Juggalo makeup defeats facial recognition software

[Underseer]

https://www.sciencealert.com/how-to-fool-facial-recognition-technology-with-juggalo-makeup

In a series of tweets on Saturday, the computer science blogger for WonderHowTo described how the face makeup favored by Juggalos - die-hard fans of the musical group Insane Clown Posse - confuses the systems to the point they can't accurately identify people.

I wasn't sure whether to post this here in the science forum or in the humor forum.

No word on whether or not KISS makeup can also defeat facial recognition software.

No doubt this will ultimately result in improvements being made to the software that will somehow violate our privacy even more, although whether or not we have any privacy left at all is debatable, I suppose.

 

[fast]

https://www.sciencealert.com/how-to-fool-facial-recognition-technology-with-juggalo-makeup

In a series of tweets on Saturday, the computer science blogger for WonderHowTo described how the face makeup favored by Juggalos - die-hard fans of the musical group Insane Clown Posse - confuses the systems to the point they can't accurately identify people.

I wasn't sure whether to post this here in the science forum or in the humor forum.

No word on whether or not KISS makeup can also defeat facial recognition software.

No doubt this will ultimately result in improvements being made to the software that will somehow violate our privacy even more, although whether or not we have any privacy left at all is debatable, I suppose.

What exactly is the right to privacy? What I have in mind are alternative interpretations, much how the right to free speech isn't being violated by rightfully locking up a law breaker. They can speak all they wish in isolation. Not providing a platform doesn't mean they cannot speak, even if their words should never fall on an audience.

If you have information, you have a right to keep it private, but if you don't protect that information and I get ahold of it, you retain the right to do as you wish: keep it private or not, but how does that extend to me? If I have information on your favorite senators child's middle school teachers address, all parties concerned may keep their mouths shout and keep private what they wish, but my releasing information about you, him, or her that they deem private information isn't an infringement on your right to keep your information private. See the distinction?

What is it you think they have the right to keep private? What their faces look like they show in public? If they want to keep it private, I can honor them and not push to mandate them to share, but if they've already clumsily released that information such that some already have it, I'm not sure the interpretation cowering in the darkness matches what the right to privacy is.

Not compelling you to share your private information is one thing, but my sharing your information is quite another. People who want their privacy rights to remain intact seem to want to go a step farther and infringe upon others to remain silent about information we've collected on them.

No solidified opinions here--just a testing of the waters.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

So what is needed now is makeup that does not look like face paint but that the cameras do see. So one can avoid surveillance. Now there is a possible money making project. Does women's make up screw up the facial recognition software?

 

[repoman]

Fuckin face scans, how do they work?

 

[bilby]

So what is needed now is makeup that does not look like face paint but that the cameras do see. So one can avoid surveillance. Now there is a possible money making project. Does women's make up screw up the facial recognition software?

Perhaps lemon juice would work?

More seriously, simply growing (or shaving, or changing the style of) a beard, or wearing (or not wearing) glasses, is enough to completely bamboozle most modern facial recognition software. And I shouldn't be at all surprised if many common styles of women's fashion makeup and/or changing hairstyles would do the same.

The Australian Border Force use automatic facial recognition to match arriving passengers to their passports. The system is given every possible opportunity - users stand in a booth with standardized lighting and background. The wearing of spectacles is prohibited, both on the passport photo and when being scanned. But it can't handle even minor changes in beard length - changes which are practically inevitable over the ten year life of a passport.

Last time I came back here, I was directed to the booth, where the screen provides written instructions, and a recorded voice reads them to you. However my hearing is poor, and in the hubub of the arrivals hall, I couldn't hear the voice. The screen told me to remove my spectacles and stand still, facing the camera. I did so.

The screen and voice probably told me to do something else after that, but I had no way of knowing about it. It failed to recognize me with a short beard as the person with a somewhat longer beard in my three year old picture; And to underscore the sterling work of the bureaucrats at the Australian Commonwealth Department of Not Thinking Things Through, they expected people who had removed their spectacles to read a screen placed some distance away.

I was eventually rescued from my cell by a human customs officer, who was able to inspect my passport the old fashioned way.

Facial recognition will probably be a worrying part of some future dystopian society - but that future would seem to be a long way off.

 

[DBT]

The right to privacy;

''The right to privacy is the right to be free from undue surveillance by Government or anyone else. Surveillance by the State should only occur if absolutely necessary and where authorised by an independent judicial officer. Personal information should only be collected and kept by the State and anyone else for a legitimate purpose authorised by law. Once collected, personal information should be destroyed as soon as it is no longer required. Not only would this protect privacy, it would also improve security. If personal information is only collected when absolutely necessary, it is less likely to fall into the wrong hands. If it is destroyed when it is no longer required, it is less likely to become incorrect and out of date. Australia’s privacy laws have expanded in recent years, but are still fundamentally flawed. They lack uniformity, they fail to recognise a right to privacy and they do not apply generally to individuals or small businesses. This means that private individuals and small businesses are largely unregulated when it comes to the collection and use of personal information about other people. The majority of democratic countries have recognised that privacy is a fundamental human right which needs to be protected. Article 17 of the ICCPR recognises privacy as a basic human right, but Australia, despite being a signatory to the ICCPR, does not recognise privacy as an actionable human right. Liberty believes Australia should meet its international obligations and legislate for a general right to privacy. An actionable right to privacy would enable individuals to take action against the inappropriate and illegal collection, use or disclosure of their personal information. It would not prevent the lawful collection and use of personal information for legitimate purposes.''