Well, I was going off this quote in the article:
(Emphasis mine)
See my above comment for #1. For #2, this is true, but also requires you to keep looking down at all times. Look up for one second and the computers have caught ya. Of course, that also applies if it’s a windy day and the wind blows your silly obscuring bangs look out of your face with the dazzle method… But I guess if you paste em down real good you’ll be fine.
Sure, that’s what the article says, but it’s not the main point of CV dazzle. Again, if the NSA just wanted to know if faces appeared at all, without caring who they were, there are much better algorithms they could write that wouldn’t be fooled by dazzle, like finding a whole body.
Going by the CVDazzle homepage, it does seem to be the main point of CV dazzle:
That requires a whole body to be there. In a crowd of hundreds of people where all you have is faces, rudimentary facial detection algorithms are pretty much all you can go on.
The way they deal with the issue is to keep track of other parts of the face. Yeah, they can’t see the parts you cover up, so they’re not much use for people wearing balaclavas and sunglasses, but if they’ve got good picture resolution to work with, they can still get some results with what they can see. (Maybe not as good results as the vendors brag about, or as the cops brag about when they’re trying to get funding to blanket your local stadium with surveillance cameras to prevent the “going dark” problem caused by people wearing baseball hats to baseball games, but still, it’s something they can work with.)
Yeah it is. This (for the moment) fools facial recognition no worse when 100 people are wearing it than with 1. It’s ‘camouflage’ based on making your face not register as a face to recognition software, and that will work whether you’re the only one on the street wearing it or everyone it.
How well do they do with persons in long skirts and robes?
Hello,
I wonder if pairing the facepainting with small flashing IR LED emitters worn in proximity to the face (glasses, jewelry, etc.) would further confuse camera focus systems.
I am not certain. The best answer would be rigging up a test system with several face-similarity processing algorithms, and running tests and seeing the degradation of the recognition ability in dependence to the countermeasures used.
That way, we can evolve the scheme step by step, seeing which step was in the right direction, and backing off those deemed inefficient or counterproductive.
heeeyyy, nice dingo balls, man!
Relevant video. Steve Rambam from HOPE X. Addresses lots of issues, including face and gait recognition.
facial recognition systems already look at multiple parts of the face, but the fewer parts there are available, the less unique the resulting information is, and the less accurate (to a significant degree) any kind of recognition will be - and that has nothing to do with how sophisticated the system is because we humans would have problems too. when was the last time you accurately identified someone after seeing only their lips and chin, for example?
Here’s an interesting test suite:
I’m going to believe that those are pictures of people with bee allergies who were recently stung. The alternative is too depressing to contemplate.
I think they’re photos from Aerosmith’s most recent gig.
That, or they are actually splicers.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
