Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 28 2020, @09:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the positive-side-effect dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2020, @04:54PM (9 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 29 2020, @04:54PM (#1028173) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 29 2020, @05:20PM (8 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday July 29 2020, @05:20PM (#1028182) Journal

    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)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 29 2020, @05:57PM (#1028202) Journal

      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)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday July 29 2020, @09:41PM (#1028313)

        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)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 29 2020, @10:08PM (#1028320) Journal

          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)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday July 29 2020, @10:48PM (#1028340)

            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)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 30 2020, @01:13AM (#1028405) Journal

              *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)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday July 30 2020, @01:31AM (#1028411)

                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)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:18AM (#1028432) Journal

                  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

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:45AM (#1028445)

                    ...I don't think you can make a case that unidentifiable thugs are protecting the Federal building.

                    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.