FBI Completes New Face Recognition System 129
Advocatus Diaboli writes:
According to a report from Gizmodo, "After six years and over one billion dollars in development, the FBI has just announced that its new biometric facial recognition software system is finally complete. Meaning that, starting soon, photos of tens of millions of U.S. citizen's faces will be captured by the national system on a daily basis. The Next Generation Identification (NGI) program will logs all of those faces, and will reference them against its growing database in the event of a crime. It's not just faces, though. Thanks to the shared database dubbed the Interstate Photo System (IPS), everything from tattoos to scars to a person's irises could be enough to secure an ID. What's more, the FBI is estimating that NGI will include as many as 52 million individual faces by next year, collecting identified faces from mug shots and some job applications." Techdirt points out that an assessment of how this system affects privacy was supposed to have preceded the actual rollout. Unfortunately, that assessment is nowhere to be found.
Two recent news items are related. First, at a music festival in Boston last year, face recognition software was tested on festival-goers. Boston police denied involvement, but were seen using the software, and much of the data was carelessly made available online. Second, both Ford and GM are working on bringing face recognition software to cars. It's intended for safety and security — it can act as authentication and to make sure the driver is paying attention to the road.
Two recent news items are related. First, at a music festival in Boston last year, face recognition software was tested on festival-goers. Boston police denied involvement, but were seen using the software, and much of the data was carelessly made available online. Second, both Ford and GM are working on bringing face recognition software to cars. It's intended for safety and security — it can act as authentication and to make sure the driver is paying attention to the road.
Baaah... (Score:5, Interesting)
Vegas casinos were doing this years ago...
Re:Baaah... (Score:5, Interesting)
And now it's there when you Skype with your girlfriend (hah).
Not a far-fetched idea, what with the close ties between tech titans and the Three Letter Agencies. Indeed, these folks probably would not even need cooperation to "scrape" images from Skype and similar applications.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the skype version of sexting?
Now wouldn't it suck if the FBI had that in a database.
Re: (Score:2)
And when they graft your face into photos that are not real you will do the same? This has already been done for political purposes (see Ross Perot) and used as blackmail.
Re: Hoover FBI.... (Score:2)
Well DONE. People trust tech so much it doesn't occur to them that data can be faked, if you can access the system backdoors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And all that "tagging" of photos in Facebook, the database is pretty much ready-made for them. Crowd-sourcing backfire?
Re: (Score:1)
Why would they need it in Skype? They've probably long since identified who is who by correlating the account details, so no need for facial recognition.
Re:Baaah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
there's a difference when a private company does it and the government does it.
Dude, step back and understand the conversation.
We are talking about the TECHNOLOGY, not the user.
Re:Baaah... (Score:5, Insightful)
there's nothing new or noteworthy about the technology. the new thing is it's in the hands of the govt.
Re: (Score:3)
Except some might argue that using this technology in a public place is a violation of the 4th amendment.
This stuff is getting very creepy, and it's kind of appalling to see that the US is in a hurry to usher in Big Brother.
Papers please, comrade. Actually, we don't need your papers. We know exactly who you are.
How's that "land of the free" thing working out for you?
Re: Baaah... (Score:2)
there's a difference when a private company does it and the government does it. " no. There is not.
It doesn't scale (Score:2)
We do this in Canada too, and it works where the number of people you're trying to recognize is small. The "birthday paradox"* says that if you're comparing 23 people, you have a 50% chance of a match. You have to multiply this by the error rate (usually much less than 2%) of a facial match program to get the false-positive rate, but it's still huge.
The German federal security service tried out Siemen's facial matcher years ago, found it had a low error rate... and was completely useless!
When you had h
Re: (Score:2)
You can have 99.999 accuracy, and if the number of comparisons is (N choose 2), then the probability is (N chose 2) * 0.00001, which will be (really huge number * 0.00001) which is (merely huge number).
I don't care how good or bad the implementation is, it has to have more 9's to the right of the decimal than I have zeroes to the left in the number of people, N. That's a known hard problem in computer science (;-))
--dave
[And yes, Siemens was getting crappy even then, but that isn't the problem that th
Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score:4)
Anything done with our tax money should be done with the consent of the governed.
I do not consent.
Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not consent.
Unfortunately, many of the sheep in this country (and elsewhere, particularly Australia and the British Empire) simply don't care.
You are overruled. Move along...
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us care more about criminals hiding in plain sight than we do about our privacy.
Re: (Score:1)
Which is reasonable (privacy is an illusion anyway).
The main problem is that too many people have been behaving hypocritically and would be easily blackmailed. The secondary problem is that out asinine legislative system has built up layers of crappy laws that no one follows because they're stupid and too hard to enforce (like the states where oral sex is illegal). A reduction in privacy would enable garter selective enforcment of those laws.
That's going to make the transition period really painful.
Re: So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score:3)
Privacy an illusion? This is too easy. What's your name? Address? Children's names, sex ages, pics, and current locations?
How much do you make? What's your car plate ID? I'm sure you won't mind sharing.
Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you mean politicians?
With crime on an incredible downswing [fbi.gov], I don't see how anyone can justify draconian measures for law enforcement when it is becoming less and less likely that they will be the victim of a crime.
Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As with all relative terms "less likely" is not good enough. Crime rates are still too high and there are still too many known criminals on the loose. We should use what ever technology we have to bring the number of at loose criminals as close to zero as possible.
Re: (Score:1)
I for one don't want to live in your perfectly ordered dystopia.
Turn yourself in! (Score:2)
As proven repeatedly, most citizens commit at least 3 felonies every day. If you want criminals off the street, please be the first to turn yourself in. Don't forget to turn yourself in for future crimes too, which the many so called "Progressive" regimes are pushing for (including the US, UK, Australia, etc...)
Funny how you won't admit that the system is broken because you are not currently the target of an investigation. Piss off the wrong people, and that will change really quickly won't it?
People in
Re: (Score:2)
Those who give up Liberty for temporary security will get neither
You can't even get the quote right. The real quote is as follows;
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Notice the word "essential". Being anonymous to the police is not an essential liberty or we would never catch and criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh how I love false accusations by the ignorant who have refused to do the work to gain knowledge they claim others lack. Here [wikiquote.org] is a good source for you, but I'm guessing that you won't do the work. With that in mind, the actual quote from Benjamin Franklin is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." That said, there are numerous other quotes others have given paraphrasing that quote.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neith
Re: (Score:2)
Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
Which means that others have said variations of Franklin's words and have falsely attributed them to Franklin. What Franklin said is very different than what you said.
Of all the quotes you cited Franklin actually said 2 of them. "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." and "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.". The former is about wealth and power while the latter is about liberty and safety.
You are not knowledgeable nor are you special, no matter what mommy told you.
Resorti
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of your imagination, where did I state that the quote I provided was from Franklin? Go ahead and re-ready my post, read it three or four times if you must. All of your accusations are false and baseless.
Resorting to a personal attack just shows how weak your argument truly is.
In response to repeated false accusation and fabricated information, I find my ad hominem is not without basis. If you prefer people to be kind and proper holding dialogue, consider your input into the conversation first.
Re: So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score:1)
Too bad people are lazy or just plain stupid. You must be young and haven't figured this out yet. Are you keeping the poor down, do you know some individuals that are? Do they tell you their plans to keep little tommy from going to college? NO. As long as people don not want to cooperate, are lazy or selfish, and just plain stupid, there will always be classes. You give your hard earned money directly to a adult that will waste it. See how you feel afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score:4, Insightful)
Good. The privatization of the prison system is leading to what the ACLU is labeling massive human rights abuses [aclu.org]. Coupled with our using the criminal justice system, ultimately ending up with the prison system, to deal with obvious mental health issues [nytimes.com], and we've got incredible injustice being done in the name of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Misdemeanors are now felonies!
Re: (Score:3)
I see your point. The problem of course is when you become the criminal. In the future I suspect there will be a lot more restrictions. A lot more and they already have the system coming into place that will insure compliance with whatever they mandate. The reason of course is that in about 8 years or so the government will be bankrupt and when they can't write those checks without printing ridiculous amounts of phony money there will be a lot of people that will suddenly find their monthly check doesn'
Re: (Score:1)
I do not consent.
Unfortunately, many of the sheep in this country (and elsewhere, particularly Australia and the British Empire) simply don't care.
You are overruled. Move along...
Incidentally, on this day back in 2001 Richard Stallman talked about this same thing... it appears people really and truly don't care (enough) about the consequences of this. After all, people had 13 years to kick up a stink right? http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
No shit. Do you think the majority of the population supports this? Especially after all the known incidents of domestic spying, illegal wiretaps, secret no fly lists, free speech zones for demonstrators, etc. There's very little freedom left in our free country. I'm not against surveillance, but tracking each person individually is a slippery slope. Attend a protest the administration doesn't like, they pull the video footage, next thing you know.. everyone there is on a watch list and is about to be
Re: (Score:2)
Get even. Post anything at all that you can find on the head of the FBI (et al.) -- him in that capacity and outside of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Then paintball some government cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score:2)
So, we hide in boxes until we die, or live in prison.
False dilemma. We have other choices. Like, NO cameras.
Dragnet (Score:2)
How is this not an invasion of privacy when the police is taking records of where everybody is going at all times, w/o probable cause or warrant ?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they'll just claim you're out in the public eye and don't have any expectation of privacy.
I mean it's not like the Civil Forfeiture laws where they can take any cash/property on your person without cause or due process. You're not even required to have been *charged* with any crime. Stop & Frisk has been replaced with Seize & Threaten.
They're betting that you'll walk away from lengthy, expensive legal fight to get your property/rights back.
Re: (Score:2)
records of where everybody is going at all times,
They are only doing this when you are in a public place and in range of a camera. While this is quite often it is far from "at all times". Can they run facial recognition on you while you are in your bathroom?
Your image has no privacy when in a public place.
Re: (Score:1)
Your image has no privacy when in a public place.
Law enforcement all over the country has tried to claim just the opposite for themselves. Also the US Government has also said this is not the case for buildings, etc. that it has forced companies who have satellite images to censor public places.
Way to suck down the authoritarian cock, brah.
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement all over the country has tried to claim just the opposite for themselves.
Law enforcement is not a single entity and do not all think alike. Also, the filming of police officers has been found to be legal in most places.
that it has forced companies who have satellite images to censor public places.
I have seen censoring of secure areas but not public areas. Do you have any references of public areas being censored?
Re: (Score:2)
Your image has no privacy when in a public place.
So they have no problem with the camera I've got set up on the street at the J Edgar Hoover building parking garage entrance?
Re: (Score:2)
They may have a problem with you using public property to station your camera. If you happen to own or rent property across the street from that location I doubt they would have an issue.
Re: Dragnet (Score:2)
Add more cameras, track all cars, put cameras in cars, and there is no place to be alone. Prison with mortgage and car payments.
Re: (Score:2)
If that is ever proposed I will be against that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dragnet (Score:2)
Try it on a plane. Then reflect that they will do the same if you blind their ground cameras. Expect a felony charge. And a club to your groin.
Re: (Score:2)
The officer that patrols the part of the city you work in may know when you go to and leave work just because he sees you on the side walk this is not an invasion of privacy and he could possibly recall if he saw you at the regular time on a given date but yes doing it electronically is very different. Generally this will be in public places so I'm not sure any existing laws really cover that.
Re: Dragnet (Score:2)
The law is whatever the conga line of cops caving in your ribs say it is. That's reality. Dont give monkeys the keys to the banana plantation.
My actions after reading the summary (Score:1)
Qualified to not qualify (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new, umm, overlords.
Re: I hope it's better than the existing system... (Score:2)
You assume tomorrow will be just like today. This is not a static situation. The recognition systems will get better, then become nearly perfect. And they have other ways of cross checking the ID. This is not a game, and they are smarter than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like phone call parallel construction? Just like the use of lower cost cellular phone surveillance devices at a city and State level?
CCTV from city, state, federal and other sites will be joined in public private partnerships to ensure every face in some areas gets a good probability of been compared to existing databases or new faces saved for years.
Add in cell phone infor
Tinfoil hats now available with facemasks! (Score:2)
Seems like I'll need to get a hockey mask to go with my tinfoil hat.
OOooo, or maybe one of those high-def ex-Presidential masks!
Re: (Score:2)
oh! A Spartacus mask!
Re: Tinfoil hats now available with facemasks! (Score:2)
Masks... illegal. Disguises will be more so. Attempting to hide from Panoptikon will be, is, a crime, and an excuse to drag you over for questioning, then to receive permanent surveillance. Really GOOD surveillance, not this rickety mess they have right now.After all, it'll be cheap and ubiquitous.
Re: Once all they've all been catalogued and analy (Score:2)
Being an enemy is useless, if they know your whereabouts and activities. We're in prison. Get used to it. Pot is legal just in time, because we'll need to drug ourselves to not care.
i do believe in spooks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a Barack Obama mask. It's a hoot at Halloween. The kids laugh like crazy.
good luck (Score:1)
Drivers license photos (Score:4, Interesting)
State DMVs have for some time been compiling digital photo databases. I know Oregon has because they had to bring "someone more familiar with the software" in when they took my license photo. I have a sizable beard and mustache, and I believe the software had difficulty finding my mouth. ... I didn't offer to help.
If cars are going to have some "if you aren't facing the road, we're going to shut the car off" routine, I may be somewhat restricted in my choice of automobile, or at least options packages...
umm... (Score:2)
and of course, it'd be amusing to see what'd happen if you taped a picture of yours truly Mr. President onto you fac
Sunglasses (Score:2)
Sunglasses royally fuck up most face detection software. It's even better than putting your hair in front of one eye a la Dr. Blight in Captain Planet. Someone else linked to this, which is another, even better option (once they make them more "stylish" so you won't be drawing attention to yourself by wearing them): http://petapixel.com/2013/06/1... [petapixel.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Fashion that will hide you from face-recognition technology ( 1/06/14)
http://io9.com/how-fashion-can... [io9.com]
"For example, if you are wearing sunglasses, the system will recognize the sunglasses and then ignore that part of your face. The program will then simply analyze whatever is left behind. "... "that it's possible to recognize faces with 30% and in some cases 50% occlusion."
Re: (Score:1)
> For example, if you are wearing sunglasses, the system will recognize the sunglasses and then ignore that part of your face.
Those papers are about algorithms that are deliberately given faces. But that is no good for an automated system that scans crowds. First it has to recognize that a face is present and then it has to analyze the specific features of that face to match against the database.
But, I expect that normal sunglasses are pretty easy to detect in a crowd anyway. So you need to be a litt
Guy Fawkes masks anyone? (Score:2)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/1... [ebay.com] $70 but I think I'll just wear my Groucho Marks glasses instead.
What Could Possibly Go Wrong (Score:2)
Acceptance? (Score:2)
This is exactly what NSA has been doing, but this time it's "in the real world".
Why do they think people will accept this?
No one, yet? (Score:2)
Optimization (Score:2)
Big Brother is already watching you (Score:2)
I hope none of the innocent people will be in the vicinity of another one or two murders.
Open Air Prison (Score:2)
A jail is a jail, no matter how cool your phone might be.