IPVMU Certified / IPVM Admin | 05/09/14 03:22pm
Meanwhile, URME wearers will now be kicked out of any bank they enter and receive the stinkeye from every police officer and paranoid soccer mom in existence.
Net / net, wear an uncomfortable mask that makes you look like a lunatic to defend against a technology that does not exist.
But wait John, that's only the tip of the stupidity iceberg! The real fun comes when you grant, for the sake of argument, that such military grade facial recognition does exist. Well, according to dude, everyone will ID as him worldwide. So how long has to go by until someone ID'd as him gets caught on camera killing or robbing or whatever (probably by someone foolishly using a pep-cam)... 10000 people in identical masks? Not long. After that LE gets to harrass or arrest, anyone wearing the mask!
The first day everyone wears the mask, everyone is anonymous to big brother. Hooray!
After 10 days everyone looks like a criminal. (Why do a couple of hooligans always have to ruin it for everybody else?)
After 100 days anyone wearing that mask would ID as possibly the most violent and depraved criminal the world has ever known, with enough accumulated sin to make Jesus blush.
If they have 'military-grade' facial recognition then they also probably have NASA-level retina scanning capabilities - for which URME does not provide a solution.
I think these will work just as well, and they wouldn't scare off most soccer moms:
No, this is the stupidest anti surveillance countermeasure:
n 1995, McArthur Wheeler robbed a Fidelity Savings Bank and a Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, PA, on the same day. According to police, he was accompanied by an accomplice, Clifton Earl Johnston. In order to disguise himself, Wheeler covered his face in lemon juice. Lemon juice has been used as a type of "invisible ink"; when used as ink on paper and allowed to dry, lemon juice only appears when heated. Wheeler used this fact as a basis to reason that placing unheated lemon juice on his face would render him invisible to bank security cameras. Police reviewed the video of the robberies and were able to arrest Wheeler the same day. The video tape was played on the 11 o'clock news; within minutes an informant had provided police with McArthur Wheeler's name and by 12:15 AM he was in police custody. When shown the surveillance tape from the robberies, Wheeler was shocked and objected: "But I wore the juice". Wheeler had tested his lemon juice hypothesis prior to proceeding with the robberies. After covering his face with lemon juice, he took a picture of himself using a Polaroid camera. At the time of Wheeler's arrest, he explained to one of the detectives handling his case, Sergeant Wally Long, that his face had failed to appear in the resulting photograph; a seeming confirmation of his theory. Detectives would speculate this result was caused by bad film, incorrect camera operation, or lemon juice in Mr Wheeler's eyes.
This incident inspired research that led to the formulation of the Dunning-Kruger effect we were discussing in another thread, in fact.
Think about this:
If you were a master criminal and wanted to make yourself bullet-proof from eyewitness identification, it would be difficult to find a better way than to somehow convince lots of other people to wear your face around in public.
At first glance, this looks stupid. But if you look/think deeper, this is the start of many things that the industry needs to look at further, whether to combat or look at from an ethics standpoint.
How do we defeat anti facial recognition as an industry?
As an industry, do we need to monitor ourselves on the technology we create that could take away from our own freedoms or to elimate the freedoms of people a half a world a way? What is the line that surveillance should not cross? Should there be a line?
As far as innovation...this is innovative and will spark more and more innovative ways to combat facial recognition. Stealth technology went through this similar motion. If Beats can sell for a few Billion Dollars, then a raw anti facial recognition product/technology could probably sell for more.
Seriously, from a security industry perspective, we should not laugh at this too much and open our minds up to think about possible various (future) repercussions, from all points of view, that anti facial recognition and facial recognition could bring.
As a startup or an investor, both sides could make you a billionaire. The security world is still innovative. Just don't let a celebrity investor "Beat" you to it.
A better way to distort a face, only on camera and not in life, would be to use the tactics we security people already know, (How John makes his living) and outside people do not. How do you do this? By using techniques that John drills to us weekly...Low Light problems and too much light problems. Example - Use IR lighting that comes from various anlges from a hat, or collar of a jacket. It is not too hard to combat slow camera settings.
Don't be the guy that sprinkles lemon juice on his face thinking cameras will see blur then rob a bank.
They did. It is Plausible
Maybe Not Plausible with spray...at this point.
Actually its the breakthrough in invisibility technologies that the militaries and law enforcements of the world will need to worry about in the future as real cloaking technology is on the way!
oh and a better article here
No probs John. If you quickly read the news article link to the SHM website there are many other different technologies scientists are experimenting with. Rest assured science fiction is becoming reality very quickly and yes its worth being aware of this ....
New offering, not as nutty but still weird: surveillance 'invisibility' glasses