http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102544_pf.html

"The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest 
computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would 
give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the 
United States and abroad.

(...) In the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the world will 
be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps even 
the unique ways people walk and talk, to solve crimes and identify criminals 
and terrorists. 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."

Hello Big Brother...

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102544_pf.html
> 
> "The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest 
> computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would 
> give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the 
> United States and abroad.
> 
> (...) In the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the world will 
> be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps even 
> the unique ways people walk and talk, to solve crimes and identify criminals 
> and terrorists. 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."
> 
> Hello Big Brother...

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.

-- 
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

"Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote in message
news:476e509c@news.povray.org...
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102
544_pf.html
>
> "The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest
> computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that
would
> give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the
> United States and abroad.

Oh my. I so want to know how they're going to store and search that volume
of data. Facial recognition is still a 'difficult' problem in AI

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> Oh my. I so want to know how they're going to store and search that volume
> of data. Facial recognition is still a 'difficult' problem in AI

Perhaps they plan to just store all this data anyway, and hope that in 
10 years' time the technology to *use* it will be invented? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Damn. I was hoping they'd found a way to predict the future...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

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.

Yeah, for about two minutes.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102544_pf.html

>>
>>
>> "The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's 
>> largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a 
>> project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to 
>> identify individuals in the United States and abroad.
>>
>> (...) In the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the 
>> world will be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars 
>> and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk, to solve crimes 
>> and identify criminals and terrorists. 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."
>>
>> Hello Big Brother...
> 
> 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.
> 
Yes, you would expect the average fingerprint and iris pattern to be 
flat, but may be it isn't. Could be a big leap for science.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/23 07:32:
> Rune wrote:
>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102544_pf.html

>>
>>
>> "The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's 
>> largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a 
>> project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to 
>> identify individuals in the United States and abroad.
>>
>> (...) In the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the 
>> world will be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars 
>> and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk, to solve crimes 
>> and identify criminals and terrorists. 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."
>>
>> Hello Big Brother...
> 
> 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.
> 
You don't need that many samples to get the average figure. About 1000 randomly 
picked face shots usualy is enough. You go in each states and take a photo of 20 
random passerbys. That's for the faces. For the whole body, a sampling of about 
200 to 300 should be enough.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are really good, you 
will get out of it.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message

> Yes, you would expect the average fingerprint and iris pattern to be
> flat, but may be it isn't.

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.

> Could be a big leap for science.

I don't see how. Does any theory depend on a particular outome?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> 
>> Yes, you would expect the average fingerprint and iris pattern to be
>> flat, but may be it isn't.
> 
> 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.
> 
>> Could be a big leap for science.
> 
> I don't see how. Does any theory depend on a particular outome?
> 
It is a bit outside my field, but my guess would be: no.

FYI I tried to be sarcastic and apparently failed.

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> (...) In the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the world will 
> be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps even 
> the unique ways people walk and talk, to solve crimes and identify criminals 
> and terrorists. 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."


I may never have a job again, since I have a criminal background. They
might just be forcing people like me to work 'under the table' for the 
rest of our lives, because no employer will have me no matter how many 
meds I'm taking, or how much therapy I've undergone. Like the War on 
Drugs, the measures they take to fight the War on Terrorism will 
eventually bite 'them' in the ass.

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! 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.

The War is making this planet too damn small :( With all the 
surveillance the government plans to have, it will seem like we're 
living in a veritable Panopticon. I don't know about you guys, but 
sometimes I like to get lost for the sake of freedom in loneliness. Or I 
like to be anonymous in a crowd, for the sense of freedom that provides. 
With the world heading the way it is, the before-mentioned activities 
will become difficult undertakings.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> I may never have a job again, since I have a criminal background. They
> might just be forcing people like me to work 'under the table' for the 
> rest of our lives, because no employer will have me no matter how many 
> meds I'm taking, or how much therapy I've undergone. Like the War on 
> Drugs, the measures they take to fight the War on Terrorism will 
> eventually bite 'them' in the ass.

Fine, so you turn into a shadowrunner.  Big deal.

-- 
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

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] runevisioncom>  
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