Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Interpol Pushing World Facial Recognition Database

ScuttleMonkey posted about 6 years ago | from the here's-lookin-at-you dept.

Privacy 171

The Register is reporting that according to some reports, Interpol will soon be pushing for a world-wide facial recognition database at the borders of all member nations. "The UK already has airport gates equipped with such technology, intended to remove the need for a human border guard to check that a passenger's face matches the one recorded in his or her passport. According to the Guardian, Interpol database chief Mark Branchflower believes that his organization should set up a database of facial-recognition records to operate alongside its existing photo, fingerprint and DNA files."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

There Already Is One (5, Interesting)

ewhac (5844) | about 6 years ago | (#25443735)

It's called "FaceBook".

Why do you think they have that "tagging" feature for the photos? Didn't you know all this time that you've been training their face recognition database?

Schwab

Re:There Already Is One (3, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 years ago | (#25443855)

Here's a fairly balanced article [itsecurity.com] on the CIA/Facebook connection.

Re:There Already Is One (2, Funny)

theaveng (1243528) | about 6 years ago | (#25444021)

"Arrest him! On Facebook it says he's a Libertarian. We can't have these free-thinkers running around!"

Re:There Already Is One (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 years ago | (#25444195)

"Arrest him! On Facebook it says he's a Libertarian. We can't have these free-thinkers running around!"

Once upon a time commitment to American principles made one a patriot. Now blind support of all government policies is required.

Re:There Already Is One (3, Interesting)

OldSoldier (168889) | about 6 years ago | (#25445443)

I try to envision the right model for security and privacy as small town America. In this model everyone knows everyone else and for the most part, when you see your neighbor, he/she sees you.

Extrapolating this to the modern world, a world-wide facial recognition database would be compatible if the following additional conditions were met:
a) everyone had access to it (Everyone knows everyone else)
b) it was trivially easy to see where the cameras were (when you see me, I see you)
c) cameras were only in a relatively few number of places. (when I'm behind "closed doors" I'm out of public view)

I'm not convinced governments can abide by these above rules, but if they could I'd be OK living in a world-wide "small town".

Re:There Already Is One (4, Informative)

k1e0x (1040314) | about 6 years ago | (#25445463)

Once upon a time commitment to American principles made one a patriot. Now blind support of all government policies is required.

Yeah, the DHS had a pamphlet out that listed the Gadsden Flag as a symbol of domestic terrorism.

The line between patriotism and nationalism is a thin one.. but I believe that a nationalist is a blind patriot.

It really disturbs me when I hear John McCain talk about "Country first".. That is absolutely UN-American. Americans believe the individual needs are placed about the needs of the state. China is a place where the needs of the state come before those of the individual people, not America.

Re:There Already Is One (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 years ago | (#25445661)

Once upon a time commitment to American principles made one a patriot. Now blind support of all government policies is required.

Blind support of government policies has never, ever been an "American principle". In fact, if you've ever read any of the writings of practically any of our founding fathers, you'd know that it's quite the opposite.

Re:There Already Is One (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25443935)

Right, but I always wear my tinfoil hat in Facebook photos and never touch dollar bills... that way, the Masons and their Eye of Providence can't touch me, thereby preventing the establishment of the High Cabal.

I want to use you as a toilet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444057)

Imagine a big long log entering your mouth, leaving brown tracks on your lips and cheeks.

Then you could chew it and savor the flavors :)

xxx

You suck! (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | about 6 years ago | (#25444825)

You had a headline with "Interpool Pushes World Facial" and this is the best you could do? Did you run out of blow Steve [slashdot.org] ?

Re:I want to use you as a toilet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444971)

I often fantasize about serving as Barack Obama's human toilet. Do you think Jesus' followers were as dedicated?

Re:There Already Is One (5, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about 6 years ago | (#25444381)

This is why everyone should use goatse as their facebook image.

"Sir, according to the records at the CIA this guy is a huge asshole."

Re:There Already Is One (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | about 6 years ago | (#25445099)

"And Sir, it appears that he's married."

Re:There Already Is One (2, Funny)

viridari (1138635) | about 6 years ago | (#25445009)

That does it. I'm uploading a bunch of pictures of politicians and tagging them with my name.

Illin in the panicillin? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25443743)

Is she illin with the panicillin?
Is she reelin in the panicillin?
Is it feelin with the panicillin?
Are you steelin in the panacillin?

Panka Panka

Is she liable no suitifiable no not on trial but so suitifiable
Is she viable no suitifiable pliable style is so suitifiable
so reliable no suitifiable shes not on file but so suitifiable
im on the dial its so suitifiable its like im liable but more suitifiable

A big book of faces.. (5, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | about 6 years ago | (#25443749)

A big database, kind of like a 'book', of everyone's face? Maybe with a stack of personal information? And make it really hard to take your details off?

Like we'd ever fall for that!

Re:A big book of faces.. (2, Insightful)

daveatneowindotnet (1309197) | about 6 years ago | (#25443797)

That would be doomsday.

All Your Face... (5, Funny)

Nick Driver (238034) | about 6 years ago | (#25443759)

All Your Face Are Belong To Us!

Re:All Your Face... (2, Funny)

TheSambassador (1134253) | about 6 years ago | (#25444983)

All Your Face Are Belong To Us!

The justification? Someone set us up the bomb...

Re:All Your Face... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25445039)

* Groan *

Alternate Applications (3, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | about 6 years ago | (#25443819)

I wonder how long it will be before this technology is utilized outside the airport gates...like, for example, with all of the myriad CCTV cameras currently infesting London.

What sort of resolution does this technology require? Could the technology be used on the CCTV images?

Re:Alternate Applications (5, Funny)

BlowHole666 (1152399) | about 6 years ago | (#25443853)

What sort of resolution does this technology require? Could the technology be used on the CCTV images?

I wonder if this could also help with my porn collection and help me figure who's face is in the random porn pictures I have.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

theaveng (1243528) | about 6 years ago | (#25444097)

You don't want to know.

Trust me.

Finding out the cute 20-year-old from your "randomstuff" folder is now a 30-something mom who weighs 200 pounds is a real downer. Especially if she's still posing. That sight can really deflate your fantasy.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 6 years ago | (#25444257)

Yes, deflate your fantasy.

Re:Alternate Applications (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#25444105)

It's facial recognition software.

Re:Alternate Applications (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444149)

You mean it's a facial recognition software.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#25444863)

In that case, it should work great for my collection.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

FourthAge (1377519) | about 6 years ago | (#25443981)

This technology doesn't work well enough for CCTV. It requires decent lighting and high-resolution images; not so difficult if you're able to tell the subject to stare into the camera, but pretty useless if they're just walking past it.

Automated CCTV observation is interesting, but it's currently much better at following objects than recognising people. You need some other mechanism to link the objects with their identities.

Re:Alternate Applications (2, Informative)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | about 6 years ago | (#25444183)

This technology doesn't work well enough for CCTV.

Sure about that? FTFA:

The attraction of facial-recognition records, as opposed to conventional mugshots, is that automated searching is possible. A specially-equipped airport gate - or even, in some circumstances, a security camera - would be able to sound an alert every time a person on the Interpol watch list went past.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

FourthAge (1377519) | about 6 years ago | (#25444229)

Ah, you highlighted it yourself! The camera needs to be specially configured for the purpose. You can't just apply the technology to an existing CCTV network.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | about 6 years ago | (#25444389)

The quote I referenced says nothing about having to specially configure the CCTV camera. It merely says "in some circumstances".

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

Darundal (891860) | about 6 years ago | (#25444625)

Yeah, but "in some circumstances" with R&D will turn into "in any circumstances." And do you think that something like this won't be developed further?

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | about 6 years ago | (#25444647)

And do you think that something like this won't be developed further?

I think you've misread my argument. Your comment would be better directed at FourthAge.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

HuguesT (84078) | about 6 years ago | (#25444621)

The technology does not work [cio.com] . Yet.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

32771 (906153) | about 6 years ago | (#25444699)

I have my doubts about your statement. See the following paper:

http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/2003/CMU-CS-03-119.pdf [cmu.edu]

I wrote about this earlier:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=321921&cid=20915905 [slashdot.org]

Even if the current systems aren't capable of providing good image recognition from security cameras, it seems to be mainly an image processing challenge to make it work.

Notice how the first link explains that pixelisation isn't effective at thwarting facial recognition. The paper I mentioned last in the thread discusses methods of improving resolution of video sequences.

That view angle problem of yours seems to be a major issue though.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | about 6 years ago | (#25444921)

I can see the tech marketing ideas; How about a holographic pic projector built into eyeglasses that creates a mask only detectable by a CCD of Joe Normal who looks just like Joe on the passport? If it does not exist yet, then make it a plot device on TV. Star Trek did that to the "communicator" making cell phones as we know them today. Next Retinal masking then, when all else fails; its back to bribing a clerk.

Re:Alternate Applications (1)

pembo13 (770295) | about 6 years ago | (#25445059)

How would you know if it wasn't already in place? They have the hardware in place, the software apparently already available, and the data willingly submitted online.

lots of closeup photos of real culprits available (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25443841)

they're on the home page of every 'mainstream' media site in the US, all day every day. they come with an automatic 'do not try to apprehend' caveat.

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

we note that yahoo deletes some of its' (relevant) stories sooner than others. maybe they're short of disk space, or something?
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/23/what.matters.thirst/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(deleted, still in google cache)http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...your share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."--chronicles

Here we go! (1)

UncleMantis (933076) | about 6 years ago | (#25443851)

"I hear he undergoes facial reconstruction surgery every 6 months" - Fight Club

Wrong end (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#25443857)

They need to develop ass recognition software, so they can track down the goatse guy and make him pay for all the suffering he's inflicted upon us.

Re:Wrong end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444091)

Actually, some research was done, and his name is known. But I really don't think you want to do any research into that, because you'll get into a whole culture you're probably not too comfortable with.

In short, stop thinking about some guy's ass. Unless that's what you're in to. (Thanks, now I'm going to loosely associate Flight of the Conchords with Mr. Goatse.)

Re:Wrong end (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444497)

Also, CmdrTaco could track down all those anonymous bathroom butt buddies.

what is the current accurcy rate? (4, Insightful)

peter303 (12292) | about 6 years ago | (#25443873)

Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems.
An auxiliary question is whether machine accuracy exceeds humans. People make mistakes too.

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (1)

elemnt14 (1319289) | about 6 years ago | (#25444047)

Then they would probably have to put in a sub-system to verify the first. Like gait-recognition, or similar. Something the same software could process without human interaction. Then that probably would have a 1% fail rate.

Re:what is the current accuracy rate? (1)

sdpuppy (898535) | about 6 years ago | (#25444283)

I would think that if they add mastication-recognition it would lower fail rates.

Think of the fun at airport gates: "Se need to better identify you - please show use your gait and when you're finished, please masticate in front of the camera..."

(@%@$! first jackets, then shoes, now I'm supposed to masticate at the gait?)

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (2, Informative)

TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561) | about 6 years ago | (#25444049)

Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems...

Ah yes, the base rate fallacy (aka, the terrorist fallacy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy [wikipedia.org]

One of those obvious things that is so hard to convey.

Interesting that the 'example' used in the wikipedia article is so near to what is happening in reality.

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (2, Interesting)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | about 6 years ago | (#25444383)

I'm uncertain - are you arguing that he's fallen for the fallacy or pointing it out?

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (2, Informative)

TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561) | about 6 years ago | (#25444503)

I'm uncertain - are you arguing that he's fallen for the fallacy or pointing it out?

I am just trying to point it out in support of his statement...and I'm not doing a very good job, evidently :(

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (5, Informative)

rpmayhem (1244360) | about 6 years ago | (#25444335)

I work for a local law enforcement agency that uses facial recognition systems. I don't work in that department, but I'm familiar with the systems. A few years ago, it was still really bad, but it's made large jumps in accuracy since that time. However, we usually have humans operating the cameras and computers, so it's always double checked. Everyone who gets booked into the jail is added to the facial recognition database. Then the officers on the road can use systems in their cars to take pictures of people and find their identity (a lot of people give us fake IDs, and a lot of those people have visited us before). Also, we have to ask permission before taking someone's picture on the street.

Anyway, even at the current level of accuracy, it can't operate really well without human assistance.

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (1)

The Angry Mick (632931) | about 6 years ago | (#25444827)

Also, we have to ask permission before taking someone's picture on the street.

How long before an officer forgets to ask, or more bluntly, insists he can? It's not the systems that worry me so much (although they do) as the people in charge of them. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | about 6 years ago | (#25445145)

Ah, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes . One of my favorite Latin phrases. Roughly translated, "Who watches the janitors?".

Last guy never did clean the bathroom properly...

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (1)

pla (258480) | about 6 years ago | (#25444723)

Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems

More importantly, where can I buy an incredibly realistic Osama Bin Laden mask?

They want to play games, we can play right back. Good luck tracking Joe Sixpack when your fancy automated system starts reporting that it has found Terrorist-X 20 times a minute from all over the globe...

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444965)

Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems.
An auxiliary question is whether machine accuracy exceeds humans. People make mistakes too.

Humans of course make mistakes, but in no way are we going to have humans examining every picture stored in the huge number of photo albums it would require to store all of the database pictures. Computers, even with a lower failure rate, would still make far more errors in less time on this same task. Not to mention that once the mistake has been made it puts the person in the need to prove a negative, therein that they are not the person they have been identified as. Additionally, the database itself will no doubt have errors including deliberate ones for various reasons from assorted countries around the world plus potential cracking.

People should be able to travel in anonymity as long as they are not doing anything visibly against the law. I, for one, view it as an inherent right. We should not be giving up liberty for a false sense of security, especially when that action only brings to the fore that it still reminds people to feel insecure, accept the government as their only protection and demand more such protections which only a relative few will recognize as truely making the people less secure and subject to abuses from the government(s) and others.

Additionally, it is entirely likely that if this database contains enough information that organized crime will soon have copies of the database and accompanying software as well. Might provide great fun for criminals to discover that their new competition in town is really a sting operation since the cameras they targeted them with had images that recognized the true employers of the "competition". Even access levels can be defeated, especially with the databases ran on systems they were not intended for and thus don't have the same software tracking the access request.

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (1)

elp (45629) | about 6 years ago | (#25445273)

This is the same Interpol whose previous president has some pretty serious organized crime connections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Selebi). I think its more about the contracts that can be awarded for maintaining the system than about actually catching anyone important.

Re:what is the current accurcy rate? (1)

Quentoli (458752) | about 6 years ago | (#25445367)

In the months following 9/11 such a system was installed in the Fresno/Yosemite International airport on a "trial" basis. I went through at about the T-plus 2 months point, and asked the (surprisingly) intelligent security supervisor what their false positive rate was. He stated "about 25%. We don't really rely on it."

I'm not sure... (2, Interesting)

sshuber (1274006) | about 6 years ago | (#25443879)

that this would even be a good thing for the governments involved. What about covert operatives working for a government that travel to another country? They would be instantly flagged if any one nation had the knowledge of their covert status.

In other news... (4, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | about 6 years ago | (#25443913)

Supplies of Groucho glasses reach a all time low...

Opt-out Where You Can (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 years ago | (#25443933)

On the New Hampshire Driver's License application/renewal form, there's a checkbox on the back that requires the State to delete your photo from its database after making the license. (Now that they're mailing the licenses though I have to wonder about their backup strategies.)

Do it where you can and get your legislature to require your DMV to do so if necessary. Also get them to reject RealID. If you can't, move here [freestateproject.org] .

Re:Opt-out Where You Can (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | about 6 years ago | (#25444239)

Bill, FWIW, I picked global warming. What do I win?

Tks.

=Smidge=

Re:Opt-out Where You Can (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 years ago | (#25444963)

Bill, FWIW, I picked global warming. What do I win?

More people moving to New Hampshire, I suppose. ;)

New Hampshire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444465)

I tell you, the more I hear about that state, the more I want to move there!

Re:Opt-out Where You Can (1)

kd5zex (1030436) | about 6 years ago | (#25444773)

If you can't, move here [freestateproject.org] .

But it's so... Cold there.

Re:Opt-out Where You Can (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 years ago | (#25445003)

But it's so... Cold there.

Nah, half the year it's stinkin' hot.

Obligatory (5, Funny)

Nerdposeur (910128) | about 6 years ago | (#25443953)

I, for one, welcome our international, face-recognizing over... Aw, wait a minute! No, that's creepy.

Obligatory John Woo... (4, Interesting)

TiggertheMad (556308) | about 6 years ago | (#25443957)

...I want to take his FACE OFF...

No more drugs for this man!

So, jesting aside, how will this work with cosmetic surgery? Will celebrities getting cosmetic work abroad no longer be identified correctly? Will actual terrorists suddenly become interested in elective procedures just to fool the system? How will the system deal with the fact that people change as they age? Interesting questions.

I wonder if this will become a legitimate tool for law enforcement, or if it will be yet another big brother tool.

Re:Obligatory John Woo... (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 6 years ago | (#25444353)

How will the system deal with the fact that people change as they age?

Well, as long as the person travels enough, I would think you would be fine so long as you stored the updated photo every time. People don't age too quickly, so you would only have to account for gradual changes.

Re:Obligatory John Woo... (1)

darkfire5252 (760516) | about 6 years ago | (#25444869)

Facial recognition software typically relies on things that cannot be easily changed. You can reconstruct the entire skin tissue of the face, but you can't (practically) change the distance between your eye sockets, the distance from the eye socket to the ear or to the top of the head. Underlying bone structure is hard to change...

oh crap ... (1)

taniwha (70410) | about 6 years ago | (#25443963)

not only will I have to take off my shoes I'll have to shave my beard

Ironic (4, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 6 years ago | (#25443965)

Seems ironic to me that we have the international law-enforcement agencies as well as a ton of cross-border data and system sharing agreements all intended to stop people from crossing the borders themselves. They want information about us to be world wide but they don't want us to be world wide.

Note to self: (1)

Atario (673917) | about 6 years ago | (#25444061)

Invest in realistic-mask-making companies.

Not quite Big Brother (2, Informative)

Jabbrwokk (1015725) | about 6 years ago | (#25444063)

The summary and the Register article make it sound like Interpol wants to keep a record of everyone with a passport. This does not appear to be the case, according to the original article [guardian.co.uk] which the Register ripped off and rewrote.

Senior figures want a system that lets immigration officials capture digital images of passengers and immediately cross-check them against a database of pictures of terror suspects, international criminals and fugitives.

Not that I like the scheme, but it doesn't sound quite as police-state as some might think. My picture is already taken all over the place if I go to the airport, this would take my picture and cross-check it with a database of known criminals, terrorists and fugitives.

Re:Not quite Big Brother (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 6 years ago | (#25444161)

Possible outcomes:
  1. "Well, we have not caught any terrorists yet, but we spent a lot on this system. Let's use it to catch people who don't clean up after their dogs."
  2. "You have been identified as a terrorist by the system, so you will need to remain in custody until a human can verify that you are not a terrorist."
  3. "This system works so well, we should use it domestically!"
  4. "Here's a list of people known to be against the war and probably planning to attend a protest in Washington DC; they shouldn't be allowed to fly."

Surveillance is a slippery slope.

Mod Parent Informative (1)

mpapet (761907) | about 6 years ago | (#25444221)

The paranoid won't agree with the parent post, but it's true.

Also remember that the facial recognition systems are all proprietary and far from effective such that it makes the notion of interoperability practically impossible.

You have more to worry about with the NSA snooping all telecom/data traffic and bank transaction clearing.

Re:Not quite Big Brother (3, Insightful)

davegravy (1019182) | about 6 years ago | (#25444637)

My picture is already taken all over the place if I go to the airport, this would take my picture and cross-check it with a database of known criminals, terrorists and fugitives.

...and store your picture in a non-terrorist database, and in the event that you join a revolutionary movement to overthrow your highly corrupt government move your entry into the terrorist list, providing a convenient means to locate and apprehend you. And I don't necessarily mean your government is corrupt today, just that it could one day be.

Your picture may be taken all over the place already, but citing this as a reason why the proposed system isn't big-brother-eque doesn't make much sense. If people already routinely defacated on your doorstep, would you be apathetic about a government proposal to defecate on your doorstep?

Terrorist face recognition! (3, Interesting)

Banekartr (1058752) | about 6 years ago | (#25444069)

Does this facial recognition come with x-ray vision? How will it help with this? http://www.imcworldwide.org/blog/afghanistan/uploaded_images/IMG_0056-705316.JPG [imcworldwide.org]

Re:Terrorist face recognition! (3, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 6 years ago | (#25444235)

The 9/11 hijackers were not dressed in traditional middle eastern clothing. They were wearing run-of-the-mill business-casual clothing, which is why they were so successful -- they looked like normal travelers, and drew no attention to themselves at the airport.

Re:Terrorist face recognition! (4, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | about 6 years ago | (#25444603)

Solution? Demand that all terrorists wear traditional middle eastern clothing. Even the abortion-clinic and McVeigh types.

It's not fool-proof, I admit -A lot of non-terrorists also wear traditional middle eastern clothing, and some may cry "profiling", but it's a good first step. Then, at security, the screeners can ask anyone in the right mode of dress, "Are you a terrorist?" The ones that say "Yes" are then arrested.

And then I can finally make it through line without taking off my shoes. Flawless.

Me wants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444159)

Does it mean that if they paste a photo, the program could find the porn actor/actress with the most resemblance to the person in the photo?

What if I get a new scar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444269)

So what happens if I'm mauled by a bear and get some fresh scars on my face that are not present on my passport photo? I'll fail automated recognition every time, but would likely pass the "human test" 99.99% of the time.

Is the consolate of whatever-foreign-government-using-this going to pay for me to get a new passport?

Re:What if I get a new scar? (3, Funny)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 6 years ago | (#25444379)

How many times have you been mauled by a bear in the past 10 years?

Re:What if I get a new scar? (1)

tripdizzle (1386273) | about 6 years ago | (#25444531)

From what I read, it takes your picture then would scan against those who have been deemed as not being allowed to cross the border/fly. Unless you were mauled by a bear who cut up your face to the point that you looked exactly like a known terrorist, you wouldnt be stopped. This is not an authentication system (you are who you say you are) its something else that checks to see if you are a person on this specific list.

Re:What if I get a new scar? (2, Interesting)

compro01 (777531) | about 6 years ago | (#25444575)

Unless those are unreasonably large scars, they shouldn't make any difference. Facial recognition typically relies on the size/placement of the facial bones, which generally don't change significantly, barring extreme trauma.

Though the people advocating this need to be sent home to read up on base rate negligence before they continue speaking.

All right! Now we're getting somewhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444297)

I think a world "facials" database is a great idea. Even though I'm more of a "threesome" man myself, I am confident that this technology will spread to help me find the kind of pr0n I'm into.

It's really true. All technological advances begin with pr0n.

Well, I'm screwed (4, Interesting)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | about 6 years ago | (#25444301)

The Federal government has my photo from my passport stored somewhere.

It has my DNA from my stint in the Army.

It has has my fingerprints from security clearance applications and several FBI background checks I've had to go through to be a teacher.

My only solace is, in all of my photos for federal documents I'm frowning like an NFL star posing for a picture, and on all my Facebook pictures I'm smiling.

Though when it comes down to it, if the government goes to crap, I'm screwed.

Re:Well, I'm screwed (1)

Limburgher (523006) | about 6 years ago | (#25444801)

The Federal government has my photo from my passport stored somewhere.

It has my DNA from my stint in the Army.

It has has my fingerprints from security clearance applications and several FBI background checks I've had to go through to be a teacher.

My only solace is, in all of my photos for federal documents I'm frowning like an NFL star posing for a picture, and on all my Facebook pictures I'm smiling.

Though when it comes down to it, when the government went to crap, I got screwed.

TFTFY

FaceEx database query (1)

starglider29a (719559) | about 6 years ago | (#25444313)

Samples of the new FaceEx [wikipedia.org] function:

SELECT FaceImage from tblFaces where FaceEx(FaceImage) LIKE FaceEx(@MINE)
SELECT FaceImage from tblFaces where FaceEx(FaceImage) LIKE FaceEx('salma.hayek.faceimage')
SELECT FaceImage from tblFaces where FaceEx(FaceImage) LIKE FaceEx(@YERMOM)


Tomorrow, Class, we will discuss the JOIN, INSERT INTO, and GROUP BY operators.

Re:FaceEx database query (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#25444931)

Exactly which database MEMBERS are these compatible with?

Aaaa (1)

ilikejam (762039) | about 6 years ago | (#25444385)

aaaargh.

Fuck it. I'm moving to Lovely [wikipedia.org] .

I can see it working now (2, Funny)

SupremoMan (912191) | about 6 years ago | (#25444393)

Beard: False

Next();

Beard: False

Next();

Beard: True

CheckOsamaBinLaden();

1984 (5, Funny)

andy1307 (656570) | about 6 years ago | (#25444397)

Dear Brits: 1984 was a novel, not an instruction manual.

Re:1984 (2, Interesting)

megamerican (1073936) | about 6 years ago | (#25444737)

Incorrect. 1984 is what Orwell thought the future would be like in the year 1984.

I always thought that Orwell was an optimist.

Re:1984 (2, Insightful)

Catil (1063380) | about 6 years ago | (#25444849)

They are way behind their timeplan but they started a crash program in 2001 to speed things up.

Re:1984 (2, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | about 6 years ago | (#25444885)

And so was Atlas Shrugged, I'm waiting for John Galt to interrupt my regularly scheduled program any day now.

The solution is obvious (0, Redundant)

David Gerard (12369) | about 6 years ago | (#25444461)

TERRORISTS are used to disguising their faces and fingerprints. But what TERRORIST will think to disguise the rest of their body? [today.com] p.s.: Look over there! TERRORISTS!!!

Reminds of my hero... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444489)

Duke Nukem. :-P

CHECK the Database for the FACE: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25444663)

of this
criminal [whitehouse.org] .

Thank you for your cooperation.

Now who is laughing? (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | about 6 years ago | (#25444677)

All you who say "they all look alike" -- at least this software won't work on those you once laughed at.

Brother, I'm right.

Re:Now who is laughing? (2, Interesting)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 6 years ago | (#25445127)

Growing up in Malawi as a young Dutch boy, I once (age seven or so) asked my nanny, a South-African woman, how she could tell other African people apart, as they all looked the same to me. Not the one's I knew personally of course, just the other 99.9%.
This is the kind of question only a child can and will ask, and after laughing, she confided in me she had the same thought about Europeans (that they all looked alike).

Somehow, I don't think software is going to have this problem, allthough the prejudices of it's programmers might seep in.

All you who say "THEY all look alike", don't worry, THEY think exactly the same thing about you!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?