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!

Facebook's Face Identification Project Is Accurate 97.25% of the Time

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the almost-as-good-as-the-NSA's-version dept.

Facebook 149

kc123 tips news that 'DeepFace,' the software research project created by Facebook engineers to identify people in pictures, is now accurate 97.25% of the time. In other words, it's almost as good at recognizing faces as humans, who are able to determine whether two photos show the same person 97.53% of the time. The article says DeepFace reaches that level of accuracy "regardless of variations in lighting or whether the person in the picture is directly facing the camera." It continues, "DeepFace processes images of faces in two steps. First it corrects the angle of a face so that the person in the picture faces forward, using a 3-D model of an 'average' forward-looking face. Then the deep learning comes in as a simulated neural network works out a numerical description of the reoriented face. If DeepFace comes up with similar enough descriptions from two different images, it decides they must show the same face. ... The deep-learning part of DeepFace consists of nine layers of simple simulated neurons, with more than 120 million connections between them. To train that network, Facebook’s researchers tapped a tiny slice of data from their company’s hoard of user images—four million photos of faces belonging to almost 4,000 people."

cancel ×

149 comments

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

First! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523205)

hehe

Say goodbye (5, Insightful)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 5 months ago | (#46523211)

To more of your privacy in the commercial world.
"You've just been DeepFaced" But at least its all for a good cause, marketing and profits at the cost of our private lives!......

Re:Say goodbye (4, Insightful)

gnupun (752725) | about 5 months ago | (#46523233)

When are they planning to connect face identification with the street/store surveillance cameras? Then they could know who is where anytime of the day unless you wear big hats, large sunglasses, fake beards etc.

Re:Say goodbye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46524321)

A Scanner Darkly.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405296/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_12

the whole movie is made as if filmed by security cameras, only special agents get a complete mask to go undercover.
good movie and worthy to check out. hits the nail on the head regarding surveillance

Re:Say goodbye (3, Interesting)

VorpalRodent (964940) | about 5 months ago | (#46524469)

When this happens, think of the convenience! All you'll need to do is look at the nearest camera and give a thumbs up, and Facebook will automatically mark that you Liked [whatever you're standing near].

Two people could become friends by finding the nearest Big Brother station and doing a thumbs up together.

One of (many) problems will be how they contextualize all that data. You know, this started as a joke, but seriously, if Facebook had a feed of this kind of data, it would be interesting to see the hypothetical profile they build based on what they would see an individual near vs. what they claim to like on their public page.

Re:Say goodbye (5, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | about 5 months ago | (#46523239)

Muslims are right: Burqa's are the way to go...

Re:Say goodbye (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46523551)

Muslims are right: Burqa's are the way to go...

Muslims were right and they're right again. In between, they were wrong.

You know, kind of like don't eat pork, or don't eat shellfish. Was true, not any more. Of course, I don't buy just any pork or shellfish, so I guess it's true again. For a while there you could just eat anything that was in the store. Now food commonly ain't actually food, and you have to keep a lookout.

Too bad the Muslims are right now for the wrong reasons. That makes them not actually right, just accidentally correct.

Re:Say goodbye (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#46523593)

Well, that was actually the jews. You do understand jew, christian, muslim is basically all the same (except the 'church' 'interpreted' jesus words as meaning sinning is fine).

It seems you also don't understand the wearing of the burqa. There is no right or wrong about it, it is to show devotion to god. You know, exactly how nuns cover their hair. It's just that most 'christians' are godless heathens whose religion means nothing to them.

Re:Say goodbye (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46523789)

Well, that was actually the jews.

Yes, I know, I was just spitting out miscellaneous religious rules which made sense and then didn't make sense, etc.

You do understand jew, christian, muslim is basically all the same

Well, no.

(except the 'church' 'interpreted' jesus words as meaning sinning is fine).

Right. That's pretty fucking major. It's the difference between an orthodox religion and an orthoprax religion. Christianity, of the three, is the only orthodox religion, with belief being sufficient to gain entry to the afterlife.

It seems you also don't understand the wearing of the burqa. There is no right or wrong about it, it is to show devotion to god

Yeah, right. That's what Christians were told about when they should eat fish, but it was just a bunch of bullshit with an economic purpose. So, why did the leaders of the Muslim faith want some of their followers to dress in a black bag? You're just reading what it says on the tin and nodding your head sagely, I want to know the real reason. History shows us that there always is one that has nothing to do with belief and has everything to do with either happenstance (tradition) or with intent, usually profit-related.

Re:Say goodbye (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#46523825)

Hair are antennae. That's the real reason.

It's why sadhus knot their hair, monks shave it, and others cover it.

What you seem to be getting confused about is the difference between those that choose to wear the burqa because they are muslims and those who get forced to wear it because they belong to a backwards culture who can't control their sexual urges upon sight of a woman. These are two very different things.

Re:Say goodbye (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46523859)

Hair are antennae. That's the real reason.
It's why sadhus knot their hair, monks shave it, and others cover it.

Could be. Many have suggested so. I'm not aware of any hard evidence that it's relevant to anything, though. Any effects so far (that I am aware of) can be explained away by the placebo effect.

What you seem to be getting confused about is the difference between those that choose to wear the burqa because they are muslims and those who get forced to wear it because they belong to a backwards culture who can't control their sexual urges upon sight of a woman. These are two very different things.

Wait, you mean those who were brainwashed into wearing a black bag by their muslim parents and neighbors, and those who they attempted to brainwash but failed, and are forced to wear a black bag anyway? These two groups are not as different as you think they are, though there is a major difference.

And let me just rewind a tad:

who can't control their sexual urges upon sight of a woman.

Is that the real reason? I mean, it may well be. But maybe it's just about preventing women from exerting power over men, while enshrining male power over women. That seems more likely.

Re:Say goodbye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523821)

If you actually think that "Jew, Christian, Muslim is basically all the same", then you are deeply ignorant of each of those religions.

Re:Say goodbye (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#46523961)

There is no right or wrong about it, it is to show devotion to god.

Actually, there are two things that are wrong with it. First, that people seem to have tendency to force that unto others, or hold them in contempt if they don't follow the example, distorting their relations with burqa-non-wearers (that goes for any kind of clothing culture, of course). Second, in some cultures, face-to-face eye contact - literally - is considered basic politeness (as a schizoid, I don't fully grasp the notion, but there it is), and the introduction of burqas for whatever reason feels overwhelmingly intrusive.

Oh, there's of course the third notion why it's wrong - that the whole god notion is a load of ridiculous bullshit - but I was mostly talking about practical, real-life issues in the two points.

Re:Say goodbye (2)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 5 months ago | (#46523719)

Those two food items can cause severe illness if eaten uncooked. My guess is a long time ago the Jews saw a connection between certain food items and illness and thus banned them. Its likely Islam then copied those laws as the two religions share a very similar set of rules concerning food.

Re:Say goodbye (4, Funny)

pr0nbot (313417) | about 5 months ago | (#46523819)

Burqas are also handy for hiding one's stash of apo'strophe's.

Re:Say goodbye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523301)

Liquor and corner shops will love this. Banned people can be - banned and blacklisted effectively.
Camera's can lock the doors before they enter, or advise guard to escort them off the premises.

Vigilante groups can load up sex offenders pictures, and send a team over to fix the problem when one gets spotted in public.
Meth labs, undercover cops, celebrity tracking - the uses are endless.

Re:Say goodbye (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46523329)

Ads like on the Citadel in Mass Effect 2 are probably inevitable.

Re:Say goodbye (2, Interesting)

zwei2stein (782480) | about 5 months ago | (#46523401)

No, start protecting your privacy.

You do not have to allow then to do it.

http://cvdazzle.com/ [cvdazzle.com]

And, self promotion (baby steps, but working):

https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com]

Re:Say goodbye (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | about 5 months ago | (#46523493)

CVDazzle is an interesting idea, but one would need to change their hair and face style randomly, and fairly frequently, to defeat algorithms that try to match the dazzle style. Razzle-dazzle worked well for military camouflage because it takes advantage of problems with the human brain's pattern matching abilities. However, it does not work as well against neural net algorithms that know that they are looking for objects that are camouflaged this way. Still, this could make for an interesting fashion fad.

Groucho Marx masks (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 5 months ago | (#46523759)

A better approach is for everyone to wear Groucho Marx masks, that makes everybody look the same.

Re:Groucho Marx masks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46524065)

A better approach is for everyone to wear Groucho Marx masks, that makes everybody look the same.

For extra protection I wear the Groucho nose-and-glasses on top of a Guy Fawkes mask.

Re:Say goodbye (1)

grahamm (8844) | about 5 months ago | (#46523981)

Or to learn the techniques used by the Faceless Men in the Song of Ice and Fire series.

Re:Say goodbye (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 5 months ago | (#46523599)

No, start protecting your privacy.

You do not have to allow then to do it.

http://cvdazzle.com/ [cvdazzle.com]

And, self promotion (baby steps, but working):

https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com]

sure. it works now because these computer vision algorithms are crude. I, and most people, would have little problem identifying those people. It's only a matter of time before a system is sophisticated enough to recognize that's a dude with some paint on his face and a silly hairstyle.

Re:Say goodbye (2)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 5 months ago | (#46523461)

While I'm not glad about this, I am glad they are publishing how accurate it is. If Facebook is able to accomplish this, it should be serve as another example of the dangers of letting the NSA (or anyone else) record our lives without our consent.

The safety used to be that the NSA had way too much information and too little manpower to ever make use of it against average citizens. When you read stories about what Facebook and Google can do, you realize the NSA doesn't need the manpower to effectively catalog each of us.

Re:Say goodbye (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 5 months ago | (#46523519)

Poison the database with images of people tagged with the wrong name. Make it worthless.

DeepFace (5, Funny)

BisuDagger (3458447) | about 5 months ago | (#46523213)

It sounds like the next capital hill scandal. Fortunately for teenaged girls, their faces are always scrunched up and lips pursed, when they turn 25 and take a normal picture Facebook won't be able to recognize them.

Re:DeepFace (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 5 months ago | (#46523285)

"their faces are always scrunched up and lips pursed"

Hey what-eva!, Didn't you know doing faces is like so like TOTALLY hilarious and original? Duh! Like get with the program!

Re: DeepFace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523315)

As someone who works on computer vision, I have a hard time believing those accuracy
numbers.

Re: DeepFace (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523383)

Maybe you should get your computer some new glasses then.

Facebook is all about photos (1)

felipou (2748041) | about 5 months ago | (#46523221)

Facebook is, among many other things, the top photo sharing service on the web. And face recognition plays a very important role in this aspect. They must invest a lot in this kind of technologies, so it's no surprise skynet will be born from them.

This news was showing in a lot of sites lately, couldn't wait to see what discussions it would spark here! Let me grab my popcorn!

DeepFace? Megalomaniacal much? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 5 months ago | (#46523223)

And our privacy slips away a little bit faster with every innovation.

Re:DeepFace? Megalomaniacal much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523275)

And our privacy slips away a little bit faster with every innovation.

Our privacy has been gone for a long, long time.

Re:DeepFace? Megalomaniacal much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46524119)

And our privacy slips away a little bit faster with every innovation.

In the immortal words of visionary Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

Fuck Facebook (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523227)

Fuck Facebook

Re:Fuck Facebook (5, Funny)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 5 months ago | (#46523327)

Fuck Facebook

So, you're saying that "Deep Face" is a euphemism?

Re:Fuck Facebook (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523965)

"Deep Throat" would be more appropriate.

Almost as good as humans they say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523235)

Humans, despite having a lot of specialized hardware for it, suck at it under many conditions.

Remember, Charlie Chaplin once lost at a Charlie Chaplin look alike contest.

Let us not forget how good Reddit was at identifying the Boston Bombers.

Re:Almost as good as humans they say... (3, Funny)

Marginal Coward (3557951) | about 5 months ago | (#46523273)

Remember, Charlie Chaplin once lost at a Charlie Chaplin look alike contest.

So did Harpo Marx.

(He didn't look a thing like Charlie Chaplin.)

Some of us saw this coming (2)

Viol8 (599362) | about 5 months ago | (#46523243)

Which is why there is not a single photo of me online that is linked to my name. So even though I may well be in a few tourist shots they can't find out who the ugly looking guy in the background is.

Yet.

However I suppose its only a matter of time before [select government here] matches up driving licence/passport photos using this tech against any street scene photos it can find on the internet and give a rundown of places you've been and possibly when. If they haven't done so already.

Re:Some of us saw this coming (3, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 5 months ago | (#46523283)

All it takes is to be identified once. Just one friend snapping a picture of you & pals at a wedding,who then posts the picture on FB, and dutifully identifies each person in the photo. After that, every image of you available on the web will be linked to you. That picture of you puking your guts out at some drunken frathouse blowout that you hoped everyone had forgotten about will now be on the first page of a Google search on your name.

Re:Some of us saw this coming (2)

Viol8 (599362) | about 5 months ago | (#46523311)

Well there is that, but there's no point making it easy for them.

Re:Some of us saw this coming (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 5 months ago | (#46523569)

Considering the poor quality of most photographs, I don't think most people's face are that identifiable. Especially once you run into the millions and billions.

Re:Some of us saw this coming (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 5 months ago | (#46524127)

Yeah, I have my picture on FB, and even I don't recognize me.

Re:Some of us saw this coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46524267)

In fact 97.25% of faces in photographs are identifiable. Didn't you even read the headline?

Re:Some of us saw this coming (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#46523613)

Guess it's good that FB allows you to not have anybody tag you in posts, or to allow you to review it after it's tagged, or even to review it before it get's posted.

FB won't be the problem unless you're an idiot who doesn't even know there are privacy settings. Then again, if they're not paranoid people thinking the government is out to get them they aren't looking for those settings anyways.

Re:Some of us saw this coming (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523919)

I don't even *use* Facebook, so how could I make use of these features?

Then again, if they're not paranoid people thinking the government is out to get them they aren't looking for those settings anyways.

So if you don't want your picture and information plastered everywhere, you're paranoid. Okay.

And it seems as if you're one of those amazingly ignorant idiots who have full trust in the government for absolutely inexplicable reasons. Enjoy your complete ignorance of history.

Re:Some of us saw this coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46524245)

Amen Brother! sorry no modpoints :-(

Re:Some of us saw this coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523793)

and give a rundown of places you've been and possibly when.

Of course, most people already voluntarily carry a tracking device at all times.

I am the 2.75% (2)

retroworks (652802) | about 5 months ago | (#46523247)

Or at least I hope so. I've been falsely tagging myself in Facebook, reversing and randomizing the tags, for years. I wish more people would poison the well instead of trying to go "invisible", we just need about 1/3 errors to discredit positive ID as a method.

Re:I am the 2.75% (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 5 months ago | (#46523321)

There is no mention in the article of their testing methods; I'll wager that they mainly used caucasian faces. If you're asian, I'd bet that your chances of staying anonymous are much higher.

Re:I am the 2.75% (4, Insightful)

Ozymandias_KoK (48811) | about 5 months ago | (#46523555)

...because they all look alike? I heard they were all really smart and know martial arts, too.

Re:I am the 2.75% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523973)

The solution set in this case is anyone that is not Caucasian (I prefer the term Occidental-American myself). Asian is just one of many within that solution set. Please, instead of jumping on the slightest misinterpretation to be snarky and self righteous, use your educated mind to derive the logic of statements.

Re:I am the 2.75% (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 months ago | (#46524011)

You know they've actually researched this and asians are no worse at identifying other asians than caucasians are at identifying other caucasians, it's got nothing to do with genes either just who you've grown up with. Obviously if you grew up with 95 out of 100 caucasians and five asians you don't need to record much detail about the asians to figure out who's who, but then when you're suddenly flooded with very many asians your mind can't cope. Over time if you lived there you'd start noticing more and more differences, but as a tourist it's just mental overload.

Re:I am the 2.75% (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | about 5 months ago | (#46524015)

You do realize that if they are ~97% accurate among their entire dataset (Which includes Asia, Europe, North America, and South America) that they can already handle some portion of the 38,929,319 'African American' population, the 14,674,252 'Asian American' population, 2,932,248 'Native American' population, 540,013 'Pacific Islander' population, 19,107,368 'other race' population, or 9,009,073 'two or more races' population just in the US right...?

Re:I am the 2.75% (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523387)

My strategy has been to use photo manipulation tools to distort photographs of my face (especially important aspects for facial recognition such brow ridge, relative distance between facial features, etc.), then upload them and tag myself. By uploading photos with subtle changes first and then gradually making the changes more drastic, my hope is that it will be enough to make the training data useless without setting off any alarms and having the distorted photos discarded as outliers.

To keep my friends from thinking I'm crazy or succumbing to some terrible disfiguring disease, I upload the distorted photos to a private album so they can't see them. By doing so, I'm wagering that Facebook uses public AND private photos to train its algorithms, but that doesn't strike me as too unlikely given FB's track record.

Re:I am the 2.75% (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523643)

Nice pic. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akam... [akamaihd.net]

Pretty sure you aren't the 2.75%

Re: I am the 2.75% (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523943)

The girl is cute. I'll give her my 2.75%

Re: I am the 2.75% (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#46524023)

The girl is cute. I'll give her my 2.75"

FTFY

Privacy nutjobs take note (4, Informative)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 5 months ago | (#46523281)

Please notice that this feature can be disabled in you Facebook account options. I'm at work and can't access it right now but I know the option is there, which takes care of both auto tagging (i.e. DeepFace) and manual tagging (i.e. your friends tag you on photos).

And It's not like your Facebook ID was issued when you were born, like your SSN or birth certificate. You willingly signed up for the service, so quit complaining about privacy bullshit, or quit using Facebook.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (5, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 5 months ago | (#46523349)

I don't have a facebook account. So how I can disable the option of my face being recognized and tagged by facebook in pictures uploaded by others?

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46523545)

Facebook won't [at least, publicly] autotag you unless you actually have an account, because otherwise there's no account to associate your face with. They may well do this internally, but that information isn't available to users if so. Of course, someone else can create an account "on your behalf" and then those photos can be associated with that identity, and thus with one another; that's linked to your identity practically but not directly.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46524207)

Facebook is famous for creating ghost accounts for those who are not registered "yet" but have been tagged or recognized.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (1)

schlachter (862210) | about 5 months ago | (#46523813)

disable your face.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 5 months ago | (#46523369)

Having never had a Facebook account, this still worries me as I know I have been identified in photos posted to others' Facebook accounts. It would be nice if everyone read the terms of service and privacy policy beforehand, but we all know that's never going to happen.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523427)

I believe you forget or are a little ignorant of how Facebook works. If one does not sign up for Facebook, their friends who have will probably tag them in a photo. Now Facebook knows you exist and they are tracking that. They know your face as more photos are tagged -- granted it's harder because you are not uploading photos of yourself more often.

The auto tagging is not all of Deep Face. It is only the result of Deep Face. You get to opt not to show what Deep Face has learned. But your face (and everything else Facebook has learned about you, whether you joined Facebook or not) is being used for training data to their various AI and Machine Learning systems. It most likely can be subpoenaed without your knowledge. Thus, by extension, the Government has a database.

Facebook, knowing that facial recognition software is highly sought after in the government and military will sell it or access to it to them. Their shareholders will demand it.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523429)

While I agree with you to a point the problem is that Facebook may end up purchasing, or partnering with a company who then give them access to all their profile images and associated data.

Bearing in mind Facebook can already know who you are even if you don't have an account the influx of new data may give them enough to profile you to other people and generate links between services without your knowledge or consent.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523443)

I never signed up to facebook. A number of my friends however did. They 'invited' me to join facebook by giving it my email address to facebook. It got a little insane with the facebook reminders so I 'unsubscribed'. In doing this, I created a hidden profile which is blacklisted.

My friends upload images of me to facebook. Facebook cookies on my computer track me when I visit any page which has the facebook button on it. My email provider Yahoo may well be sharing information about me with facebook (without my knowledge). Eventually facebook will gather all the connecting pieces of information on me to have a face, an email, and a browsing (possible purchasing) history.

Just because you can 'opt out' doesn't mean that they're not doing it anyway in the background. I'm not comfortable knowing that these people know more about me than I remember about myself.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (4, Informative)

coofercat (719737) | about 5 months ago | (#46523449)

The problem is that person X who has never signed up for Facebook ends up in a picture with someone (Person Y) who did. No one yet knows who Person X is, and Person Y doesn't identify them, and has all the recognition/auto tag features turned off. Good thing too, because Person X looks like they're so drunk they've lost the ability to control their bowels and keep their clothes on properly.

Rinse and repeat.

Remember, facebook still runs the recognition on all photos - they use such information to surface the posts you might be most interested in. If you're in a few photos with Person X (even if unidentified), then Facebook still wants to surface your friends photos with Person X because (quite reasonably) you might be interested in them.

Years late, someone identifies Person X. Now all pictures of Person X can be found by using Person X's name, even though they never signed up for Facebook.

This is a specific case of the general concerns that always come out whenever there's a privacy/facebook story on slashdot. You don't even have to play the game to lose on Facebook.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (1)

badzilla (50355) | about 5 months ago | (#46523621)

Not so sure about "years later". I have an Asus laptop that I bought three or so years ago and it has facial recognition login. That was cool at the time and I figured what the hell I paid for it already so I trained it to login using my face. It worked really well.

That was three years ago, I haven't changed the configuration but now it doesn't work any more :(

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523951)

Not so sure about "years later". I have an Asus laptop that I bought three or so years ago and it has facial recognition login. That was cool at the time and I figured what the hell I paid for it already so I trained it to login using my face. It worked really well.

That was three years ago, I haven't changed the configuration but now it doesn't work any more :(

Dude... your laptop is trying to tell you something. Haven't you ever seen "The Faces of Meth"?

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (3, Interesting)

gsslay (807818) | about 5 months ago | (#46523489)

You are blind to the fact that this is not a matter of going online to facebook. This is the reverse. This is the point where facebook starts coming to you. In real life. In the street, at the airport, in the store, at the dentist. And it'll know you, not necessarily because you've told it, but because all your acquaintances have.

Facebook will pass that information on to the airport/store/hospital because they'll pay to know who you are before you even approach the counter. "So they can better serve you."

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#46523869)

Good! So they'll know I'm not a consumer and will have to offer me deep discounts to buy anything.

What a perfect world!

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | about 5 months ago | (#46524213)

Discounts are a lie.

While I mean that to be funny, the concept isn't. They will simply tailor their offers to better match your socio-economic expectations. Economics calls this price discrimination and it is about charging you as an individual the maximum they can get away with. And if your rate is to low to appeal to them you are excluded from buying at all.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523665)

The technology developed by Facebook will soon be used everywhere. Why don't you understand that?

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (1)

Khoa (935586) | about 5 months ago | (#46524165)

Even if it's disabled, your "friends" can still type in your name. It might not appear on your feed or Photos... But they already learned your face.

Re:Privacy nutjobs take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46524401)

It's now about reputation management more than anything else. Many people sign up for Facebook just to do damage control and not be at the whim of whatever shadow profile Facebook creates so they can go in and turn off / lockdown whatever new way they decide to fuck everyone over again every 6 months.

I'd love my privacy back, and I'd kill you or Facebook to do it if I could go back to what was like before they were ever created.

Can't wait (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 5 months ago | (#46523289)

Soon Dazzel Paint will be a fashion!

What about those not on Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523303)

I haven't had a Facebook account in three years. Wonder if any of my photos lingering around will have any effect on me.

Re:What about those not on Facebook? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 5 months ago | (#46523325)

I'd be concerned about the one at the DMV.

Perhaps at license renewal they'll now be requiring photos from angles, much like a mug shot.

I'm waiting for version 2.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523313)

... Deep Throat!

Creeps selling something. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523345)

Etc.

Surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523543)

Facebook are now effectively doing an even greater amount of significant surveillance work for the U.S gov, seeing as how they are required by "law" to hand over all data. There will be a Facebook Protection Act, just like there was for Monsanto, because they are both essential to the expansion of U.S politics and control. Luckily you can still opt out.

Scientific result based on closed data (1)

benob (1390801) | about 5 months ago | (#46523567)

I read the paper and while the approach of learning a representation for faces, and then classifying in that new space whether the face is the same as model is sound, the representation is trained on a closed dataset (the 4m faces from facebook).

So it means that there is no way for the scientific community to check whether the results are correct or not. The results in the paper lack a comparison to a reproducible result, like using the youtube or faces in the wild datasets to train the representation, and then report results given that representation. This way researchers could validate the approach.

I would never have accepted such paper if I were to review it.

Re:Scientific result based on closed data (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 5 months ago | (#46523881)

I read the paper and while the approach of learning a representation for faces, and then classifying in that new space whether the face is the same as model is sound, the representation is trained on a closed dataset (the 4m faces from facebook).

So it means that there is no way for the scientific community to check whether the results are correct or not. The results in the paper lack a comparison to a reproducible result, like using the youtube or faces in the wild datasets to train the representation, and then report results given that representation. This way researchers could validate the approach.

I would never have accepted such paper if I were to review it.

I don't believe them anyway. It rarely suggests the right names for the people in the photos that I upload. I only upload pictures of specific groups of people, and they are all somewhat similar pictures. So If its 97.5% accurate then I must account for most of the 2.5% of the inaccuracies.

Re:Scientific result based on closed data (1)

benob (1390801) | about 5 months ago | (#46523955)

Keep in mind that their result is on a controlled dataset ("labeled faces in the wild," http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/lf... [umass.edu] ) for which a lot of training data is available and on which previously proposed systems already perform well.

So this 97% number is a bit of an adventurous extrapolation. Think of it as only polling in NYC and stating that you can predict the result of the next presidential election. The paper was clear on that point, only the summary made it look catchy as usual.

Math (3, Interesting)

coinreturn (617535) | about 5 months ago | (#46523675)

4 million photos of 4 thousand people. That is an average of 1000 images of each person. Wow. It's really hard to imagine people have that many photos of themselves on Facebook (okay, the teenagers do take selfies daily, but that would still be 3 years of daily selfies). I also see a lot of occurrences of people being "tagged" in a photo just so that person will be alerted to the existence of the photo - for example, photos of their kids doing something cute. That's gotta fuck with the algorithm a bit.

Re:Math (1)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#46524171)

Thankfully my wife is like this. She will post a photo with none of the faces tagged but tags the post with a dozen people, none of which are the people in the photo. Although this is probably of limited value since the whole point of this is probably to see through this unintentional misdirection and lack of face-tagging to internally "correct" these kinds of posts so they know who the people in the photo really are.

I have tagging in posts and photos disabled by default and the only picture of me I've ever used as a profile picture has my face very underexposed, wearing sunglasses and a large-brimmed hat. All my other profile pictures have been pictures of other people or non-faces.

And false positives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523685)

Seems quite a technical achievement, but more importantly is the false positive rate.

Time to (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 5 months ago | (#46523695)

Start wearing masks and disguises when out in public.

Plus if you use a gas mask that will cut down on the pollution and allergens.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523755)

I sense a spate of naked penis, and bird flipping machine learning coming on

Training the data (5, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 5 months ago | (#46523949)

I logged into Facebook for the first time in about 6 months, and it required me to authenticate myself by answering a series of questions about who was in each picture. It would display 3 pictures, each showing a square around a particular person, and it would ask who the person is. It was multiple choice.

I wonder if this is how they confirm that the data is correct, to eliminate intentional errors. You can ask a person who doesn't own the picture and didn't tag it to confirm the person in there. By masking it as an authorization request you convince people who otherwise would not be involved in tagging to participate.

Recognize all day, if you are facebook it is okay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46523983)

The large corps are doing just fine, but I probably won't be able to use tech to recognize people because GLASSHOLE.
This is a sad world.

One thing I don't understand (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 5 months ago | (#46524139)

How can they recognize you by your FB picture, when half the people use pics of their children or cats?

Evil twin? (1)

Quirkz (1206400) | about 5 months ago | (#46524327)

Excellent. When can I use this technology to identify and recruit my evil twin for nefariously comedic purposes?

This takes creepy to a whole new level. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46524349)

Why anyone trusts this corrupt company with the details of their life is a complete mystery.
How could it possibly be more obvious what they really are?

Why this DOESN'T work (3, Interesting)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 5 months ago | (#46524351)

Recently, FB decided that it needed to verify that I was really me when logging in. To do this, it presented me with a bunch of photos from my "friends" that had been tagged and insisted that I choose a name of someone in the photo. If I got enough of them wrong, it would "lock" my account. (Not quite "lock" but I had to try it again). Not only did it pull up obscure photos from "friends" I rarely interact with so I had little chance of knowing who was in the photo. But get this: It pulled up photos of people facing away from the camera and expected me to know who the person was from behind. Da fuq, FB? Seriously?!?

Re:Why this DOESN'T work (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 5 months ago | (#46524509)

just drop Facebook already and get account with your frineds on small largely unknown social networking site, there are hundreds of them. Facebookk was a passing fad that more and more people are leaving behind because of its intrusive practices

What is the underlying percentage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46524461)

So if there are 1.3 billion Facebook users with an average of 1000 photos each, thats 1.3 trillion photos, of which Facebook will incorrectly identify over 35 billion.

That doesn't sound so good does it?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>