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!

Is the World Ready For Facial Recognition On Google Glass?

Unknown Lamer posted about 10 months ago | from the creeps-only dept.

AI 469

An anonymous reader writes "Since the first demonstration of the plausible future abilities of Google Glass, instant facial recognition has been one of the most exciting ideas in the pipeline. According the the development group Facial Network, the time for real-time facial recognition through Google Glass is coming a lot sooner than we originally expected. This isn't an app developed by Google, it's a 3rd party developer group — they've gone and done it first!" The application is not on the Play store due to the ban on facial recognition. It performs real time recognition, and pulls information from public databases. The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.

cancel ×

469 comments

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

Ready or not (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773529)

here I come, you can't hide

Re:Ready or not (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 10 months ago | (#45773925)

The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.

How about letting us opt in to the database?

Re:Ready or not (4, Funny)

pmontra (738736) | about 10 months ago | (#45773991)

+1

Re:Ready or not (4, Informative)

freax (80371) | about 10 months ago | (#45774083)

I even wonder how opting us all in automatically is even legal in my country. I don't care about the US but I'm pretty sure that here in Belgium there are laws against this. Sorry for the Dutch article, but here is an example of it: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portretrecht [wikipedia.org]

Time to start putting make-up on (4, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#45773533)

Re:Time to start putting make-up on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773549)

This 'might' work now but it's only a matter of a little update in software. next generation probably will have various more sensors to (literaly) go under your skin.

Re:Time to start putting make-up on (3, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#45773597)

Okay, then wear a niqab [wikipedia.org] : technically it's not allowed in many countries (for the very reason that the police can't see your face), but it falls in the "religion" category, so niqab wearers often get away with it on the ground that society as a whole is supposed to show the greatest amount of tolerance for religious stuff for some reason.

With a garment like this, even men can wear one and become virtually undetectable.

Re:Time to start putting make-up on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773651)

It's quite ironic the way all this is heading. The best way to avoid being tracked by the New Western Stasi is to join the groups that organization wanted to stop.

Re:Time to start putting make-up on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773553)

GSM+Wifi jammer is a better idea. I know it's illegal and I couldn't care less.

S.l.a.p. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773603)

S.uper L.ight A.mplified P.ulse

I'm going to develop this just to watch Google Glass, and the like, wearers wonder why their toy stopped working. AAH

I will SLAP you too... ;)

Re:S.l.a.p. (1)

some old guy (674482) | about 10 months ago | (#45773753)

Sounds like a fab crowdsourcing idea.

Re:Time to start putting make-up on (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 10 months ago | (#45773589)

This isn't going to matter. Like all tech, this will be used by governments, and even if you persuade all your friends to wear masks, they are going to have so many cameras that it will come to a point they can know who anyone is by process of elimination.

are google glass users ready for... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773537)

a punch in the face?

Re:are google glass users ready for... (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#45773563)

This sort of application is like file shaing: it's just gonna happen, whether you like it or not. You can't legislate it away, and you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face. In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster, and you'll be none the wiser.

Get ready to live in a panopticon world. It'll happen. It's already happened in fact [bbc.co.uk] ...

Re:are google glass users ready for... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773685)

i realize these things. doesn't mean i can't punch some people in the face.

Re:are google glass users ready for... (4, Insightful)

Calydor (739835) | about 10 months ago | (#45773965)

No, laws about assault, battery etc. mean you can't punch people in the face.

That and being a decent human being.

Sad mistake of technology-focused people (4, Insightful)

golodh (893453) | about 10 months ago | (#45773727)

The mistake that people focused on technology make is the extent to which unwanted behaviour can be repressed.

It all depends on what society at large thinks is a worthwhile price to pay. Take file sharing (of copyrighted files) for example. It's perfectly possible to stamp it out: just legislate to allow the MPAA and RIA to demand all ISP's to install monitoring software and match whatever you upload to a database of signatures of copyrighted works. The Snowdon papers show that it's very likely that the infrastructure is available to do just that.

Encryption is of course to be outlawed for use by private citizens. US-style "damages" will pay for the enforcement effort and file sharing will be killed in short order.

Of course there are such pesky things like the first amendment that would get in the way, but those are only *legal* and *political* obstacles, not technological ones. Which means they can be removed whenever people feel like it. And people's perception of what is or isn't acceptable can be changed by abuses of technology.

For example, it's perfectly possible to legislate that whoever uploads your mug without your consent is liable for damages (freeing the ones pictured from having to prove any actual damages) and legislate that all and any ISPs and hosting companies must give their full cooperation and assist anyone who can show that their picture has been uploaded without their consent to identify the perpetrator. That would also necessitate the end of anonymous internet access.

What you really mean is that you don't wish for this to happen, not that it can't happen for technological (or political) reasons.

If you thought that no amount of political pressure can effectively take away your rights to upload pictures of people, just wait until the first pedophile ring is discovered scouting schools for attractive "candidates" using Google Glasses and putting the lot online for perusal.

Unfortunately people have a way of abusing new technology in ways that lead to hitherto unheard of legal constraints.

Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people (2)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#45773789)

What you really mean is that you don't wish for this to happen, not that it can't happen for technological (or political) reasons.

No, what I mean is, technology that's simple or natural enough, or hidden enough, will be used regardless of the law because the law is unenforceable.

It's already forbidden to share copyrighted files but people do it all the time because enforcing the ban is vastly more expensive and time-consuming for copyright holders than getting around it for file sharers. If the **AAs suddenly had the powers to become truly nasty, as you describe, people would encrypt their files. If encryption became illegal, people who use steganography.

Worst case, ultimately, if the penalty for trying anything to share files on the internet was so stiff that people would truly think twice before attempting it, they'd revert to the sneaker-net. It worked perfectly well before the internet you know...

In the case of face recognition, how do you know if someone is recording you and processing the image? How do you know if a company does it secretly? If the law prohibits it, who's to say this or that guy does it anyway?

Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 10 months ago | (#45773927)

Active Jamming.

Trivial to defeat upload matching... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773829)

Just exclusive or two arbitary movies together.

The upload result matches neither. Only the downloader needs to have one of the two, then they get the other.

Re:are google glass users ready for... (3, Insightful)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 10 months ago | (#45773761)

you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face.

No. But you can make one person at a time stop using it.

Re:are google glass users ready for... (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 10 months ago | (#45773935)

In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster

There's a hard limit on personal technology. It can't advance beyond the point where putting a pocket knife on someone's throat to steal it becomes a profitable job. That's why in most cyberpunk scenarios one of the technological advances is in self defense.

i.e.: There won't be ultra-tech glasses/contact lenses/etc unless someone thinks of a way of protecting the clients form increasingly profitable mugging.

Re:are google glass users ready for... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774013)

File sharing is made possible by public indifference and/or silent endorsement. I don't care strongly about filesharing, and certainly not enough to put a blackbox chip in my computer. People around me becoming unwilling walking spybots for large corporations is a much different matter.

You can't legislate it away

Actually, we can. What are you going to do, print fancy smart contacts in your garage and put GNU/Glass on them? These things are not going to be easy to manufacture for quite a while.

and you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face

While it's true that it won't make the technology go away, that would certainly resolve the problem regardless.

As an organiser of events. (2)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 10 months ago | (#45773547)

I don't much care for face-recognition, in fact I can imagine a lot of venue's banning internet-connected (full-time recording) head mounted camera's (for guests), but AGE-recognition would be a useful feature on the door if you have a liqueur-license or some other age-related barrier.

Re:As an organiser of events. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773565)

The tech is not going to give a shit if you approve of it or not. It's there, someone is going to use it, and in a way thats not easy to spot.

Re:As an organiser of events. (3, Interesting)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 10 months ago | (#45773667)

If it clearly says on the tickets and a sign by the entrance (for instance) "No video/audio recordings" or some such, you are of course free to attempt to circumvent our request. We are of course free to remove your ass from the premise if we catch you ; ). As an addendum I would personally do everything to avoid harming a visitor or his / her belongings, but some security or even artists or fellow guests might take offence, so it's also for your own protection that I would discourage it.

Re:As an organiser of events. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773941)

Discrimination legislation could be a problem when you're using the glasses for medical reasons depending on the country you're in - as in, you need them to see. I imagine google glasses users with prescriptive lenses would reasonably expect to be able to use them in areas where traditional prescriptive lenses are acceptable. For a business to decline entry because they're wearing glasses *could* be considered discrimination.

I personally think a better stance is to continue to engineer a safeguard for others (e.g.: light indicating you're recording) with prompts for patrons to try to get them to do the right thing. Just like how a cinema won't ask you to hand over your cell phone before you watch a movie, they just give you that prompt before it starts to please turn it off for the other patrons.

If google wanted too they could advocate some kind of universal standard QR (or similar) code that could be detected by the glasses as well. If the glasses detect the code automatically turn off recording for the user.

Re:As an organiser of events. (1)

Cochonou (576531) | about 10 months ago | (#45773873)

Signal scramblers. I know it's illegal in several countries, but it's used very effectively (and legally) in some theaters in Paris.
Of course, that would not prevent someone to take a picture/record a movie of you and then use some facial recognition algorithms at a later time, but it would still mitigate some of the abuse that "instant" facial recognition apps would bring to the table.

Re:As an organiser of events. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773657)

If you need Google Glass to "guess" the age of a person, you really should not have a liqueur-license. If you use Google glass to "guess" the age of a person, you won't for long, the "but gAge told me She was 21" defence wont fly here nor in an underage-sex-trial.

Re:As an organiser of events. (2)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 10 months ago | (#45773891)

If I have six thousand people coming in over a two hour period any second I can shave of the interaction between guest and staff is money. As long as its voluntary (opt-in) I see no problem with an age-identifier glasses-ap (gAge, I like it) instead of carding people. Of course legislation would have to be made. And I think it could actually be a data-point used in court, if the data is retained. Maybe the guest wore a fake gAge e-dentifier?

Re:As an organiser of events. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774095)

If I have six thousand people coming in over a two hour period any second I can shave of the interaction between guest and staff is money.

Seriously, you're trying to play the time-is-money card when it comes to laws???

As long as its voluntary (opt-in)

How is "facerecognition" ever opt in? "If i'm not bashing your head (that wears Google Glasses) in, it's opt-in? (Don't bother with answers like "yeah we and google facerecognized and the immediatly deleted the picture"...)

I see no problem with an age-identifier glasses-ap (gAge, I like it) instead of carding people. Of course legislation would have to be made.

What legislation? "If your GooGadget says the user is over 21, you're good"? Not gonna happen. There's a reason for carding, it's the only way to make sure their age is verified that's even remotely secure, and even then it's your risk. No intelligence, neighter human nor artificial can verify your age, and the law makes no difference between "yeah he would be 21 at mindnight, it's 23:30" and "he is 16 but looks like 30."

And I think it could actually be a data-point used in court, if the data is retained. Maybe the guest wore a fake gAge e-dentifier?

And exactly at that point your liquer-license is gone (best-case). The cops don't give a rat's ass about tech, they technically don't even care if you carded them, as long as you cant prove in court, that the ID presented would fool a cop, it's your ass.

Re:As an organiser of events. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774015)

If you need Google Glass to "guess" the age of a person, you really should not have a liqueur-license.

Are you seriously arguing that it's easy to tell someone's age?

I'm probably an extreme counterexample myself but I've "looked 25" for the last 15 years. In my country, Finland, the alcohol limit is 18 but some clubs have higher age limits simply to select their clientele. When I was 19 I could sometimes enter 25+ clubs because the bouncer didn't ask me for ID and some girls my age thought I was too old for them - being told "I'm looking for someone closer to my age" hurt pretty bad back then. Today, I've "vindicated" because girls still think I'm 25 and being more experienced in talking to them now, I can now experience the "late teens/early 20s flings" that I couldn't when I was that age (the extreme exception being a 19-year-old guessing that I was younger than her).* But more astoundingly, bouncers that are professionals that look at hundreds of IDs every night still occasionally ask me for ID when I enter a place with age limit 20 and end up with an embarrassed laughter for asking. I've had the same haircut all the time and when I needed a new passport I dug through my box of ID photos and realized that I couldn't tell which, if any, were taken less than two years ago, which a passport photo must be. And whilst I might not be the norm, I'm not entirely unique. Once I chatted with a girl that I could've sworn was 21 and who unsurprisingly guessed that I was 25 and said that I was too young for her because she was 35!

So if it's already difficult for professionals to tell the age of people at least in some cases, you should realize that the situation is becoming more difficult as the cosmetics industry pours billions into research... And furthermore, the trend of not only gay men but also straight men taking more care of their appearance (aka. being metrosexual) will also make it trickier because human biology makes it easier to prevent male complexion than female complexion from aging. Men have beards and therefore thicker, fatter skin (normally) so it is easier to take care of.

*) I should probably add that I'm not crazy or perverted enough to go for anyone below the age of consent, which is 16 here, although I hadn't exactly expected to sleep with a 17-year-old for the first time when I was 33...

Re:As an organiser of events. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773697)

I don't know, I think the technology will be very interesting going forward. Not sure what the technical term would be, but as a memory assistant / aid it would be great, especially if you have a disability or otherwise diminished memory capacity.

Imagine having 24/7 audio/video recordings for the last day/month/year/life. The video feeds could be automatically marked whenever you have encountered somebody through facial recognition. Voice could be automatically transcribed and then indexed for search. Hell in the future object recognition may get to the point where it's fast and cheap enough to be applied to a video library of your day/month/year/life.

You've been given some complex instructions, and you've forgotten what to do? Ohh, XXXX told me that around lunch yesterday - with marked up content from facial recognition you can jump to your conversation or you could just search your RL transcript.

You've forgotten your keys? With object recognition you can simply search for the last time you saw (on your video feed) your keys.

The flip side is obviously the issue of privacy. There are legitimate concerns about how the information could be used against the individual, their family and their friends by other people, government and corporations. There are so many potential ways for such footage to be abused to the detriment of the recorder.

Either way, the next 10-20 years will be interesting.

Re:As an organiser of events. (4, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | about 10 months ago | (#45773907)

I'd love facial recognition. I have a really bad memory for names and faces, and I often end up in the embarrassing situation of meeting someone in the street who knows who I am but I only vaguely recognise their face and certainly don't remember their name. Having a prosthetic "face to name" system would save me from many embarrassing situations.

Re:As an organiser of events. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774021)

Assassinate the developers or crowdsource their deaths. I'm sure it will quickly become opt-in.

Killer App (4, Informative)

Javal (2436716) | about 10 months ago | (#45773557)

It will be a god-send for people with prosopagnosia (face blindness). Can you imagine the awkward social situations in which you don't recognize people? Your colleagues, friends or even family?

Re:Killer App (2)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 10 months ago | (#45773771)

Who cares?

Know what I hate? People in my way. If I just carried an AK-47 around with me all the time, my life would be so much better. People would stay out of my way. I wouldn't actually shoot anyone, I promise... I just want some respect!

Point is, there will be backlash to people wearing internet-connected face-recognizing cameras, and it won't matter what the excuse.

Re:Killer App (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 10 months ago | (#45773805)

I don't have this condition but I suck at recognizing faces and remembering names. 15 years ago I thought about how great it would be if I had a wearable facial recognition device, but I always thought it would be a stand-alone thing: I put the pictures and names in, and they stay in the device.

The problem with this of course is that it constantly does the facial recognition on everyone, and sends the results back to the mother ship. If enough people start wearing these, and only 1 mugshot of you makes its way to the internet, then Google will be able to track your whereabouts throughout the day pretty well. Some of this actually violates our privacy laws, but I suspect legislators won't even bother contemplating a ban on this application; they'll understand that the cat is out of the bag.

Re:Killer App (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45773909)

The stand-alone device brings another problem. Social conventions say it is very rude and offensive to fail to recognise someone - if you have to look down at your face-database device, it's going to lead to people getting very upset. The glass approach has the advantage of complete transparency. You look, it tells you all you need to know, and from the perspective of everyone else you just remembered unaided.

Power constraints would make it impractical to send every face seen back to google. Radios use a low of power, and there are usually quotas on mobile connections too.

Re:Killer App (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 10 months ago | (#45774039)

The stand-alone device would basically be Glass minus Google (or minus the radio).

And sure, currently there are constraints on the number of faces in a Glass database, constraints on power and on the wireless connection used to talk to Google, but that's just a matter of time. If there will be enough apps on these glasses that appeal to those in the mainstream, and unless there is some violent backlash against these things (again, from regular people, not privacy advocates), then I give it 5 years or so before these things become practical and common, and another 5 before it'll be socially acceptable to wear them anytime and anywhere (except of course the cinema, where people with cameras will still be shot on sight).

Re:Killer App (5, Insightful)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about 10 months ago | (#45773871)

I have prosopagnosia, but I prefer the stress/awkwardness over people being able to know my name at a glance whether I trust them or not. From firsthand experience, having your name makes it feasible for an unstable, pissed-off, or obsessed individual to track down your contact info, school, workplace, home, and family members; even if they don't do any real damage, the situation can become really fucking creepy and last a very long time.

I also just don't want to make it any easier for the government or law enforcement to keep track of me everywhere I go.

Opt out? (3, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 10 months ago | (#45773569)

So if I don't want my name popping up on some random Glass-hole's screen whenever I have the misfortune to be in one's proximity, I have to go find some random app's website and opt out? How is that supposed to actually work in practice?

Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?

Re:Opt out? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773661)

not baseball cap but baseball bat - that works much more effectively and includes lesson in civity too.

Re:Opt out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773735)

You do that to people with smartphones now? What about people who have nearly impossible to detect spy glasses now?

Re:Opt out? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773793)

So because a handfull of people abuse something, we should just throw up our hands and let everyone go nuts with it?
This is like smoking, a social issue, dont smoke unless you know its acceptable where you are, dont record if its not acceptable where you are.
It amazes me how often people seem to think that just because it is not illegal to be a jerk, it is 100% acceptable.
(and opt-out of a system nobody knows exists? how friendly of them)

Re:Opt out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773817)

You do that to people with smartphones now? What about people who have nearly impossible to detect spy glasses now?

Practically everybody I know has a smartphone but they do not constantly tape everything that moves in front of them and upload it instantly to youtube and I don't think many people are wearing impossible to detect spyglasses in day to day life at the moment. Anybody wearing Google glass is going to discover rather quickly that as ingenious as Google Glass is it is also a privacy violation that many people are not going to be willing to put up with. It will be a pretty annoying development if one will be forced to start wearing a mask in order to escape the Glass-holes.

Re:Opt out? (2)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 10 months ago | (#45773853)

Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?

This looks promising, it's an IR based 'camera blinder' that hides your face:
http://www.slashgear.com/surveillance-cam-blinder-2010369/ [slashgear.com]

Dunno how effective it is against different camera types and it does require you to wear a dumb-ass headband but it looks like a promising concept.

blinders are effective in low light (3, Interesting)

marienf (140573) | about 10 months ago | (#45774055)

Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?

This looks promising, it's an IR based 'camera blinder' that hides your face:
http://www.slashgear.com/surveillance-cam-blinder-2010369/ [slashgear.com]

Dunno how effective it is against different camera types and it does require you to wear a dumb-ass headband but it looks like a promising concept.

I've been playing around with various IR LED types, such as this one [ebay.com] , at a couple wavelengths, and I found that in darkness and twilight, you need only very few to become a huge blob of ghostly light, but in good lighting conditions, a good camera like an Axis P3367 [axis.com] and even some of the crappy webcams I tried will see them as merely little points of red light. So I'll integrate a bunch in my backpack's straps and on it's surface, to at least get that commute, including subways etc.. covered, but with little hope of completeness.

So the real challenge may be: can we build a device that automates lens detection, focuses a small laser on the lens in question, and keeps it there while both the lens and the wearer of the countermeasure laser move along. +1 for a switch that will briefly increase laser power to burning strength. As in using a 2W Laser diode [ebay.com] at low power. Capability :-)

No opt-out (4, Insightful)

SuperDre (982372) | about 10 months ago | (#45773571)

It shouldn't be opt-out, it should be opt-in.... People wearing google glasses should really be carefull, as more and more people will not stand you wearing one while facing them (and I don't blame them)..

Re:No opt-out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773625)

What about people are having problems with demencia? With a lot of people not wanting their names on the list, the demincia person will have trouble identify their friends, fellow workers, asociates or relatives and etc.

Re:No opt-out (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#45773709)

What about people are having problems with demencia? With a lot of people not wanting their names on the list, the demincia person will have trouble identify their friends, fellow workers, asociates or relatives and etc.

People with demencia live in nursing homes with carers that tell them who's visiting them. They don't walk around in the street with Google glasses on thinking "who the hell's this guy? Oh yeah it's Kevin. Thanks Google!"

Actually, most live at home. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773865)

They may just have trouble with faces. Or directions, or just current location. Relatively minor.

Others are normal most of the time... with only episodes where they have to be reminded of where they are, what they were doing, or what they were looking for.

The ones in nursing homes have a severe problem in they don't remember how to find the bathroom.

Obviously you have never had to deal with someone with minor problems.

Re:No opt-out (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 10 months ago | (#45773813)

What about people are having problems with demencia? With a lot of people not wanting their names on the list, the demincia person will have trouble identify their friends, fellow workers, asociates or relatives and etc.

These people with dementia are somehow going to remember to put on their Google Glass?

the same goes for beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773637)

Dear whoever the hell owns Slashdot now: Stop trying to make Beta happen. It's not going to happen.

Nobody wants beta. If you force, they will leave.

Re:the same goes for beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774059)

I second this. WTF, Slashdot? Did you specifically hire somebody with special expertise at weilding the uglystick, or were you just fortunate enough to stumble across an applicant with a blackbelt in tactical counter-aesthetics?

Re:No opt-out (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#45773653)

It can't be opt-in. How could it be? Would you opt-in for something that lets you be tracked and recognized everywhere by anybody (and more importantly by evil corporations)? Would you opt-in to receive telemarketer calls at home? Would you opt-in to get spam emails?

Of course not: even if you only have doubts about something, your doubts make you *not* opt-in.

That's why every service that people don't want or don't like are opt-out only: for one thing, the bastards who foist it on us hope people will be too lazy to jump through the hoops to opt-out, and as an added bonus, the opt-out database itself can be mined and monetized.

In any case, even if you opt out, how will you know your mug won't be tracked anyway? Do you believe in corporate morals? Who's the overseeing body? The government? Do you believe in government morals?

re: how could it be opt in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773827)

Easy: UV face tattoo with a bar code linking to your profile.

Re:No opt-out (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773751)

This. If someone stares at me wearing those things without asking me first, I'll punch him or her in the face.

You would get arrested... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773893)

Assault and battery at a minimum.

More likely get sued and have to pay their support for a couple of months.

Some might even see that as a way to make a living. A bit painful for couple of days... but each lawsuit would pay for a months wages for three or four people.

At your expense.

Re:No opt-out (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773775)

Google glass is and has NEVER been meant to be a real marketable item, it is meant to see if people will accept it into society, and THEN put the lenses of cameras into 'normal' looking glasses, that you can't tell have the camera, or onto breast pocket or necklace deocrations, with the HUD eyepiece being built into normal looking glasses.

Google glass purposely looks like glasses +(something) so that google can learn how others react to it.

I thought all this was obvious, but apparently not from seeing everyone's reactions to this... PLUS what is everyone going to do when people have camera implants to give vision to the blind... or just 'body modification/improvement' ... THAT is the real question that we as a society need to address... also... gods... the MPAA/RIAA is going to bitch/moan about replacement eyes... and probably try to have DRM put into them so that they can't record movies/music, or turn off when you walk into a theater :/

Re:No opt-out (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about 10 months ago | (#45773939)

That's an interesting idea. I think we forget that google (or any company willing to take these technologies right now) have the best(as in most capable) minds in their hands. And while it's true that we should never forget that there is a thing called stupidity, it wouldn't do any harm to go for a what-if. After all, this could certainly be the point where we define just how the technology is going to grow and how is it going to enter our lives, with small adjustments afterwards. Changing course afterwards will be an uphill battle, while people are still thinking and have only just begun to take sides on this issue.

Hardware not YET efficient enough to scare me.. (1)

Barryke (772876) | about 10 months ago | (#45773633)

The hardware is not ready, at least not until they use hardware to build composite mutation-images that show relevant (pixel) changes only. There is no point in trying to parse a single image a second, or -on the opposite side- a video stream.

In my opinion, efficient wearable vision software should ignore lower quality versions of what it already saw, it would make a huge efficiency leap. I believe this architecture ultimately would be a software skeleton for a mental world reconstruction much like humans perceive.

3 strikes and you're out? (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 10 months ago | (#45773643)

Just thinking about this and wondering how much bird I'll get the first time I punch a Glasshole.

Re:3 strikes and you're out? (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 10 months ago | (#45773745)

Glasshole...! Love it. I would give you points and even some internets if I hadn't posted in this thread.

Re:3 strikes and you're out? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 10 months ago | (#45773823)

If I'm on the jury, I promise not to convict you! Fully justified, I say!

Re:3 strikes and you're out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774049)

I can volunteer to be a witness in any assault on a glasshole case. Although I will insist on a line-up in which each suspect candidate re-enacts the assault with full force on the glasshole. And I might still not be sure of which one of them it was but I will try my best and ask for repeating it to refresh my memory because I'm an upstanding citizen doing my best to help.

I Look Forward To Facial Rearrangement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773675)

The first story I read of someone rearranging one of these fad video camera's fanboy's faces because they won't turn their fucking camera off, or taking their house in a civil suit because they posted an audio recording on youtube will leave me clutching my sides in laughter.

Glass users! (2, Insightful)

KliX (164895) | about 10 months ago | (#45773703)

I hope you're ready to get the shit kicked out of you, because that's inevitably what's going to happen. I can't really see how it isn't going to happen.

I suspect it'll happen so frequently, that the police in any state won't even bother to charge anyone doing so with a crime after a short while.

Good luck!

Re:Glass users! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773749)

I hope you're ready to get the shit kicked out of you, because that's inevitably what's going to happen. I can't really see how it isn't going to happen.

So your fear is someone having the capability to record live video, and your response is to do violence against this person? I imagine the first app for Google Glass will be "record the last 10 seconds in a loop, beam to 911 and lawyer's office when glasses are broken".

Good luck yourself.

Google introduces robot.txt... for your face (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773705)

Just tattoo the standard robots.txt entries on your forehead, and Google Glass will obey. Don't want to be indexed at all? Disallow: * Or perhaps you just don't want people to see your stomach? Disallow: stomach. You can also keep stalkers at bay with a simple "Noindex,nofollow" above your lips.

Yes! Please! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773725)

I am completely unable to remember the names of people even in my small office. "Oh, you need to talk to Sam about that"... Shit. Sam who? I can't ask; I've been here three years! And the name's gender neutral even!

The ten or so people I interact with on a daily basis; fine - but beyond that? Argh!

So yes. Yes please. This is a WONDERFUL aid for an uncommon disability. And pretty much EVERY feature of wearable computing that was promised to be useful; context-based calenders, noting down things you're asked to do as you're asked to do them, showing who you promised to do stuff for and what it was - it all requires recognising who someone is.

This can't come quickly enough. If this actually works (and I doubt it, facial recognition always goes wrong at first), I'll buy one.

Re:Yes! Please! (-1, Troll)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 10 months ago | (#45773747)

Fuck off and die. Now.

Re:Yes! Please! (5, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45773883)

Try working in a school. I long ago stopped trying to track the number of times I catch some student destroying school property. There's nothing I can do: I can't identify them, they know well enough to lie if asked for a name, they all refuse to wear their name badges*, and if confronted they run away. Staff are forbidden from ever making any sort of physical contact with a student (As this could result in the student making a claim of assault and suing the school), so they can get away with just about anything so long as they aren't in sight of a teacher who can recognise them. There are two thousand-odd students, I can't memorise every face!

*The girls in particular have some strange phobia about letting anyone see their photograph, as they all consider it hideous.

Re:Yes! Please! (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45773897)

Actually, google glass wouldn't help here. They'd be forbidden instantly: We also don't permit any photographs be taken of students, nor do we allow even the use of cameras on site except for those students on photography courses, on the grounds that taking a photo of a child could be seen as preparing for sexual abuse.

Yes, I live in the UK. The country where everyone is a pedophile until proven otherwise.

Yeah. (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 10 months ago | (#45773741)

The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.

Like Facebook lets you "opt out" of stuff?

Fair warning to Google Glass wearers in near future: people will sucker-punch you and destroy your toy.

I certainly won't guarantee your safety if I see you with one pointing in my direction.

Re:Yeah. (3, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 10 months ago | (#45773983)

Assault someone in view of a wirelessly connected camera. That's a genius plan.

Merry Stasi Christmas! (2)

some old guy (674482) | about 10 months ago | (#45773783)

The boys at the Fort Meade KGB (oops, I mean NSA) HQ are throwing a party, while the local pigs are ordering extra sprinkles on their doughnuts as we speak.

Glass is the ultimate (to date) example of why "because we can" technology is a very bad thing.

And yes, even though I don't befriend the kind of narcissist that would use Glass, if one shows up at my home or office they will be asked to leave and never return. No exceptions. None.

Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 10 months ago | (#45773841)

>the kind of narcissist that would use Glass

This doesn't even make any sense, unless you are implying that they'd be staring at themselves in the mirror all the time.

Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! (0)

some old guy (674482) | about 10 months ago | (#45773911)

Kindly familiarize yourself with the full meaning of the word before you further embarrass yourself. Thank you.

Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! (2)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 10 months ago | (#45773953)

>Kindly familiarize yourself with the full meaning of the word Ok:

Narcissism is a term that originated with Narcissus in Greek mythology who fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. Currently it is used to describe the pursuit of gratification from vanity, or egotistic admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride. " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism/ [wikipedia.org]

narÂcisÂsism noun 1. excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance. - https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+narcissism [google.com]

So...it means exactly what I said in my post. What was the point you thought you were making?

Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! (0)

some old guy (674482) | about 10 months ago | (#45774031)

Besides shotgunning a couple of over-generalized links to Google searches (thorough research there!), you might have noticed the part about selfishness, which does not perforce involve mirrors. QED.

I know, teh googles were tl;dr

Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 10 months ago | (#45774109)

>Besides shotgunning a couple of over-generalized links to Google searches (thorough research there!),

Thank you.

>you might have noticed the part about selfishness, which does not perforce involve mirrors.

No, but the part about the very origin of the word 'narcissism' does.

Why don't you read up on logical fallacies, especially the one called 'moving the goalposts'.

Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45773877)

I'd imagine the local pigs are looking rather worried. The US has a few issues with police getting carried away with their authority. The use of cellphones made it a little bit harder for them to abuse their power and intimidate people, but only a little - few people pull out their phones to record traffic stops, and if you try it there's a good chance the cop will make up something to arrest you for on the spot just out of annoyance. Add Glass though - potentially a device where recording everything is as easy as a couple of winks - and getting away with things becomes a lot harder. It may help the NSA out, but it'll also provide something of a deterrant against the local cops trying to imtimidate you into confessing to a crime you didn't commit to boost their stats.

Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! (1)

some old guy (674482) | about 10 months ago | (#45773979)

One word: dossier.

The rub is not with the user, but with the records. This sort of thing would make a lovely tool for establishing proximity to a crime scene as part of a contrived case. A perfectly innocent act of common public politeness by a passing stranger involving the actual purp could easily be portrayed as complicity.

Prosecutors and police routinely lie, distort, and intimidate. It's in their job description.

Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me (5, Insightful)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 10 months ago | (#45773837)

When did Slashdot become so full of luddites?

Years ago there would have been nothing but comments full of ideas for amazing things you accomplish using a device like this.

Now it seems like the site is populated almost entirely by pubescent teenagers acting macho and boasting how they'd beat someone up and break their glasses.

Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773987)

I was a teen sereval teen-cycles ago, and the 1st idiot wearing Glass that I meet will need a good medical team, no discussion, period.
Tech is great, but in the current climate of mistrust this is a bad, bad idea and technology.

Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me (2)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 10 months ago | (#45773995)

Do you punch every person you see with a camera?

No? Hypocrite.

Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774061)

Most people with cameras aren't constantly filming and uploading to googles servers.

tl;dr: You really are a fuckwit.

Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774089)

Neither are Google Glasses... if you were an actual nerd you would realize that the available bandwidth is no where near enough to do that. And if somehow the bandwidth was high enough the battery life would be about five minutes.

tl;dr: You're afraid of the monster underneath your bed that is too big to fit under your bed.

Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774065)

Don't punch them. Put them where glassholes should keep their glasses for safe keeping - where the sun don't shine.

Won't be long (1)

Suiggy (1544213) | about 10 months ago | (#45773851)

Until everyone is wearing a ballroom mask.

opt out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45773863)

person identified:
- john doe, works at , lives in , , !PRIVACY NUT!, has opted out of facial db

How bulglary helpers :) (5, Interesting)

Selur (2745445) | about 10 months ago | (#45773937)

1. goto the airport check for people which take a long distance flight
2. check a few names
3. lookup facebook&co to get an idea whether they live alone or not
4. search the local phone book (or similar) to check where they live
5. drive over to their home and rob the place if no one is there

note:
step 1. could be replaced with a static camera
step 2.-4. could be replaced with a script

Also monitoring someones home with a static camera (could also be mounted on a drone) should make it really easy to create a general schedule plan for when which people regularly come and go -> no more man power intensive stake outs! :)

Face recognition has so many nice applications, can't imagine anything going really wrong. :D

why so 1984 ? (2)

Tom (822) | about 10 months ago | (#45773945)

I want glasses with facial recognition. In fact, if it worked the way I want it to, I'd buy them tomorrow.

I don't want this 1984 "we'll stalk everyone on the Internet for you" bullshit. I couldn't care less what the guy opposite me on the bus posted on Twitter this morning. I really, really don't give a fuck.

All I want is my own personal database of the people I know. They come in three categories:

  1. People I know really well - don't need a database on them, already have it in my head
  2. People I know well - I know their names and basic details, but a database that reminds me they had a birthday this week or other additional details I may or may not remember would be cool
  3. People I barely know - this is what I want it for. I have a horrible memory for names even though I almost always remember a face. Show me their name and when and where we last met and my social life would be a lot easier.

And /. doesn't do ordered lists. wtf?

Re:why so 1984 ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774045)

It is quite clear you really don't give a fuck - about anything other than yourself.

Arrest mugshot databases (2)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 10 months ago | (#45773951)

Seems like some of the easiest public sources to recognize and associate faces from would be police mugshot databases and sex offender databases. Will former criminals be actively shunned everywhere they go in public, or even subject to mob violence?

Re:Arrest mugshot databases (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774063)

Conversely, I would be more than glad to load a "Wanted Criminals" app on my Google Glass. Especially if I got a reward if my Glass found a wanted criminal.

Oh yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45774019)

Anon here... I am so frikin' ready... I have so many customers whom I deal with day-to-day in IM and email, but can't consistently recognize in the hallway... I would be so much more effective at my job if I could "connect" with them when I see them F2F each day. This is one place where Glass will be awesome! My social circle at work is frigin huge - all of my peers/customers are important, and I know them all by what I work on with them, but not by face. Please sanction this, omniscient gods, for the good of humanity...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?