A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 2nd 07, 08:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
as criminals or targets.

  #2  
Old September 3rd 07, 12:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Unclaimed Mysteries[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

Rich wrote:
Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
as criminals or targets.


To an unaccountable government, people already ARE criminals or targets.

ANY-way:

I'm pretty sure it's an extension of 2-D and 3-D pattern recognition
military research going back several decades to try to wring as much
information as possible from satellite photos. Now with better imaging,
more computing power and faster databases, all sorts of things are
possible, such as "gait recognition."

It's going to get to the point that people will have to make crazy faces
and perform Silly Walks ($1) to go incognito in public.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
  #3  
Old September 3rd 07, 08:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
Rich wrote:
Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
as criminals or targets.


To an unaccountable government, people already ARE criminals or targets.

ANY-way:

I'm pretty sure it's an extension of 2-D and 3-D pattern recognition
military research going back several decades to try to wring as much
information as possible from satellite photos. Now with better imaging,
more computing power and faster databases, all sorts of things are
possible, such as "gait recognition."

It's going to get to the point that people will have to make crazy faces
and perform Silly Walks ($1) to go incognito in public.


IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom. BTW, the
government making most use of this technology is British, where
surveillance cameras are vastly more common than in most countries.
  #4  
Old September 3rd 07, 11:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Unclaimed Mysteries[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

Ron Hunter wrote:
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
Rich wrote:
Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
as criminals or targets.


To an unaccountable government, people already ARE criminals or targets.

ANY-way:

I'm pretty sure it's an extension of 2-D and 3-D pattern recognition
military research going back several decades to try to wring as much
information as possible from satellite photos. Now with better
imaging, more computing power and faster databases, all sorts of
things are possible, such as "gait recognition."

It's going to get to the point that people will have to make crazy
faces and perform Silly Walks ($1) to go incognito in public.


IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom. BTW, the
government making most use of this technology is British, where
surveillance cameras are vastly more common than in most countries.



It's too early in the morning to be throwing out stinky bait like this.
"IF you have nothing to hide...?" C'mon.



CL

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

  #5  
Old September 3rd 07, 05:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
dr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

Ron Hunter wrote:

snip


IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom. BTW, the
government making most use of this technology is British, where
surveillance cameras are vastly more common than in most countries.


Doesn't this just mean we get to watch the crimes being committed though,
for ourlate night entertainment. Doesn't seem that all this CCTV serves any
other purpose at the moment !

d

  #6  
Old September 4th 07, 09:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

dr wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

snip
IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom. BTW, the
government making most use of this technology is British, where
surveillance cameras are vastly more common than in most countries.


Doesn't this just mean we get to watch the crimes being committed though,
for ourlate night entertainment. Doesn't seem that all this CCTV serves any
other purpose at the moment !

d

It can come in very handy should a crime be committed in a place where a
camera was on, and being recorded. Many crimes have been solved because
they took place across the street from an ATM with the camera on all the
time, or a security camera which recorded the incident. Other than such
an incident, the recording is usually written over in a few days.

Online cams are another matter.
  #7  
Old September 4th 07, 10:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
timeOday
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 225
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

Ron Hunter wrote:
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:

Rich wrote:

Seems like I remember years ago hearing about this to identify people
as criminals or targets.


To an unaccountable government, people already ARE criminals or targets.

ANY-way:

I'm pretty sure it's an extension of 2-D and 3-D pattern recognition
military research going back several decades to try to wring as much
information as possible from satellite photos. Now with better
imaging, more computing power and faster databases, all sorts of
things are possible, such as "gait recognition."

It's going to get to the point that people will have to make crazy
faces and perform Silly Walks ($1) to go incognito in public.


IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom.


Good, I think we badly need one in the Oval Office.
  #8  
Old September 5th 07, 02:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kennedy McEwen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

In article , Ron Hunter
writes

IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom.


In an infallible system that may be true and we all know that computers
and databases are infallible.

To make matters worse, should you ever find yourself recognised
erroneously, it will be almost impossible to prove your innocence
because so many people are just as gullible as you.

Computer say: "Guilty".

Allegedly, they crucified the last person who really had nothing to
hide. Everyone before and since has put some skeletons in the closet.
More than 2000 years after that event, the gullible still don't
understand that innocence, real or apparent, is no guarantee of freedom.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  #9  
Old September 5th 07, 08:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
writes

IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to hide,
then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom.


In an infallible system that may be true and we all know that computers
and databases are infallible.

To make matters worse, should you ever find yourself recognised
erroneously, it will be almost impossible to prove your innocence
because so many people are just as gullible as you.

Computer say: "Guilty".

Allegedly, they crucified the last person who really had nothing to
hide. Everyone before and since has put some skeletons in the closet.
More than 2000 years after that event, the gullible still don't
understand that innocence, real or apparent, is no guarantee of freedom.


Such issues are easily cleared up unless people are failing to think for
themselves. Cases like babies appearing on the 'do no fly' list.
Ludicrous!
  #10  
Old September 5th 07, 09:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kennedy McEwen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default "Face detection" technology from law enforcement or the military?

In article , Ron Hunter
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Ron
Hunter writes

IF you aren't in a criminal database, and IF you have nothing to
hide, then their pattern recognition is no threat to your freedom.

In an infallible system that may be true and we all know that
computers and databases are infallible.
To make matters worse, should you ever find yourself recognised
erroneously, it will be almost impossible to prove your innocence
because so many people are just as gullible as you.
Computer say: "Guilty".
Allegedly, they crucified the last person who really had nothing to
hide. Everyone before and since has put some skeletons in the closet.
More than 2000 years after that event, the gullible still don't
understand that innocence, real or apparent, is no guarantee of freedom.


Such issues are easily cleared up unless people are failing to think
for themselves. Cases like babies appearing on the 'do no fly' list.
Ludicrous!


That's precisely the problem, people DON'T think for themselves when
confronted with "Computer say: Guilty", especially when a metric of
their employment is how many convictions they can achieve. Everything
is stacked up to proceed with the prosecution no matter how much raw
evidence contradicts a computer "decision".

I have a friend & colleague who only recently managed to extricate
himself from one of these early "automated conviction" systems. More
than two years, and considerable personal expense, after being sent an
automated "notice of intent to prosecute", or NIPs as they are known
here, for allegedly jumping a red light in a town over 300 miles from
his home and which he had never visited in his life, the police have
finally accepted that it wasn't him that was involved at all, and
dropped the prosecution. The problem? Traffic light cameras, automatic
number plate recognition and a vehicle that was a similar colour -
though not even the same model - to his.

Sorry, but I don't care how sophisticated the technology is, recognising
faces by computer is always going to be more error prone than reading
seven alphanumeric digits - and they can't even do that with 100%
reliability. Irrespective of the technology's capabilities, the
authorities already demonstrate far too much faith in a computer
conclusion even when a cursory look at the original information
demonstrates that the "computer conviction" is wrong.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
We sell and supply Brand New Unlocked Nokia phones"""" Marc[_2_] Digital Photography 1 June 22nd 07 09:48 AM
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" [email protected] Digital Photography 1 February 1st 07 03:25 PM
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode ashjas Digital Photography 4 November 8th 06 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.