Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing • Hacker News Board

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#31

Post by yk » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:49 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #27

jhonovich wrote: post #12

I am the author of the referenced article. The problem is matching surveillance camera images (like from Lord & Taylor's) is impossible because of the steep down tilt angle of the cameras plus their low resolution. Smartphone images could be a little better as the angle is more head on and the resolution is higher. However, even those images tended to be in a wide field of view which means low pixel density, hurting…

Why is surveillance video not HD? Shouldn't this quality be almost a commodity by now? How different are these cameras than what you get in, say the latest Samsung Galaxy S4, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S4

Surveillance cameras are typically bought and then forgotten. So the new ones are probably HD, but you get a collection of cameras between HD and Betamax if you look at the cameras that are actually in use.

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#32

Post by localhost3000 » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:50 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #23

Not just facial recognition, the "terror watch list" failed (after a warning from Russia about the older brother) lack of background checks on the AR15s they owned failed, the secured perimeter failed (the teenager was outside of it) the city lockdown failed (the guy smoking the cigarette outside when he saw the blood was technically violating the lockdown). In the end it was mostly dumb luck, dumb criminals, and the…

this is absurd. i'm in Boston. there is absolutely no shortage of support and praise for the doctors and hospitals here.

lots of things went wrong for this to happen. thanks for pointing out the painfully obvious. our police deserve the "pats on the back" (which, by the way, is an extremely condescending way to put it) they're getting, and more.

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#33

Post by astar » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:53 PM UTC

Facial recognition is still treated like some magical technology, like the "zoom in, enhance" feature much mocked about on TV crime shows. I bet Facebook's technology is ahead of law enforcement's in terms of data, algorithm, and refinement, and yet it still stumbles on pretty obvious faces (if you have the default auto-tag feature left on)

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#34

Post by emiliobumachar » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:54 PM UTC

jpalomaki wrote: post #20

I can understand that recording live footage with very high quality is a problem, but how about capturing quality stills to complement the video with lower quality.

Someone with knowledge of cameras please either correct or endorse this, but I think the largest price/quality tradeoff in any camera happens at the lens choice, and given a cheap lens, the stills can't be much better than the video.

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#35

Post by runarb » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:57 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #27

jhonovich wrote: post #12

I am the author of the referenced article. The problem is matching surveillance camera images (like from Lord & Taylor's) is impossible because of the steep down tilt angle of the cameras plus their low resolution. Smartphone images could be a little better as the angle is more head on and the resolution is higher. However, even those images tended to be in a wide field of view which means low pixel density, hurting…

Why is surveillance video not HD? Shouldn't this quality be almost a commodity by now? How different are these cameras than what you get in, say the latest Samsung Galaxy S4, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S4

Its not only about the cameras. Its currently expensive to store all that HD video. ( and now, one cant just upload it to the cloud. Necessary bandwidth isn't yet available locally ).

One are also dealing with a lot of legacy systems her. But the next generation surveillance system will probably be HD, and then maybe 3D, 4k, 16k etc.

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#36

Post by datr » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:59 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #29

afarrell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the lockdown was voluntary, though with strong community pressure to comply. But yes, multiple subsystems failed in the police response. If you listened to police scanners, you also heard that they had some trouble identifying streets correctly, or keeping their mics off when not talking. But police response protocols are one human system that definitely needs to be able to work in the face of multiple subs…

Talking about the scanners and technology (and failures) didn't "homeland security" give millions to metro police departments around the country to get their communication encrypted? I vaguely remember reading about that a couple years ago. I wonder where that money went if that is accurate. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+grant%22+%22encry...

I've wanted to ask about this since seeing the Boston police channel available on the internet. In the UK all the channels are encrypted making it virtually impossible for a civilian to listen in. Is it simply financial reasons that the USA doesn't do this?

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#37

Post by Plimsoll » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:00 PM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #13

How hard would it be to throw off facial recognition by simply wearing very high quality makeup and prosthetics to alter your facial appearance (ala hollywood movies)? If I were the boston bombers, I would have first learned how to make myself look completely different. It's unbelievable to me that these guys didn't realize they'd be captured on tons of cameras that day.

This brings to mind this bank robbery news from few years aback: http://gizmodo.com/5711252/white-guy-becomes-black-bank-robb...

Don't know how easy it is to get those masks though.

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#38

Post by securingsincity » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:00 PM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #25

ck2 wrote: post #23

Not just facial recognition, the "terror watch list" failed (after a warning from Russia about the older brother) lack of background checks on the AR15s they owned failed, the secured perimeter failed (the teenager was outside of it) the city lockdown failed (the guy smoking the cigarette outside when he saw the blood was technically violating the lockdown). In the end it was mostly dumb luck, dumb criminals, and the…

Actually, the lockdown was voluntary, though with strong community pressure to comply. But yes, multiple subsystems failed in the police response. If you listened to police scanners, you also heard that they had some trouble identifying streets correctly, or keeping their mics off when not talking. But police response protocols are one human system that definitely needs to be able to work in the face of multiple subs…

to be fair if you live in Massachusetts you would know, all of the streets are not marked as you would expect in other areas. If there are street signs at intersection often times only one of the streets is marked.

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#39

Post by joosters » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:02 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #23

Not just facial recognition, the "terror watch list" failed (after a warning from Russia about the older brother) lack of background checks on the AR15s they owned failed, the secured perimeter failed (the teenager was outside of it) the city lockdown failed (the guy smoking the cigarette outside when he saw the blood was technically violating the lockdown). In the end it was mostly dumb luck, dumb criminals, and the…

We don't yet know if the "terror watch list" failed. Perhaps he was checked and they found nothing, because at that time, they weren't terrorists and weren't planning a terrorist attact at that point? We're not living in a minority-report style pre-crime detection world yet.

Re: Facial Recognition Failed in Boston Bombing

#40

Post by davidw » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:03 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #28

unvs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the curfew had been lifted moments before he went outside for a cigarette - at least that's what's been reported over and over and over.

So the curfew actually prevented earlier discovery of the younger brother, interesting.

Well, considering "the second suspect" was possibly armed to the teeth, and maybe wearing a suicide vest, the hope was that, yeah, a regular person would not stumble on him and get killed. The guy who found him got lucky, it sounds like.