SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
U.S. agency: Pandemic masks thwarting face recognition tech:
Having a tough time recognizing your neighbors behind their pandemic masks? Computers are finding it more difficult, too.
A preliminary study published by a U.S. agency on Monday found that even the best commercial facial recognition systems have error rates as high as 50% when trying to identify masked faces.
The mask problem is why Apple earlier this year made it easier for iPhone owners to unlock their phones without Face ID. It could also be thwarting attempts by authorities to identify individual people at Black Lives Matter protests and other gatherings.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology says it is launching an investigation to better understand how facial recognition performs on covered faces. Its preliminary study examined only those algorithms created before the pandemic, but its next step is to look at how accuracy could improve as commercial providers adapt their technology to an era when so many people are wearing masks.
Some companies, including those that work with law enforcement, have tried to tailor their face-scanning algorithms to focus on people's eyes and eyebrows.
NIST, which is a part of the Commerce Department, is working with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security's science office to study the problem.
Aww, I feel so bad for the little guy! Perhaps we can help out by training up a neural net to correlate masked and unmasked photos.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 28 2020, @10:03PM (40 children)
You might have something there, if the feds were going out into the neighborhoods, and gassing moms who were home minding their children. But, the Federal building is in the exact same place it was when all the crap started. It hasn't moved into the 'hood. Still right there. These "protestors" are coming to the Federal building, with hate in their hearts, and violence on their minds.
(Score: 4, Informative) by isostatic on Tuesday July 28 2020, @10:24PM (39 children)
That’s what US police do - drive round neighbourhoods shooting people on their porches.
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/30/light-em-up-video-appears-to-show-law-enforcement-shooting-paint-rounds-at-citizens-on-their-porch/ [cbslocal.com]
And you all love it
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 28 2020, @10:45PM (38 children)
No one shoots back?
Oh, sorry, stupid question. This is a liberal city, with liberal leaders, so no one has guns to shoot back.
(Score: 5, Informative) by TheReaperD on Tuesday July 28 2020, @10:56PM (5 children)
My liberal ass with a HK .40 S&W disagrees.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 28 2020, @11:10PM (4 children)
Reading your post literally paints a helluva mental picture. Dude, you're holding it wrong!
(Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Tuesday July 28 2020, @11:30PM (3 children)
Ok, I walked into that one.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @12:07AM (2 children)
> Ok, I walked into that one.
Ok, I backed into that one.
ftfy
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @12:19AM (1 child)
It backfired.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @06:25AM
This sub-thread smells... of gunpowder and something nasty.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 28 2020, @11:24PM (30 children)
That sounds like people are having to protect themselves and their neighbours from an occupying army.
The fact that you're happy with it because they are "liberals" is awful.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 28 2020, @11:28PM (29 children)
It's the life they voted for. You notice that shit ain't happening here, in my home town? In Texas, it's only happening in Austin, where all the immigrants from California settled. You don't see it happening in Texarkana, or Lubbock, or Armadillo. Hell, it isn't even happening in Hell Paso, or Laredo, or anyplace else on the border!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 28 2020, @11:44PM (27 children)
Are you claiming those people voted for an invasion by paramilitary forces?
I would like to see a citation for that. And an explanation as to why you think that is a good thing.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2020, @12:16AM (26 children)
They voted liberal. Liberal mayors, liberal city councils, liberal governors stand around and watch while anarchists burn the city down. They voted for it, now they're acting on their votes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @12:44AM
Reeaallly getting desperate to not have to own up to Trump being a fascist swamp thing huh?
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 29 2020, @12:57AM (24 children)
Weirdly everytime I see those "looters" on TV, they turn out to be a bunch of people standing around holding signs.
The "police" however are wearing military uniforms and carrying weapons, just like an occupying army.
It's funny how reality doesn't often match Fox News' commentary isn't it?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2020, @01:16AM (23 children)
You watch Fox News? Maybe that's part of your problem.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 29 2020, @01:33AM (22 children)
Nice.
You don't feel like explaining why these "liberals" you hate should have their homes invaded by soldiers?
It's all right, I get it. It is completely indefensible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2020, @01:58AM (21 children)
Liberals or conservatives, the constitution says their homes are their homes. Soldiers have no right or authority to invade your homes. I did ask why no one shoots back, did I not? If a community watch were to organize, and drive these thugs out of their community, I would support them. I have fifteen acres, which NO ONE tells me if, when, or how I might make use of. These folks have a little dirt lot, a porch, and the insides of their homes. NO ONE has the right to tell them they must be inside, or off the porch, or whatever.
SHOOT THE FUCK BACK!! I know I would!
But, back to my other comment: People living in most liberal run cities have surrendered their right to arm themselves. So, they are at the mercy of thugs marching through the street.
You want me to come to their neighborhoods and help them?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 29 2020, @02:11AM (20 children)
Oh, right, so lies again. I didn't think cities or states were allowed to change the constitution by themselves, and you gun guys keep telling everyone all about the 2nd Amendment, so how did they get to opt out of that?
Maybe they just "voted" it away.
If you think shooting back at those soldiers is going to get you anything other than dead, you're delusional.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2020, @02:48AM (19 children)
One guy shooting will be dead, real quick. If an entire neighborhood arms up, and meets the thugs head on, some people are probably going to die, but it won't all be the good guys.
And, no, I've told no lies here. The city of Shitcago votes for libbies year after year, decade after decade, who promise to write more laws against guns. Liberals literally run on a platform of depriving you of your rights. And, people vote for them. That is synonymous with voting away your right to arm yourself.
Those cops in the video should be quite literally AFRAID to go marauding through a neighborhood, shooting people with paintballs, or beanbags, or bullets, or flashbang grenades, or anything else. I'm with the cops in Portland, defending federal property from hooligans. I'm against cops marauding through neighborhoods.
Stand up together, tell them it won't be tolerated, gun 'em down if they insist. Stop whining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @02:58AM (1 child)
Have you heard of tanks and heavier weaponry?
Now, tell us you have a tank that you want to bring in and help... the feds have access to fucking thousands of them... good luck.
(posting AC, as I've modded on here)
(Score: 2) by chromas on Friday July 31 2020, @11:24PM
You don't have to worry about that here :)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 29 2020, @03:00AM (12 children)
If an entire neighbourhood shoots at the military forces that are invading their cities, then they will all die.
Unless you have some anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons?
No they don't, and you have still not explained why these Americans should have to defend themselves from the federal government.
Of course you are, you love all that authoritarian crap.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2020, @04:51AM (11 children)
There's this little saying, about a tree of life, needing to be refreshed from time to time. Something about the blood of tyrants - and patriots.
Those who will not stand up and be counted, will simply be walked on, walked over, and forgotten.
BTW, that video of people being shot with paintball guns? Those weren't feds. Those were police and national guard. That is, it's an internal matter. The state government seems to be oppressing these folk, unlike the situation in Portland.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 29 2020, @04:32PM (10 children)
Army National Guard : About Us : Federal Mission [nationalguard.mil]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2020, @04:54PM (9 children)
Yes, and, your point is what, exactly?
The state National Guard amounts to that state's private army. It is an academic exercise, as to whether the 50 separate National Guards, if allied against the US Army, has the power to defeat the feds. There are some problems, such as shared facilities, that would have to be hammered out early. If the Guard were to seize some number of US Army bases and facilities, and/or if some of the Army and Army Reserve units were to defect to the Guard side, anything could happen.
But, the Guard are not Federal troops, unless and until the governor of the state agrees, and signs over authority.
We are, of course, talking about a civil war situation here. Potus and the Pentagon claim ultimate authority over the Guard, but the Guard would have to submit to that authority before it became real.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 29 2020, @05:20PM (8 children)
Federalized National Guard Troops who are reporting to the President of the US and ignoring the State government telling them to go home ARE feds.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2020, @05:57PM (7 children)
I've not seen this. To date, as far as I know, the only NG units in use in these cities, were called out by the governors involved. Citations needed, even if from #fakenews CNN, saying that Trump is calling out NG.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 29 2020, @09:41PM (6 children)
The major problem was the unidentified soldiers pulling people off the streets in unmarked vans, detaining them, then releasing them without charge.
When the Soviet Union used to do that to Russians, I'm sure you thought it was a bad thing.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2020, @10:08PM (5 children)
The Soviet wasn't known for releasing the people it whisked away. Once whisked off of the streets, you were bound for a Gulag, or a re-education camp, or one of the death-labor camps, or you were going to be summarily executed.
Did you say something about "released without charge"?? Don't be overly sure of that. The feds witnessed and recorded many instances of criminal acts. Some suspects were detained, identified, and questioned. Charges may be filed against any of those individuals, at any time, right up until the statute of limitations expires for whichever crime applies. They have been released, they can wait and wonder if there will be formal charges filed in federal court.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday July 29 2020, @10:48PM (4 children)
That sounds like a shitty way to have to live.
Imagine being plucked off the streets by a group of unidentified men in camouflage gear, bundled into an unmarked van and taken somewhere, then released, but not knowing if you're about to be charged with a crime, or even which one of the various secret agencies have even been holding you.
It sounds very Soviet to me.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 30 2020, @01:13AM (3 children)
*cough*
I would be VERY surprised if none of those agents identified him/herself during questioning. At this point we only have one person's account of his interrogation (that I'm aware of) and he seems to milking the event for notoriety.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 30 2020, @01:31AM (2 children)
Way more than one person, and none of the agents had identifying patches on their uniforms, as you can see from the many photos floating around.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:18AM (1 child)
We've gone over that claim in depth. The photo that Deathmonkey submitted as "evidence" that totally anonymous thugs were rampaging through the streets was photoshopped. The original photo, taken in poor lighting, shows plenty of evidence of indentifier badges on those troops. Are you doubling down on that original photoshopped photo, or do you have new "evidence" that these agents are impossible to identify?
If you want to make a case that those identifier badges should be high visibility, or at least higher than is evident, fine. I may well agree with you. But, I don't think you can make a case that unidentifiable thugs are protecting the Federal building.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:45AM
Protecting the federal building [businessinsider.com] doesn't seem to be the problem, it is snatching people off the streets Oregon is objecting to.
You should be too, there are supposed to be protections against that sort of thing.
According to the state of Oregon's suit, the federal agents involved were "unidentified".
I thought Republicans were all for states' rights. I guess only for some states.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:44PM (3 children)
You mean... We should all live like we're in the ghetto? Where cops are afraid to go, and everyone is armed for their own protection?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:07PM (2 children)
How much do you want here?
Yes, cops should be fearful of accosting people at random. There have been so many bullshit examples of shit policing in this country. New York's 'Stop and Frisk' leads as a fascist as well as racist policy. The cops should have been fearful of throwing every second or third black person up against the wall, to search them. Actually, the cops should have rebelled against the policy, and told the politicians to go fuck themselves. "If you want to stop and frisk, get your fat political ass out here, and do the stopping and frisking!"
Worse, much of what the cops were searching for, should not be illegal. A gun? A knife? Numchucks? Some grass? Loose cigarettes being sold individually? A roach clip? Unless and until most of things are OBSERVED being used to do something illegal, they should be legal. Harder drugs - well - that's a little different, but a police force doesn't have any right or authority to just search people randomly because someone in the crowd MIGHT HAVE illegal hard drugs.
I want to repeal all the guns laws. I want to repeal that supposedly "limited" immunity that cops enjoy. And, I want to see cops be held accountable for their actions. No more hiding behind some magic cloak of "I'm just obeying orders, and I can't be prosecuted for anything I do."
Yes, the cops should be afraid of going into someone's home, tossing grenades around, shooting anything that moves, and dragging anyone they don't like to jail. Where's the fucking insurrection?
Chicago is just as bad as New York. Odd, Los Angeles doesn't make it into the news for such gross violations of human rights. What's with that?
Why don't my local police do this same shit around here? Because they know damned well that they'll be met at the door by an armed citizen, who is more than willing to defend himself, and his family, as well as his property.
I have, quite literally, told police to get the fuck off my property. And, they obeyed. The cops involved made threatening noises, to salve their egos, but they got the fuck off my property. Why? Because the crazy old bastard has weapons, as well as enough sons and stepsons to make an army squad.
New York and Chicago? FFS, everything is wrong there. Police have no fear, and they walk on anyone they want to walk on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:58PM (1 child)
A big problem is that police in cities mostly live in the suburbs, residency requirements be damned. Not many people will beat up their neighbor without good cause...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 30 2020, @07:16PM
Yes. That is part of the "systemic" that the liberals are talking about. Each and every part of the system that can be fixed, needs to be fixed. Establish residency requirements where they don't exist, and enforce them where they do exist. A person who deems himself too good to live in my neighborhood, is also too good to work in it. And, he's damned well too good to be telling me and my neighbors how to live!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:07AM
One big difference between Austin and the other sites you mentioned, a person is allowed to have a dissenting opinion on a topic in Austin. It is even encouraged. In them other places, not so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @04:54AM
" This is a liberal city, with liberal leaders, so no one has guns to shoot back."
Dude. Portland may be one of them SJW liberal city, but it's still in the West - plenty of them pack heat.