Another Facial Recognition System Bites The Dust

from the can't-recognize-this-mug dept

It's been nearly two years since the September 11th tragedies and the "promise" of facial recognition technology to help prevent events like that from happening again doesn't seem to be coming along so well. A couple weeks ago we wrote about how Tampa was ditching their face recognition technology after it helped them catch exactly zero criminals in over two years. Meanwhile, the big test was supposed to be in airports, and Boston's Logan Airport is now saying that their system is so bad, not only did it not catch any criminals, it didn't even catch many of the "tester" criminals they were using to make sure the system works (story submitted anonymously). To test the system, officials programmed in images of a number of decoys that the technology was supposed to catch. In 249 tries, it let the decoy pass without a problem 96 times. It did catch more than half of the decoys, but still, this is nowhere near what supporters of the technology were promising. To be honest, I'm surprised the technology worked as well as it did. But, if it's that weak, it's not hard to realize that simple disguises are likely to trick it every time. It still seems like the technology is going to be much more useful in matching up someone directly (such as proving you are who you say you are, so you can enter a restricted area) rather than picking a face out of a crowd.
Hide this

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


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Beck, 2 Sep 2003 @ 10:54am

    False Positives

    Failing to flag a tester is only half of the story. There is no word on the rate of false positives in the article.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.