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!

Face Recognition Comes to Cameraphones

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the webcams-will-be-mandatory dept.

Handhelds 235

An anonymous reader writes "If you have a camera phone, you may soon have to take a picture of yourself before making a call or accessing data stored on the device. A Japanese company has developed face recognition software for camera phones that it says can authenticate users within one second of clicking the shutter. Omron (Japanese) will demonstrate its Okao Vision Face Recognition Sensor at tomorrow's Security Show Japan in Tokyo."

cancel ×

235 comments

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

Secure? (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825523)

One Fine Day In Court, Next Year:
"How did you do it, son? And by that I mean how did you break into Darl McBride's files?"
"I took a picture of a magazine cover and I got access to everything, his phone directory, his notes, pictures, even his personal phone messages from Pariahs Anonymous."

You'd think they'd avoid visible light and use IR or a combo to pull this off, though in IR we can also look different depending which end of the ski run we are on ...

Bullwinkle: "Eeeny meenie, chili beanie, the iPod is about to squeak"
Rocky: "Did it reveal anything Bullwinkle?"
Bullwinkle: "
Did it?!? It's my new Linux boxen!"

Re:Secure? (0, Offtopic)

erick99 (743982) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825562)

Relax Bullwinkle, I think Apple will squelch the squeaky iPod. Apple doesn't much care for others innovation.

Re:Secure? (3, Funny)

red_flea (589243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825730)

And if you wanted to secretly hack your buddy's account, you just use dump some booze packets in his mouth port and wait til his buffer overflows. Shortly afterward, his brain will be DOS'd and you can take images of his face at will...

Re:Secure? (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825939)

In that case, you could take a picture of your ass and break in.

I watched it way too long (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825527)

It was pulling me down

Re:I watched it way too long (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825895)

How did you get up above it?

How particular is the software? (5, Interesting)

erick99 (743982) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825528)

I am wondering how particular the recognition software is. There could be some considerable day-to-day differences in a face if, say, one was ill, or had a bad fall, etc. Could I, for example, take a friends camera, take a pic of a good photo of my friend and then gain access to his phone/pda/device? The article didn't really address that though I don't think it was intended to be within it's scope. Still, it's something to think about.

Re:How particular is the software? (2, Interesting)

LEgregius (550408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825600)

What if I grow or shave off a beard? What if I'm mugged and the mugger takes my phone, then takes a picture of my face before running off? It would need both a work around for if it got confused, and it would need to be combined with a pin of some sort.

Re:How particular is the software? (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825644)

Yea. Those muggers always take the time to analyze your technology, realize that you need facial-recognition, then say "cheese, sucker".

No security technology is foolproof. None. However, if it works as advertized, it is a nice security feature.

Not that I use a cell phone... I don't want people to find me at the drop of a hat :)

Re:How particular is the software? (0, Flamebait)

Kerstyun (832278) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825742)

Accorden to teh articule, it's bin vented by them there Japs. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but don't them yellerbellies all look the same?

Much worse! (4, Funny)

r00t (33219) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825855)

Now they won't just steal you cell phone.
They have to cut off your face too!

fortunately... (2, Insightful)

r00t (33219) | more than 9 years ago | (#11826005)

There have been recent advances in face transplants. So, you could just get a new face. No problem.

The Cleveland Clinic [medicalnewstoday.com] is looking for a patient to try this on.

You'll also need a new cell phone.

Emergency Calls? (4, Interesting)

Fez (468752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825533)

But what if you have to call an ambulance after getting into a car accident that damaged your face? :)

Re:Emergency Calls? (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825561)

All phones let you make emergency calls even when they're locked..

Re:Emergency Calls? (2, Funny)

Fez (468752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825611)

Well of course they do, but if I acknowledged that, there wouldn't have been a joke, would there?

Tammy Faye Baker (4, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825610)

Or what if you are tammy fey? do you have to put on the same face every day?

Re:Tammy Faye Baker (4, Funny)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825802)

Or what if you're Michael Jackson, and your nose just fell off?

Re:Tammy Faye Baker (1, Funny)

dirkdidit (550955) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825856)

Nah, that's ignorant. Just ignorant.

Re:Tammy Faye Baker (1)

jcorgan (30025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825899)

I don't think the camera CCD can deal with that much contrast.

Re:Emergency Calls? (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825822)

If your face is that messed up in a crash, trying to use a phone will probably be the least of your worries.

Presumably... (2, Informative)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825842)

Presumably, you'd be able to designate certain numbers as "security cleared", just like you can do on phones with normal security in the US.

Nokia phones for some time have allowed users to designated emergency numbers that are allowed to dial-out if their phone is locked. Most people set these to their home phone numbers (the only number that will dial out is the number of their home, so that if their phone is stolen, the first call made will be to their home) or 911, so that if they have their phone locked in an accident or something, they can call for emergency without having to remember the password in a pinch.

Personally I think the whole idea of password protecting my cell is ridiculous, but I suppose there are some people in sensitive places that need to have their phones protected against thefts and things. Like Paris Hilton.

Re:Presumably... (4, Funny)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825888)

Personally I think the whole idea of password protecting my cell is ridiculous, but I suppose there are some people in sensitive places that need to have their phones protected against thefts and things. Like Paris Hilton.

Of course, authenticating against a stock photo poses certain challenges for Paris. For example, every time she wants to make a call she'll have to whip off her top and make out with a brunette.

Re:Emergency Calls? (1)

Liselle (684663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825938)

Funny thing about facial recognition is that it probably wouldn't matter, if it's good enough and uses the right algorithm. There are features about your face that don't change, even if you look outwardly different to everyone else after kissing your steering wheel at high speed.

Some systems can do neat things like correctly identify people after having radical plastic surgery, which is pretty cool. Can I get a -1, Pedantic mod for taking the parent's Funny comment too seriously?

Re:Emergency Calls? (1)

middlemen (765373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825945)

That is when realization will dawn on you that instead of your face you should have taken a picture of your dick. It's unique :) and if damaged, u will not call any1 :))

Hmmm (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825534)

What if you are having a 'bad face day'?

A face for cell phoning? (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825592)

That happens to me every day!

Re:Hmmm (3, Funny)

ThatsNotFunny (775189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825710)

Shouldn't you be in court, Mr. Jackson?

Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825537)

Several companies have been doing this for quite some time, and a lot of great technology has come from it. Check out www.vidiator.com as one of several good examples. This will be widespread globally in the next 12 months I think.

Tinfoil (5, Funny)

Crash24 (808326) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825543)

Maybe it won't recognize me when I'm wearing my tinfoil hat...

Re:Tinfoil (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825734)

People who wear tin foil hats don't use cell phones, silly. The tin foil hat may help keep your brain invisible to the CIA, but to then go around broadcasting your location?

I think you need to turn in your tin foil hat. We'll have someone sweep by in a few minutes to pick it up. Just leave your cell phone on.

Re:Tinfoil (1)

Crash24 (808326) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825850)

But what about other people's face-recognizing cellphones? They'll surely spot me. /me duct tapes the tinfoil hat firmly to his head.

What about emergencies? (3, Funny)

digitalvengeance (722523) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825544)

This is great - until you are in a car accident and are bleeding from the face.

"I need to call [insert japanese equivelent of 911]."
"Sorry sir, facial recognition failed."
[Insert slow painful death]

Re:What about emergencies? (1)

Moonpie Madness (764217) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825767)

I know you're kidding, but virtually all phones allow emergency calls with sim chips removed or without passwords, or even to communists. I'm certain that just is not a concern. This is a weak password though, obviously. Why not fingerprints? You already have to jam your fingers into the phone repeatedly. Why not just put in the fingerprinting thingie?

Re:What about emergencies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825826)

In Japan that would be 119

Great Selection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825552)

select all.nudies from pictures where camera.owner = "Parris Hilton";

Yeah! More Crap 4 My Phone! (4, Insightful)

geomon (78680) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825566)

I equivocate over the added features for cell phones. This is one that I can't see having too much impact here in the US. Face recognition for your phone? What for? To use my phone?

What if I lose or gain a few pounds? What if I grow or cut my beard? What if I get a new girlfriend and she changes my "look" with a new 'dew?

It is hard enough to get customer service for my phone as it is. I don't need to be locked out of my phone because I changed my diet.

Re:Yeah! More Crap 4 My Phone! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825727)

What if I lose or gain a few pounds? What if I grow or cut my beard? What if I get a new girlfriend and she changes my "look" with a new 'dew?

It's 'do' as in 'hair do', unless your women pour some soda all over you for that wet-look.

Unless you're like me, your beard takes a few days to change and with some forethought you could probably update your key photo to keep pace.

More likely to be a problem is anyone who applies makeup, gets in a fight, has plastic surgery or has an alergic reaction to a sting.

Not a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825733)

Japanese people are as natrually hairless as they are diminuative so it's not a problem for them right now. But since we won't be seeing this until 2010 if ever, with the increases in computing power a solution for us mountain dwelling serial killers/grizzly impersonators should present itself.

Girlfriend? (1)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825867)

"What if I get a new girlfriend and she changes my "look" with a new 'dew?"

What is this girlfriend thing of which you speak?

Re:Girlfriend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825926)

Fear not. It is an inefficiency that reduces time computing. Ignore this falsification and continue blisfully...

Skeptical (4, Interesting)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825568)

Omron claims that the camera need not be held in the same position each time, and that the sensor will detect the owner regardless of the location of the user's face in the frame.

Given the current state of computers, I wonder how they can do this. If I take a picture of my face from the front right as a reference, and the next time from the front left, how will it stil recognize me? Same goes for a number of different angles. I'd also think that haircuts, glasses and a few other things could mess this up.

Be interesting to see how well it works in the field instead of in the lab. Anyone here have access to Akibahara for when this is released?

Re:Skeptical (5, Funny)

lacheur (588045) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825729)

Well, they forgot to mention you have to tattoo a barcode on your forehead for this to work...

Re:Skeptical (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825809)

Revelations, 16-17: It forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to be given a stamped image on their right hands or their foreheads, so that no one could buy or sell except one who had the stamped image of the beast's name or the number that stood for its name. 18

Re:Skeptical (1)

BayBlade (749886) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825924)

I can't say for certain they're using this technique, but there exist algorithms (and software) that build 3D skinned representations from a set of 2D images at different angles (between 3 and 6 images will usually suffice), by mapping control points in the 2D images (for example nostrils, eyebrows, mouth corners, scars, moles, etc) and reconciling them with the other images and current 3D model.

Its easy for the software to guess what angle the regcognition photo is taken at by mapping 3 control points in the photo to control points in the 3D representation, and compare that photo to what its skinned representation should be.

If it can't find the 3 points it needs or decide what angle to compare, it will return a negative on the match. If it can find the 3 points, it will then run a regualar comparison between the 2D iamge, and a projection of the 3D image to the same 2D space as the image.

Re:Skeptical (1)

sumbry (644145) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825995)

About 5 years ago at a company I worked at, we used a system similiar to this that actually took a picture of your eye, compared it to something on file, then let you inside of our building.

The system worked surprisingly well. It worked if you were drunk, if you had eyeglasses or contacts on, any number of variations. We even tried fooling it with digital cameras, polaroids, pictures and they never worked.

I was pretty impressed with it at the time - wish I could remember the name of the company that designed it.

1 Megapixel (4, Interesting)

steve6534 (809539) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825580)

Considering that most camera phones are 1 MP, How accurate could this possibly be ?

Re: 1 Megapixel (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825684)

Do they really need to be? Unlike usage for criminal prosecution, this doesn't have to be near 100%. If you can make it good enough to reject 99% of the population as being you, then the odds of a mugger using your phone are about 1%. That would dramatically reduce theft of phones.

Re: 1 Megapixel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825784)

If you can make it good enough to reject 99% of the population as being you, then the odds of a mugger using your phone are about 1%. That would dramatically reduce theft of phones.

Surely you mean "dramatically increase"? I'd have to steal 100 times as many to be sure of getting ones that work.

Re: 1 Megapixel (1)

taustin (171655) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825838)

If facial recognition software worked 99%, it would still be useless. In real life, it's more like 80%. Under lab conditions.

Re: 1 Megapixel (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825877)

Can you cite a source?

Re: 1 Megapixel (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825693)

Considering that most camera phones are 1 MP, How accurate could this possibly be ?

Depends on how close the camera is to your face. Say in the photo your face takes up the entire image, and that we are dealing with a square photo (1000x1000 pixels) Your entire head is about 8 inches tall (quick estimation here) so that's over 100 DPI. That's pretty good, all things considered. It's not photo quality, but it will provide a pretty good photo. As most programs work off of the location of your cheeks, eyes, ears, nose, mouth and other parts that do not move, all it needs to do is establish thee reference points in 3D space. One of the problems is getting past the parts that change (facial hair and face expression). That is where the hardparts come in.

the failure of face recognition (3, Insightful)

andrewzx1 (832134) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825582)

Face recognition has been tried in various places for law enforcement, Tampa Florida in particular. The cameras and recognition software failed to assist in a single crimimal being identified from 10'000's of images. This was a multi-year trial. This crap might work under ideal conditions but it fails utterly under any real world conditions.

Not So (2, Informative)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825714)

In the UK they have used this type of technology at sporting events to identify trouble shooters (guys that generally start riots at more than one game). They then re-verify those identified manually. Works pretty well whith people walking in a hallway into a stadium. And on tens of thousands of people as well.

Re:Not So (1)

taustin (171655) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825805)

"They then re-verify those identified manually."

Because the software simply doesn't work very well.

Are you suggesting your cell phone company should have and employee look at the photo you just snapped of yourself before letting you make the call?

Re:the failure of face recognition (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825726)

As I mentioned in another thread, this is MUCH different than trying to uniquely identify a person based upon an image. All the phone needs to do is see if the image COULD be you with a moderately high degree of certainty. A heavy white man who mugs a small black woman would not pass this test. This is not intended to be an absolute guarantee it is you... simply remove a whole lot of people from being able to use your phone.

Contrast this with criminal prosecution intent: I must prove this image is not of the other 4,999 guys who fit a very close image profile.

Why would you want this? (1)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825583)

I have never worried about the security of my cell phone. If I keep important stuff on a portable electronic device like a pda, I password protect it. If someone wants my phone numbers, have at em.

Re:Why would you want this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825620)

Have you met this Paris Hilton girl?

Re:Why would you want this? (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825766)

If someone wants my phone numbers, have at em.

Because some phones are starting to become more than just address books. They are cameras, credit cards and more. And more is on the way.

In an Accident? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825586)

So what happens if you are in an accident and have a distorted and gashed face trying to call 999/911/etc and all you have is a mobile saying "Error - user not authorised!"

Re:In an Accident? (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825715)

In the EU , All mobile telephones are able to dial an Emergency telephone number without any identification already due to some edicts iirc .Not sure if this is also true in the Canada or the USA , however i imagine they will have similar edicts .

Re:In an Accident? (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825849)

Yes, that is the case in the USA too.
In fact, you can even dial 911 (emergency services) with the keylock on so you don't have to fumble with it in an emergency.

This is easy to hack... (4, Funny)

stubear (130454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825597)

...and use someone elses cell phone. All you need to do is lob of their head and carry it around in a sack with you. When you need to make a call, pull out the head and snap a picture; free cell phone minutes.

Re:This is easy to hack... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825641)

Or a picture of him...

Re:This is easy to hack... (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825818)

That's not quite the same as a conversation starter, now is it?

Re:This is easy to hack... (2, Informative)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825741)

I think you mean "lop", not "lob". You could also just take a picture of their face, and carry it around in a sack. It'd be much lighter.

-Jesse

Re:This is easy to hack... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825831)

You could also just take a picture of their face, and carry it around in a sack. It'd be much lighter.

Well that depends on the photographic medium, however you could scoop the inards from a severed head and modify the skull so that the jawbone and flesh stay in place while you discard the rear 1/2 of the head. Let's face it (sic), it's not too much effort and is waaay cooler than a photo.

Re:This is easy to hack... (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825893)

I think you missed th asarcasm here, let me explain. Everytime biometrics are discussed here in relation to fingerprints some jackass inevitably wanders in and says it's easy to hack my cutting someone's finger off and using that. Now, alog comes a story about face recognition biometrics technology. Do I really need to explain this nay further?

Re:This is easy to hack... (1)

QMO (836285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825897)

I just have this picture in my mind of Jason with Medusa's head in a sack, I think from Clash of the Titans.

And another one of someone nonchalantly carrying around this blood-dripping, stinking, rotting 20 lb (9 kg) sack of decaying flesh, and no one notices when he takes out the head to make a phone call.

Could be rejected (1)

Virtual Karma (862416) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825608)

This could be rejected by human brains due to psychological reasons. Maybe because of the simple mechanism that my own cell phone is acting smart and wants to take my own snap for me to use it. Just a thought....

"Must"? (1)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825609)

I can't actually think of any reason why facial recognition in a phone handset would be useful to anyone, ever.

I mean, as an authentication system for the phone lock, why would anyone want this over a keylock?

To recognize people so you can phone them? The flaw in that plan seems slightly obvious.

Any ideas? Anyone? I mean, the "recognize a street corner and text you a map" thing was pretty impractical, but this... I've got nothing.

Re:"Must"? (1)

Fez (468752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825637)

Maybe they'll issue them to copy/feds and they'll just walk around taking pictures of people looking for known felons. Sort of a mobile version of what they tried with closed-circuit video systems a couple years ago.

What they really need.... (3, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825650)

is Fist Recognition - to warn their owners of an incoming punch when they engage in obnoxious cellphone abuse in my presence.

Begins with 'G' ends in about 6 months (4, Insightful)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825661)

This is such a pathetic gimmick, in 6 months no one will care about about it or be using it - how many people here even use voice dial? It doesn't even have a use to it, there is simply no problem with entering a pin number and facial recognition is simply not that good, even in good fixed lighting conditions with a good camera and lots of computing power its bad enough to be annoying, for security i give this about 3/10 - its better than setting your pin number to all zeros, usefulness is around 4/10 - maybe you could find some kind of novelty application for it? why wait 1 second when your pin number is checked instantly? why bother taking a picture when you can often tap yor keypad without even looking, why waste R&D on this when people really just want flat-rate fast net-access on their phones, to be honest.

Re:Begins with 'G' ends in about 6 months (1)

Tavor (845700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825814)

I think the only usefulness for this is for the company, to be able to say "Gee, look at us! We are so advanced, and we are using all that advanced-ness to protect *you*! (insert more Marketing-babble here)"

Re:Begins with 'G' ends in about 6 months (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825828)

I use voice dial all the time. Sometimes I'm too drunk to read the screen, or I'm driving and using my handsfree thingy, I'm too drunk to drive and dial at the same time.
Works great.

Re:Begins with 'G' ends in about 6 months (4, Insightful)

QMO (836285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825974)

I think that you're not understanding the market.
The cell phone market isn't driven by utility. It's driven by gimmicks. There is no other way to explain people buying $20 (or more) worth of ring tones.

The majority pay more for the new gimmick on the phone than they do for more bandwidth. The gimmicks are cheaper to develop. They are cheaper to introduce. And they are easily replaceable by the next gimmick, since they have no actual usefulness that needs to be maintained.

What? (4, Insightful)

KillerDeathRobot (818062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825664)

Why do phones suddenly need biometric security devices?? As far as I'm aware, security isn't that big of a problem concerning cell phones. None or close to none of the current generation (or previous) of phones has much of any security like that, nor do many pda's I've seen.

Most people don't keep a lot of really sensitive data on their phones, and phones aren't really remotely hackable like normal computers. Why all of a sudden do we need face recognition on them??

Re:What? (1)

ByteMangler_242 (618623) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825783)

I think Paris Hilton will disagree with you. Or at least those in her phonebook.

Now that I think about it, Paris is the ultimate user for this. Too vapid to remember a keycode, but still possibly smart enough to point the camera at herself before using it. Why can't I come up with this first! I was so close to...
3. Profit!!!!

Re:What? (1)

v01d (122215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11826007)

but still possibly smart enough to point the camera at herself

I think we know she's that smart.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825819)

To protect us from killer death robots of course.

Re:What? (1)

SnprBoB86 (576143) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825835)

Some security (read: pin number) is really important just to protect from charges for stupid stuff if lets say i loose my cell and don't get realize to call and cancel my service for a day or so.

On my phone, I have the web browser (pay per kilobyte) and text message center (pay per outgoing message) require my pin number as well as require a pin number to make international calls.

Barcode? (4, Funny)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825675)

Do you need a barcode [slashdot.org] on your face for it to work?

This is nice in the lab, BUT... (2, Insightful)

Tavor (845700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825680)

How many people would use this in real life?

There is the hassle of taking a picture of yourself, for one.

Like another poster mentioned, the possibility of something happening to injure your face, and causing you not to be able to access your own phone.

If this is your only phone, would you have to wash your hair in the morning and groom yourself before the phone would know who you are? Really... a good idea, just not a practical one

What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11825691)

you've been in a fight and your face is less than perfect? Will you be able to open your phone and call for help?

What's going to happen if? (1)

bomek (63323) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825692)

Let's say, if some guy get defigurated by some people in a alley. He won't be able to call for help!

Wonderful (1)

murreyaw (96319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825718)

Now all a terrorist has to do is cut off my head to use my phone!

Not Good. (0, Redundant)

Vague but True (804899) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825724)

I can see it now. A rain slick road...sharp curve...crash...and a person with facial injuries unable to dial 911 because the phone doesn't recognize him/her.

Dangerous idea (0, Redundant)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825744)

So you get disfigured in a fire, accident or other tragedy and you cant call 911 or a friend?

It should be an optional security feature. Saying 'soon you'll have to take your picture to make a call' sounds a bit scary and annoying. Isnt this feature trying to protect the customer from unwanted charges anyway?

Seems to me it should just replace the old 3-4 digit lock code or something, but still just be something you activate when you're worried.

SO... (3, Interesting)

Anonym1ty (534715) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825757)

How would this help? If I stole someone's wallet with their family picture in it, could I not then use the cellphone?

Hmmm.. Another idea... (5, Interesting)

Garion911 (10618) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825779)

I want the facial recon to filter out calls.. Kinda like the firefox cookie blocker:

1. Ed calls John.
2. John's phone asks Ed's phone for a picture
3. Ed takes a picture of his face.
4. Ed's phone sends it to John's phone.
5. John's phone does facial recon to determine if his face is in the whitelist, if so, then it rings.
6. Otherwise forward to voicemail automaticly

You could have various settings, like "Theatre mode" where it only rings if that person is on the emergency list.. "Ex-Girl/Boyfiend" mode, where it just forwards to "this number has been disconnected"

Re:Hmmm.. Another idea... (2, Informative)

entrager (567758) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825848)

Even better:

1. Ed calls John.
2. John's phone checks Ed's caller ID against a whitelist.
3. John's phone rings.

Sometimes people insist on using technology just for the sake of using it. How about some practicality?

And as for the inevitable "what if Ed's caller ID is blocked?" arguements that are sure to arise, do you really think Ed will want to photograph himself every time he makes a call if he chose to have his caller ID blocked? I think not.

Um... Why? (1)

pla (258480) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825782)

AFAIK, no laws currently exist against loaning a friend your cellphone. I don't even think I've ever seen a TOS that prevents such a use.

So why should I need to authenticate myself to my phone? If I lose it, I have it deactivated and get a replacement anyway, so even that rather rare possibility doesn't pose enough of a risk to bother.


Or does this just go along with out steady descent into an Orwellian nightmare, where the government needs to know where (already have mandatory GPS in new phones) a given communications device gets used, and who uses it? "But I just wanted to order a pizza!" "Oh, and you consider that no big deal? I'll have you know the DHS/TSA considers it a huge red flag to order pepperoni and hamburg, but not with bacon or sausage! Ooops, I've said too much, sorry... Bailiff, would you please make the defendant dissapear?"

How hard to fool? (3, Interesting)

Jtheletter (686279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825798)

The article was extremely brief and didn't mention anything about how this software actually decides it's looking at the real user's face. what happens if I hold up a picture of the correct owner and snap a shot of that? I have a feeling the device will happily log me in unless it has some method of detecting 2D vs 3D.

Face Recognition Work (5, Informative)

KingOfTheNerds (706852) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825808)

My friend here at PennState University is working on face recognition research. He and I were suprised that such a technology was announced without us hearing about it ahead of time. Normally face recognition would not be useful for this purpose (security clearance). It is either too sensitive (not shaving, wearing sunglasses, etc) screws it up, or it's not sensitive enough to make it secure. Research here at the university was trying to find ways to fix these downfalls, but research on the subject is not even close to complete yet. I can't see this in anyway being as useful or complete as promised.

why this does the job (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825942)

This is only a cell phone. The goal is to reduce
the occurance of muggings for cell phones.
Desired security system properties:

a. fast and easy to use
b. resistant to rubber-hose attack ("give password!")
c. less than 0.3% false negative
d. less than 20% false positive

That'll do it.

Presumptuous (1)

Seriman (775126) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825874)

"If you have a camera phone, you may soon have to take a picture of yourself before making a call or accessing data stored on the device." This is such BS. Why do people insist on taking mediocre news and bloating it into an apocalyptic event? I should make RFID toilet paper rolls that, in conjunction with a pocket RFID device, can transmit info back to the government about who's ass it's wiping, then we'd have news warning people about shitting in public restrooms.

Nikon face-priority mode (1)

morcheeba (260908) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825919)

A neat use for face-recognition is Nikon's Face-Priority [dpreview.com] mode on some of its new cameras. It doesn't try to ID the face, but it tries to tell where the face is in the picture and makes sure it is in focus. This would be a godsend to my parents who can never focus a picture with two people in it -- the pictures are always focused on the background between the two people.

How Realistic Does This Seem to You? (2, Insightful)

ultimabaka (864222) | more than 9 years ago | (#11825930)

At least in the US, most cameraphones (including the smart variety) I've seen can't even show you the taken picture one second after snapping the shutter, much less analyze it and try to match it up to a (easily alterable) picture in a database somewhere.

Killer feature (3, Funny)

piltdownman84 (853358) | more than 9 years ago | (#11826000)

Forget using this for security. Can I use to this to get the phone to remember girls names for me?

Just take a picture and up comes the girls name or it speaks it. Maybe even better if it reminds me where I know her from. Gone is the embarrassment of not remembering her name, leaving me only the embarrassment of trying to make conversation.
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>