| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I think what I am seeing is that the systems that were already in place before the pandemic actually have continued to work fairly well, even when presented with people wearing masks that obscure their faces below their eyes, but that the algorithms are already being "tweaked."
I'm just going to post three online reports, in reaction to the remarks that came up on another recently active O/T forum thread.
"News Release: Airport Screening While Wearing Masks? Facial Recognition Tech Shows up to 96% Accuracy in Recent Test" U.S. Department of Homeland Security; January 4, 2021. https://www.dhs.gov/science...e-wearing-masks-test
"Feature Article: Identity Verification During the Age of COVID-19" U.S. Department of Homeland Security; December 3, 2020. https://www.dhs.gov/science...-during-age-covid-19
"Facial recognition identifies people wearing masks" BBC Tech News; January 7, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55573802
|
|
The articles from DHS are total fabrications, and outright propaganda to deter people from thinking they can get away with traveling around when they're wanted.
The overwhelming vast majority of facial recognition systems require the nose to be exposed to identify distance from other facial features. I mean, literally, multiple government organizations have identified that masks cause an enormous risk for facial recognition.
NIST: Who's ridiculously more intelligent than DHS
https://www.nist.gov/news-e...recognition-softwareAnd a primer on the above:
https://www.nextgov.com/eme...-study-finds/167303/That BBC says NEC has created one that "it claims" is able to still work. I'm sure it's more successful than existing (currently implemented) functionality, but you can literally put on a pair of glasses... or sunglasses and it's completely defeated.
Sorry Rinse, I like you, but this is unfortunately misinformation, though I don't blame you... it's literally propaganda from DHS. There was a time when I believed that everything from the Government was legitimate, but I've learned otherwise.