In 2011, taken by the emergence of mass protest movements around the world, artist Zach Blas began making, "Facial Weaponization Suite, (2011 - present)."[Video]
Facial Weaponization Suite is a series of community workshops which discuss and resist biometric facial recognition technologies and the larger political ethos which supports and enforces them. The workshop participants then have their own faces scanned and compiled into a collective mask, a mask which resists any biometric quantification. Vice got Blas on the phone to learn a little more about the project.
The mask does appear to defeat the many algorithms that are currently employed by tracking cameras that are used in many countries. Of course, some countries have already brought in or at least proposed legislation to ban the wearing of any kind of mask in public (unless a masquerade party is being held) but, in the case of a mass demonstration, it might be enough to protect an individual from being recognised or having their movements tracked unless (s)he was physically detained. How long will it be before legislation is brought in to outlaw the manufacture or sale of such masks?
Related Stories
As part of modernisation plans for the FBI's IAFIS database they are including facial recognition. But when asked whether the new system will use photos from drivers licenses, an FBI spokesman said, "I don't think so. The Next Gen Identification, as I understand it, is about mug shots."
You might be forgiven for doubting that, given that many states now require that driver's license photos be "facial recognition ready." Also known as the "no smiling rule."
Forbes has some suggestions for how to protect yourself. Unfortunately, the best ones, big sunglasses and weird asymmetrical marks, won't pass muster at the DMV. Less effective, but at least DMV-passable countermeasures include completely covering your ears with hair and your mouth with a beard (or, less effectively, for the ladies, applying lipstick to make your mouth appear wider).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @05:49PM
Guy Fawkes mask. Problem solved.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday July 11 2014, @06:06PM
That seems the most appropriate choice indeeed.
I came here to post that myself, but you beat me to it. *tip o' the hat to ya*
I think that this whack-a-mole escapade will get quite interesting from here, on out.
I can see street vendors peddling disguise kits, theatrical make-up shops setting up booths, etc...after a while nobody will know what anyone else REALLY looks like. It could be kinda fun...;-)
I'm glad I kept that old R.M. Nixon mask from the 1970's, it might be handy!
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday July 11 2014, @06:37PM
The problem with conventional masks is that the tracking algorithm used in cameras can still identify a "face" in its view, and track it even when several similar masks meet in the same view. The new mask doesn't even trigger the tracking algorithm - the person is simply ignored by the camera. There is a part of the video which shows this effect - I was impressed.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @07:06PM
An important part of this story is that the guy is an artist. His goals aren't just to stymie the face trackers but also to call attention to how this technology is focused on the disenfranchised in both obvious and non-obvious ways.
We've already seen how much simpler masks [huffingtonpost.com] are used without (intentionally) making an artistic statement.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday July 11 2014, @11:03PM
Oh. You said "Faces".
Nevermind...
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Saturday July 12 2014, @03:30AM
Admit it. The mask is actually for the annual "Point Break" film festival.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:58PM
What is a "Point Break" festival?
Never heard of it, and if it involves movies, I'm not interested.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday July 11 2014, @06:02PM
I misread the title, and almost spit coffee all over the desk.
You are already starting to see Anti-Mask laws [wikipedia.org], and they have been in place for a long time in many different countries. Some of these kick in only when there is a demonstration or "riot", others are full time.
For a while LED hats (brim full of UV or IR LEDs were all the rage, with instructions on how to make them posted in several places, including youtube. These links are slowly disappearing, and I suggest its for a reason.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @06:09PM
I thought the title was implying using ugly faces as weapons because they're so ugly just looking at them could cause blindness.
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Friday July 11 2014, @06:23PM
Ah, the Basilisk weapon [wikipedia.org].
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) this dread weapon has been overcome by beer goggles, and blindness has been overcome, although there is still the occasional morning run from the bedroom screaming and clutching one's eyes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 11 2014, @08:03PM
Perhaps clever (engineered) use of makeup could thwart recognition algorithms?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @08:21PM
> Perhaps clever (engineered) use of makeup could thwart recognition algorithms?
Here's a similar art project along those lines. [cvdazzle.com]
(Score: 1) by mrchew1982 on Friday July 11 2014, @10:18PM
Bravo. I was trying to remember what it was called. The trouble is that it's not exactly subtle...
(Score: 2) by lgsoynews on Friday July 11 2014, @08:10PM
As always in the big privacy debate (ie: the fight against the worrying erosion of privacy), this misses the point: using technical means to try to fend-off the ever more present surveillance/spying is a losing proposition.
First, because as soon as a technical solution appears (encryption, VPNs, face-masks), it is going to be banned (usually with unintended results: see the attempts to ban or curb encryption use).
Second, because it will result in the usual "spear vs shield" spiral: a better shield calls for a better spear, which in turn calls for a better shield, ad nauseum...
Third, because of the asymmetry between the people who spy/intrude on our privacy: states & big companies, vs the "common man", with the added problem that most people don't even realize the danger.
I'm very concerned by the downward spiral toward total surveillance that we have witnessed those last decades. It seems to be accelerating, and is a perfect illustration of how technical progress can be misused. I'm really afraid of the short/middle term future. And most people don't ralize how close we are to a total loss of privacy (including in our homes). With any luck the NSA's scandal will help to raise awareness, but I have doubts.
The real solution is NOT technical. It is a matter a politics & ethics (don't laugh) at the level of governements. And I'm afraid that pushing back is going to be VERY hard, and I'm very pessimistic seeing how each new moral panic is used as a tool toward more and more surveillance. In fact, I think that it's already too late to reverse the trend.
The worst risk being that the next generations, being raised in such "no-privacy" environments, won't even realize it's wrong. That's my worst fear.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 11 2014, @09:33PM
I don't laugh, I just not holding my breadth until an ethical government emerges.
Until then, even the semi-passive resistance of using non-lethal technical means as civil disobedience seems a more likely way to push back.
Speaking about "missing the point" - the "spear vs shield spiral" assumes a symmetry. Well, break the symmetry and slide into diversification, especially if those means are cheap to produce but expensive to defeat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday July 11 2014, @09:18PM
Weaponization? Really? Are you sure you don't mean "disguising"?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by mrchew1982 on Friday July 11 2014, @10:16PM
The scramble suit was an invention of the Bell laboratories, conjured up by accident by an employee named S. A. Powers... Basically, his design consisted of a multifaceted quartz lens hooked up to a million and a half physiognomic fraction-representations of various people: men and women, children, with every variant encoded and then projected outward in all directions equally onto a superthin shroudlike membrane large enough to fit around an average human.
As the computer looped through its banks, it projected every conceivable eye color, hair color, shape and type of nose, formation of teeth, configuration of facial bone structure - the entire shroudlike membrane took on whatever physical characteristics were projected at any nanosecond, then switched to the next...
In any case, the wearer of a scramble suit was Everyman and in every combination (up to combinations of a million and a half sub-bits) during the course of each hour. Hence, any description of him - or her - was meaningless.
-Philip K. Dick
(Score: 2) by lubricus on Saturday July 12 2014, @04:39PM
Of course, the fact that the mask can defeat biometrics is not the point. If that were all you want you could just carry wear a paper plate on your face and be slightly less conspicuous than the people with these masks, plus have plausible deniability if someone caught you carrying it.
As a protest mask, I think I'd still prefer Guy Fawkes.
... sorry about the typos