24/99, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS FACE-RECOGNITION ATMS BEING OFFERED BY S.F. FIRM You can see the future of automated teller machines inside a refurbished brick warehouse here -- and it can see you too. A new cash-machine company is producing a line of ATMs that uses cutting-edge biometric technology, which scans a users' face to determine identity, eliminating the need for bank cards or personal identification numbers during a transaction. Your search terms appear 2 times in this article. Complete Article, 199 words ( $1.95 )
14 digits of Pi are all we need.
The New Scientist is carrying it too.
This kind of technology has practical benefits for some too. The sides of Britain's roads are increasingly populated by cameras which aren't there for speed, they recognise number-plates and then, when another camera sees that same plate at some other place it can use that information to help formulate a picture of traffic flows. That's cool. So long as the do as they say and drop the data after 20-30 minutes and only encode the middle few characters and not the whole plate.
If the camera makes the high street safer and the criminal more scared, is it a totally bad thing?
--
"I do not speak for my employers, though they are controlled from my Teddy's huge pulsating brain."
http://newslibrary.krmediast ream.com/cgi-bin/search/sj
14 digits of Pi are all we need.
CCTV coverage has exploded in the UK in recent years, with mixed results -- crime has fallen in some areas, and the recent bomber was caught partly through the extensive coverage of the area where I live, Brixton. OTOH (a) muggers, drug users & other anti-social types just move away -- eg to the (CCTV free) council estate where I live. The Civil Liberty aspect hasn't really got much attention over here AFAIK -- the police and govt. have their marketing down perfectly ...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Any technology is merely a tool, neither bad nor good in and of itself. What matters is how people use it, and the motivations of those people.
If you think the police/govt/bosses are evil/hostile/malevolent or otherwise out to get you, then _ANY_ tools they have are bad. From gunpowder and the telegraph onwards.
I'm not quite so fearful, even though I have been the victim of malicious prosecution. Mostly they are after criminals. The definition of crime is usually reasonable but not always nor everywhere, so it bears watching.
The price of freedom has always been vigilance. Mostly of people in positions of power to ensure that they act reasonably and not from personal biases, hidden agendas or perverse incentives.
-- Robert
Try this one:
/biometrics/new_facial.htm
http://www.neurodynamics.com
The British police have far too much important work to do filling out arrest reports and stamping out racism to engage in politicially incorrect things like catching criminals. Cameras on the streets (instead of police) will only give the police further excuses to disregard their responsibility to the public.
--
For the ones that actually look at the face: veils, masks, makeup and motorcycle helmets with the visor down. For the ones that read dermal heat patterns: masks, makeup that changes heat loss (like mud?), and motorcycle helmets with the visor down. This may even start a few fashion trends that would be kind of interesting and lend new meaning to the terms public and private faces...
Note: Statements below are not neccessarily my opinions-- they're just illustrations.
The Internet has allowed us to communicate more and more with other people, through forums like Slashdot.
Questions are now raised over privacy, censorship, sexually explicit or violent material, and the social impacts that the Internet has on geeks (are we all hermits?)
Guns allowed people a method to protect their homes against criminals.
Guns have also allowed criminals the ability to use deadly force while committing crimes.
Radio brought into existence an entirely new area of journalism, allowing information to be spread nearly instantaneously through the airwaves.
The same journalists also brought close-ups of grieving families in the post-Columbine hysteria, inciting a nation towards a series of knee-jerk reactions.
I can see face recognition as a cool area of study. It has some cool applications-- sitting down in front of a computer and having it "recognize" you would be cool.
But, as with guns, radio, and the Internet, there's a downside. The technology can be used for things that people don't like-- including the invasion of privacy.
Anyway, just my $0.02
All these cameras use CCD. I'm sure these CCD's are sensitive to light other then visible light. Would it be possible to make a device the emitted this light (Ultraviolet, infrared) that would make you appear as just a glow on cameras? How about a very bright light that could actually damage that camera? (But all out of the visible spectrum, so nobody can see you have it on.)
Could they kick you out of the store for not showing up on the video?
Just a thought...
-RossB
If you were at a conference with thousands of people wearing badges, rather than recognizing faces, would not an electronic wireless badge identification system be much easier and less intrusive? Imagine that the name, profile, and picture flashed on a Visor or something as you approached them? Or if you must have your HUD, that as the person approached that they would have their name float above them, as well as a short description being read to you or something.
All of a sudden images of Quake3Arena pop into my head =)
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
if it were compact enough that it could become part of a wearable computer. it could be a great addition to the arsenel of equipment for the blind. It would probably sound like a MUD though.. hehe.
While focusing on Big Brother aspects, I think people are leaving out more important issues - for example, what impact will this have on Michael Jackson's life when he undergoes facial surgery gain? What about other celebrities who regularly undergo facelifts?
Sure, *you* may worry about petty matters like surveillance, but think of it. This technology could have the potential to seriously disrupt their lives...
Hold on - what you do on the street is seen by others and hence constitutes an implicit consent to be recorded? I think that's a bit of a stretch.
For example - let's say you film a person in the town square, that's perfectly legal. IANAL, but if you follow them around for the whole day filming everything that he or she does (even in public), I'm pretty sure they can take legal action against you.
In any case, that's not the point - there's a difference between someone filming an occasional home video and institutional surveillance by the govt. of everyone's every move.
The gov't didn't care so much about how we used cryptography...until technology put world class cryptosystems into the hands of ordinary citizens.
Now the gov't sees strong crypto as a threat, and want to restrict it. And most right thinking technophiles are screaming to high heaven, saying the technology is out there, where does the gov't get off trying to stop it?
But now the shoe is on the other foot. Nobody cared so much about security cameras until a technology makes them more effective. Enter the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and now the privacy advocates are trying to suppress a technology.
Technology is irrelevant. Either I have the right to send private data, or I don't. Either the gov't has the right to take pictures, or it doesn't. The technological ability to do either effectively should not matter.
Law enforcement types like to whine about how technology is making their jobs so much harder. I for one would like to see as much publicity on the stuff that make their jobs easier...
...maybe it will take a little heat off the crypto.
Brin and some others are arguing that privacy is a lost cause and that we should work on making sure governments and corporations lose as much privacy as individuals do.
In this context, that would amount to giving citizens free access to the camera outputs and technology, just like the cops. I don't think this is a great idea. Spouses tracking their errant partners to an assignation. Employers checking to see if employees calling in sick actually remain at home. Stalkers being able to build up detailed pictures of their victim's movements. Burglars having a great casing tool, and knowing the camera locations ahead of time.
On the other hand, I'm all for making the government live in a fishbowl if we do, maybe even if we don't. If they want to watch us, they can return the favor by opening up those smoke filled back rooms and going on the public record with their sweetheart deals, plus full financial disclosure. Oh, and they should have to pee in a bottle before taking their seat in congress or the white house, with random checks thereafter. Maybe then there would be more privacy advocates in congress.