Whether you are a human or a non-person entity (NPE) with facial recognition capability, you rely on visual cues to positively identify or authenticate a person. Let’s face it; many people resemble each other, but specific facial expressions or emotions are not always shared by people who otherwise look alike.
All pictures Google Gemini.
But in one of those oddities that fill the biometric world, you can have TOO MUCH expression. Part 3 of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Document 9303, which governs machine readable travel documents, mandates that faces on travel documents must maintain a neutral expression without smiling. At the time (2003) it was believed that the facial recognition algorithms would work best if the subject were expressionless. I don’t know if that holds true today.
But once the smile is erased, any other removal of expression or emotion degrades identification capability significantly. For example, closing the eyes not only degrades facial recognition, but is obviously fatal to iris recognition.
And if you remove the landmarks upon which facial recognition depends, identification is impossible.
While expression or lack thereof does not invalidate the assumption of permanence of the biometric authentication factor, it does govern the ability of people and machines to perform identification or authentication.
Biometric marketing leaders, do your firm’s product marketing publications require the words of authority?
John E. Bredehoft of Bredemarket, the biometric product marketing expert.
Can John E. Bredehoft of Bredemarket—the biometric product marketing expert—contribute words of authority to your content, proposal, and analysis materials?
I offer:
30 years of biometric experience, 10 years of product marketing expertise, and complementary proposal and product management talents.
Success with numerous biometric firms, including Incode, IDEMIA, MorphoTrak, Motorola, Printrak, and over a dozen biometric consulting clients.
Biometric Update reports that Amazon’s Ring products are offering a feature called “Familiar Faces.”
“In September, Amazon revealed a revamped Ring camera lineup featuring two notable AI features, Familiar Faces and Search Party. Familiar Faces uses facial recognition and lets users tag neighbors or friends so future alerts identify them by name rather than generic motion.”
For the first time in the U.S., an identical twin has been convicted of a crime based on DNA analysis.
The breakthrough came from Parabon Nanolabs, who’s scientists used deep whole genome sequencing to identify extremely rare “somatic mutations” that differentiated Russell Marubbio and his twin, John. The results were admitted as evidence in court, making last week’s conviction of Russell in the 1987 rape of a 50-year-old woman a landmark case.
Somatic mutations are DNA changes that happen after conception and can cause genetic differences between otherwise identical twins. These mutations can arise during the earliest stages of embryonic development, affecting the split of the zygote, and accumulate throughout life due to errors in cell division. Somatic mutations can be present in only one twin, a subset of cells, or both, potentially leading to differences in health and even developmental disorders—and in this case, DNA.
The science behind somatic mutations is not new, and is well-researched, understood and accepted. It’s just uncommon for DNA to lead to twins, and even more uncommon for somatic mutations to be able to distinguish between twins.
Note that “well-researched, understood and accepted” part (even though it lacks an Oxford comma). Because this isn’t the only recent story that touches upon whole genome sequencing.
Evidence derived from cutting-edge DNA technology that prosecutors say points directly at Rex Heuermann being the Gilgo Beach serial killer will be admissible at his trial, a Suffolk County judge ruled Wednesday….
Heuermann’s defense attorney Michael Brown had argued the DNA technology, known as whole genome sequencing, has not yet been widely accepted by the scientific community and therefore shouldn’t be permitted. He said he plans to argue the validity of the technology before a jury.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have argued this type of DNA extraction has been used by local law enforcement, the FBI and even defense attorneys elsewhere in the country, according to court records.
Let me point out one important detail: the fact that police agencies are using a particular technology doesn’t mean that said technology is “widely accepted by the scientific community.” I suspect that this same question will be raised in other courts, and other judges may hold a different decision.
And after checking my blog, I realize that I have never written an article about Daubert/Frye. Another assignment for Bredebot, I guess…
Your identity/biometric product marketing needs to assert the facts rather than old lies,
I love how Biometric Update bundles a bunch of stories into a single post. Chris Burt outdid himself on Wednesday, covering a slew of stories regarding use and possible misuse of facial recognition by Texas bounty hunters, the NYPD, and cities ranging from Chicago, Illinois to Houlton, Maine.
But those stories aren’t the ones that I’m focusing on. Before I get to my focus, I want to go off on a tangent and address something else.
What I didn’t expect was that competition would arise between me and my bot. I’m writing these words on August 27, two days before the first Bredebot post appears, and I’m already feeling the heat.
What if Bredebot’s posts receive more traffic than the ones I write myself? What does that mean for my own posts…and for the whole premise of hiring Bredemarket to write for others?
I’m treating this as a challenge, vowing to outdo my fast bot counterpart.
And in that spirit, let’s revisit Milwaukee.
Give us any chance, we’ll take it
Access.
When Biometric Update initially visited Milwaukee in its April 28 post, the main concern was the possible agreement for the Milwaukee Police Department to provide “access” to facial data to the company Biometrica in exchange for facial recognition licenses. I subsequently explored the data issue in my own May 6 guest post for Biometric Update.
Vendors must disclose responsible uses of biometric data.
But today the questions addressed to Milwaukee don’t focus on the data, but on the use of facial recognition itself. The Biometric Update article links to a Wisconsin Watch article with more detail. The arguments are familiar to all of you: facial recognition is racist, facial recognition is sometimes relied upon as the sole piece of evidence, facial recognition data can be sent to ICE, and facial recognition can be misused.
However, before Milwaukee’s Common Council can approve facial recognition use, one requirement has to be met.
“Since the passage of Wisconsin Act 12, the only official way to amend or reject MPD policy is by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Common Council, or 10 members.
“However, council members cannot make any decision about it until MPD actually drafts its policy, often referred to as a “standard operating procedure.”
“Ald. Peter Burgelis – one of four council members who did not sign onto the Common Council letter to Norman – said he is waiting to make a decision until he sees potential policy from MPD or an official piece of legislation considered by the city’s Public Safety and Health Committee.”
The Milwaukee Police Department agrees that such a policy is necessary.
“MPD has consistently stated that a carefully developed policy could help reduce risks associated with facial recognition.
“’Should MPD move forward with acquiring FRT, a policy will be drafted based upon best practices and public input,’ a department spokesperson said.”
An aside from my days at MorphoTrak, when I would load user conference documents into the CrowdCompass mobile app: one year the topic of law enforcement agency facial recognition policies was part of our conference agenda. One agency had such a policy, but the agency would not allow me to upload the policy into the CrowdCompass app. You see, the agency had a policy…but it wasn’t public.
Needless to say, the Milwaukee Police Department’s draft policy WILL be public…and a lot of people will be looking at it.
In a recent post on Biometric Update, “Why retail needs biometrics – the cameras aren’t working,” Professor Fraser Sampson, former UK Biometrics & Surveillance Camera Commissioner made several points about the applicability of biometrics to retail. Among the many points he addressed, he dealt with algorithmic inaccuracy and the proper use of facial recognition as an investigative lead:
“It’s true that some early police algorithms were poor, but the biometric matching algorithms offered by some providers is over 99.99% – that’s as close to perfect as anyone has ever got. That’s NASA-level accuracy, better than some medical or military procedures and light years away from people staring at CCTV monitors. What about errors and misidentification? Used properly, LFR is a decision support tool, it’s not making the identification itself. Ultimately, it’s helping shopkeepers make their decisions and that’s where the occasional misidentification happens – by human error, not technical.”
I offered an additional comment:
“One other point: for all those who complain about the lack of perfection of automated facial recognition, it’s much better than manual facial recognition. The U.S. Innocence Project recounts multiple cases of witness MISidentification, where people have been imprisoned due to faulty and inaccurate identification of suspects as perpetrators. I’d much rather have a top tier FR algorithm watching me than a person who knows nothing about facial recognition at all.”
In case you missed it, I’ve written several Bredemarket blog posts on witness MISidentification: two on Robert Williams’ misidentification alone.
Bredemarket 