|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com X-Original-To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:11:40 -0800 To: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> Cc: cryptography@wasabisystems.com In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303161201470.27463-100000@hydrogen.leitl.or g> At 12:39 PM 03/16/2003 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: > > > They're probably not independent, but they'll be influenced by lighting, > > precise viewing angles, etc., so they're probably nowhere near 100% > > correlated either. > >I notice the systems mentioned in the study rely on biometrics extracted >from flat images. Recent crop of systems actually scan the face geometry >by using patterned light (apparently, cheaper than using a laser scanner), >resulting in a much richer and standartized (lighting and facial >orientation is irrelevant) biometric fingerprint. But there are two sides to the problem - recording the images of the people you're looking for, and viewing the crowd to try to find matches. You're right that airport security gates are probably a pretty good consistent place to view the crowd, but getting the target images is a different problem - some of the Usual Suspects may have police mugshots, but for most of them it's unlikely that you've gotten them to sit down while you take a whole-face geometry scan to get the fingerprint. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |