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!

Facial Recognition Might Be Coming To Your Car

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the ok-but-how-does-it-fail? dept.

Transportation 131

cartechboy writes What if you got into your car and you had to authenticate that it was you behind the wheel? That might be what's coming in the near future as Ford's working with Intel to bring facial recognition to the car. The idea would be to improve safety and in-car tech with this system which is being called Project Mobil. When someone enters a Project Mobil-equipped car the system uses front-facing cameras to authenticate the driver. If the driver can't be authenticated it'll send a photo to the vehicle owner's phone asking for permission for this person to drive the vehicle. Once identified, the car can then automatically adjust certain settings to the driver's preference. This could also theoretically allow parents to control how loud their kids listen to the music while driving, how fast they can drive, and even simply monitor them driving. Obviously this NSA-like surveillance tech is a bit creepy on some levels, but there could be a lot of terrific applications for it. While only an experiment, don't be surprised if your dashboard stares back at you eventually.

cancel ×

131 comments

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

First the NSA (2)

Cryacin (657549) | about 3 months ago | (#47344249)

Now big momma is watchin you!

Re:First the NSA (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47344305)

Only your watching momma is big.

Submitter is a moron! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344321)

If the driver can't be authenticated it'll send a photo...

I am looking for a concise summary. Slashdot is allegedly not written for complete morons. I am not looking for contractions like "it'll" which make me think that I am reading something shouted by an excited and mentally retarded eight-year-old.

Re:Submitter is a moron! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344369)

You'uns have a problem with "it'll"?

Re:Submitter is a moron! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47344409)

It looks dangerously similar to ITIL, and they don't like seeing vulgarisms in common texts.

Re:Submitter is a moron! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345989)

I'll stick with my creep van for the times in need to decapitate hookers. Thank very much.

Re:Submitter is a moron! (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 3 months ago | (#47345195)

It's just a lil' it'll...

Re:First the NSA (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344679)

Just another way to monitor us every goddamn motherfucking minute of every goddamn motherfucking day of our goddamn motherfucking lives, like we're all little children, or criminals in prison, or animals in a zoo. What's even MORE FUN that that is that we get to pay for this stupid shit! It's a 'solution in search of a problem' and desperately needs to have a giant Gallagher mallet applied liberally to it, along with the fucking morons who thought of this, the NSA, and every goddamn motherfucking gor-sucking politician in the goddamn motherfucking world who thinks shit like this is a good idea. How about a car that is inexpensive, reliable, gets good fuel economy (or can be recharged in less than an hour and doesn't cost half it's purchase price to have it's battery pack replaced in 5 years) and is overall just good transportation instead of a goddamn motherfucking lifestyle that consequently tracks your every goddamn move? Just fucking leave us all alone! All we want to do is live our lives without being hassled by goddamn motherfucking power-hungry control freaks! JUST FUCK THE FUCK OFF AND LEAVE US ALONE!!!

Re: First the NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345189)

+4
+5 If you google "paragraphs, how to use"

No, but in all seriousness you're absolutely right and I think the majority of people share your sentiment. There is way too much surveillance and it's really getting out of hand.

Re:First the NSA (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 3 months ago | (#47345433)

+1 Fucking Right!

Car servicing? Valet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344261)

I drop off my car to get serviced and I'll be presented with a picture of the guy driving it into and out of the service bay. Maybe even a test drive.

I park my car and I'm presented with the valet driver. Of course, I hope it's only presented two times -- once when he parks my car and again when he brings my car around. No "ferris bueller" stunts allowed.

Someone stealing my car? Yes, let me disable the ignition for that.

Re:Car servicing? Valet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344317)

In Ferris Bueller, the valet took the car for a ride immediately. It's not like he parked it, then went back and started it again. So this "feature" wouldn't have helped, unless it told you how long he drove it for.

Tired? (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 3 months ago | (#47344417)

There is already technology available in some high-end models that will monitor the driver and take steps to warn them if they appear to be losing concentration. That technology is surely going to save lives sooner or later, given the amount of road accidents caused by tiredness or falling asleep at the wheel.

I'm as concerned about creepy surveillance and illusory security as much as the next geek, but image recognition technology does have positive applications as well.

what about Valet in a poor cell area / underground (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 months ago | (#47344991)

what about Valet in a poor cell area / underground / inside parking lot?

Re:Car servicing? Valet? (2)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 3 months ago | (#47345285)

Also, if you get car jacked the guy insists on stealing your phone so he won't have the new ride disabled on him...

What Security? (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 3 months ago | (#47344269)

1. Take picture of driver
2. Print mask
3. Wear mask

Not really any upgrade from a Key if i'am honest.

Re:What Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344329)

Bingo. This tech will work as well as most of the crappy fingerprint recognition schemes in use. It'll get better over time, but not for the car you bought. That software will be left to rot and you'll be told to get a new car if you want new features. And by "features", I mean the same software you already paid for, but in a slightly closer to working state.

Re:What Security? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 3 months ago | (#47344335)

Is ti really that hard to just use bluetooth prox and pairing. Not that is better than a key but it's just one less thing you need to keep with you. Seems just as secure as the keyfob. Sure nfc and all that but BT is nearly ubiquitous today.

Re:What Security? (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 3 months ago | (#47344735)

Is ti really that hard to just use bluetooth prox and pairing.

Yes it is. That requires owning a bluetooth enabled phone or other device, having it with you, and having it on. Operating my car should not require my phone as well.

Re:What Security? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 3 months ago | (#47345767)

As apposed to a keyfob like you get today?

Re:What Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344395)

"... but wait, there's more! Order now, and get the amazing SNITB [Sampling-Needle In The Buttox] system at no extra cost. The SNITB is a security upgrade that correlates your facial expression to your DNA. Order now! You are really worth that extra piece of sweet juicy security."

Re: What Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344677)

Just think of the children!!!

Re:What Security? (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47344405)

1. Take picture of driver
2. Print mask
3. Wear mask

As someone who has worked in computer vision, this is trivial to detect. You can either use two offset cameras, or take two photos with a single camera with a second or so delay if the target is moving even slightly. Then use the two photos to create a 3D stereoscopic image. If you want more security, you could detect small changes in facial expression, or look for blinks. Most cars already have weight sensors in the front seats, to better deploy airbags based on the size of the driver/passenger, so that weight info could also be checked for correlation with the facial image.

Re:What Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344447)

As someone who has worked in computer vision, I say you're full of it. What you describe is costly to implement in practice: two correctly placed cameras, calibration, maybe active illumination, then all the software and testing necessary to make it all work. And fuzzy dice and Jesus, or just soda can spray or dust will break it. More importantly, it has a significant false positive rate (classifying a real driver as a mask), which is unacceptable. Academic computer vision has little relevance to the real world.

As for using weight, you are now using other biometric sensors, in which case the question remains: why use face recognition in the first place? It's unreliable, and there are far cheaper and better technologies around.

Re:What Security? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47344935)

What you describe is costly to implement in practice

Amortized across millions of vehicles, the cost will be less than $1.

two correctly placed cameras, calibration

As I already said, a second camera is not needed. A second camera is only needed if the result has to be instantaneous rather than a second or two of delay. This can be done purely in software, for a marginal cost of $0. Most of the software is off-the-shelf, as this is a common problem that has already been solved. Try this experiment: close one eye, then sit down in front of a photo and a real person. How hard are they to tell apart? Answer: pretty easy, and for obvious reasons that can be implemented in an algorithm.

maybe active illumination

Cost of a white LED: 2 cents. I don't think that is a show stopper.

Re:What Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345191)

Cost of a white LED: 2 cents. I don't think that is a show stopper.

Yes, please shine a bright white LED into my eyes just before I start driving at night. Then I'll have a great excuse when I accidentally run you down :)

Re:What Security? (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 3 months ago | (#47345833)

The weight idea might have some merit: overeat, and you'll be walking home (your increased weight fooling the car into thinking you are someone else).

Reliability? (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 3 months ago | (#47344453)

Never mind security, what about reliability? If I go hiking in the mountains where there is no cell phone coverage and e.g. scratch my face on a tree branch I do not want to get back to the car only to have it fail to recognize me and refuse to start. Frankly I also wonder about whether Ford are thinking clearly about this given the claim in the article that "Ford Motor Company [NYSE:F] already believes the technology can help improve privacy..". How can adding a camera to a car improve privacy? No matter what protections you put in place around the system if there is no camera there is no data on who is driving which has to be better privacy than a system which knows.

Re:Reliability? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47345051)

I do not want to get back to the car only to have it fail to recognize me and refuse to start.

Except that is not how it works. If it fails to recognize you, it will send your picture to your cellphone and ask you if it is okay for the unrecognized person to use your car. So a scratch on your face is not going to brick your car. A feature like this will almost certainly be user configurable. The options will likely include:
1. Disable facial recognition completely
2. Send a photo of an unrecognized user to a registered cellphone for approval
3. Allow an unrecognized user to use the keypad as a fallback
4. Allow an unrecognized user to identify themselves using a verbal code
5. For the higher security, require 3 and/or 4 in addition to facial recognition

Re:Reliability? (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | about 3 months ago | (#47345261)

If I had any friends at all, I wouldn't be getting so many black eyes.

Re:Reliability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345397)

...it will send your picture to your cellphone...

What part about:
If I go hiking in the mountains where there is no cell phone coverage ...

don't you understand?

Re:Reliability? (2)

gtall (79522) | about 3 months ago | (#47346289)

No, it won't. It will send a picture to your insurance company and ask the company if the person behind the wheel should be driving the car. It will start out as you suggested, but the first insurance company to wise up will make Ford a business proposal. We'll get treated to the usual suits saying the usual things about "the future" and what-not. And the result will be we get screwed...yet again.

Read my post (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 3 months ago | (#47346325)

If it fails to recognize you, it will send your picture to your cellphone and ask you if it is okay for the unrecognized person to use your car.

Which is why I specifically used the example of hiking in the mountains where there is no cell phone service.

Re:What Security? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 3 months ago | (#47344665)

There is modern camera tech that is being used to monitor monitor people's heart-beats. It's more of a software upgrade than a hardware one. It is possible for these cameras to require seeing a heart-beat in the skin. I recommend watching the entire video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Another dumb-as-fuck hipster idea. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344277)

Man alive, I'm getting sick and tired of all the crap hipster technology we're being subjected to. There was once a time when new technology made us better off. It provided us with tools that let us do more with less. But new technologies these days are all about subjecting us to yet more advertising (even if it's called "online videos" or "social media"), or they're invasive, privacy-destroying devices of one sort or another. Silicon Valley used to be a place where real innovation happened, thanks to the hard work of scientists and engineers. Now it's a place overrun with hipsters who have stiff, raging erections for advertising and who don't give a fuck about basic freedoms.

Amen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344391)

A bunch of us were sitting around and the question of "what was the last truly innovative thing that came out of Silicon Valley? Or even out of the tech industry?"

The best we could come up with was the Internet and Cisco routers.

The Web was a British guy's invention at CERN - a LONG way away from SV.

So, nothing innovative has come out of Silicon Valley in about 30 years - give or take.

But the thing is, gimmicks are all the rage now - and that's what gets the funding; especially if its an advertising platform

Silicon Valley has become this generation's Madison Avenue - advertising drives it. And if you want to get rich quick, find a way to get people's data and find a way to get advertising in front of them. And the sneakier the better. 'Here are some awesome glasses that allow you to see the internet in front of your eyeballs. There's no advertising at all (*under breath*) for now!

It's sad. I miss the days when there were new breakthroughs and new technology. Now it's all about rehashing old shit or putting old shit in new places - like in a car.

Amen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344533)

A bunch of us were sitting around and the question of "what was the last truly innovative thing that came out of Silicon Valley? Or even out of the tech industry?"

So a bunch of you were sitting around saying, "bah, invention X is dumb! Anyone could have done that. That's not true innovation!"

Sounds hella fun dude.

Re:Another dumb-as-fuck hipster idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344411)

Facial recognition is "hipster"? And I suppose douching is Republican?

Re:Another dumb-as-fuck hipster idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345873)

And I suppose douching is Republican?

Exactly!

Re:Another dumb-as-fuck hipster idea. (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 3 months ago | (#47344499)

Yea, the more I read about new stuff in new cars, the more I love my 1982 car without computers in it.

Re:Another dumb-as-fuck hipster idea. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47345113)

The more I drive my 1982 car without computers in it, the more I wish it had one along with a lockup TC

Enough with the sensors! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344285)

I'm not an input.

Who the hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344289)

Who the hell wanted this in the first place?

Re:Who the hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344313)

The facebook crowd. They love this kinda thing.

Shift in vocabulary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344307)

I just realised that references to orwellian tech are scarcer and replaced by "NSA-like".
Seems like we've crossed some kind of milestoneÃ!

Android-like swipe would be better.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344311)

....like I use to open my phone would be better than creepy facial recognition while providing the same assurance. Also, a drunk would have trouble swiping a pattern.

Re:Android-like swipe would be better.... (1)

Rei (128717) | about 3 months ago | (#47344403)

Or just forget about all the facial recognition stuff and use the phone itself. We were looking at this back when I was in the auto industry. You can have it detect, via what phones approach which door, a unique identity for each passenger and have custom configuration or access rights for said users. The owner can require or disable the additional use of passwords or other athentication forms (swipe, thumbprint, whatever). And of course you and do various remote access features - for example, if the car is stolen, the ability to take pictures or video of the driver and passengers, the ability to communicate back over the speaker system, the ability to cut power, the ability to send out a code so that (for whatever car components support it) they're rendered inoperable until they receive a code to reinable it (aka, chop shop resistance - we were looking at several other things in this regard too, such as a facility to let parts authenticate on startup, with swap-out requring authorization), the ability to track the car, the ability to override door locks, and so forth. And we were looking at various ways to allow access but limit it, mainly for parents with teenagers or people loaning their car out - for example, accleration limitation, alerts to reckless driving, alerts to them entering certain areas, alerts to them driving outside of a given range, passenger limitations, etc.

Re:Android-like swipe would be better.... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47344721)

If I'm going to need to log in to the car anyway, then there's no need to recognize a personal device that I might not have on me, or might have loaned to one of the passengers. They might even be using it for communications, and I don't want to have to get it back from them before approaching the vehicle. The face recognition is superior to any other solution provided you don't actually rely on it for security, or it's actually good enough to be useful for that, because I don't have to have anything but my face for it to work. Equally, I have to have an override, because what if there is something wrong with my face?

If you're already going to identify people, there's no reason not to do it with their face.

Stop Police! (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 3 months ago | (#47344349)

So this will stop the police from commadeering your car for an emergancy as they run down the bad guys in the movies. New plot device.

Cop yanks citizen out of car throwing them to the pavement and says, "I'm taking your car for police business!"

Car says, "Fuck off Fuzz Face!" and turns itself off or maybe wraps the cop up in a strangle hold with the seat belt.

AI gone Sane!

Re: Stop Police! (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 months ago | (#47344427)

I've been very pleased with the ElectroVolt system I installed last year.

Re:Stop Police! (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | about 3 months ago | (#47345453)

I think that you've come up with the only benefit so far. Congratulations.

Re:Stop Police! (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 3 months ago | (#47346093)

Its the lead inside the silver cloud.

Good idea, bad marketing (0)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about 3 months ago | (#47344359)

Think of it this way: this will be a trivially cheap device to install in a car, and it will be pretty much invisible in how it functions, until someone tries to steal your car. It will probably be bundled with other functions that count your blinks and warn you when you're too drowsy to drive safely. This is the kind of device that will pay for itself many times over in insurance savings. Also, if it records your car data in some hard-coded way, that data could be very useful in fighting wrongful traffic tickets. To market it as a spy-on-your-kids tool is not a good move. It sounds sinister and gross. Basically, it should be described as a password device for your car, which you can enter just by looking like yourself, or else typing something in on the owner's phone. If your computer requires a password to operate, why shouldn't you car, especially if entering it doesn't require any actions?

Good idea, bad marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344457)

Or, you know, "We believe this person committed X crime at Y time. At Y time, they were near the crime scene, here's GPS data from their phone and car, combined with pictures of their face with them in the drivers' seat. They were there, they did it, you must vote guilty."

Re:Good idea, bad marketing (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47344687)

If I were sure that I were in control of the data on my car, then that would be fine. If I roll-my-own and it's cryptographically sound and takes 2FA then okay, all is well. If it's got all the personal security of On* then fuckit, fuckit twice, and fuckit thrice.

I would love it if the cars had the cameras and the display with touch preinstalled, and they came out to USB cables in a special little compartment where you install whatever you want, whether that's a dedicated machine designed for the purpose, a RasPi and a USB hub, or a phone dock. But HAHAHAHA. So basically, I want it, but donotwanttheirs.

In 2001... (4, Funny)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 3 months ago | (#47344361)

"Open the hatchback door, Ford."

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

ai decisions = false + & false - (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344399)

Now you can be late for work because your car had a false negative.

Re:ai decisions = false + & false - (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#47344813)

Only if your car has no way to reach you by phone. It will still ask you for confirmation.

WTF over?! (4, Insightful)

Charcharodon (611187) | about 3 months ago | (#47344421)

what the hell is wrong with a key? If that key is just too heavy for you to carry how about a key pad to unlock everything?

I don't need the fucking car to update facebook, check to see if I shaved, adjust all the settings, make sure I'm not drunk, or ask the real owner whether or not I can drive it, and then not work if there isn't a WiFi or cell signal present. (I'm sorry but you do not have permission to operate this vehicle as zombies are trying to break in.).

I want my car to be a car, I don't need an ever bigger fucking cell phone to complicate up my life, and not to mention charge me yet another monthly service fee, along with spying on me to send the info to the gov't and marketers.

Eat a bag of dicks Ford.

Re:WTF over?! (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#47344703)

Keys can be stolen... sometimes without the person even being aware of it until the car has been taken.

Re:WTF over?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345683)

And you think your head can't? Of course then,,,you won't be worried about your car..

Plus, a lot of facial recognition will be to you when your trying to get away from those that been hitting you in the face! Additionally those that just stole your phone are now getting the message asking if "you" will give permission to you to drive your own damn car! Gee, wonder how that is going to work out?

Wonder how well it deals with make-up?

Re:WTF over?! (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#47345891)

Most people who might be willing to take something that belonged to somebody else, especially if they felt the person wouldn't find out about it (or wouldn't notice until they had at least gotten away with taking it) are not likely to commit any kind of violent crime, even if not because there are limits on what kinds of immoral practices they might engage in, it could fall to the simple notion they would probably feel less likely to be able to successfully get away with such an act than one that is performed without anyone seeing them.

Most thefts are crimes of opportunity, and not associated with any kind of threat of violence.

GM came out with On-Star... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344729)

GM came out with On-Star... That is expressly why I bought a KIA.

Me: "Does it call for help when I have an accident like Fords do with On-Star?"
Salesman: "uhh. No."
Me: "Good. I'll take it. I hate that spying crap."

I feel like I should be making a comment here about how the more they tighten their spying grip, the more star systems will slip through their fingers...

Re:WTF over?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344787)

One benefit is this could adjust the seats and mirrors automatically for each individual driver. I agree a mechanical backup key should still be included though.

Re:WTF over?! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47345183)

One benefit is this could adjust the seats and mirrors automatically for each individual driver.

You could do that by giving each of them a key, though. or just let them push a button. I admit I have to hold the button down as the settings shift from one to the next, which is slightly less convenient than simply having the car recognize you, but I have a car from 1997 that's got four presets per front side. The driver's side sets the wheel and mirrors in addition to the seat.

Re:WTF over?! (3, Insightful)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 3 months ago | (#47344979)

Your opposition has been noted. Meanwhile, development continues as if you said nothing.

That's because you are not representative of the market.

Do you stop by a dealership every 6 months and explain that you would buy if it weren't a computer? Or do you not even consider Ford products? After considering, you may realize that you really aren't the market at all.

So, how do you buy a modern car not a computer after that's the only option? Because I'm not the market, and I would love to disrupt this. By buying what I want, instead of typing angrily where Ford is unlikely to see it.

Re:WTF over?! (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 3 months ago | (#47345929)

I bought a new Ford in 2006. It is the simplest version of a stripped Ford Ranger. The most 'high tech' feature it has is it's only option upgrade: a CD player in the radio. When I was looking at it in the sales lot the salesman told me 'this is the last of it's kind.' It uses only a simple key to unlock the door and start. I can go to a hardware store and get a key cut from a blank for about $1.50.

And it's the simplest version of a stripped Ford Ranger. Nobody has ever wanted to steal it. It's also the default color for Fords: black.

I consider it 'modern' but it doesn't have any of the new croft. At all.

Key. Pin. Fingerprint. (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 3 months ago | (#47344431)

Keys seem to be fine to "authenticate" to my car. If more security were really desired (and I can't imagine why), pins and fingerprints would work too.

Face recognition is a lousy authentication technique.

Re:Key. Pin. Fingerprint. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344489)

Face recognition is a lousy authentication technique.

But! TECHNOLOGY!!!1!

Thing is, of course, that the possibility and its desirability are not the same thing. I don't have kids, so they're not of a driving age, but while it seems very tempting to put kid gloves on the car, at some point they'll have to grow up and act responsibility without the car trying to do it for them.

Even if it is according to my instructions... or those of the government, or the insurance company, or a lease company, or the company employing them or me, or what-have-you. Once that's put in, getting rid of them gets pretty hard, so I'd really rather not go there at all.

As to phoning home to check it's not a carjacker, well... I'm sure carjackers will learn in a right hurry how to bypass that stuff just like how they learned how to bypass keys, and electronic keys, and finger print readers*, so it's simply yet more fake security for that warm fuzzy false security feeling.

* By cutting off fingers, yes, that has already happened. Note that checks for pulse and such do not help you get your fingers sewed back on; thieves willing to try cutting off fingers don't gain but they don't lose either, you lose either way. These kinds of "security" measures are rife with overlooking the obvious, making them outright dangerous to the user.

Great if you could trust it. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47344441)

In new cars which are going to come with some sort of standardized infotainment system and which (unlike mine) are all going to have fully-digital clusters soon if not immediately, it will cost basically nothing to add that functionality to the cluster for at least the driver. You can literally use usb webcams with android today, although I don't know how well having multiple cameras actually works ("Since API level 9, the camera framework supports multiple cameras [android.com] .") It therefore seems like something which would be easy to retrofit into cars in which the cluster does not fulfill major functions for the car. In some vehicles it acts as a gateway for various modules. On the other hand, the W126 Mercedes' cluster (300SD, etc) is really just a gauge-and-light package and it's all-electric, so an interface could be whipped up with the google io board, or arduino or what have you, in relatively short order. If my car had memory seats, I might give it a go myself.

Mmmmm (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 3 months ago | (#47344479)

A car that snitches kids to their parents, the owner to the cops if he seems 'tired' seems just what we need.

Will Not Work With Me (1)

DERoss (1919496) | about 3 months ago | (#47344495)

I see the the following problems --

For at least 20 years, I have had a full beard. Since I am mostly (not entirely) bald on top, I do not get a haircut more than once in two months. When I get a haircut, I also get my beard trimmed somewhat short. Will facial recognition allow me to drive home from the barber shop?

I do not have a mobile phone, smart or dumb. When I leave my house, I want to leave my phone, computer, garden, etc behind me. Where would this feature send the photo?

Re:Will Not Work With Me (1)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about 3 months ago | (#47344515)

If you do not have a smart phone (aka tracking device) then I am afraid that you will have given up your right to drive a car. It is all being done to make you more free and secure, you understand.

Lots of conspiracy nuts writing on /. (1)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about 3 months ago | (#47344505)

"Obviously this NSA-like surveillance tech is a bit creepy on some levels" you must be one of them there conspiracy nuts. NSA is not undertaking any surveillance apart from of terrorists. You government loves you, please go back to sleep.

In other news (2)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | about 3 months ago | (#47344625)

Sales of Chewing Gum and Duct Tape to owners of new Fords rise by 10000%

Being serious for a moment, is there really any demand from the public for this?
Is his being driven by the lawmakers who are frankly desparate to stop Drunks from getting behind the wheel?

Will the car refuse to start if the camera is obscured and the driver can't be identified?
As the Car not the driver seems to be the boss then who owns the pictures?
Who says that the pictures won't be sent to the NSA? Can you be sure.

This is not something I'd want in any car I drove.

Re:In other news (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#47344995)

Will the car refuse to start if the camera is obscured and the driver can't be identified?

Probably... but only if the owner cannot be reached by phone/text message.

Although I realize it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where this would actually cause problems... perhaps the developers of this tech are anticipating that the number of actual complaints which arise as a result of actual experienced difficulty will be small enough that they can still afford to lose those customers' business.

Re:In other news (2)

jmcvetta (153563) | about 3 months ago | (#47345903)

Is this being driven by the lawmakers who are frankly desperate to crush all remaining vestiges of individual freedom?

FTFY

Sorry Dave... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344631)

I think the humans are a threat to the security of this car...

Valet (1)

vovin (12759) | about 3 months ago | (#47344635)

What a major pain when you valet your car. Ewww.

Re:Valet (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47344701)

What a major pain when you valet your car. Ewww.

Actually, I didn't even think about how awesome it would be for that. For cars which are actually valet parked often, they could have a dedicated valet button. Everyone else would access it through the infotainment system. When you activated valet mode, it would still permit use of the car, but only up to parking lot speeds. It could also take some snapshots of the driver any time the car was being driven any way other than extremely casually, where laws permit. The limited speed and the fact that one might be recorded would be displayed on the cluster panel.

Judged by your car... (3, Funny)

MindPrison (864299) | about 3 months ago | (#47344639)

You: Google Car - Start please!
Car: Access denied, user not recognized.
You: (tries to get closer to the camera). Google CAR! START PLEASE!
Car: Access denied, user not recognized.
You: #%!" *ss car, GOOGLE CAR - START PLEASE!!!
Car: Voice unreadable, can't understand the word *ss car.
You: (getting mad, swearing excessively). GOOGLE CAR - START THE F******* CAR RIGHT NOW! (stares into the camera like a mad man).
Car: User Too Ugly Error 404

(now, imagine what happened to the car)

Re:Judged by your car... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345071)

And imagine you're already late for work!

Re:Judged by your car... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345783)

Perhaps there is/are (a) Kabuki mask that opens a back door and/or Easter egg. Got to be some kind of bypass for the mechanics etc, else someone isn't going to be too thrilled when their employee has to pause their work again and give permission for the xx time to some mechanic to start their car. Then there is heirs, new owners, repo people,,,

Great: (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 3 months ago | (#47344867)

Now my insurance company will want access to that data to verify that I'm not loaning my car to anyone.

yuo faim\l it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344869)

[samag.com] in the GNAA and suppOrt bleak future. In FrEeBSD showed

Another Trade Eliminated (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 3 months ago | (#47345021)

What's a criminal to do? Gone will be the good old days where a man could feed his family by ripping off one car a week. And our prison system will have to lay off workers and buy less products to feed those that live off of the supposed criminal, justice system. And not only have companies like GM failed to provide strong locks for cars they have ignition switches that kill the owners of such cars. I don't want to get too real here and put folks into shock but compare the morals of car thieves to executives at GM and keep Ford in mind as well for those lovely Pinto gas tanks and don't forget the Corvaire by GM that could flip in a low speed corner all on its own. Could it be that car thieves have better morals than car companies?

Why is this article tagged Autos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345075)

I drive a manualmobile you insensitive clod!

Law enforcement .... (3, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47345119)

... needs evidence of who was driving a car when it is caught in an infraction by automated systems. In some jurisdictions, not having clear evidence of the identity of a driver is sufficient to have the case thrown out. This is how they will get their evidence.

If the car won't start without positive facial recognition, that rules out the duct tape over the lens fix.

robocop reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345205)

It's ony one step to MagnaVolt, Ford. You can do it!

*My* car? Unlikely (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47345267)

Facial Recognition Might Be Coming To Your Car

I really hate all this "your" crap in headlines. It won't be coming to my car, because I already have a car and don't need a new one, and when I do get one it probably isn't going to have all this fancy-schmancy crap got-to-be-connected crap in it. It's not so much because I'm a privacy nerd, I'm just cheap.

I think it sounds cool. abusable, but cool. (2)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 3 months ago | (#47345693)

I think it sounds kind of cool. I really don't have any issues at all with facial recognition as long as it's done in a responsible manner. The data should be volatile and discarded when it's no longer needed. If the car is simply comparing the person behind the wheel to a small set of people it knows and then discarding the data, that seems like excellent tech to me.

even the idea that it might send my picture to the owner of the car doesn't bother me too much. i am after all in someone else's car. Again, it only doesn't bother me if I know that the picture isn't stored, and once it leaves the closed system of the car... Well, i don't have any real assurance that it isn't going to get stored somehow. So it's a little stickier there. Still, if it's just going to the owner and not staying on a server after delivery it sounds ok.

Now, if the car keeps a record of every person who's ever been in it and shares that with the automakers, that's creepy. it's double plus creepy if it also sends it along to the government.

Re:I think it sounds cool. abusable, but cool. (2)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 3 months ago | (#47346141)

The main problem is that you'll likely never be able to find out what the car is doing, so you can't trust it.

No way I'd accept that. (2)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 3 months ago | (#47345743)

The last thing I need, if I'm injured in a way that disfigures my face, is a car that won't let me start it to drive to the emergency room.

That's right up there with the federal experiment, back in the '60s or so, with mandating seatbelt and seat weight sensors that interlocked with the starter, so you can't start it if all the passengers aren't belted in.

(I, and about five of my friends, were very luck my car dated from before that mandate, the time we were visiting a friend who worked in a trainyard, my car stalled across a track, a train came {slowly but inexorably} around the sharp curve, and my right-front passenger unbelted in preparation to bail if I couldn't get it going again. We didn't have enough time to all bail ...)

I will tape over the sensors. (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 3 months ago | (#47345857)

Bypass the ignition if necessary. It's my car, not the state's.

Re:I will tape over the sensors. (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 3 months ago | (#47345973)

"You didn't build that."

Steal/Access(without authority) motor vehicles... (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | about 3 months ago | (#47345867)

...with a piece of paper? Unless there are secondary and tertiary sensors to verify the person in the vehicle belongs to the "authorized face", then this "security measure" is more "security theater". To add to this posted thought, I have to wonder if there are more nefarious plans for this technology(either desensitization to having cameras watching each individuals every moment of their lives), or if this is some uneducated idea from someone/multiple people in the Ford marketing department, who believe that cameras(or all electronic sensors) are infallible sensors.

This idea is almost as bad a biometric sensors on a firearm. This is just another point of failure on a critical tools used everyday, by millions of people. While I am well aware that movies are for entertainment, and are full of inaccurate depictions of technology(as well as many other aspect of the real world), I think back to a recent movie: Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Yes, the technology used by Nick Fury, during the vehicle chase from the faux police is mostly, if not completely possible, but even the made-up system wasn't without a few inserted flaws("Reboot, damn it", while Nick Fury's SUV was getting raped by a pneumatic battering ram, on a stabilized stand). Again, I know that was a fictional system, as a system failure would most likely be more catastrophic, and the system reboot would probably taken far longer(if successful at all).

This doesn't even begin to focus on the implications of privacy invasions with yet more network camera sensors. How long until some random corporation employee or government employee starts posting videos of sexual encounters engaged in front of entertainment equipment, or other electronics with camera sensors installed, which the couple, or group(yeah, whatever makes you happy, as long as you aren't harming anyone...or embarrassing yourself), when said people believed(rather naively, as one should never assume negative functionality of any device in his or her possession) the equipment in question was in a non-functioning state and not transmitting data. You know, because playing "electronic peeping tom" will stop "terrorist" activity.

Yeah, technology will make us all "Kim Kardashians", or the target of humor, based on the "sex lives" others consider the source of good and effective, but disparaging jokes. I know a lot of what I have posted is, for now, based on long odds. That doesn't mean those odds won't change in the near future, and for the worst.

Shitfaced drivers (1)

marciot (598356) | about 3 months ago | (#47345883)

This is a good thing as long as it can recognize shitfaced drivers and keep them of the roads.

What about when I want to sell a car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345921)

What about when I want to sell a car?

Take it to the dealer and for a small $1,000 fee, they'll transfer ownership for you.

Welcome back.. (1)

h8sg8s (559966) | about 3 months ago | (#47345927)

Welcome back Ambassador Spock..

I love to mess with Ford rent-a-cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47346091)

Before I return them I set them so they won't drive faster than 45.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?