UK To Build Useless Facial Recognition System

from the tax-dollars-at-work dept

Tue, May 23rd 2006 11:01am — Mike Masnick

After 9/11, there was a lot of talk about using facial recognition systems in various cities and airports. Even the Superbowl used one to try to spot "bad people" watching the big game. However, within a few years, people began to realize that such facial recognition systems don't really work for such applications. Facial recognition systems are barely good enough to match two faces in still photos -- but when you add in grainy video, different lighting and different angles it doesn't even come close to being effective. In Tampa, which had been the poster child for facial recognition security systems, the police shut it down after it didn't catch a single person in two years. Meanwhile, at Boston's Logan airport, the system was so bad it couldn't even catch the "tester" criminals they put into the system to see if it was working. With that in mind, you have to wonder why the UK has decided to build a nationwide facial recognition system to try to catch criminals spotted on any of the many, many security cameras found throughout Great Britain. Once again, it seems like the type of system being put in place for politicians to say they're making things safer, without actually making anyone safer.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Posterlogo, 23 May 2006 @ 11:18am

It's not perfected yet. So we should never try. Any thing that doesn't immediately work should be given up on FOREVER. NEVER. Goddamn wright brothers.
See the gist of where I'm going?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikko, 23 May 2006 @ 11:23am
  
  Re:
  Agreed with the first commenter.. Seems a rather Luddite position to take. They said the same about virtually every pioneered technlogy to date.. Techdirt of all places I thought I'd see recognition of this, but apparently not today.
  It may be a big task but it's simply a matter of figuring out the programming. We have the computing power and the knowledge (spread across umpteen disciplines).. Someone just has to be the first to put it together.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike (profile), 23 May 2006 @ 12:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Seems a rather Luddite position to take. They said the same about virtually every pioneered technlogy to date..
    
    Not a Luddite position at all. If your gov't was going to spend millions, if not billions, of dollars on a new technology, shouldn't there be at least some proof that it works? If the tech is improving, run a small trial somewhere.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Captain October, 23 May 2006 @ 11:27am
  
  Re:
  the difference there is that BILLIONS/MILLIONS/WHATEVER were not spent on the brothers developing the plane. this is expensive, easily beatable system that is more or less, utterly pointless
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JM, 23 May 2006 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  The article makes perfect sense. Nobody said give-up on the technology!
  
  Sorry, but too many people bitch about this kind of comment without actually using brain cells. This article plainly states that it's pointless to launch a system that is well known to be useless under the guise of making people safer. The fact is this technology needs vast improvement and pertending it's worth spending the money to set up a national infastructure for such a system is, quite frankly, pretty rediculous.
  
  If any of you can point out where in TFA it states we shouldn't continue to improve the technology my hats off to you...until then, GTFU.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mischa, 23 May 2006 @ 6:59pm
  
  Re: Not Perfect
  There is a big difference between 'not perfected yet' and 'did not catch a single person in two years'. Sure companies can still work to perfect the process but governments shouldn't be paying $$ to install something that doesn't work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mitch W, 23 May 2006 @ 11:20am

Wow politicians are the same everywhere!
I wonder why we can't seem to slap some sense into these people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
justthinking, 23 May 2006 @ 11:27am

re:
it wont take long at all before systems like this become much more efficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jezsik, 23 May 2006 @ 11:30am

Wright brothers indeed!
So these guys watched other inventors trying to imitate the flapping wings of birds and thought there should be a better way. Posterlogo seems to suggest the boys ought to have kept trying that which did not work.

Make it actually work before you put it into place (at public expense)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Topher3105, 23 May 2006 @ 11:33am

Re: Posterlogo
Its not about not trying, its about getting politicians to stop wasting taxpayers money on systems that don't work yet.

It would be like British Airways offering trans-Atlantic flights using the Wright brother's plane.

Its not about NOT developing the technology, its about deciding when it is time to use it, and it ain't time yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 23 May 2006 @ 11:35am

Improved Tech?
The tech might be the key here. depending on what sort of quid they are going to put into the system. Camera technology has vastly improved, so much so that the high end camera makers have stopped trying to up their megapixel numbers and are focusing on things like light sensitivite and grainy photos from digital cameras. If they are combining the latest camera tech with good programming (that will be rare) then this system could easily be effective. Another potential application they should try to combine with this is a recognition system for license plates on autos. If a vehicle registered to a suspect is parked in the parking lot of a building it is a good place to start looking for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 23 May 2006 @ 11:38am

For those that don't understand
The reason this is stupid isn't because they are developing technology, but because they are using an infant technology that needs a lot more test work before it is deployed.

Did the Wright brothers create their aircraft, get 50 or 60 people on it knowing it didn't fly in the test runs, then fall over a cliff with them? No. It was in testing until it worked. Then out came commercial aircraft.

Too many things get put out too early in their life cycle because the government or individuals want to have the appearance of moving us into the bleeding edge of science. I'd personally rather see money spent on tried and true techniques to actually capture criminals while facial recognition is still in the lab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SuckerPunch-tm, 23 May 2006 @ 11:40am

Miss the point much
by Posterlogo on May 23rd, 2006 @ 11:18am
It's not perfected yet. So we should never try. Any thing that doesn't immediately work should be given up on FOREVER. NEVER. Goddamn wright brothers.

See the gist of where I'm going?

It isn't about saying to abandon the idea, it's about the effective use of taxpayers (presumably) money on things that actually work TODAY, not at some indeterminate day somewhere in the unforseeable future.

See the gist of where I'm going?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NRK, 23 May 2006 @ 12:27pm

Didn't it take Edison's knowlege of 10,000 items that were not good lightbulb filiments before he found the right one? He would never say failures!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faz, 23 May 2006 @ 12:31pm

I agree
I agree, test it on casinos first with dummy data (e.g. employee pictures), even maybe with gov funding. once we have the technology perfected.. TADAAA put it everywhere.

thought of the moment: if someone grows a beard.. it will catch them right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous coward, 23 May 2006 @ 12:49pm

brits have an advantage. there facial recognition systems key off of dental abnormalities and since the britis have worst teeth in the western world, the system will actually work there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
racing_spirits, 23 May 2006 @ 12:55pm

you guys
you all seem to focus on the technical asoects which, we all know, will be figured out sooner or later. So what if the system will - in one steo - do away with your right to privacy, to be yourself, to go where you want when you want without some camera somewhere watching you.

Shades of 1984, which some of us DO NOT WANT, now or ever.

If you don't know what 1984 is, go get the book and scare sh*it out of yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kweeket, 23 May 2006 @ 11:52pm
  
  1984 != 2006 (if we're smart)
  In the article, it sounds as if there are already plenty of cameras in public places in the UK already. So your concerns about loss of privacy are a little late.
  
  However, I think privacy is still maintained, since there is no government video surveillance in people's homes - only public spaces. And public spaces are, by definition, already not private.
  
  BUT I don't like that the British government seems to be hoarding the information they gather, leading to a scary 1984-esque imbalance of power. Transparency might be a solution to this problem - if everyone is allowed to check the same video feeds to which the police have access, who watches the watchers then? Well....everybody.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2006 @ 12:57pm

Vegas
They need to look at the casinos, I beleve they are already using systems to catch the card counters now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2006 @ 1:02pm

OMG just maybe the UK could succeed in something the US have failed... never!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2006 @ 1:09pm

Nobody here is paranoid?
Scannign comments, and don't see a single conspiracy theorist pointing out that if they admitted it worked, everyone would scream invasion of privacy. Tell everyone it's broken, and they just argue about your technology.

Still think it doesn't work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JM, 23 May 2006 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: Nobody here is paranoid?
  LOL - have any evidence of this? Let's just be paranoid all the time because... Oooh the satellite’s are watching!
  
  It's ok to be somewhat warry but outright paranoia without reason? Where there is evidence to support a reason to be paranoid then call it out. There is no value in paranoia without cause.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
von hell, 23 May 2006 @ 1:18pm

political lens
It's obvious that the reason for dismissing this endeavor is rooted in a political position. The technology mentioned is being used to monitor individuals and provide the government with increased capabilities to capture criminals. Thus the expenditure on the technology is outrageous and the technology hopeless. The predisposition to assume that our politicians simply want to say they are making things safer without actually doing anything, of course reinforces the previous assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]