Face Rec 90% accurate using surveilance cams

Said Sung-Ho Kong of SK Networks:

“In 2008, we performed a live, uncontrolled test of 3VR's facial recognition technology in Seoul subway stations, where the solution was an impressive 85-92 percent accurate, depending on conditions. No other solution approached this level of accuracy, vastly improving our ability to track, find and thwart crime in subways and other highly populated areas, which had previously proven extremely difficult to monitor.”

Source: inhardfocus.com...

The North Koreans have developed a face recognition system showing an accuracy rate around 90% (85-92%). The study was performed at the subway, in fast moving crowds. Creapy to say the least! Images from Enemy of the State comes to my retinas...It sounds bloody correct of God to call him Sung-Ho....

[edit on 14/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Not trying to be racist of stereotypical but if it can distinguish a Korean from another with 90%, WOW. An I thought that the casino facial recognition software was good.

I could care less, being a shape shifting reptilian has it advantages. Here's hoping the 8-15% error rate doesn't leave some innocents tasered, beaten and hauled off to interrogation.

ofcoarse the smartest man in the world resides in korea his IQ is 210 he is probaly smart enough to tell a south korean from a north korean

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

The North Koreans have developed a face recognition system
showing an accuracy rate around 90% (85-92%).

We'd need to know what exactly that accuracy rate is mesauring, but it's very possible 90% accuracy would make it fantasically less than completely worthless due to false positives. How many people go through a subway every day?


Take a look at that picture. There are easily 100 people in it. If the system is 90% accurate, does that mean that it generates as many as 10% false positives? So from a single frame of a single station it might incorrectly identify 10 people for detainment? Multiply that over all the tens of thousands of people who might pass through a station in a single day, and this system might be incorrectly asking security to detain hundreds of people every day, at every station, at every checkpoint.

Looking at the New York subway as an example...according to New York City Transit, on the average weekday there are over five million subway passengers. 10% false positives out of five million is 50,000 false positives every day.

Assuming the trains run 12 hours a day, that's one false positive every point-eight-six seconds.



[edit on 14-11-2009 by LordBucket]

well its accurate most of the time so that means it will usually find the criminal 7 out of 8 times theirfore that only means an innocent person will be falsely persecuted only 1 time out of every 8 that isnt that bad but the question is what are the percantages of accuracy if your wearing a desk-ize

lol again idiotic idea good in principal lousy in real life. One word..HOODIES. and to think this was a black teenager gang thing.
Most people will start to wear hoods even in soaring temps...i know i would just to peeve them off

reply to post by HumbleStudent111


1 in 8 innocents dragged away for interrorgation, and you say its not too bad.

Hopefully your one of the 1 in 8 one day.

We will see what tune you sing then.

CT

Don't know if anyone have seen the Dark Knight Batman movie, but the system they use at the end of that movie using all mobile phones in Gotham to triangulate positions and echoes, so you could basically reder the whole world, given you had access, and the given technology and apps. Combining such a system where everyone and everything within range of a cellphone leaves a 3D radar rendering, with cameras everywhere linked to face recognition software.... ga..

reply to post by HumbleStudent111

that means it will usually find the criminal 7 out of 8 times
theirfore that only means an innocent person will be falsely
persecuted only 1 time out of every 8

You're making a tremendous assumption on how to interpret that 10% error rate.

They're claiming 90% accuracy. So let's say a million people go through and none of them are on the watch list. How many false positives will there be? You seem to be assuming that if nobody on the watch list goes through, there will be no false positives.

I see no reason to make that assumption.

my apoligies to all, i was just using humor i didnt feel like doing the math to actually calculate that

I was just stating that while impressive, it can still make mistakes

Humans don't perform as well as 90% accurate identifying people by their face on surveillance cameras!

Combined with gate analysis it might make a very accurate system.

reply to post by LightFantastic


Yes, frightening to say the least.

And I heard of another system they are about to introduce here in Norway, with tiny cameras in the front of police cars scanning all the number plates on cars they meet, showing off alarms whenever something is connected with the registration number. Paranoid me? Looks like it's the PTB that are paranoid...

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by LightFantastic

 

Yes, frightening to say the least.

And I heard of another system they are about to introduce here in Norway, with tiny cameras in the front of police cars scanning all the number plates on cars they meet, showing off alarms whenever something is connected with the registration number. Paranoid me? Looks like it's the PTB that are paranoid...

We have had that system on the police cars for many years here. We even have fixed cameras that do the same. The police just sit at the side of the road and the computer flags up the dodgy cars, which in some cities can be half of them!

reply to post by LightFantastic


We've had the fixed ones for a while, by toll roads, ferry terminals, speed cameras (they actually calculate average speed between the blinkers these days) etc., but their "juristiction" is very limited. They can't use this information unless so and so. But now donut and coffee barfing coppers can simply sit by the road and wait for some crook to enter their basket. That's not a society I want to live in. There must be good crooks at least. Are they gonna crush any kid's dream just by turning them into criminals for tossing paper on the street and let them advance until they explode?

Facial recognition technology and thumb print scanning make ideas like implantable rfid redundantly obsolete.

We are fast approaching the day where we are monitored whenever we are in public and the government is able to track where exactly we go wherever we go.

This started a long time ago with the drivers license imo. There were no horse drawn carriage licenses despite the fact that people were getting run over by them. There was no DUI exception to the 5th Amendment despite people driving their horse drawn carriages while drunk.

When the drivers license was instituted I'm sure some people were primarily concerned with bad drivers being on the road and hitting people but I think others saw it as an excuse to demand personally identifying information without having to get a warrant. I think these big brother types figured the drivers license would allow the government to bypass the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement to search a person's papers and effects.

Each day we lose more and more rights. I don't think this will stop until something like the sea steading movement takes off.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by LightFantastic

 

That's not a society I want to live in. There must be good crooks at least. Are they gonna crush any kid's dream just by turning them into criminals for tossing paper on the street and let them advance until they explode?

You don't want to live in the UK then. Even lowly council officials here have the right to access all known information about you, such as bank accounts, telephone calls etc. They can video what you do for virtually any reason.

We fine people for dropping litter and cigarette ends and employ people to spot offenders and fine them on the spot. They also do this using the extensive networks of cameras. A council official can spot you dropping a cigarette end from your car and you will get a fine in the post. You can opt to go to court if you think you are innocent but then you risk a massive fine.

Also in the UK you can get fined for speeding without any proof who was driving the vehicle. If you don't know then the registered keeper of the car has to pay the fine. It used to be "Innocent until proven guilty". Not any more.

The difference in the UK now is that we issue fines rather than turning offenders into criminals. It will be automated fines for swearing next, like in the film "Demolition Man".

PS For some reason I used the word "Gate" above rather than "Gait"


[edit on 17/11/2009 by LightFantastic]

reply to post by LightFantastic


Might have to one day in the future. Who knows. Sounds like a society where the biggest social problem in the future will be blackmailing and corruption. Think about what you could make nerding down behind a wall of camera angles all directed at one person and his contextualities you need something on, either because he is a political opponent, or he is your boss etc. We will guaranteed see a new advent for class society, where the ones who can pay, can pay for privacy, while all the rest of us need to risk humiliation every time we'd take a dump or buy porn magasines, getting too drunk and end up in some humiliating scene infront of all the cameras. Frekking voyeurs, society has aquired a keyhole lurkers class or elite peeking at what their neighbours are doing. In business it's the same thing, and it started with the net. When the authorities realised how much information it is possible to gather about one person, they all got randy and though, "hey, now we can catch criminals before they have actually done anything wrong, except for tossing fag butts and chewing gum on the street! Great!" What a wonderful world....

[edit on 17/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

[edit on 17/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

I forgot to mention that in some areas the cameras can actually see into peoples houses. Of course the operators aren't supposed to look unless there is a reason. The rule makers obviously don't understand human nature.