Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government News Technology

Interpol Pushing World Facial Recognition Database 171

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the here's-lookin-at-you dept.
The Register is reporting that according to some reports, Interpol will soon be pushing for a world-wide facial recognition database at the borders of all member nations. "The UK already has airport gates equipped with such technology, intended to remove the need for a human border guard to check that a passenger's face matches the one recorded in his or her passport. According to the Guardian, Interpol database chief Mark Branchflower believes that his organization should set up a database of facial-recognition records to operate alongside its existing photo, fingerprint and DNA files."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interpol Pushing World Facial Recognition Database

Comments Filter:
  • There Already Is One (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ewhac (5844) on Monday October 20, 2008 @12:58PM (#25443735) Homepage Journal
    It's called "FaceBook".

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

    Schwab

    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:06PM (#25443855) Homepage Journal

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by theaveng (1243528)

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

        • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:26PM (#25444195) Homepage Journal

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

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

          • by OldSoldier (168889) on Monday October 20, 2008 @03:03PM (#25445443)

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

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

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

            • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday October 20, 2008 @03:34PM (#25445831) Homepage Journal

              I'd be OK living in a world-wide "small town".

              Me, I like to live in a world-wide "big city". I don't know if you've ever lived in "small town America", but if you happen to be a different color, ethnicity or sexual orientation from most of your other "small town neighbors" life can be an absolute hell. The problem is, there are lots of stupid, small-minded people in small towns AND big cities. But in small towns, where "everybody knows you" those stupid people can really fuck things up for you, whereas in a "big city" you can move to a part of town where there are others who are more openminded. Or (and this is important) you can just be anonymous.

              This notion that somehow there is this suddenly emergent need for greater security is a complete load of bullshit being perpetrated on us by people who want to use this "security" to become more powerful.

              If anything, I'd suggest that privacy and anonymity is more important now than it ever has been. I'll go a step further and say that cameras and databases are about the worst way to make a society "secure". The only people who become more "secure" are those in the security regime.

            • by cayenne8 (626475)
              "I try to envision the right model for security and privacy as small town America. In this model everyone knows everyone else and for the most part, when you see your neighbor, he/she sees you."

              Except for the fact that most 'small towns' in America...aren't covered with CCTV cameras, nor large databases to store this info on you and your travels.

              :)

            • by daem0n1x (748565)

              That would be OK, until you were leading a protest because of the bad garbage collection on your neighborhood and then, "mysteriously" footage of you smoking weed or kissing a guy would come up on Youtube, putting you out of the game immediately, for completely unrelated reasons.

              They don't want to catch criminals. They want to know all the dirty little secrets everyone has.

          • by k1e0x (1040314) on Monday October 20, 2008 @03:05PM (#25445463) Homepage

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

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

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

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

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

              And he has the temerity to call Obama a socialist. McCain was the first one out with 'mandatory national service'.

              Not that Obama isn't a socialist, but c'mon, go after your opponent on a difference.

              • by k1e0x (1040314)

                McCain called Obama a socialist? lol If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

                They are BOTH socialists, that is why I can vote for neither.

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

              Crikey, I assumed you were wrong on that, but you're not [pa-aware.org]. The next page [pa-aware.org] contains a couple statements of fact, so I guess that makes most people who can read terrorists. That's terribly convenient, isn't it?

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by k1e0x (1040314)

                Oh its ridiculous. The Gadsden flag is a US flag and for a time was the OFFICIAL US flag of the 13 colonies. (denoted by the 13 rattles on the snakes tail.)

                Domestic Terrorists

                Anti-Government Groups

                Often associated with unorganized militias, the Anti-Government movement actually embraces a much larger variety of groups and causes. The extreme fringe believes that the U.S. government is either the enemy or has been subverted by the enemy and must be actively defended against.

                There is nothing wrong proclaiming that you want to defend your rights from government. The prefatory clause to the second amendment also states that the local militia is a requirement to security of a free state.

                Anti-Government Issues and Beliefs

                Gun Control is a conspiracy to enslave us starting with the removal of our ability to either defend ourselves or forcefully change our government.

                No we wouldn't want people to be able to defend themselves.

                The first ten amendments of The Constitution are God given and all others are temporary, invalid or outright fraudulent.

                Totally wrong interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is written in neg

                • Regardless, why does the DHS think someone holding these beliefs is suddenly a "domestic terrorist"?

                  They're framing the target of the 'Terror' as the US Federal Government, as currently instituted, not its People (who definitionally must be the targets if its to be called terrorism). Merely advocating legislative change, then, is a sufficient to threaten the 'current government' as legislation makes changes to the government one way or the other, as they proscribe of terrorists, so they might as well round

                  • by k1e0x (1040314)

                    In whatever you decide to do.. just descent. No, I'm not voting for Obama or McCain.. their solution to every problem is the same.. "more", more government, more programs, more money, more, more, more..

            • by cayenne8 (626475)
              "Yeah, the DHS had a pamphlet out that listed the Gadsden Flag as a symbol of domestic terrorism."

              That's pretty sad.....considering it was one of the first flags flown over the US in the revolutionary days.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

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

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

    • by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:40PM (#25444381) Journal

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

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

      • by Ihmhi (1206036)

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

      • by jez9999 (618189)

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

        TBH, for most New Yorkers, they'd have the right description.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by viridari (1138635)
      That does it. I'm uploading a bunch of pictures of politicians and tagging them with my name.
  • by onion2k (203094) * on Monday October 20, 2008 @12:59PM (#25443749) Homepage

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

    Like we'd ever fall for that!

  • by Nick Driver (238034) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:00PM (#25443759)

    All Your Face Are Belong To Us!

  • by TripMaster Monkey (862126) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:04PM (#25443819)

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

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

    • by BlowHole666 (1152399) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:06PM (#25443853)

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

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        This technology doesn't work well enough for CCTV.

        Sure about that? FTFA:

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

        • by HuguesT (84078)

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

      • by 32771 (906153)

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

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

        I wrote about this earlier:

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

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

        Notice how the first link explains that pixelisation isn't effective at thwarting facial recognition. The paper I mentioned

    • by pilgrim23 (716938)

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

    • by pembo13 (770295)
      How would you know if it wasn't already in place? They have the hardware in place, the software apparently already available, and the data willingly submitted online.
    • I wonder how long it will be before this technology is utilized outside the airport gates...like, for example, with all of the myriad CCTV cameras currently infesting London.

      A very, very long time indeed, for a simple reason - face recognition technology isn't good enough for what Branchflower wants to use it for, and the system would be swamped with false positives as soon as it is turned on.

      Branchflower is Interpol's fingerprint database expert - his experience with fingerprint matching has led him to bel

  • Wrong end (Score:4, Funny)

    by larry bagina (561269) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:06PM (#25443857) Journal

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

  • by peter303 (12292) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:06PM (#25443873)
    Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems.
    An auxiliary question is whether machine accuracy exceeds humans. People make mistakes too.
    • by elemnt14 (1319289)
      Then they would probably have to put in a sub-system to verify the first. Like gait-recognition, or similar. Something the same software could process without human interaction. Then that probably would have a 1% fail rate.
      • I would think that if they add mastication-recognition it would lower fail rates.

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

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

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

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

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I'm uncertain - are you arguing that he's fallen for the fallacy or pointing it out?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

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

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

    • by rpmayhem (1244360) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:37PM (#25444335)
      I work for a local law enforcement agency that uses facial recognition systems. I don't work in that department, but I'm familiar with the systems. A few years ago, it was still really bad, but it's made large jumps in accuracy since that time. However, we usually have humans operating the cameras and computers, so it's always double checked. Everyone who gets booked into the jail is added to the facial recognition database. Then the officers on the road can use systems in their cars to take pictures of people and find their identity (a lot of people give us fake IDs, and a lot of those people have visited us before). Also, we have to ask permission before taking someone's picture on the street.

      Anyway, even at the current level of accuracy, it can't operate really well without human assistance.
      • Also, we have to ask permission before taking someone's picture on the street.

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

        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

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

          Last guy never did clean the bathroom properly...

    • by pla (258480)
      Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems

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

      They want to play games, we can play right back. Good luck tracking Joe Sixpack when your fancy automated system starts reporting that it has found Terrorist-X 20 times a minute from all over the globe...
    • Even 1% false positives or negatives in a huge application will lead to lots of problems.

      So, they screw up once in a while and get Buttle rather than Tuttle. Do you think the UK (or US, since it will soon be in the States too, I'm sure) even cares about ruining the occasional person's life? Besides, they'll get a receipt for it.

      • Besides, they'll get a receipt for it.

        "And this is my receipt for your receipt".

        Also from the film, and sort of on-topic:

        Dr Lewis Jaffe: Faces are a doddle compared to tits and ass. No hairline.

        So the tits and ass recognition software is even further off than we thought :)

    • by rtechie (244489) *

      Does anyone have any hard numbers on this? The last numbers I've heard from the best systems under ideal conditions was around 65% accuracy. Picking faces out of the crowd was essentially impossible.

      Does anyone have anything that contradicts this?

    • by DrVxD (184537)

      People make mistakes too.

      To err is human. To really foul things up, you need a computer.

  • I'm not sure... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sshuber (1274006)
    that this would even be a good thing for the governments involved. What about covert operatives working for a government that travel to another country? They would be instantly flagged if any one nation had the knowledge of their covert status.
  • by R2.0 (532027) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:09PM (#25443913)

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

  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:10PM (#25443933) Homepage Journal

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

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

  • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nerdposeur (910128) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:12PM (#25443953) Journal
    I, for one, welcome our international, face-recognizing over... Aw, wait a minute! No, that's creepy.
  • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:12PM (#25443957) Homepage Journal
    ...I want to take his FACE OFF...

    No more drugs for this man!

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

    I wonder if this will become a legitimate tool for law enforcement, or if it will be yet another big brother tool.
    • How will the system deal with the fact that people change as they age?

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

    • Facial recognition software typically relies on things that cannot be easily changed. You can reconstruct the entire skin tissue of the face, but you can't (practically) change the distance between your eye sockets, the distance from the eye socket to the ear or to the top of the head. Underlying bone structure is hard to change...
  • not only will I have to take off my shoes I'll have to shave my beard
  • Ironic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:12PM (#25443965)

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

  • Invest in realistic-mask-making companies.

  • by Jabbrwokk (1015725) <grant.j.warkentin@ g m ail.com> on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:17PM (#25444063) Homepage Journal

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

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

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

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:25PM (#25444161)
      Possible outcomes:
      1. "Well, we have not caught any terrorists yet, but we spent a lot on this system. Let's use it to catch people who don't clean up after their dogs."
      2. "You have been identified as a terrorist by the system, so you will need to remain in custody until a human can verify that you are not a terrorist."
      3. "This system works so well, we should use it domestically!"
      4. "Here's a list of people known to be against the war and probably planning to attend a protest in Washington DC; they shouldn't be allowed to fly."

      Surveillance is a slippery slope.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by davegravy (1019182)

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

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

      Your picture may be taken all over the place already, but citing this as a reason why the proposed system isn't big-brother-eque doesn't make much sense. If people a

      • I don't necessarily mean your government is corrupt today

        It is

        If people already routinely defacated on your doorstep, would you be apathetic about a government proposal to defecate on your doorstep?

        Not a great analogy, but I know what you're saying. Although the government already defecated propaganda flyers all over my doorstep during the recent election campaign, I didn't get a say in the matter and my tax dollars paid for it. Lucky me.

        And I said in my post that I didn't like the photo database proposal. Not sure how that can be interpreted as me being apathetic.

        Like it or not, we're stuck with this sort of shit. Apathy combined with irrational fear in the wake of 9-11 laid the groundwork and

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

      But what about the inevitable false positive problem?

      It may not be a problem for you (perhaps you're lucky enough not to match anyone in the database), but for some people it's going to be a royal PITA.

      I used to fly quite regularly from Manch

  • by Banekartr (1058752) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:17PM (#25444069)
    Does this facial recognition come with x-ray vision? How will it help with this? http://www.imcworldwide.org/blog/afghanistan/uploaded_images/IMG_0056-705316.JPG [imcworldwide.org]
    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:29PM (#25444235)
      The 9/11 hijackers were not dressed in traditional middle eastern clothing. They were wearing run-of-the-mill business-casual clothing, which is why they were so successful -- they looked like normal travelers, and drew no attention to themselves at the airport.
      • by gnick (1211984) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:58PM (#25444603) Homepage

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

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

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

        • by steelfood (895457)

          If you ask the question with a GWB accent, some your positive response rate will be even higher!

    • Also, make sure you go up to the camera and say "You're not recording this, are you?" in your best Richard Nixon voice.
  • Well, I'm screwed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by interstellar_donkey (200782) <(pathighgate) (at) (hotmail.com)> on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:35PM (#25444301) Homepage Journal

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

    It has my DNA from my stint in the Army.

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

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

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

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

      It has my DNA from my stint in the Army.

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

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

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

      TFTFY

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

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


    Tomorrow, Class, we will discuss the JOIN, INSERT INTO, and GROUP BY operators.
  • Beard: False

    Next();

    Beard: False

    Next();

    Beard: True

    CheckOsamaBinLaden();

  • 1984 (Score:5, Funny)

    by andy1307 (656570) on Monday October 20, 2008 @01:41PM (#25444397)
    Dear Brits: 1984 was a novel, not an instruction manual.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by megamerican (1073936)

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

      I always thought that Orwell was an optimist.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Catil (1063380) *
        They are way behind their timeplan but they started a crash program in 2001 to speed things up.
      • by dkf (304284)

        I always thought that Orwell was an optimist.

        George Orwell was a boat [wikipedia.org]? That explains... umm, that explains very little at all.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hansamurai (907719)

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

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

    Brother, I'm right.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MRe_nl (306212)

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

      Somehow, I don't think software is going to have this problem, allthough the prejudices of

  • Good luck with the AI trying to tell those over 1 billion Chinese people apart... and wouldn't anybody that was up to no good simply wear sunglasses, facial hair, and a hat? Or have cosmetic surgery? Or wear Groucho glasses?
  • I like to wear a giant mutton chop, but only on one side. Can I fool face recognition by switching the sides while even my wife probably wouldn't notice?

    • Depending on how they go about it, you can probably fool facial recognition by wearing an eye patch (and if it's a skin-colored eye patch, they probably wouldn't even recognize your face as a face).

      Also, distance between eyes indicates proportions of other facial features---hide that distance, etc.

  • porn store. I can always recognize a facial.

  • Great for long term linking of people.
    Your face turns up in an internet image of interest.
    The image is entered into the database.
    Your laptop is searched at the airport on arrival back home.
    All your contacts are noted and your laptop returned as nothing of interest is found.
  • Now what we need:
    1 change passport photo into teddy bear suit
    2 go thru customs in teddy bear suit

"No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"

Working...