×

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!

Japanese CCTV Camera Can Scan 36 Million Faces/Second

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the once-met-alex-jones-at-mt-carmel-compound dept.

Privacy 115

An of-course anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the always-fun Infowars.com: "A new camera technology from Hitachi Hokusai Electric can scan days of camera footage instantly, and find any face which has EVER walked past it. Its makers boast that it can scan 36 million faces per second. The technology raises the spectre of governments – or other organisations – being able to 'find' anyone instantly simply using a passport photo or a Facebook profile. The 'trick' is that the camera 'processes' faces as it records, so that all faces which pass in front of it are recorded and stored instantly. Faces are stored as a searchable 'biometric' record, placing the unique mathematical 'faceprint' of anyone who has ever walked past the camera in a database."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

115 comments

The future (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462081)

And here I was thinkin' that the level of surveillance seen in GITS wouldn't be seen in my lifetime...

Re:The future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462217)

GITS?

Re:The future (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462229)

Ghost In The Shell.

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463667)

Welcome our new Japanese overlords

Re:The future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463349)

What interests me is the question of how effective this will be, given the number of Japanese who never leave home without a facemask. There was an awful lot of that when I was in Japan a few years ago. Seems like it'd be hard to match someone's face when most of it is obscured.

Re:The future (2)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463539)

Wearing Guy Fawkes mask on the street all the time suddenly seems like a VERY good idea...

Re:The future (1)

Shifty0x88 (1732980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463665)

hahahah I was going to say the same thing!!!

Re:The future (2)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | about 2 years ago | (#39465081)

First you're not actually allowed to walk the streets when it's impossible to identify you. Walking around in masks is an offence just about everywhere in the world (yes, even in Saudi Arabia walking around in a full niqab is not technically allowed, and people have been arrested for it (why ? well, guy in niqab blows up bank, runs outside, and they just rounded up everyone in those clothes. They didn't even catch the guy). In normal states it's not allowed and the police will not tolerate real obscuring masks under normal circumstances for obvious reasons. Furthermore, if a crime is comitted and you're walking around with a mask, good luck explaining that). Due to the history of laws, there's an exception : it's allowed on carnival. But that's pretty much it.

And even masks and such won't work. When it becomes trivial to do this, it will make sense, and everybody will do this, without informing government or employees. Why not ? Who's going to stop them ?

Enforcing privacy is about to become the same sort of fight as enforcing copyright is for the MPAA. There's laws protecting the "victims", who suffer no damage and can't even know if their rights have been violated, but it's impossible to use those laws due to realities on the ground.

Even now one can read articles from hackers about how it's completely ludicrous to expect privacy in a place where you can expect cameras (what ? I can't run opencv on my own webcam ?). You can film people on/near your property, but you "can't" actually look at the film that's stored on your harddrive ? Why not ? Why can't an algorithm look at it ?

Get ready for a hopeless fight in 3 ... 2 ... 1.

Btw guy fawkes masks will only buy time until the resolution on these cameras is high enough. There's plenty of biometrically identifying information on a human body, some of which is near impossible to hide. The exact ratio of the distances between the circle joints in the human body is as unique as a fingerprint, and can be determined from a short movie. The algorithm has a hard part, which is identifying your limbs and head and how they move over a few seconds of video, and an easy part, which is basically drawing all the connections between the rotation points of those joins (ie. a 5-polygon and it's diagonals), then measure the ratios 2-by-2, you then sort them according to size so it doesn't even matter if the guy was upside down or hopping on a pogo stick, or managed to convince the camera his leg was really his head. As long as the camera can get decent hints about your limbs and head moving (the big ones) it can find this. Masks are a useless defense, in fact they make things easier by providing static reference points on your face. Not even long skirts work against it.

Re:The future (4, Interesting)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463767)

There are alternatives [venturebeat.com] if you don't want to wear a mask. Some of these are also less likely to get you hassled by the police. Someone should make a version of these face paint techniques that uses national flags and national team colours, then everyone will just assume you are a sports fan.

Re:The future (1)

turing_m (1030530) | about 2 years ago | (#39464635)

...until you realize that any decent coder should be able to figure out who the genius in the Guy Fawkes mask is who is wandering around from location to location and then spontaneously disappears in location X at datestamp Y is one of 'SELECT face_id FROM face_view WHERE location_id = "X" AND datestamp="Y";'. And for those whom that did not apply (the exceptions being able to be generated algorithmically of course) are either disappearing into:
1. Their own address. Doh.
2. The sewer or some other location - oh gee, where do we install our next covert CCTV?

Unfortunately, given the fact that our society sees fit to only financially reward high IQ individuals commensurate with their ability in:
1. Taking advantage of the idiocy or naivety of others in the financial fields.
2. Helping/curing sick people, or preferably extracting money from wealthy old/vain people.
3. Using the legal system to extract money from anything with money.
3. Random entrepreneurial activity.

and not:
4. Catching crooks... ...this means that in most cases there will not be a decent coder employed in the catching of a crook who is doing this, nor an intelligent enough cop who realizes how to use this system to the benefit of the justice system. There will of course be a decent coder somewhere in the organization who has used company time to develop a highly novel and innovative "cup size estimation technology" that has virtually limitless applications, most of which he has also selflessly dedicated himself to pioneering.

Murphy's Law dictates that, should you personally have sort of legitimate and moral need for secrecy, there will of course be a decent coder available who is personally involved with investigating the incident where you were running around with your Guy Fawkes mask on.

Re:The future (1)

Patchw0rk F0g (663145) | about 2 years ago | (#39465523)

Wearing Guy Fawkes mask on the street all the time suddenly seems like a VERY good idea...

Actually, I think I'm going to use that as my Facebook photo. Good idea.

Re:The future (1)

kaladorn (514293) | about 2 years ago | (#39464947)

Me, I was just *hoping* GITS and other such forward looking shows weren't predicting our future.

But I really knew better since I work to develop software that enables this at times (like CALEA/lawful intercept stuff for cell nets).

Re:The future (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 2 years ago | (#39465087)

And here I was thinkin' that the level of surveillance seen in GITS wouldn't be seen in my lifetime...

Well the designers of the technology had to get their idea from somewhere. I'm pretty sure the SOAD song "Spiders" is about this technology.

Misleading Headline... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462083)

"The trick is that the camera processes faces as it records, so that all faces which pass in front of it are recorded and stored instantly. Faces are stored as a searchable biometric record"

So basically it search for a record in a sorted list of up to 36 million records in under a second? Not exactly revolutionary...

Re:Misleading Headline... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462133)

Not exactly revolutionary...

Quite impressive, considering that Japanese look all the same...

Re:Misleading Headline... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462147)

kill yourself

Re:Misleading Headline... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462263)

...that's not true. The ones in the movies are attractive, the rest are ugly.

Re:Misleading Headline... (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462351)

From "Doctor Who" The Sontaran Stratagem:

Luke (totally not Larry Page) Rattigan: How do you tell each other apart?

General Staal: We say the same of humans.

I've heard that "Sontaran" (San-Ta-Ren?) is actually from Mandarin, meaning "Outer Space Man". I can't find the exact characters, not that slashdot will accept unicode anyway.

Re:Misleading Headline... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462137)

If it's making a unique 'fingerprint' of each human face, reliably, in that time such that it can match them again, then yes that's pretty impressive. Of course, it's probably not really very reliable. But maybe.

Re:Misleading Headline... (1)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462921)

Some people were doing that type of research in last computer science department. Face recognition works on the T shaped area of the face defined by the eyebrows, nose, eyes and mouth. Things like glasses, beards moustaches and piercings could throw things off track.

Re:Misleading Headline... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463435)

The cyber-industrial complex will surely develop "counter-countermeasures".

Re:Misleading Headline... (1)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462155)

Indeed. The headline might lead one to believe that one camera could identify, hash, lookup, and store information on 36 million distinct faces per second - like looking at the world's biggest mob and processing everybody present. Still, this technology will undoubtedly be on Big Brother's Christmas list. Why, just imagine the civil liberty carnage a Beowulf cluster of these things could cause.

Re:Misleading Headline... (3, Informative)

yfkar (866011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462163)

I wondered about the headline too. My first thought was that how on Earth could you get 36 million people to fit into one second of footage AND process it in real time. Even the article wasn't very clear about it.

Also:

Faces are stored as a searchable 'biometric' record, storing the unique

It seems that the writer of the article didn't even bother to

Re:Misleading Headline... (4, Interesting)

RNLockwood (224353) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462189)

I agree but it searches for a set of records that have some kind of a close match and doesn't stop with the first "hit" a la CSI.

Wonder why there was no mention of the false positive and false negative rates? Perhaps they are a little too high?

Needs to be tweaked for western audiences (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462109)

As everyone flags false-positive for Ethan Hawke.

That's Easy (0, Troll)

CMYKjunkie (1594319) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462111)

36 million is easy, Asians all look the same!

Re:That's Easy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462185)

Your racism aside, that should make this task more difficult, not easier.

Dude, calm down. It was clearly a joke. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462291)

Why are people so inclined to scream "RACISM!" so often, even when there's absolutely no racism involved at all? You're such a person, so perhaps you can explain why?

It was clearly a joke. As an Asian, I don't take offense to it. I don't think anybody else of Asian descent should, nor do I think most would.

Re:That's Easy (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462567)

Oh come on, this is a funny joke! I think it would make it harder for the camera....

Searching face database...30,000,000 faces
Filter for almond eyes...30,000,000 faces
Filter for black hair...30,000,000 faces

Damn it, we need to narrow this down!

Re:That's Easy (1)

CMYKjunkie (1594319) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463563)

Boy, tough crowd!! It was a J O K E people! The stereotype is "they all look the same" so.... oh. never mind. I guess I am a -1 Troll.

Re:That's Easy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463691)

this site is full of weeaboos who don't find your "joke" all that humorous

next time try making fun of niggers or jews instead

Only one thing can save our privacy now.,.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462129)

We shall all have to undergo surgery to replace our faces with those of Mr. and Mrs Potatohead.

unique huh ? (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462145)

placing the unique mathematical 'faceprint' of anyone who has ever walked past the camera in a database...

For some definition of unique known only to Hitachi Hokusai Electric.

how do you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462153)

So how do you get 36 million faces in front of camera ?

Re:how do you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462357)

So how do you get 36 million faces in front of camera ?

Offer them free iPads? You didn't say that had to be non-gullible people; just that they had to have faces.

Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! (3, Funny)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462169)

If I lived in Japan, I'd walk around with THE stupidest smile ever, eyes wide as saucers, pretending that everything I'm looking at is the most fascinating thing in the universe. I mean, I do this ALREADY, but I'd up the ante severely, all so I can imagine officials watching the surveillance tapes muttering, "WTF is this chick on?"

Re:Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 2 years ago | (#39464647)

Doing silly/strange stuff in front of cameras increases your chances of ending up on youtube. Then someone downloads it, edits it and uploads the new version with music and effects...

The upcoming generation better have thick skin- their peers seem ever ready to record and upload. Once while driving I saw someone peeing in public, no big deal to me, but one of his friends(?) was using a phone to record it (without his knowledge presumably)!

Re:Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! (1)

Cazekiel (1417893) | about 2 years ago | (#39465543)

The scary thing is, in this day and age... you COULD be on youtube and never find out. Me and the husband have discussed this at great length. Gulp.

Re:Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 2 years ago | (#39465755)

Never finding out is not a problem. "Finally finding out" might be a problem... Or if you can take it, your chance of fame ;).

Example of what I was mentioned before:
Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU [youtube.com]
Remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR3PT5E0XDo&feature=related [youtube.com]

Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3UL_mVHHI [youtube.com]
Remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_40rM_L0s [youtube.com]

Re:Smile! You're on Creepy Camera! (1)

Cazekiel (1417893) | about 2 years ago | (#39465785)

Oh yes, yes, I've seen these! The Star Wars kid I kinda feel for. I think us geeks have ALL fallen victim to acting out our fave scenes from nerdy movies and the like ("This is our perfect opportunity to act like ninjas!" was how my brother at 13 years old put it once when we were hanging out in the clearing of the woods by our house--and yes, he MEANT it, hard), but we're old enough to have avoided worldwide-ridicule. Still, you gotta have a guilty-giggle.

Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists (0)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462171)

If I would ever become a criminal or terrorist I'm already prepared for dumb technology like this. I have long hair, a moustache and a goatee. After I committed my crime I will simple shave and cut my hair. And that's simply the easy, quick and painless change.
Sure, if I'm a foreigner I might it means I probably entered the country by showing my passport. So they would probably know who I /was/. But because I'm changed my appearance drastically they would have a hard time to find me.
The people that looked a bit like the "old" me would probably have a more difficult life than me.

Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462213)

And if you're a normal person not doing anything illegal (unlikely given how many laws there are), you'll always have cameras watching you. Paranoia of criminals is nice, isn't it? No different from terrorist paranoia.

Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462215)

If I would ever become a criminal or terrorist I'm already prepared for dumb technology like this. I have long hair, a moustache and a goatee. After I committed my crime I will simple shave and cut my hair. And that's simply the easy, quick and painless change.

Oh, now you've done it...now they'll fit their cameras with sonar and/or radar and/or infrared to see "through" facial hair.

Oh, well..should create a booming market for the security pics [hoax-slayer.com] .

Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462227)

I thought one approach to face recognition is based on face geometry, so shaving wouldn't help. You could try to use excessive makeup to add a few eyes and noses to your face. This would help against automated face recognition, but I wouldn't call it keeping a low profile.

Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462297)

Mustache and goatee removal ( or adding ) wont fool modern facial recognition software.

It might fool software from 10 years ago, but things have advanced, quite a bit.

Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists (3, Interesting)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462387)

Indeed. However, there are still ways of fooling them with makeup and a few bits of silicone, and both are easy to apply and take off. For example adding a wee bit of skin-coloured silicone on your cheekbones and forehead totally changes how you look. Then apply some slightly darker blush on your cheeks and eyesockets and you'll look like an entirely different person. Then just wipe the makeup on your sleeve, pick the silicone off with your fingers and you'll be your old self in less than 30 seconds.

Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464433)

The silicone is likely to work. The makeup, maybe not. It depends on how they're measuring and encoding facial data.

Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 2 years ago | (#39464655)

Gets harder if there are cameras "everywhere".

For example say you do that change in a rest room and there are cameras monitoring the corridor outside the restroom. The system will know that Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Silicone went in. But Mr Y, Mr X, and you came out.

Easier solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39464935)

Photo-shop your passport/drivers license photo (slightly) before handing it in.
This will be the basis for most facial recognition software. Et voilà, it's as if you've never left the house.

Re:Won't work for smart criminals/terrorists (1)

kaladorn (514293) | about 2 years ago | (#39464965)

Yes, but there are imaging technologies out there that can image things like facial structure and sub-surface capillary maps. Those things are not easily disguised (as far as I am aware) because they are penetrative imaging and they map sub-surface features.

If this kind of thing can be made to operate all over the place (high CC camera density) and married to a highly capable data sifting system, it will be very hard to fool (or seems so at present). Face makeup and even prosthesis or fake hair won't cut it.

Furthermore, such a system could likely tell that you had on fake hair, etc. (potentially)

This system by itself isn't a horror, but as another step along the path to the government keeping you under the microscope at all times (when of course the heads of government will live in microscopeless gated communities). That's not so cool, IMO.

Clearly... (1)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462191)

...this camera was invented to prove that superman exists.

Now I'll know for sure that Clark Kent taunts his boss at least 36 million times a day at the Daily Planet!

No expectation of privacy (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462203)

In a public area.

So maybe it's time to amend the Constitution. "The government or its agents shall not track people's whereabouts, except when a warrant has been obtained through a judge, and supported by oath or affirmation."

Re:No expectation of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462239)

Don't need to amend it. The 10th amendment already dictates they do not have this power, legally. The forth Amendment also applies.

Re:No expectation of privacy (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462305)

The courts have said you're wrong (that cameras can record you in public). Of course that works both ways, because we can record them too.

Re:No expectation of privacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462647)

Tell that to the Chicago PD and Illinois GOP.

Re:No expectation of privacy (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464481)

No, the 10th Amendment doesn't say anything about what the government isn't allowed to do. It's astonishing the ignorance of people who claim to know what the Constitution says, and the breadth of the things they think it implies.

US 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That means the Constitution doesn't change the rights of the States or the people in any way other than those described in the document. If you had a right to do X in 1788, you still had it in 1789.

In contrast, the 4th Amendment SPECIFICALLY addresses the right of people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

But I don't think people ever were presumed to have a right not to have their pictures taken in public places. Certainly not in the USA.

To establish such a right would require a change in the law.

You're a face pussy. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39464665)

It's an astonishing piece of ignorance to think you can win over anyone by starting off by accusing people of being astonishingly ignorant. Oh wait, what's that? You don't CARE if you "win anyone over?" Then shut the fuck up. Why are you talking. SHUT YOUR FACE CUNT, PUSSY!

Re:No expectation of privacy (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462643)

Then warrants become more of a catch 22 than they were before; One needs evidence to get a warrant one needs a warrant to get evidence. One also does not know they need to track someone until they become a suspect. If there is no record of where they were then much evidence is lost.

Re:No expectation of privacy (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463487)

That's the whole point. If you're not bothering anyone, law enforcement has no business keeping tabs on you. It was designed that way, erring on the side of letting guilty people go free.

When the Constitution was written, such abuses of power were a big enough deal that they put it in the Bill of Rights.

It's the same idea behind "âoeBetter that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."
http://works.bepress.com/alexander_volokh/9/ [bepress.com]

Re:No expectation of privacy (1)

ankhank (756164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463537)

> no business keeping tabs on you.

Unless, back then, you were someone's property.
Fortunately, they later outlawed slavery as well.

Customer retention, however, remains legal.

Re:No expectation of privacy (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463827)

How does one suffer when someone else logs one's location? In fact it is a two edged sword; a suspect can be found near the place the crime was committed and possibly convicted. The suspect could just as well as being found far away and cleared.

The ten 10-1 ration are just numbers. It is possible that tracking people could solve hundreds of crimes, clear hundreds of people and be misused in very few cases.

I have np problem with the government tracking where I am. I have nothing to hide.

Please quote where is the Bill of Rights that the government can not retain the location you were when in public?

The ten 10-1 ration are just numbers. It is possible that tracking people could solve hundreds of crimes, clear hundreds of people and be misused in very few cases. Where does the line get drawn? 10-1, 50-1, 100-1,?? Just because a technology can be misused does not mean that a technology should not be used. If possible misuse was the criteria the police would never be given weapons because they could be used on innocent people. Proper safeguards and penalties for misuse of technology is what is needed.

Re:No expectation of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462667)

Well, this is Japan. Every country has their own constitutional rights. While I love Japan, there's a lot of shady politics going on over there, basically manipulating its citizens into marching ants. A good example of this is how they didn't kill each other but lined up at stores to get water. "Honor" is more or less a control from the government just as religion. Sadly, when you think of this you begin to question how you can be a nice person and not be walking the path of what others tell you to do. It's a difficult question to solve but once you realize this, you're on your path to individuality. Hurray, somehow I partially referenced GITS

Re:No expectation of privacy (1)

ffflala (793437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464583)

What is the point of this amendment, when private citizens will remain free to do the same? And then, of course, to sell the information to whoever will pay for it, be they private companies, the government agencies of *any* state, or interested individuals?

Got something to hide? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462231)

Coming to a public UK CCTV network near you!

Remember it's for those pesky dissidents^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorists!
 

The headline is wrong!! (5, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462311)

Come on editors do your job. The headline is "Japanese CCTV Camera Can Scan 36 Million Faces/Second". That is not even close to what this system is doing. System does the following;
1. creates a thumbnail picture of the face. How long this takes is not noted.
2. Searches a database for matches. This is where the 36 Million faces/second comes in and is not done by the camera at all.

A better headline would have been "Japanese CCTV Camera Can Search Through 36 Million Faces/Second". That is a much less impressive feat than scanning as it is just a way of encoding a face for faster searches.

Re:The headline is wrong!! (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462505)

The interesting part isn't even the camera, it's the database that can search 36 million biometric data sets, accounting for errors and variations due to things like perspective and lighting, in under one second with any degree of accuracy.

The UK government is probably close to doing this already. Traffic cameras capture every car number plate that goes past and stores it in a database. It's only a matter of time because a biometric face database is set up, if one doesn't already exist somewhere in the bowels of MI5/MI6 or the Met. Privacy and rights are dirty words here.

Re:The headline is wrong!! (1)

burne (686114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463571)

The UK government is probably close to doing this already.

You're sure of this? Because they need a million camera's to solve a thousand crimes per year, and Burroughs without CCTV do better when it comes to solving crimes. (Google it! Find your own facts!)

Re:The headline is wrong!! (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 years ago | (#39464673)

It is all just numbers until you put up actual references ("Google it" is not a reference). If you want to refute something put up a real reference and you may change opinions. Otherwise you are just pulling stuff out of your butt.

Re:The headline is wrong!! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464505)

There's no telling whether it's ACCURATE. It just compares it to other faces, and probably comes up with a set of 1000 or so possible matches.

Re:The headline is wrong!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463237)

You're an idiot. The goal is to scan faces from video feed. This is done extrodinarily fast using data structure sorting. It IS scaning the faces at that rate. Just because you understand the abstraction used to achieve this feet does not change that.

Infowars web site broken by CIA NSA and KGB (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462347)

Alex Jones needs to fix his web site.

  I'm amazed they are broadcasting an AAAA record for www.infowars.com but the damn IPv6 addresss does not work. As a result anyone with IPv6 connectivity can't get to his fucking site..

Yes Alex thats right it is YOUR fault not some goddamn international banking conspiracy to silence you. France is not blocking your site either dumbass.

IIf your going to advertise an AAAA record make damn sure it works or don't do it at all.

For pete's sake, can we get a decent source (5, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462419)

The link is to a paranoid source (Infowars), citing a disreputable newspaper (The Daily Mail), citing (but not linking to) a press release, for a product which the abysmally sketchy article is available "within the next tax year". None of which even begins to mention its actual capabilities beyond the misrepresented data point of "scanning 36 million faces".

In other words, unless somebody has a link to something of value, the entire thing seems like fiction designed to give people something to be pleasantly outraged about on a Saturday afternoon.

Re:For pete's sake, can we get a decent source (2)

MobileC (83699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463225)

The entire thing seems like fiction designed to give people something to be pleasantly outraged about on a Saturday afternoon.

Works for me. Although it's Sunday here...

Re:For pete's sake, can we get a decent source (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463363)

The source is one of the videos posted by DigInfo from the 2012 Security Show in Japan (http://www.diginfo.tv/v/12-0040-r-en.php).

Apart from the misleading headline, scaremongering and other examples of bad journalism, the Daily Mail also got the name of the Japanese company wrong. It's Hitachi Kokusai Electric, not Hitachi Hokusai Electric. Their article includes uncredited screenshots of the DigInfo video.

Re:For pete's sake, can we get a decent source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39464007)

The link is to a paranoid source (Infowars),

Oh, you mean the same Infowars and Prisonplanet that was talking about backscatter x-ray machines in prisons 10-15 years ago? The same website that was talking that these machines are just being tested on prisoners then they will be deployed on general public in airports and elsewhere? The same source that told us that TSA will not be stopping at airports but will deploy on random highways checkpoints, train searches and the like??

Sorry, maybe 10 years ago I would have dismissed them as some insane paranoid people. But those fears seem to be coming true faster than even they could have even imagined.

Re:For pete's sake, can we get a decent source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39465011)

AND WHAT ABOUT THE FEMA CAMPS

That's an easy one to solve (2)

MaxToTheMax (1389399) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462499)

Guy Fawkes masks. Everyone should start wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

Re:That's an easy one to solve (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462867)

Or just medical mask which is quite popular there when people get sick or don't want to get sick.

Just remember this when your medical provider ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462563)

... snaps you mugshot ... "for the electronic medical record". And then review the "privacy" policy that says your information that they capture will be handed over to appropriate official in the course of executing approved authorities.

i'm not worried. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462615)

just gives me an excuse to wear my plastic groucho mustache

Burqa (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463167)

Maybe those Muslims are just ahead of their time... are you allowed to wear a burqa in Japan?

Re:Burqa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463425)

Now THAT is and interesting and insightful thought! What would be the equivalent defense strategy for males?

Re:Burqa (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463479)

Now THAT is and interesting and insightful thought! What would be the equivalent defense strategy for males?

No reason why a burqa couldn't work for males too. I mean who'd know?

A Guy Fawkes mask would work just as well but it would be a bit of a stretch to claim it was part of a religious dress code...

I feel duped. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463991)

All technology is evil.

Why the 'irony' quotes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39464173)

Why, Slashdot Editor, did you use 'irony' quotes around certain 'words' in the summary of that 'news' story?

Company name is wrong (1)

Libertarian001 (453712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464427)

Pretty sure it's Kokusai, with a K, not H. We went by HiKE (Hi Kay Eee). I worked there for almost five years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...