Facial Recognition Could Be Coming To Police Body Cameras (defenseone.com) 180
schwit1 quotes a report from Defense One: Even if the cop who pulls you over doesn't recognize you, the body camera on his chest eventually just might. Device-maker Motorola will work with artificial intelligence software startup Neurala to build "real-time learning for a person of interest search" on products such as the Si500 body camera for police, the firm announced Monday. Italian-born neuroscientist and Neurala founder Massimiliano Versace has created patent-pending image recognition and machine learning technology. It's similar to other machine learning methods but far more scalable, so a device carried by that cop on his shoulder can learn to recognize shapes and -- potentially faces -- as quickly and reliably as a much larger and more powerful computer. It works by mimicking the mammalian brain, rather than the way computers have worked traditionally.
Versace's research was funded, in part, by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA under a program called SyNAPSE. In a 2010 paper for IEEE Spectrum, he describes the breakthrough. Basically, a tiny constellation of processors do the work of different parts of the brain -- which is sometimes called neuromorphic computation -- or "computation that can be divided up between hardware that processes like the body of a neuron and hardware that processes the way dendrites and axons do." Versace's research shows that AIs can learn in that environment using a lot less code.
Versace's research was funded, in part, by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA under a program called SyNAPSE. In a 2010 paper for IEEE Spectrum, he describes the breakthrough. Basically, a tiny constellation of processors do the work of different parts of the brain -- which is sometimes called neuromorphic computation -- or "computation that can be divided up between hardware that processes like the body of a neuron and hardware that processes the way dendrites and axons do." Versace's research shows that AIs can learn in that environment using a lot less code.
No it won't (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they never have them turned on - it would make them accountable for their deliberate law breaking.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because they never have them turned on - it would make them accountable for their deliberate law breaking.
Unless they introduce AI to recognise police brutality and turn the camera off
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the thing...
Re:No it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a body cam with no off switch? Or a drone to follow them around all day and catch everything, because these killings happen in public? Or just post a bounty for the first camera to capture a police shooting? That should have a bit of a deterrent value.
Either that, or everyone is going to have to start wearing body cams.
Re:No it won't (Score:4, Insightful)
Police unions and associations will never allow that.
Re:No it won't (Score:4, Interesting)
They can't stop the offering of a bounty for those capturing police wrongdoing on video.
Use their "do you have something to hide?" right back at them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep....they don't want to be filmed going "pee-pee".
Re: (Score:3)
Yep....they don't want to be filmed going "pee-pee".
Presumably it would provide concrete (if not hard) evidence that cops are overcompensating for their minuscule genitals.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep....they don't want to be filmed going "pee-pee".
A valid point. You can't make them without off-switches.
You could however make it policy that not having your cam turned on without a valid excuse (such as going to the toilet) could be subject to a fine.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have extraordinary powers under law you should be subject to extraordinary scrutiny. They should deal with it. I'd be ok with paying them more to compensate for no privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Either that, or everyone is going to have to start wearing body cams.
which will simply "go missing" after the cops assassinate you
Re: (Score:2)
Either that, or everyone is going to have to start wearing body cams.
which will simply "go missing" after the cops assassinate you
Hopefully deleting the recorded video is more complicated than "accidentally" losing the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully deleting the recorded video is more complicated than "accidentally" losing the camera.
If the camera goes into the river, or into a hole, or into an electronics recycling shredder, it doesn't matter how complicated deleting the video is. The only thing that might help you is livestreaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully deleting the recorded video is more complicated than "accidentally" losing the camera.
If the camera goes into the river, or into a hole, or into an electronics recycling shredder, it doesn't matter how complicated deleting the video is. The only thing that might help you is livestreaming.
If I record a video with my webcam, I can toss the camera into a river, then a hole, then in an electronics shredder and not lose a second of video. "Livestreaming," I think implies that somebody is watching. That's unnecessary. Just don't attach the storage to the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
"Livestreaming," I think implies that somebody is watching.
Well, it doesn't. It means they could be.
That's unnecessary. Just don't attach the storage to the camera.
If you mean carrying it on your person, that won't help. If you mean streaming it live (and not later) then that's what I said, and perhaps you could try to see your way to agreeing with me without trying to disagree with me.
Re: (Score:2)
That's unnecessary. Just don't attach the storage to the camera.
If you mean carrying it on your person, that won't help. If you mean streaming it live (and not later) then that's what I said, and perhaps you could try to see your way to agreeing with me without trying to disagree with me.
Not trying to be disagreeable, just saying that livestreaming is unnecessary. Adding the ability to watch the video while it's being recorded doesn't add to its preservability unless somebody is watching and recording. In which case, why not just recording? When I said storage should be detached from the camera, I was trying to imply that it wouldn't be carried "on person." Moving the storage by 12 inches doesn't accomplish much. Having primary storage in the squad car with only temporary fall-back storage
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the police in my city are required to turn on body cam any time they are running lights/siren as well as any time they respond to a call. The only scenario that would fall out of that scope is if a crime were to happen right in front of them without foreknowledge and their reaction required an immediate response whereby its reasonable to conclude that such a reaction is a trained and automatic response whereby stopping to process thoughts like 'turn on body cam, draw weapon' etc are unrealistic.
I've persona
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Want to be sure that the cameras don't get switched off? Just pass a new law that says that in any case where the body cam was off or the video went "missing" the suspect's testimony will be taken as true and the officer won't be allowed to testify.
One possible upside to adding facial recognition to the cameras is it may make more police forces want to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't help the suspect if they are already dead.
I'm not defending what happened in Minnesota (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first duty of police should be to protect the citizens, not protect themselves. This guy should die in jail after thinking about what he did for a very long time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No it won't (Score:4, Funny)
Folks, you're missing the point here:
so a device carried by that cop on his shoulder can learn to recognize shapes and -- potentially faces -
Donuts are a shape.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need a camera with face recognition to catch outstanding warrants. Just checking IDs will do that. That is currently standard practice.
It would be tedious and unconstitutional for officers to stop every person they pass and ask for ID. If they have a device scanning every single person they walk past it would be more efficient.
I suspect there would still be constitutional challenges. Does face recognition software violate the 4th constitution as an "unwarranted search"? I suspect a clever lawyer might be able to make a case.
Re: (Score:3)
This is dumb,. Why do you need to identify someones face on the spot by a computer?
So this doesn't happen again
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying this is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
They have no images that are on any database in that city or state or federally? Why is a person working so hard to not be in any database?
Now a police digital image exists in that city or state due to walking down a street.
A face over a different set of names in other states or federally that are now finally linked but have not been matched until now due to privacy or sanctuary city politics.
The face is wanted due to issues on
Re: (Score:3)
Re: No it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Want to reduce the number of killings? Rein in the cops. They kill more than 4x the number of civilians than total police killed by civilians..
Of course police kill more civilians than the other way around! I know you're using that as a statistic to suggest the police are all corrupt, but even with 0% corruption where all the killings were bad guys trying to hurt good people, you'd still have more cops killing civilians than the other way around. They're organized, they outnumber the bad guys, they're better equipped and better trained.
I'm not saying there isn't police corruption. Any time you have power, you invite corruption. Obviously there is a problem with police corruption. Obviously, innocent people get killed by police each year. And certainly lethal force is used even when it needn't be in some cases. The vast majority of those killed aren't lily-white innocent.
Not saying we shouldn't avoid deaths, I think better training needs to be given the police to give alternatives to lethal force and every death should be investigated by an independent body; but if it's the choice between a cop (who 95% are decent people doing a job to protect us) and an armed robber- I'd rather the cop survive. (I'd rather they both survive, but if two people have guns out that's rarely going to happen).
As long as criminals have guns in this country, police officers will have guns too. There will be deaths. I certainly hope that those who (majority are decent guys) survive more often.
Re: No it won't (Score:2, Insightful)
A cop friend of mine says they treat every traffic stop as a potential violent situation because while it rarely becomes one the cost of making a mistake when ot is is to high. Yet he doesn't see the reverse. If only 1% of cops are bad we must assume they are all bad because it only takes one "blinking tailight" and an agressive reach for their insurance to end up dead. Since the odds of something bad is greater for the citizen than the cop then we have to treat all cops as if they have personal motives whi
Re: (Score:2)
They kill more than 4x the number of civilians than total police killed by civilians..
Yet there's far more citizens than police.
Conclusion: The civilians are undertrained.
Conclusion: The civilians are undertrained. (Score:2)
They kill more than 4x the number of civilians than total police killed by civilians..
Yet there's far more citizens than police.
Conclusion: The civilians are undertrained.
BRAVO to you sir.
Touche .. Touche
someone with mod points ....
please mod this up +1 take down +1 for the class
Re: (Score:2)
What about dogs? Very rarely are guns found on dogs after they're shot.
Re: (Score:2)
What about dogs? Very rarely are guns found on dogs after they're shot.
Dogs are just better at concealing them than people.
Police or Paramilitary force? Collateral damage? (Score:2)
Want to reduce the number of killings? Rein in the cops. They kill more than 4x the number of civilians than total police killed by civilians..
Of course police kill more civilians than the other way around! I know you're using that as a statistic to suggest the police are all corrupt,...
Your trivializing a serious issue here and no he is not suggesting police are corrupt you are the one jumping to that conclusion.
The point he is making is that the police are killing far too many innocent people.
Could it be that the police are turning into a paramilitary force and these "statistics" are just Collateral damage?
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't seen his dozenother "police are bad" posts on this thread then?
Of course the police are killing way too many innocent people. One person would be one too many.
390 people killed by police on average a year. Over 1.2 million police officers. So on average only 1 out of about 3100 police officers killed someone. 390 people is too many... but it's not like your average policeman is going out there killing people all the time- only one out of 3100 make a kill (and that's assuming all the shots ar
Re: (Score:2)
Makes you wonder why doesnt it ? What happened in days gone by ? ...
Are the cops more scared now ? The never do wells nowadays are they "packing" more often ?
Re: (Score:2)
As long as criminals have guns in this country, police officers will have guns too.
This seemingly simple statement is beyond utterly wrong and ridiculous on at least 3 levels:
Cops will ALWAYS carry the most powerful weapon possible until "the authorities" decide that overwhelming force is no longer the proper way to approach the situation.
The quoted statement implies that it is even possible to remove guns from criminals (one would assume it would be by passing laws that remove guns from all non-authority wielding people but maybe there are other ways that goal could be achieved...). This
Re: (Score:2)
Cops will ALWAYS carry the most powerful weapon possible until "the authorities" decide that overwhelming force is no longer the proper way to approach the situation.
Most countries without legal guns, the average police man doesn't carry a gun either. Only specially trained police carry guns- and trained as in, not to shoot people they don't have to shoot.
Re: No it won't (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as guns exist anywhere, criminals will have guns too.
There FTFY and don't claim I'm lying, I'm a former criminal sorry to say.
Different topic for a different day... but yes guns can be smuggled into countries where they are outlawed. Definitely lowers their presence though. Gun crime is almost unheard of in the UK or Australia nowadays. (and Australia had legal guns fairly recently)... ... but yes, some criminals will always have guns regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
Gun crime is almost unheard of in the UK or Australia nowadays.
And yet crime is not unheard of in the UK or Australia these days, and in fact, crime rates haven't gone down as a result of these laws, not even violent crime rates or murders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, Outlawing guns isn't the solution, if MORE people were trained and carried. the criminals would put a lot more thought into what they planned on doing, I used to rob drug dealers.. My time in prison made me realize how fucking stupid I was, as I already had a good trade behind me. BUT any time I did that, I would think long and hard about it if I knew they were armed. And if I knew they weren't, there was no second thought about anything but fastest way out. So I strongly feel that it should be Mandato
Re: (Score:2)
But, Outlawing guns isn't the solution....
Then can you please explain why there's nearly no gun crime in England and Australia?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. More people trained and carry guns just escalates the level of violence. Instead of first threatening with their gun, they'll just shoot people before they can defend themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunatly I would say that we have more criminals than the population of both of those countries. So you cant really compare the two. Also there is already millions of guns here, and good luck accounting for them all if you were to "ban" them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you hate people having guns more than you hate people committing crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
You mentioned a few officers over the course of two years. That's not a real high death rate. Are you just cherry-picking things that happen in a country of over three hundred million people?
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of those killed aren't lily-white innocent.
And that's why we have courts, and judges, and juries.
As long as guns exist anywhere, criminals will have guns too.
And yet countries with effective gun control laws have way fewer murders, as well as suicides with firearms (2/3 or all gun killings are suicides) than the US.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet countries with effective gun control laws have way fewer murders, as well as suicides with firearms (2/3 or all gun killings are suicides) than the US.
I don't care even a little bit how many suicides are performed with guns. I do care about whether guns are going to increase or reduce crime. The problem is that The State has an antagonistic relationship with The People. My fear is that if you take away people's guns, then police abuse (and the like) will only increase, and you'll only replace crime by citizens with more crime by police, against citizens. Suggesting that citizen gun ownership gives them an excuse to execute people is nonsense, because cops
Re: (Score:2)
Not just fewer murders. In Germany fewer people were killed by cops since 1990 than in the USA in a single year. Matter of fact, in 2015 alone there were more people killed by the police in the USA than the total amount of people West German cops have killed since 1952 and Germany had pretty lax firearm laws between 1952 and 1972.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA Is not like any other country. What works for other, smaller countries with far less diversity, most likely will not work in the USA.
Re: No it won't (Score:2)
Germany is diverse enough and is as large as the three largest US states put together. Matter of fact, given the laughably low US population density you should barely have any crime in first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact of the matter is there is no way to compare the two, and modeling the USA after Germany is probably one of the worst ideas possible. You thought Hitler was bad? Look what we have now, imagine if we went that far..
Re: (Score:2)
> Why do you think the answer to everything is "cop should kill first, ask questions later?"
He never said that.
> There are places where cops killing people are far lower.
And there are places where crime is a lot higher - what's your point?
> should not be reaching for their gun unless the other person also has a gun
This is where you make it painfully obvious that you should probably do a ride-along with a cop. Just get a glimpse of an idea of what they see each day.
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah blah ... totally ignores that the problem is specific to the gun-nutty USA. If you had gun control, everyone would be safer. Including the cops.
So you think it's okay for 2 cops in body armour, with tasers and pepper spray, to shoot first and ask questions later. No wonder the USA is now the world's laughingstock, with a president who is a lame duck after only 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
And that seems like a strange to you? Would you prefer a 1:1 ration (cops don't shoot unless their partner is killed first?)
Re: (Score:2)
A pair of cops wearing body armour, armed with pepper spray and taser, shouldn't reach for their guns unless the other person also has a gun.
We convicted a cop of murder because he repeatedly shot a man armed with a knife. If you can't use a gun responsibly, you shouldn't have one.
Re: (Score:2)
I only know what you wrote about that situation but am curious: is the cop excepted in this situation to put down his gun and pull out a knife?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part about body armour, taser, and pepper spray? And let's not forget that they usually outnumber the perp, AND they can call for backup.
Re: (Score:2)
So ask for the perp to wait for the backup? Try to aim for their face with pepper spray> Hope that the taser is enough to stop them from charging. Not to mention pulling that stuff out and getting it armed and ready versus pulling a trigger on a gun.
If someone breaks into my house, even if I had a taser and pepper spray, shooting them in the chest would be my go to response. And not because I think I'm tough. Quite the opposite. I imagine I could be overpowered quite easily which is why I would not
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually shot a gun before? The reason you aim for the chest is because that is the largest area of mass. Shooting at moving legs are not as easy as the movies make it look.
Re: No it won't (Score:2)
You may wish to read their post again. Selective editing, or just poor reading comprehension?
Re: (Score:2)
Other countries have almost nobody killed by cops, and almost no cops killed by anyone - way lower per capita rates than the US. Fix your country or keep killing yourselves -
The problem here is threefold. Guns are legal, plentiful and easily obtained without even a background check if you buy from a gun show.
Almost anyone a police officer approaches could be armed. Of course they're jumpy and quick to reach for a gun. Any attempted arrest could be their last.
Secondly you have a police force that are TRAINED to think that any arrest could be their last. They are actively trained to treat every civilian as armed... because as stated in first point, more often than in other co
Re: (Score:2)
Cool (Score:5, Funny)
I can already picture the scene. We're getting some sort of hybrid human/cam cop. The body cam will give constant instructions.
Cop at side of road: *holds up his hand*
You: *brake, roll down window*
You: "Uh hi officer"
Cop: "Hi, nothing to worry about, but I just wanted to tell you that your left brake lig"
Body cam: "SUSPECT RECOGNIZED"
Cop: *covers body cam* "Sorry, sometimes it malfunctions"
Body cam in muffled voice: "SUSPECT NAME C. R. IMINAL, HIGHLY DANGEROUS SHOOT ON SIGHT, CERTAINTY INTERVAL AT LEAST 83 PERCENT"
Cop: "Sir, please step out of the car" *unholsters*
You: "I'm just on my way to pick up the kid from daycare"
Body cam: "KILL KILL KILL"
Re: (Score:2)
"Sir, please step out of the vehicle. You have 20 seconds to comply."
Re: (Score:3)
"Sir, please step out of the vehicle. You have 20 seconds to comply."
That's 19 second more than some people get now ... or you're an Australian woman who calls the police to report a possible sexual assault, and they kill you - and of course their body cameras are off [cnn.com].
We already know what their excuse will be - "I felt threatened so I shot her."
Re: (Score:2)
What we learned from that is if a white person is shot they get CPR but if a black person is shot then the police just stand around waiting for them to bleed out.
Re: (Score:2)
CPR doesn't help someone bleeding out.
Re: (Score:2)
Get back on the meds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they'd be so trigger-happy if everyone wore the equivalent of google glass? Streaming everything all the time? It's eventually going to come to something like that, so cops that don't turn on their body cams aren't going to have any evidence to show things from their point of view.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe he dosent want to kill innocent bystanders or steal thier money with asset forfeiture.
With Sessions at the helm, asset forfeiture is going to get even worse [washingtonpost.com]. Sessions said "we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures". If you think the american public is being robbed now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? It's a direct quote by Sessions but since it's from the evil "liberal media" you immediately dismiss it? Fine, here's [foxnews.com] the same fucking story from Fox News, so that partisan shitheads like you can believe it. It's people like you, who only believe facts if they are reported by their "team" that make shit like asset forfeiture (and "economic policies, a congress too willing to tax-and-spend-like-the-world's-gonna-end, and special legislative 'regulations' that really do more to protect a single cor
Re: (Score:2)
Is person in uniform?
Y: Disengage
N: Target - Open Fire
Re: (Score:2)
Before & after (Score:3)
After facial recognition: - the camera says that's him and he's dangerous, shoot!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have terrible facial recognition personally. (Probably linked to my aphantasia).
I frequently have people walking up to me and talking to me, and I have no clue who the hell they are or why I know them. It's a pain in the rear. If I were a cop, I've no doubt I'd trust the computer's facial recognition better than I would my own.
Type 2 errors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>So what happens when the camera reports a false positive?
They stop and question you. They check your ID. Depending on who it thinks you are, possibly after putting cuffs on you.
And - after the first innocent person is harassed to the edge of sanity and sues - they eventually stop using the cameras as anything but a small portion of their decision-making process.
Re: (Score:3)
And - after the first innocent person is harassed to the edge of sanity and sues - they eventually stop using the cameras as anything but a small portion of their decision-making process.
The police are already harassing many people past the point of sanity, but they're not being forced to change their decision-making process (brown? open fire!) now. What makes you think they'd be forced to change their decision-making process in that case?
Re: (Score:2)
>The computer isn't racist or classist
Interestingly enough... not true! Statistically, there's disproportionate number of non-whites convicted of crimes on a per capita basis, which means your AI training is very likely going to be done with an image pool biased towards identifying non-white faces as criminals.
When a human does this, we call it racism and the accused racist usually says something like, "no, in this area it's just true".
The results will be similar with the proposed system - it'll identif
Re: (Score:2)
"The company will be sued out of existence." Really? How many cities have been sued out of existence by cops killing people?
Re: (Score:2)
and the os will BSOD so all the video get is some error screen.
Insanely higher false positives than advertised (Score:2, Interesting)
The "birthday paradox" causes facial recognition to report matches far far more often that you expect. Assume you have 1000 crooks pictures. Instead of 1 change in100 of an error and 1 comparison when you scan a person, it's 1 chance of an error in 100 on _1000_ comparisons. That makes one out of every 10 people you scan show up as a crook, whether they are or not.
The german federal security service and my emplyer tried this a long time ago, but no matter how good the recognition got, there were thousand
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think the upper bound of accuracy is for each comparison?
Your average human might "know" 1,000 people, but I doubt they have more than a 2-3% failure rate, skewing to the higher end for people they don't see often. If you factor in the probability of a particular individual being in an area, things can be tightened up as well. (Potentially offsetting location probability against likelihood that someone is trying to conceal their identity.)
Facial recognition can only really work as part of a big
The photo database is the DMV (Score:3)
So as soon as they implement this, they'll have everyone's image who has a valid driver's license, and be able to reference them quickly.
Then they'll know the arrest record and everything else attached to your permanent record, which may be good or bad for you.
Cue Orwellian comments, some of which are justified.
Re: (Score:2)
no the photo database is Facebook. Thats why they and google combined, had more Oval Office meetings with Obummer than all other lobbyist, advisors, and corporations combined. Did you really think it was so Obummer could update his profile status to 'its complicated' ? Facebook gets people to voluntarily upload countless images (not just a single face-on DMV photo) to the database and by way of 'tagging' profiles to the pictures can eventually determine which recurring images belong to which people.
cant see it surviving the supreme court (Score:2)
I believe its already been deemed a violation of the 4th amendment that protects against illegal search, for a cop to randomly stop someone and take fingerprints to run against a database. They will most likely see this as an extension of the same thing. Its one thing for a human to recognize someone from a stack of APBs or sketches. Its entirely different for AI to perform facial recognition. Even wearing a disguise the AI can identify the correct person with an alarmingly high rate of accuracy. Forcing s
Is anyone working on scramble suits? (Score:2)
I think it would be a popular product
Only when they're turned on. (Score:2)
Re: Anyone can buy one, right? (Score:2)