Facial Recognition Designed To Detect Around Face Masks Is Failing, Study Finds (cnet.com) 37
Many facial recognition companies have claimed they can identify people with pinpoint accuracy even while they're wearing face masks, but the latest results from a study show that the coverings are dramatically increasing error rates. CNET reports: In an update Tuesday, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology looked at 41 facial recognition algorithms submitted after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in mid-March. Many of these algorithms were designed with face masks in mind, and claimed that they were still able to accurately identify people, even when half of their face was covered. In July, NIST released a report noting that face masks were thwarting regular facial recognition algorithms, with error rates ranging from 5% to 50%. NIST is widely considered the leading authority on facial recognition accuracy testing, and expected algorithms to improve on identifying people in face masks. That day has yet to come, as every algorithm experienced at least marginal increases in error rates once masks came into the picture. While some algorithms still had accuracy overall, like Chinese facial recognition company Dahua's algorithm error rate going from 0.3% without masks to 6% with masks, others had error rates that increased up to 99%.
Rank One, a facial recognition provider used in cities like Detroit, had an error rate of 0.6% without masks, and a 34.5% error rate once masks were digitally applied. In May, the company started offering "periocular recognition," which claimed to be able to identify people just off their eyes and nose. TrueFace, which is used in schools and on Air Force bases, saw its algorithm error rate go from 0.9% to 34.8% once masks were added. The company's CEO, Shaun Moore, told CNN on Aug. 12 that its researchers were working on a better algorithm for detecting beyond masks.
Rank One, a facial recognition provider used in cities like Detroit, had an error rate of 0.6% without masks, and a 34.5% error rate once masks were digitally applied. In May, the company started offering "periocular recognition," which claimed to be able to identify people just off their eyes and nose. TrueFace, which is used in schools and on Air Force bases, saw its algorithm error rate go from 0.9% to 34.8% once masks were added. The company's CEO, Shaun Moore, told CNN on Aug. 12 that its researchers were working on a better algorithm for detecting beyond masks.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good.
Ha (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
Good.
Came to say exactly this, and to add that at least something good has come out of Covid-19. Also, fuck facial recognition and the various corporate and political regimes that are using it to turn even the aware and unwilling into cattle.
Re: (Score:3)
People are also starting to realise that a mask doesn't have to be plain white.
Decorated/funny mask designs are being accepted as OK, if not mainstream/normal. Wearing a mask with artwork, a cartoon, an animal print or a kooky face design is seen as amusing, not a threat.
What western govt is going to ban masks with funny facial prints? I feel sorry for all the taxpayers in jurisdictions that have extensive surveillance infrastructure - looking at you, UK. All that money spent on cameras that have suddenly l
Re: (Score:2)
Facemask, sunglasses and hats guarantee that facial recognition fails every time. As for decorations of the face mask, use some one else's lower face for shits and giggles, "Where's Waldo", oh my god, "Bloody Everywhere". I personally do not hold with them and will refuse to wear them, refuse the fine and do the time, as long as it takes.
The problem with facemask is you breathing out through them, building up moisture from you lungs, micro saliva and snot particles, as well as your dead cells. This then bu
Re: (Score:2)
And snot particles, etc are not present on any surfaces you might contact? Have you lived in close contact with other people, including children, lately? Children are germ factories, get used to it. Exposure to dirt and other children is the best way to build up a child's immune system. Yes, vaccines are part of the solution, but they can't cover the whole range of disease and immunity..
Keeping the disease party going, as you put it, isn't a bad thing, though. You must continue to challenge your immune syst
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I.. {deep breath}....what the fuck are you trying to achieve?
You need to go back to school. You need to learn how to form a cohesive thought, and then to form a cohesive argument, and then to communicate it effectively. You're not doing any of those things.
It's obvious where you're coming from. something.cn
You have this belief that westerners are stupid. Please, hang on to that belief. Really, you're right. We're all stupid. Keep doing what you're doing, you'll win the war.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this.
Re: (Score:2)
Good.
Except, Sony already solved this problem in 1998: https://fossbytes.com/sony-acc... [fossbytes.com]
We'll have to start wearing tinfoil masks... to match our hats.
Re: (Score:1)
Took my exact post and you did it with frost piss. I feel kind of meaningless now. Bit of an existential crisis.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"but they definitely don't have my permission to video/audio record me walking by their house, buying something in their store, riding in their car, going anywhere near them, etc."
You're in public, douchebag, you have no expectation of privacy. Shit, are you really this stupid?
Iris and fingerrprint scan are not impeded. (Score:2)
That is all
Re: (Score:3)
That is what sunglasses and gloves are for.
Re: (Score:2)
if you're getting iris and fingerprint scans from people you might just as well ask them for the papers. you've already stopped them. at which point the guy might remember you anyway from your attire and such.
look, any sort of super duper snooping on everyone is going to need so much manpower anyways that you might just as well do it with the manpower. since usa can't even get enough volunteers to count votes by hand in a reasonable time and "needs" to use machines for that, what are the chances of successf
This makes me happy (Score:2, Insightful)
www.fark.com/politics
Re: (Score:1)
How terribly surprising (Score:3)
I can't imagine how anyone might have predicted that covering half a face would make it harder to recognize. I mean, duh. I mean, even the best[1] face recognizers out there (you know, the human type creatures that have the faces?) have trouble when half the face is covered.
[1] Probably debatable but it doesn't detract from the point, really.
Re: (Score:1)
Mind Blown (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, who would have ever guessed that something that covers your face would be a problem for facial recognition?
Up next, a new study shows that "closing your eyes makes everything go dark."
Re: (Score:3)
closing your eyes makes everything go dark
there is no properly implemented study proving this, and therefor we will work on the assumption that it is not true.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like parachutes. Until we do a double-blind peer reviewed study involving a control group with sugar pills jumping from 4km up we must assume that parachutes do nothing to protect the user.
Re: (Score:2)
Up next, a new study shows that "closing your eyes makes everything go dark."
That is silly. But closing your eyes thwarts retinal scanning.
Re: (Score:2)
Batman.
New idea (Score:2)
Cover the face (Score:2)
This is how we get people to mask up (Score:2)
Spread the word on this study by all means available! Those among us who believe that targeted online advertising means that Red China has come to us will be the first to put those masks on.
Brilliant (Score:1)
Yet, the conspiracy theories... (Score:2)
USA, USA, USA! (Score:3)
So the Chinese company's technology wipes the floor with the American companies?
Re: (Score:1)
Sigh. (Score:3)
Shocked, shocked I tell you!
So the system that already has atrocious false positive/false negative rates even under perfect conditions is hindered further when half the data it works on (someone's face) is obscured.
Whod've thunk?
As I keep telling people (most of whom have obviously never set foot in the UK, much less lived here) when people try to tell me how terrible my own country is based on an decades-old tabloid article full of bullshit about the number of cameras per person (not even distinguishing state vs private), it really wouldn't matter even if it vaguely reflected reality. Facial recognition sucks, especially en-masse in crowds.
All the facial recognition trials police have done have resulted in nothing more than incidental arrests, and those happen even on false positives (i.e. some guy had something on him he shouldn't have, but the system confused him with a known terrorist. So he's innocent of whatever the system flagged him for, but gets arrested on some incidental charge anyway), and you'd do better just stopping people based on a dice roll.
This shit just doesn't work. It's a gimmick to open your laptop (and, incidentally, stupid if you think it's securing any of your data).