 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> There are already large databases of fingerprint and iris patterns. It
> doesn't take much to overlay all the fingerprint patterns there, and I'm
> sure similar things have been done.
Except the average fingerprint isn't done by just overlaying the prints
on each other. It's averaging the *shape*...which is a different prospect.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> There are already large databases of fingerprint and iris patterns. It
>> doesn't take much to overlay all the fingerprint patterns there, and I'm
>> sure similar things have been done.
>
> Except the average fingerprint isn't done by just overlaying the prints
> on each other. It's averaging the *shape*...which is a different prospect.
>
define shape
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Also, this little bit from the the article is somewhat disturbing:
> "For the past two years, the Defense Department has been storing in a
> database images of fingerprints, irises and faces of more than 1.5
> million Iraqi and Afghan detainees, Iraqi citizens and foreigners who
> need access to U.S. military bases."
>
> That's a large number of detainees!
The 1.5 million figure appears to include not only the detainees, but
people who have come into contact with the US government for other
reasons (like asking for a job on one of the bases we have over there).
> As my brother pointed out, most of
> these people have probably since been released, but you know that a
> large number are still in detainment. Without Due Process.
I would venture to say that the overwhelming majority were never
detained in the first place. I've been fingerprinted by three different
agencies and I've never been detained or arrested for any reason.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> Except the average fingerprint isn't done by just overlaying the
>> prints on each other. It's averaging the *shape*...which is a
>> different prospect.
> define shape
Vector, as opposed to bitmap.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>> Except the average fingerprint isn't done by just overlaying the
>>> prints on each other. It's averaging the *shape*...which is a
>>> different prospect.
>> define shape
>
> Vector, as opposed to bitmap.
>
Ok, we agree that you can not average them as bitmap. So you need a
model. Which means extracting parameters from the fingerprint in a way
that they can be averaged. With vector I assume that you think that you
can normalize all fingerprints and then at some sampling points compute
the angle of the closest line in the fingerprint or something like that.
Then you can for each point define the average direction of
fingerprints*. Only, what you get is the average model not an average of
the input. Don't confuse a model with reality.**
* my god why am I writing this?
** Ah that is why, to be able to say that somewhere. Pathetic isn't it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Ok, we agree that you can not average them as bitmap. So you need a
> model. Which means extracting parameters from the fingerprint in a way
> that they can be averaged. With vector I assume that you think that you
> can normalize all fingerprints and then at some sampling points compute
> the angle of the closest line in the fingerprint or something like that.
> Then you can for each point define the average direction of
> fingerprints*. Only, what you get is the average model not an average of
> the input. Don't confuse a model with reality.**
Sir Francis Galton did just that; came up with a string of letters and
numbers to represent a fingerprint, with a 1:10,000,000,000,000
collision rate. Plenty for humans.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Hello Big Brother, you say, but *I* say...it would be interesting to
> take the data and average each set to get a composite 'American' of each
> gender.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA
That, plus more.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> There are already large databases of fingerprint and iris patterns.
I don't know about irises, but the way fingerprints are stored in
criminal databases doesn't lend itself to "overlapping" them. They're
not stored as pictures, as such.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> Hello Big Brother, you say, but *I* say...it would be interesting to
>> take the data and average each set to get a composite 'American' of
>> each gender.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA
Yah but the dataset is only 200...I'd want more, and of a wider variety
of faces, just on matter of principle.
You can kinda do the face morphing thing in Poser, but not very well. I
want a high-end program like that youtube video.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:12:12 -0000, Rune <aut### [at] runevision com>
did spake, saying:
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102544_pf.html
>
> The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the
> fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks
> so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law."
"upon request of *employers*" exsqueeze me? So are the employers going to
send in data for people they're thinking of hiring (dependant on
background checks) then notify the FBI of the one(s) they're hiring for
retention purposes or are they just going to not bother updating the list
and thus receive such information about everyone they're ever interviewed?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
