Would The Entertainment Industry Follow A Three Strikes Rule Itself?

Face Scanning Vending Machine Fooled By Photos

from the like-we-couldn't-see-that-coming dept

Tue, Jul 1st 2008 5:26pm — Mike Masnick

Last year, we wrote about how cigarette vending machines in Japan were using facial recognition software to make sure the buyer was of an appropriate age. As we noted at the time, it seemed unlikely that such a system would work very well, and, indeed, The Raw Feed lets us know that it's easily fooled by a magazine photo of an older person. Not too surprising, of course, but you would think that someone would have tested for such things before putting the machines into practice. Unless, of course, they really don't care about the age of the buyers.

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

Filed Under: facial recognition, japan, vending machines

14 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2008 @ 5:36pm

So, one thing I don't quite get is why we have an age limit on smoking. Is it just because we know it'll kill you? It's OK for an adult to poison themselves, but we'll arrest a kid (or fine the vendor) if he tries the same?

I don't mean for that to be a stawman (but it is). I really don't get what the basis for these rules are, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2008 @ 5:47pm

The reasoning behind the rules, to the best of my knowledge, is that the chemicals in cigarettes do even worse things to an undeveloped body, similar to the way alcohol can damage the growing brain of a child. While an age limit is by nature controversial - there is no one rate at which people mature - the law is an attempt to minimize damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
some old guy, 1 Jul 2008 @ 6:08pm

sorry
Sorry #2, but both your assumption and the notion you used to concieve it are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loweded Wookie, 1 Jul 2008 @ 8:27pm
  
  Re: sorry
  Can you please explain why it's wrong? I mean you say it is but you do not back it up therefore how can we trust what you say? For all we know you could be wrong. Actually what #2 says makes a lot of sense so until you can prove otherwise instead of "You're wrong" then I'm siding with something that at least makes a bit of sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ABC, 2 Jul 2008 @ 3:34am
    
    Re: Re: sorry
    Whether what #2 said is true or not, it's likely not the reason for age limits. Most laws that discriminate between minors and adults do so for the following:
    
    An adult is supposed to be in a position to make an informed decision, a child is not.
    
    I'm not going to argue at what age that limit should be set, but it seems fairly reasonable to have some limit. Most adults know smoking is bad and will do serious harm to them and those around them. An 8 year old probably won't know.
    
    PS. As #2 is posting his theory, he should provide backup to prove it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 2 Jul 2008 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: sorry
  Quick, someone alert the Surgeon General. Some old guy has spoken.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bobbknight, 1 Jul 2008 @ 6:17pm

FRS
Does this mean that the frs software will allow other than dirty old men to buy young school girl panties from those machines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2008 @ 6:18pm

This is funny.
Typical rush to market overlooking the obvious.
Are these machines made by the same folks who brought us electronic voting machines ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ralph, 2 Jul 2008 @ 7:29am
  
  Re:
  Exactly what I was thinking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SomeoneElse, 1 Jul 2008 @ 7:43pm

The REAL reason that Minors cannot smoke (or drink)
@ #1 and #2, the real reason (at least here in the states -- not sure if it is the same in Japan, but I think so) has to do with the concept of consent. Basically a person under a certain age is not considered old enough to give their informed consent in certain matters (sex, alcohol, cigarettes). Which is silly because I know people in their 50's that aren't mature enough to consent to anything (in my opinion), and I know people in their early teens that are mature enough to make extremely difficult adult decisions carefully (probably do better than I do at 32)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2008 @ 7:57pm

Of course they were tested
Of course these machines were tested. They were tested to the highest standards of the industry, using the same techniques that are used by the voting machine industry to verify that their systems are not vulnerable to manipulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nightmare, 1 Jul 2008 @ 8:00pm

no depth of field perception?
You would figure the software would be designed to recognize that the image in front of the camera is a 2D one. I don't see why it couldn't detect unnatural reflections, inconsistencies in the depth of field in the image, and other things like that.

In Japan the legal age for smoking is apparently 20 by the way. As far as what I can tell about the law in the US, the age is 18 because that is legally considered an adult. Since cigarettes are bad for your health and can eventually lead to death, for a minor to smoke could be considered child endangerment. Going by that point, I still don't understand why the minimum age for military enlistment is 17.
Anyway,...
I just noticed that this was the first comment on the original story back in 2007:
"by Brian on Nov 6th, 2007 @ 2:57am

Anyone with a brain can just hold up a photo in front of the vending machine?"

Apparently people saw this coming as soon as it was announced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2008 @ 10:36pm
  
  Re: no depth of field perception?
  The minimum age of 17 is with parent consent. I would assume this would allow newly graduated high schoolers to enlist. Many would find this advantageous in that it provides a sense of direction. In addition, military service can pay for a future college education.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wasnt me, 2 Jul 2008 @ 1:46am

fact is cigarets do more harm to "children /kids" than they do to adults.

IMHO the reason why its ok for adults and not for younger ppl to smoke / buy cigarettes it is because adults are supposed to have better judgment that the younger ppl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]