A big biometric security company in the UK, Facewatch, is in hot water after their facial recognition system caused a major snafu - the system wrongly identified a 19-year-old girl as a shoplifter.

  • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    If it works anything like Apple’s Face ID twins don’t actually map all that similar. In the general population the probability of matching mapping of the underlying facial structure is approximately 1:1,000,000. It is slightly higher for identical twins and then higher again for prepubescent identical twins.

    • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Meaning, 8’000 potential false positives per user globally. About 300 in US, 80 in Germany, 7 in Switzerland.

      Might be enough for Iceland.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, which is a really good number and allows for near complete elimination of false matches along this vector.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I promise bro it’ll only starve like 400 people please bro I need this

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            No you misunderstood. That is a reduction in commonality by a literal factor of one million. Any secondary verification point is sufficient to reduce the false positive rate to effectively zero.

            • BassTurd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Which means the face recognition was never necessary. It’s a way for companies to build a database that will eventually get exploited. 100% guarantee.

            • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              secondary verification point

              Like, running a card sized piece of plastic across a reader?

              It’d be nice if they were implementing this to combat credit card fraud or something similar, but that’s not how this is being deployed.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, people with totally different facial structures get identified as the same person all the time with the “AI” facial recognition, especially if your darker skinned. Luckily (or unluckily) I’m white as can be.

      I’m assuming Apple’s software is a purpose built algorithm that detects facial features and compares them, rather than the black box AI where you feed in data and it returns a result. Thats the smart way to do it, but it takes more effort.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      And yet this woman was mistaken for a 19-year-old 🤔

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Shitty implementation doesn’t mean shitty concept, you’d think a site full of tech nerds would understand such a basic concept.

        • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Pretty much everyone here agrees that it’s a shitty concept. Doesn’t solve anything and it’s a privacy nightmare.