Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Wall That Knows If You're a Criminal

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the you're-all-going-to-prison dept.

Privacy 119

Barence writes "A German company called Dermalog is showing off a wall-sized transparent display that can tell a person's age, mood and criminal intent simply by scanning their face. The system displays data about the user next to their face, and is a demonstration of a fraud-prevention system that matches criminal intent to certain characteristics. PC Pro's tester wasn't overly impressed. 'If the face was a good enough indicator of mood then it should have tagged me as "freaked out on business technological ennui," not simply "happy", and no police force would accept a description of someone as "aged between 45 and 75 — that's the gap between Daniel Craig and Jack Nicholson.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Face scan? (4, Funny)

clam666 (1178429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092651)

Phrenology!

Re:Face scan? (3, Informative)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092821)

My thoughts exactly. I thought that was a bit of pseudoscience we had seen the last of...

Then again, the whole 'reading' people seems to be a new fad that has really picked up over the last few years. Books, TV shows, newsertainment, all trying to claim you can magically tell what someone is really thinking/intending without them knowing.... and even today they teach this garbage to LEO as if it was actually accurate.

Re:Face scan? (5, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092905)

Well, there are facial cues that statistically indicate you're feeling emotion X, trying to act manipulative, considering lying, etc. Not the common misconception of "looking to the left means this, to the right means that" but other things.

Some say it's very accurate. I'm in the belief that, even if it is... it's just statistics.

Humans are strange and there are lots of outliers: emotionally, psychologically, mentally, and even physically. So people shouldn't put too much faith into it and condemn someone just because they hit a few of the cues.

Even if 99% of people do this facial tick 99% of the time... there are billions of people alive today... not to mention there have been billions of people that have lived and died. As such, that 1% is a large number of people for who that tick might mean something else.

Re:Face scan? (4, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093635)

I don't believe TFA does this, but a few days back I saw an article hosted at MIT about cameras/video processing that "sees the unseen" by amplification of small differences. For instance, by exaggerating minute color changes in the face they were able to see peoples' heartbeats. They also amplified small movements of buildings, peoples' eyes, etc.

There is a whole slew of visual cues that we don't normally perceive, at least not consciously. The MIT article shows some of them. Now put together TFA with what MIT has done, and your statistics get better - perhaps frighteningly. (Perhaps what's even more frightening is when the statistics really haven't gotten better, but people believe that they have.)

Re:Face scan? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093979)

Alternatively you end up with people being detained because they were thinking "bad thoughts" about someone else.

Like when someone ogles a woman's ass while the wife is standing next to them.

Re:Face scan? (4, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094731)

Exactly and thats just the start of it.

So you are walking into a building that requires you sign in, you show your ID, the system tells the security desk that you are 45, but your ID says 26. If it does this too often, it will either be ignored (useless system) or cause people to be detained needlessly (useless and costly).

You just had a screaming match with your soon to be ex wife over the phone driving in... ut oh, emotional distress right there.

Even wost, you may end up with people having major panic attacks because the scanner is telling security this person is under huge emotional stress, causing them to watch more closely and cause more anxiety.

Then the sociopath walks in and starts spinning well meshed lies right to the security gaurds face, and the scanner picks up no emotional stress, because he isn't really under any. But thats ok, security is too busy having the police escort out the girl who just broke down in a panic to really deal with him anyway.

Re:Face scan? (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43096061)

The studies and statistics clearly show that humans constantly over rate their ability to detect lies and intent, especially with those they do not know well.
Since humans haven't even figured out a method of detecting lies with a reasonable accuracy, how the heck can someone assume they can make a machine do it?
It's like building a jet fighter. If you don't know how, it's impossible for you to build or program a robot to do it for you.
Every piece of 'expert' software out there was made using someones skill in that exact task after it was quantified and broken down to machine usable steps.
There are no exceptions.

I know, some people will want to start yelling "but polygraphs and truth serum!".
Well, other than some self delusional fools and Hollywood, it doesn't really work. It's more voodoo psychology than a magic mind reading device.
Here's a link you should probably check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

Ok, now truth serum, especially sodium pentathol. Again, this is more urban legend and Hollywood theatrics than reality. Sure, it lowers resistance to talking even more than a couple of beers, but it also apparently unlocks fantasys as well. It would better be named babble like a child juice than truth serum. People under it's effects tend to babble about what you asked about and anything else that crosses their minds, real or imagined. Good luck getting anything useful out of a mess like that. Have you ever heard of 'Signal to noise ratio'?
Again, here's a link: http://io9.com/5902559/what-truths-does-truth-serum-actually-reveal

Ok, since I'm sure someone will bring up hypnosis as well, again, it's Hollywood as opposed to reality. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm saying that studies have proven that people can lie when under hypnosis. In the 20 seconds I spend searching for a link, I didn't find the scientific study of that I was after, but the one I was looking for was some time ago, and I don't remember the papers exact title, or it's authors names.
So, in instead of a boring psychology study paper, here's something a lot more palatable: http://www.whatsonmybrain.com/hypnosis-reveal-secrets-truth/

Now here's something to think about. There are people that want to capitalize on the current state of fear that is being stoked by others for both reasons of profit and politics. The only thing new with that is the heightened levels this bullshit has reached. As such, they want to sell lots of people some very expensive magical boxs that do something to make the gullible feel better. It's modern snake oil. They will probably make a nice bundle off of this, and when it's proven to be less than a placebo, they will point out the mousetype footnotes that 'clearly' state that the device is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. As to the machinery working, well it does work, but that doesn't mean it does what marketing says. I've been in a reputable company where the techs were always walking down to the marketing department to yell at them for telling lies. The funny thing is, marketing didn't admit even to their own people that they were lying to customers, and in fact seemed to be incapable of understanding what they did wrong.

I guess I should wrap this up. How about this, if it seems too good to be real, or is something that duplicates a Hollywood trope, it's probably useless.

Re:Face scan? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094835)

It's bad enough we have things as unreliable as lie detectors still considered as carrying weight, and we have cops with a level of technological understanding that is at the 'believing hackers can probably hack into computers by whistling into a phone' level, do we really want a new generation of cops going around believing these new computer algorithms can "infer criminal intent" in any meaningfully reliant way? That thought is scary. That's the same mentality as killing "witches" because they float, or the crazy gun control nutjob mentality we're seeing more and more from people who actually believe that anyone with a gun is automatically going to shoot people.

The statistical algorithms may 'get better' and the level of depth of sensory cues may be enhanced, but they will never be remotely "reliable", and the last thing we need is to be making decisions over who to put in jail based on such nonsense. You can perhaps use it to help alert security as to who to watch out for - e.g. I can imagine a system in a place like Walmart alerting security as to potential shoplifters - but then you must still have a human watching for actual crime committed, and evidence of such.

These systems are enormously unreliable, and if used for anything meaningful, also amount to "thoughtcrime" - e.g. if someone thinks about stealing a loaf of bread, but then doesn't, but the machine picked up "criminal intent", what next, start going after anyone "the computer" thinks wants to commit a crime?

One of the reasons they're unreliable also is the "base rate fallacy" - the overall rate of false positives multiplied by the population size vs the number of potential positives.

Re:Face scan? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095775)

The issue is that the algorithm must exist, and if it's known, it's likely to be beatable. It's not nearly as hard to beat a lie detector as "they" assert.

The uncertainty gets less, but the accuracy doesn't. Most people can't make that distinction, so all they hear is "better".

Re:Face scan? (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095171)

Frank Herbert did it.

Of course, that was SCIENCE FICTION in DUNE.

Re:Face scan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43095279)

Well, there are facial cues that statistically indicate you're feeling emotion X, trying to act manipulative, considering lying, etc. Not the common misconception of "looking to the left means this, to the right means that" but other things.

Some say it's very accurate. I'm in the belief that, even if it is... it's just statistics.

Humans are strange and there are lots of outliers: emotionally, psychologically, mentally, and even physically. So people shouldn't put too much faith into it and condemn someone just because they hit a few of the cues.

Even if 99% of people do this facial tick 99% of the time... there are billions of people alive today... not to mention there have been billions of people that have lived and died. As such, that 1% is a large number of people for who that tick might mean something else.

God you suck at math. If, of 7 billion people, 99% do X 99% of the time, you are left with 139.3 million. Hardly "billiions of people."

Re:Face scan? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095533)

God you suck at math. If, of 7 billion people, 99% do X 99% of the time, you are left with 139.3 million. Hardly "billiions of people."

Good god you such at reading.

I said there are billions of people alive today. ~99% of that is still a large number. At no point did I say 1% of 6 billion is still billions.

Re:Face scan? (5, Funny)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092877)

Phrenology!

Nope, not at all!

Phrenology on a computer! Which is obviously completely different and patent-worthy!

Re:Face scan? (1)

clam666 (1178429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093177)

My mistake.

Minority Report!

Re:Face scan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43093453)

The Computer does not make mistakes citizen.

Re:Face scan? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092883)

When I read the title I envisioned a facial recognition scanner which would match the scanned face to a database of convicted criminals.

Re:Face scan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43093019)

When the voice comes on and says "scanning for criminal intent," almost everyone wants to smash the wall. Hence, it detects the intent to commit vandalism.

Re:Face scan? (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093055)

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." O.C. Bible

Re:Face scan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43093559)

Oh hush you're just annoyed that Mentats aren't big in demand at the moment.

Re:Face scan? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094647)

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." O.C. Bible

Yes. Making a machine that wobbles like a bowel of jello and acts like a batch of electrified spaghetti probably isn't a good idea.

Re:Face scan? (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093135)

Good thing there are masks!

Re:Face scan? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094661)

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd become one of those deaf-mutes."

Phrenology captures this precisely (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095913)

Although the fact that this is obviously a flawed system may not prevent police agencies from using it.

Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (4, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092663)

That still won't stop DHS from ordering one for every security line.

Re:Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092713)

How else are they going to generate the annual false positives they need to point to to justify their own existence, then, smart guy?

Re:Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43093233)

They have to justify their own existence? Since when?

Re:Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095017)

Clearly you have not been exposed to the public sector.

All departments justify their existance by spending all of the money that they are allocated in the budget. To not spend it, is to say to the people who do the budgeting "we are not doing our job, cut us or replace us". To just spend it.... well, that doesn't really show the kind of initiative of people who want to really go above and beyond.

No, to survive, departments must justify their existance, which is defined as using up all of the money allocated to them, and submitting plans to spend even more.

This is just how the system is setup. Incidentally, its not limited to government. I have worked in non-profit healthcare and academia. While the details do change with the ebb and flow of organizational finances, when there is money to spend, you will even hear managers asking for things to spend it on "The fiscal year is almost up, we still have budget to spend"... and when times are lean watch out, every other group should be the ones to sacrifice, our mission is too important.

Which is part of the problem with tasking departments, you get what you ask them to do. Even if there is only benefit in doing a little of something, so long as they exist, they will nearly without fail, find reasons to expand and do more.

To take a weird example, when i worked at the University we laughed at a new rule banning students in dorms from having sex with anyone else in the room, including their dorm roomate. Silly but, someone pointed out it was nearly perfect because the only way to get caught was for the person to complain, so roomates who didn't care could go about as they pleased.

But what happens when you task a department with the job of making sure students are not having sex in the room with others? It totally changes whats going on. Does it make sense to put up posters with tip lines? To roam the halls with a notepad looking for potential incidents? In the end, you really get what you want.... a clear guidence for domestic dispute resolution, just by having the original rule, even without active enforcement.

Its been said a person can't comprehend things that contradict the notion of his salary.... this most definitely extends to the concept of diminishing (or long since vanished) returns.

Re:Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095897)

It happens in the private sector. The only difference between private and public is thee government does fewer layoffs. I've worked plenty of places where the department did things poorly because if they were efficient, they'd have no reason to exist. My wife is living that nightmare right now. Her boss is breaking things to give her work to do because there is enough work to keep 2 people busy in the 5 person department.

Re:Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43096257)

Serious answer: Yes they do, to an oversight committee, ostensibly representing the electorate's interests.
Correct answer: No, as part of the military-industrial-congressional complex, they're part of a never-ending cycle of self interest.

Re:Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (2)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092857)

Of course it doesn't matter. The same way the actual reliability of a drug sniffing dog alerting on you doesn't matter. This will be yet another thing with massive false positives that is merely used to justify the choices of the police force, without them having to accept the blame for their decisions.

Re:Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (3, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093005)

Hard to sell.

Imagine a conference room with a salesman, a CEO and a bunch of politicians. Who do you propose they use to check whether the machine is actually capable of giving a negative?

Re:Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (4, Funny)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093351)

Imagine a conference room with a salesman, a CEO and a bunch of politicians. Who do you propose they use to check whether the machine is actually capable of giving a negative?

The schmuck they had to pull into the room to help them find the "on" button.

Re:Doesn't work? Doesn't matter. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094833)

Imagine a conference room with a salesman, a CEO and a bunch of politicians. Who do you propose they use to check whether the machine is actually capable of giving a negative?

The schmuck they had to pull into the room to help them find the "on" button.

Computer: I see you hate your job and hate your boss with a borderline psychopathic myopia, and you think that all the people around you are idiots who don't deserve to breathe your air. You have been added to the handgun watch list out of an abundance of caution.

Mood (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094947)

That still won't stop DHS from ordering one for every security line.

Are you in the mood for some groping?

Reliability (1)

jadv (1437949) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092733)

So Daniel Craig walks up to this scanner and is greeted by a female voice that goes, "Good morning, Mr. Nicholson. We have detected that you are about to commit a felony. We strongly urge you to reconsider."

Re:Reliability (4, Funny)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092895)

So Daniel Craig walks up to this scanner and is greeted by a female voice that goes, "Good morning, Mr. Nicholson. We have detected that you are about to commit a felony. We strongly urge you to reconsider."

Or, "Good morning, Mr. Nicholson. Please enjoy this taser shock before our agents perform a body cavity search".

Re:Reliability (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093133)

Oh please, James Bond would just fuck the scanner then kill it in the morning when it tried to tase him in his sleep.

Re:Reliability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43096325)

Hey, at least it's good enough to rule out Sean Connery (age 82).

Re:Reliability (1)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092955)

So Daniel Craig walks up to this scanner and is greeted by a female voice that goes, "Good morning, Mr. Connery. We have detected that you are about to commit a felony. We strongly urge you to reconsider."

There, fixed that for ya. Sean Connery is a much better match to Daniel Craig than Jack Nicholson.

Re:Reliability (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093597)

Ah, Mr. Nicholson. You seem to have this nasty habit of surviving.

age description (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092739)

no police force would accept a description of someone as aged between 45 and 75

Neither would hiring managers at most tech companies.

Re:age description (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095953)

21 +- 9 was one example given. They don't know if you are 12 or 30. I'm serious officer, I didn't know her age. How could any system with that range be considered anything but a joke.

Video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092773)

Is there a video showing this thing in action anywhere?

Re:Video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092829)

I tried, but my face was immediately flagged for nefarious intent and I was escorted out of the expo.

Queue Schoolhouse Rock (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092805)

It knows when...
You're happy [hooray!]
Or sad [aw!]
Or fightened [eek!]
Or mad[rats!]
Or excited [wow!]
Or glad [hey!]
.... So it's basically, a visual interjection detector. Nifty.

Yet it will make criminals pass (5, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092865)

Most succesfull criminals generally have:

  * Honest looking face, do not avert eye contant and have firm grip
  * Dress the same or a bit better than their marks.
  * Are happy and unconcerned when doing their work.
  * Bathed and groomed.
  * Get a bit of charisma.
  * Are not dumb.

This is incredibly important for pickpockets - if you are in suit and looking like you are just comming from business meeting, people will not suspect a thing. And if you get caught, you can talk your way out because it can be played as misunderstanding.

Compare this to badly dressed, tatooed, nervous member of differently colored minory which causes people put their hands on their valuables immediatelly. (Those are good to detecting where people have their valuable stuff so that their coworker has much easier time)

Any system that judges people on looks is going to be way too stupid to know this. Most people are too scared to notice real dangers. And now they made software that mimicks this stupidity.

Bravo.

And we are not event getting to how evil this thing is because of basically labeling people randomly as criminals.

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092931)

Romana: You mean you didn't believe his story?

The Doctor: No.

Romana: But he had such an honest face.

The Doctor: Romana, you can't be a successful crook with a dishonest face, can you?

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (2)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093141)

Most succesfull criminals generally have

I think you're giving criminals a lot of credit here. Especially with the pickpocket example. From what I've seen the most successful pickpockets are just too young to punch.

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (3, Informative)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093299)

I think you're over glamorizing the common criminal.

Sure, there are tons of con-men and con-women out there that could talk you out of your wallet's contents with a wink of an eye. And sure, there are a lot of well-dressed pick pockets out there... so you don't think they're up to something. And lets not even delve into the white-collar criminals.

But a majority of criminals are not that sophisticated and wearing decent clothes. There are PLENTY of thugs out there as well as hoodlum kids.

Try walking down a bad part of Newark or Chicago some time. Trust me, if-and-when you are the victim of a crime it won't be the handsome guy in a suit or the hawt girl in a nice dress. Chances are it will be a thug (of ANY color / creed / whatever) that takes your stuff.

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (1)

epine (68316) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094181)

Try walking down a bad part of Newark or Chicago some time.

Try swabbing a teenager's festering zit, and I guarantee you'll be joining angry rallies to support "tough on zit" politicians in favour of dumping metric buck tonnes of antibiotics into the drinking water supply to eradicate the entirety of the human microbiome.

Cherry pick much? The festering zit of American inner cities was not built in a day, and involved countless firm handshakes of well dressed men behind closed doors. A crime ghetto provides cheap, captive labour, and with only a little pruning from the prison-industrial complex, the contagion is easily managed (the dangerous loss-making portion of this activity falls on the public payroll, while the relatively safe profitable portion has now been devolved to the private sector; this being the most excellent business model of all time, and eliciting of the firmest handshakes behind closed doors that ever a man did see).

All I really wanted to do when I fired up my phosphorous pencil was to give the story submission a major boot up the ass for writing "can tell".

From Eliza, Part 3 [filfre.net] :

Weizenbaumâ(TM)s reaction to all of this has become almost as famous as the Eliza program itself. When he saw people like his secretary engaging in lengthy heart-to-hearts with Eliza, it ... well, it freaked him the hell out. The phenomenon Weizenbaum was observing was later dubbed "the Eliza effect" by Sherry Turkle, which she defined as the tendency âoeto project our feelings onto objects and to treat things as though they were people.â In computer science and new media circles, the Eliza effect has become shorthand for a userâ(TM)s tendency to assume based on its surface properties that a program is much more sophisticated, much more intelligent, than it really is. Weizenbaum came to see this as not just personally disturbing but as dangerous to the very social fabric, an influence that threatened the ties that bind us together and, indeed, potentially threatened our very humanity.

[Yet again Slashcode shows off its awe-inspiring Unicode chops, to the eternal embarrassment of geeks everywhere.]

Here we have yet another invocation to the mystical appeal of any parameter written down or displayed on screen, however TOTALLY BOGUS as noticed and investigated in NINETEEN SIXTY SIX.

"Can tell" is listed as a useful synonym for "barfs up" only in The Dictionary of Hemorrhoid Self-Expression and Intimidation of Rubes.

I can tell I'm entering the downhill slope of old age. I'm regressing now to ALL CAPS.

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095265)

The grandparent was describing MOST common-criminals as smooth talking, finely dressed con-men and hot pick-pockets. He wasn't making a social commentary about politicians / CEOs / etc.

I was saying that I think he's over-glamorizing the common-criminal. They're not all "Danny Ocean" from "Ocean's Eleven" or whatever. Most are just thugs.

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43096161)

I think you're over glamorizing the common criminal.

Sure, there are tons of con-men and con-women out there that could talk you out of your wallet's contents with a wink of an eye. And sure, there are a lot of well-dressed pick pockets out there... so you don't think they're up to something. And lets not even delve into the white-collar criminals.

But a majority of criminals are not that sophisticated and wearing decent clothes. There are PLENTY of thugs out there as well as hoodlum kids.

Try walking down a bad part of Newark or Chicago some time. Trust me, if-and-when you are the victim of a crime it won't be the handsome guy in a suit or the hawt girl in a nice dress. Chances are it will be a thug (of ANY color / creed / whatever) that takes your stuff.

I was a very good shoplifter because I didn't look like I was there to steal.

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43096367)

He did say successful. There are also a lot of not so successful criminals. They also manage to steal things, but on average don't do much better than minimum wage.

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093501)

Most succesfull criminals generally have:

    * Honest looking face, do not avert eye contant and have firm grip
    * Dress the same or a bit better than their marks.
    * Are happy and unconcerned when doing their work.
    * Bathed and groomed.
    * Get a bit of charisma.
    * Are not dumb.

This is incredibly important for pickpockets

Not just pick pockets. Politicians, lawyers, bankers, salesmen, and insurance agents too. These groups are responsible for the crime that causes the most damage to society. The ghetto thugs and disheveled crazy people are negligible risks compared to these people.

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (1)

SandFrog (1238038) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093751)

Damn! I already spent my mod points.

Re:Yet it will make criminals pass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43093663)

Most successful criminals work in Wall Street.

DMV lines (2)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092909)

Since "criminal intent" seems to be largely defined as "not happy", 95% of people in various government office waiting rooms will be flagged as having "criminal intent". I suppose it clears out the waiting rooms faster.

Re:DMV lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43093221)

Still better than the method cops use now where "criminal intent" is largely defined by skin color.

Re:DMV lines (1)

oursland (1898514) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095951)

You're pretty naive to think that "tried and true" tool will go away and be replaced by this one.

Re:DMV lines (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43096023)

How's that work, if you have skin, you are a criminal, if you have dark skin, we beat you until you complain, then arrest you for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Just what we need for Directive Four (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092911)

I'd buy that for a dollar!

So, it alerts on everyone then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092945)

The average person commits three felonies a day, after all.

Re:So, it alerts on everyone then? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093011)

I've heard this statistic before, why have I never found any compiled list somewhere of which felonies are actually the most commonly broken.

Re:So, it alerts on everyone then? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094355)

The big Wall St. firms commit tens of millions of instances of fraud, forgery, perjury, insider trading and money laundering every day. Their activities keep up the averages.

Re:So, it alerts on everyone then? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094955)

Ah.... so sort of like saying that the average human being has approximately 1 testicle?

Pseudoscience (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092957)

Such methods can't tell the difference between a criminal, a social critic or someone who's just having a bad day.

Giving them credibility is a mistake, as it will influence people to treat possible hits as probable ones.

Better to just post Santa Claus at the gate (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092975)

He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good...

Re:Better to just post Santa Claus at the gate (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093209)

That song has always been creepy. Heck, simply sung without enthusiasm and it sounds like the guy flippin' horror movie slashser.

My favorite is when TV shows have the "singers" softly sing the song in a slightly different key in order to creep someone out.

 

not (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093013)

Be well!

Put one in a bar... (3, Insightful)

ravenscar (1662985) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093063)

If you put one of these in a bar and charged $.50 per face scan you'd make a fortune. At this point, this is probably all that this is good for anyhow.

Tom Cruise, where are you? (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093081)

We're entering into the age of the Minority Report.

the wall (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093087)

The Wall That Knows If You're a Criminal

25 years back or so they used a low tech solution [wikipedia.org] for it...

Sounds easy (1)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093173)

If it can detect age then this is easy. If they are under 21 then they are definitely a criminal. And probably listen to the rock and roll music.

A Novel Algorithm for Detecting Criminals (2)

indeterminator (1829904) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093181)

Step 1: Flag the person as a criminal.
That's all the steps. The chance of false positive is very small. Most people either have already done something illegal, or will do something illegal at some point of their lives.

Re:A Novel Algorithm for Detecting Criminals (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093309)

Possibly... but not all crimes have equal punishment.

The penalty for going slightly over a speed limit (with otherwise no harm done), for example, although still certainly illegal, is not met with the same type of penalty as, say, kidnapping or murder.

So unless you can say exactly *what* the person did that was illegal, step 1, by itself, is inadequate.

Re:A Novel Algorithm for Detecting Criminals (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094037)

So you haul them in and beat a confession out of them. If its not a serious crime, you let them off with a warning.

Re:A Novel Algorithm for Detecting Criminals (1)

Entropy98 (1340659) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095125)

No, no, no. If it's not a serious crime it just means you're not beating them hard enough!

Re:A Novel Algorithm for Detecting Criminals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094487)

The accumulation of crimes that everyone commits knowingly or unknowingly probably accrue at a rate faster than an hour per hour if we imagine that all crimes were detected and prosecuted. That means that everyone should be in prison indefinitely.

Re:A Novel Algorithm for Detecting Criminals (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095011)

Prove it.

Re:A Novel Algorithm for Detecting Criminals (1)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095629)

Step 1: Flag the person as a criminal.
That's all the steps. The chance of false positive is very small. Most people either have already done something illegal, or will do something illegal at some point of their lives.

Step 0: Make laws which redefine things most people do as criminal behavior.

I know how this tech works (1)

tippe (1136385) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093287)

It scans your face and checks to see if your eyes are squinting and darting from side to side, all suspicious like.

Next year, they plan on introducing the fraudster audio plug-in that will flag anything that starts with the words "Pssst! Hey you... yeah you... come'ere a sec..."

Use it as a trainer (1)

bigwheel (2238516) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093411)

If I were a criminal or politician, I'd want one for practicing facial expressions. Maybe also hide one at the podium next to my teleprompter, to make sure I'm properly conveying the right message. Or give one to the make-up staffer to ensure that I look just right to the people. The rest of us will have to wait until it comes out as a smartphone app.

Broad generalizations... (1)

bwcbwc (601780) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093497)

PC Pro's tester wasn't overly impressed. 'If the face was a good enough indicator of mood then it should have tagged me as "freaked out on business technological ennui," not simply "happy", and no police force would accept a description of someone as "aged between 45 and 75 — that's the gap between Daniel Craig and Jack Nicholson.'"

So in other words, they've invented the first robotic psychic?

Very simple (2)

lahvak (69490) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093505)

It works just like our cops - it looks at the color of your skin: if your skin is somewhat darker, you are a criminal!

Re:Very simple (1)

clam666 (1178429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093619)

It works just like our cops - it looks at the color of your skin: if your skin is somewhat darker, you are a criminal!

Perhaps that's the software engineering behind this. It doesn't so much have a neural network looking at the precise differences between the relative positions of facial elements, the system is much simpler to design.

1. Convert scanned image to greyscale.

2. If greyscale_value > const_michael_jackson_value then

3. Full body cavity search.

3. Otherwise, upgrade passenger to First Class

Re:Very simple (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094039)

no it checks if you put the milk in first to your tea and then says "for you the war is over Tommy"

Re:Very simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094447)

What if I do not put milk in my tea at all?

Am I the only one? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093721)

First thing I'd want to do is rub my hands together and look generally menacing in front of this wall, just to see what it would say.

Re:Am I the only one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43095177)

Don't forget the belly-laugh...

Muuhhaaa hhaaaa hhaaaa hhaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaa!

Craig and Nicholson (1)

guttentag (313541) | about a year and a half ago | (#43093867)

...no police force would accept a description of someone as "aged between 45 and 75 — that's the gap between Daniel Craig and Jack Nicholson."

It's easy enough to program the wall to tell the difference between them. Daniel Craig is the one who is perpetually adjacent to a 20-something female who has an elevated heart rate and increased respiration. Jack Nicholson is the one beating the glass wall with a golf club [history.com] .

Testosterone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094179)

Never checked the link but high testosterone levels were linked to face formation and ability to break the law.

German Company? (1)

jrmcc (703725) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094205)

Did they dig up some of Mengele's research?

You've been up this path before, have you not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094233)

Next someone will put a patent on a system that links to a system that controls 2 doors.
1. Freedom (for now)
2. An oven.

Nuff said.

Changing Behavior (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094235)

Wouldn't this only work if people didn't know they were being scanned? Otherwise, they would probably purposely change their facial expressions every few seconds. If anyone questions it, they simply claim they are protesting the use of such a device. What are they going to do? Make it illegal to make silly faces?

The obvious outcome? (1)

R3nCi (2729667) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094279)

You're wall going to prison.

facecrime (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094823)

facecrime: An indication that a person is guilty of thoughtcrime based on their facial expression. Orwell's definition : "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."

The 1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual. :(

Accurate? (2)

WizADSL (839896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095093)

Does it distinguish between true criminal intent and the desire to smash the display for being so nosy?

Yes! 7p?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43095225)

could save it shout the loudest rotting corpse FreeBSD had long pro4aganda and a BSD over other Raise or lower the Distributions ago, many of you Continues to lose I burnt out. I interest in having gawker At most plainly states that my resignation

We taught machines prejudice? Lovely. (1)

Timmy D Programmer (704067) | about a year and a half ago | (#43096235)

Really that's what it boils down to, knowing a guilty face just by looking at it??? Statistically you might be right most of the time, but the rest of the time you are mistreating innocent people. Not OK in my book.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?