Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

blog.machinebox.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 111 posts

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#51

Post by headsoup »

cryptoz wrote: post #34
nabeards wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? I guess it just comes down to a consequentialism vs deontology whether someone thinks this is a good idea. And, obviously, if they don't do it, I guess someone else will?

The article says, > Like any technology, we need to consider the ethics of its application carefully so we don’t build tools that are open to abuse, or worst case, terminators that can travel through time to kill people. So no, they took the opportunity to clear up any fears or concerns about the project and used it to make a really, really scary joke about robots specifically designed to identify individuals by usin…

Maybe they gave thought to their own ethics, but they likely didn't consider implications of being useful for someone without said ethics.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#52

Post by julianj »

danso wrote: post #6
wgerard wrote: post #4

There's something about software like this that really creeps me out, even though I realize it's not ridiculously advanced (i.e. it's way more common than I think) anymore. That might just be a personal aversion, though. I can imagine useful scenarios for this even if I get a bit of an icky feeling from it. My co-founder and I have talked about things like this as an "anti-cheating" measure (we developed a take-home…

Some more info about ProctorU (for others who haven't heard about it): https://www.chronicle.com/article/Behind-the-Webcams-Watchfu... > Rather than one proctor sitting at the head of a physical classroom and roaming the aisles every once in a while, remote proctors peer into a student's home, seize control of her computer, and stare at her face for the duration of a test, reading her body language for signs of impro…

In my experience ProctorU is not automated. They use a branded version of logmeinrescue that allows ProctorU to take full control of your PC and record from your webcam. You can also see the proctor. However, the proctor's camera is usually paused while taking the exam and they proctor more than one exam at a time. ProctorU also executes custom scripts on your PC to check for suspicious software and virtualization.

Source: As a remote student, I have used ProctorU several times. Most recently within the last few months. I use a dedicated PC for this proctoring.

Edit: Clarified text and fixed some typos

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#53

Post by demircancelebi »

nootropicat wrote: post #14

Black Mirror predicted this in a much more realistic business case - forcing users to view ads. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleMXX24v5g&t=52s

I think that is highly unlikely. If lots of people are not okay with watching ads, there would be economic incentives for people to create ad-free alternatives. Even now we have lots of such alternatives. If someone is not able to afford that alternative, it may actually be harmful to advertisers to spend their money on showing these people ads anyway.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#54

Post by dpkonofa »

IntronExon wrote: post #20
chrisvalleybay wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most people, the biometric model of their face is available to nearly anyone. Most people have multiple profile photos available on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn etc.

As someone who has been careful about not doing that for a couple of decades, just fuck me, hm?

You don't have a smartphone? You don't have a Google account? You don't have accounts on any platform (other than HN, obviously)? I think it's incredibly understated how easy it is to piece together who someone is from their data. You may not think you have pictures out there either but I'd venture to guess that something is out there.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#55

Post by IntronExon »

dpkonofa wrote: post #54
IntronExon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has been careful about not doing that for a couple of decades, just fuck me, hm?

You don't have a smartphone? You don't have a Google account? You don't have accounts on any platform (other than HN, obviously)? I think it's incredibly understated how easy it is to piece together who someone is from their data. You may not think you have pictures out there either but I'd venture to guess that something is out there.

My google accounts are in no way linked to a real identity. I have little doubt that my identity would be easy to deduce, but it won’t come with a picture, I hope. I’m not engaged in any secret or illegal activities, I just don’t want to give away my privacy, so I’m just cautious rather than appropriately paranoid. I do have a smartphone, and I have no illusions that law enforcement and governments can track me. The average person, and hopefully Facebook cannot.

Apple could burn me horribly though.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#56

Post by ramblenode »

chrisvalleybay wrote: post #17
jstanley wrote: post #3

Please, no. This has to be a parody. > Banks don’t want private account details (like the user’s current balance and credit limits etc) being seen by anybody other than the account holder. This is exactly the kind of justification they'd use. And surprise surprise there won't be a box that says "I'd rather risk somebody seeing my account details than have a biometric model of my face stored in your database and given…

For most people, the biometric model of their face is available to nearly anyone. Most people have multiple profile photos available on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn etc.

> For most people, the biometric model of their face is available to nearly anyone.

I was curious about this claim, so I did some cursory research.

A Pew survey from 2013 [0]--which is perhaps a bit dated--found that 66% of respondents believed a photo of them existed online--which, notably, says nothing about access to the photo or metadata that relates the photo to an identity. Pew found in 2016 [1] that about 68%, 28%, and 25% of US adults, respectively, have a Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn account. These are presumably the main vectors for accessing the face:ID pair. So this gives us some ability to quantify the first part of your claim, "most people".

As for the second part of your claim--that this subgroup's face:ID is available to nearly anyone--I did not find data on who or how many people might have access to this information. The vector here is important, though. Let's consider the public UI, which is realistically the only interface most interested entities have access to. With only a name and no other queryable bits of information, finding the matching face is unlikely because of how many identical names there are. The ability to query other bits like geolocation, work history, the social graph, and, of course, the face itself should greatly increase the chance of finding face:ID, which is minimally an account with profile picture. The profile picture is not per se sufficient to extract a face model but also not per se necessary, as other face photos might be viewable in the profile. At this point I can really only speculate about the intersection of privacy settings and photos, but I think it's far from clear that this information is "available", which I take to mean that the information is accessible with relatively little effort and means. And again, this is just the people who have a social media account and probably a photo tied to their account, not the population at large.

Of course, there are entities which have access to far more data than this, but that is not "nearly anyone".

[0] http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/05/anonymity-privacy-and-...

[1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-20...

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#57

Post by nitwit005 »

> Banks don’t want private account details (like the user’s current balance and credit limits etc) being seen by anybody other than the account holder.

Unless it's an in-person interaction, a face has little security value, because it's not a secret. Getting a photo, or even full motion video of someone often just requires finding their Instagram page.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#58

Post by sokoloff »

no1youknowz wrote: post #11
jstanley wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm not having a photo of my face and the inside of my home associated with every online purchase. That's ludicrous.

I agree. From a consumer point of view, you are welcome to take that position. However, my comment was purely from a credit card processor, acquirer or even bank. At the end of the day, if something like this was introduced. You are free to not comply, pay with an alternative method or shop elsewhere.

Given the resistance in the US to chip-and-pin, I wouldn’t expect “anything-and-facial-rec” to catch on quickly.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#59

Post by bdcravens »

no1youknowz wrote: post #8

I can see from a privacy standpoint, this may cause some concern. However, from a credit card processor point of view and combating "friendly fraud". This could be an excellent tool to prevent that. For example. The scenario where a transaction has been processed and 6 weeks later, it is disputed because the card holder doesn't recognise the transaction. Perhaps the wife used the husbands card whilst he was in the sh…

Merchants ask for ID well less than 1% of all of my physical purchases.

Re: Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website

#60

Post by Klathmon »

gricardo99 wrote: post #48
bringtheaction wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would I want to use a government controlled blockchain? For me the concept of decentralization is essential to cryptocurrency.

Decentralization is not essential to cryptocurrency as a technology. It's essential to a view of how it could be used for the betterment of many. The technology can just as easily be applied for other purposes, mandated by an authoritarian government to be the only legal way to conduct commerce. You'd use it not because you want to, but because you want to avoid their ire.

With a single trusted party, a blockchain is just a wildly inefficient database.

There's literally no reason to use it at that point, just make a simple db of account numbers and balances.

Post reply on HN