Face recognition system identifies terrorists so soldiers don't have to
By Conrad Quilty-Harper 
posted September 27th 2006 7:10PM
posted September 27th 2006 7:10PM
It's not often that we come across new technology that physically makes us sick to write about, but when we do encounter such morally questionable tech, nine times out of ten it's something to do with facilitating the killing of other human beings. A small company specializing in visual image processing called ACAGI Inc., in partnership with researchers at the University of Maryland, has developed a portable face recognition system called the Image Acquisition and Exploitation Camera System which is intended to help soldiers recall faces in crowded areas. The system, which can run over video cameras in the gun barrel or on the soldier's helmet, will notify users when someone who was present previously turns up at the soldiers current location, which should help them identify trouble makers. In ACAGI CEO Peter Spatharis' own words: "If our system sees somebody it knows, it tells you, and it tells others so quick decisions can be made" -- and let's just say that those "quick decisions" he refers to aren't spur of the moment invitations to tea parties back at the barracks. Possibly the scariest "feature" of the face recognition system is that it can be hooked up to an existing [Via The Raw Feed]
Hah, at least the camera is "in the barrel"... That should make the system a "one time use" kind of deal...
-Taylor
This is akward. If we don't trust auto-navigation car or driver-less car, why would we trust M-16 with auto-recognition system?
Hmm... All females after taking a shower are considered terrorist then.
If it don't have 100% accuracy, it's retarded to let it decide people's fates and no facial recognition software is 100% accurate.
Neither are humans, and they have to make that decision all the time.
That surely should be "on the barrel", anyway, I doubt the us army will spend any money on something like that. They'll just continue what they have been doing all along. Bomb everything that might be a supposed terrorist. There could be a little collateral damage, but it is far more cost effective.
Engadget, I love you guys, but good lord... overreact much? This tool could save countless lives, and is no more dangerous than the tools a soldier already has. A soldier can be responsible with an M16, but throw in a camera and some software and it's the end of the world?
"This tool could save countless lives"
So could carpet bombing a town. who's lives are you trying to save. Oh my bad. Collateral damage. I forgot. Who cares right? If it isn't an American life it ain't worth spit.
nevermind that member of the new castratti.
PS: For now that system will not fire the rifle itself, it will just "tell" you what it saw. Read, damnit ...
Why would they use this instead of mowing down the whole crowd? 40,000+ killed in Iraq already and no one seems to care (well except the families of those killed).
Mystic, name one war ever in the history of wars where the victorious country went as far to preserve loss of innocent life as the U.S. Oh wait, there aren't any.
That is, without a doubt, the best freaking picture you could have possibly used.
I'm surprised how reactionary this report is - are you saying we shouldn't use any technology then?
Like any technology, it can be used for ill or good - depending on the intent. Crowd monitoring is done _all the time_ - this is just using facial recognition software to make it easier and put it in the hands of grunts instead of analysts.
If it saves a grunt's life by giving him a few minutes warning that possible bad guys are converging on him, I'm all for it.
Luke, we're not having a WAR in Iraq. We invaded another country under false pretenses and have been slaughtering people left and right. For all the effort the US Military has done "to preserve loss of innocent life", this illegal invasion sure seems to be undermining it all. I really didn't want to go there, since my statement isn't really in response to the story, but I just can't sit by and let you spin this technology into something positive.
luke - The irish civil war, the irish army killed pretty much no innocent people and went out of their way to keep it that way. They also won their independence from the war. The irish army is still well known for going out of its way to try save innocent people.
About the system, i think its well intentioned but will possibly give the army fasle information on a regular basis as to which terrorists are dead and alive. For instance it recognises someone as Bin laden, the soldier takes him out, the army thinks hes dead, but it could have just been a software error, Bin laden then goes into deeper hiding to plot more stuff.
anyway, what do i care.
"That is, without a doubt, the best freaking picture you could have possibly used."
Quoted for truthiness. Awesome picture guys!!
DERKA DERKA
hahaha... funniest picture in a while
Could you please change that picture, honestly, I find that offensive, unless that picture is suppost to represent a specific person that actually a terroist.
"Could you please change that picture, honestly, I find that offensive, unless that picture is suppost to represent a specific person that actually a terroist."
No.
It is meant to be ironic, in that the "person" in the picture is Gary from Team America:World Police, and is not an "Arab" character but is an anglo-american in disguise. The "System" has identified him as a 'terrorist', and the picture is thusly an indictment of the system's probable effectiveness.
Also, get some thicker skin. The internet doesn't care when you are offended.
Brilliant - now you have to scan the crowd by pointing your gun at each person in turn, and an automated back office system tells you who to shoot.
Hasn't face recognition be shown time after time after time to be pretty poor at best, and useless at worst?
We all know (well those of us outside the USA do anyway - seems the media over there ignores most of the real news about Iraq & Afghanistan) how gung-ho US troops are already in killing people for no reason/fun/sport - dont think this would help...
Unless you are on the ground in Iraq, and know first hand what is going on over there then you have no clue. What's to say that the media you are getting your news from is any less biased about the information that they want you to have. It's easy to sit on your tail and not do anything, but much harder to take a stand against a tyranical dictator, free a nation, and try to give freedom to people who have only known fear and violence. By the way, if you want to find out about what the islamic extremists (note that I didn't say islam, i said islamic extremists)really think about everyone other than muslims, check out this site memri.org. They take news and speaches off islamic television and translate it. You might find it interesting, if you aren't too scared of the truth to watch some of the video's. By the way...this is a tech blog, stop twisting articles for political gain.
The problem with terrorists is in most cases our military can't recognize them untill they're shooting, mobbing, bombing us. At that point it is already too late to neutralize the threat they pose without killing or seriously injuring them... no options. If we can recognize them BEFORE they attack us... lots of options.
At least then we get to chose when and how we kill them. Actually a terrorist is much more valuable alive and in captivity than dead because of any information they may have.
Also, this programm doesn't tell anybody WHO to kill, but identifies those who depend on anonimity in which to plan and carry out acts of terror. Removing anonimity denies terrorists a great (prehaps the greates) ally.
I find that picture in questionable taste......
"I find that picture in questionable taste......"
I find the tech in questionable taste. who gives a damn about the picture.
I think you must be on the wrong internet.
So, if this is supposed to prevent "Friendly Fire" and "Collateral Damages" than more power to it. I love how people are against military technology advancement on the internet. Don't they remember WHERE the internet came from?
Oh yes, the Internet came from CERN in Switzerland..and the relevence of this is?
i'd add my 2 cents of political comment and mention how what we see outside the us is different to what is seen in the us, I've got american friends, we've compared notes...but no, let's kill the politics....we should be coming up with peaceable technology in my opinion
Philip; you talking about arpanet?
I must say I and everyone in the office here laughed hard at the picture used. Perfect illustration of the systems effectiveness. lol
Funny Photo but isn't this from that movie that came out a few months ago?
Please change that picture. The turban is more of a Sikh style than a Muslim style, and they are two completely different religions. Just because you ignorant Americans don't know anything about the world outside of America except what other equally ignorant Americans throw at you, it doesn't mean you can go around ridiculing other religions/cultures.
Guess what. We can ridicule any religion we want, just like you in "Not America" can have the feeling that all Americans are uncultured and uneducated. Your position in whatever country you live in doesn't mean that ridiculous traditions - religious or otherwise - are for some reason immune from ridicule.
As an on-topic, the system will probably not perform well enough to be of use - although perhaps it might be useful in determining malcontents in a lineup, without having to distribute "Iraq Leader Playing Cards" or some similar ridiculous scheme.
America, F*** YEAH!
I'm a member of Sikhism and I wear a turban too. Anyone that knows a Muslim in the USA knows that they don't wear turbans. Muslim headgear are very different from Sikh turbans, but nonetheless, this pic is offensive to Sikhs because we have nothing to do with terrorism yet whenever someone ignorant sees a turban in our post 9/11 world, they think Sikhs are the same as Muslims and call us names and even commit hate crimes against us. Sikhism is the 5th largest religion in the world yet people still don't know much about us. It's a fact that 99% of people who wear turbans are Sikh (it's required for men to wear them in our religion). For anyone who reads this, they should know that Sikhs believe in universal equality, one God (different religions don't fall under different Gods, at least according to us), and values quite similar to Christianity. Sikhism has been around for over 600 years and Sikhs have been American since the 1850s. Sikhs have even fought as US and British soldiers in WW1. Please Engadget, have some decency and remove that pic so all the stupidity, ignorance, and hate can end. Thanks. That movie sucked anyways.
NR,
I think the movie was making fun of ignorant Americans as much as it made fun of Westerners.
Seriously... when Americans think a guy who looks like *that* is a terrorist, obviously the target of the satire is not Muslims or Sikhs...
so you mean to say that Muslims should be blamed for the terrorism? "Hey this pic offends us because the terrorist should be Muslim."
terrible.
although i find the pic in bad taste, its funny. its not meant to be offensive.
dude you have no idea how many people shouted out 'durka durka' at me for no reason when that movie came out.
hmm wonder what it would take to hack that dbase and put shrub's mug.
I sympathize with ya, NintendoRules...
I used to live in England, and we have Religious Education classes where we learn about different religions and its origins. It's a mandatory class, and it also means that people can be more open about their religions in a Western Society.
There is this Sikh kid in my school, and people laugh at him because his hair smells...It's not like I ever smelled his hair, but I can understand it because I learned that Sikhs don't cut their hair, and that's why they use the white cloth thing and the turban to keep it all tidy. I think that this religious ignorance in America needs to be changed.
Also, have you watched the movie called the Inside Man? One of the scenes contains a Sikh man getting harrassed by police officers. The Sikh man complains, and I felt that his complaints were true and legitemate...I suggest you watch it.
Thanks for that comment but dude, most Sikh people don't have hair that smells. It's part of our religion to keep out hair clean too and to be clean in general. I could go into more detail but that would take forever. I guess that one Sikh guy you know doesn't take good care of himself.
They already have systems similar to this in casinos and used in public areas. Now they are just taking it to the field.
Why the huge negative reaction to this technology? It is not autonomous, the soldier is still responsible for the decision to pull the trigger just like before. The only difference is now he has a computer able to alert him of known potentially dangerous targets. This will save lives because it will reduce his response time to those threats. If you're scanning over a crowd of otherwise innocent iraqis and one of them is really a known terrorist with a hidden weapon, how do you know which one it is before he pulls it out and shoots? I don't think it's such a bad idea to have a system that can alert soldiers to where they should be focusing their attention...
Dude, I'm not sure if you were posting that comment as a reply to some of mine. I honestly didn't mean that in any of my posts. I was just trying to get the pic changed cause the guys resembles a Sikh and whenever people see Sikhs they blame us for terrorism (even though we have nothing to do with it). I have a ton of Muslims friends though....but you know, they don't even wear turbans. Just thought I'd reply, in case you were referring to me in that post. If not, never mind about this then. The pic doesn't really offend me, it just puts wrong ideas and images in the average person's head. You can't imagine how painful the discrimination against Sikhs has been since 9/11. And there's no reason for it on top of that.
nintendo rules, can you speak for all Sikhs having nothing to do with terrorism? You might want to check your facts. For instance, the ongoing terrorist attacks carried out by Sikhs wanting to establish khalistan in Punjab (http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/sikh.htm). Or if you are old enough, remember the Air India Flight 182 bombing that took 329 lives carried out by Sikh extremists? That isn't to say the discrimination is justified in any way shape or form, but terrorists come from everywhere and many different cultures and religions.
nintendo rules, can you speak for all Sikhs having nothing to do with terrorism? You might want to check your facts. For instance, the ongoing terrorist attacks carried out by Sikhs wanting to establish khalistan in Punjab (http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/sikh.htm). Or if you are old enough, remember the Air India Flight 182 bombing that took 329 lives carried out by Sikh extremists?
Matt, I am old enough to remember what happened in the 1980s, but what you're saying is extremely offensive. I'm saying this cause your name sounds like your white: There have been many many white terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, the Irish terrorists the IRA, the conquistadors, or the many other white Christians who forcibly converted and killed and conquered millions of people all over the world for no reason. Aren't words like that offending???? There's no excuse for terrorism no matter who does it but it doesn't mean you should consider a whole religion or whole ethnic group as one that commits terrorism. And just so you know, Sikhs wanted a separate country called Khalistan cause India at the time under Indira Gandhi was biased against Sikhs and deprived us some of our rights. They were committing Genocide against Sikhs and those terrorists were idiots who wanted the world to pay more attention to the situation in India, but obviously it backfired for those idiots. Anyways that all ended decades ago. Wording like that in the media...Fox News, CNN, Engadget...no matter what kinda story they report..ignorant readers take what they read seriously. The media needs to be more sensitive to other cultures, other religions, and other ethnic groups besides the dominant one.
I dont see what the big issue is here. Clearly, even if a name comes up in a terrorist database, our soldiers are not going to shoot on sight, they never have and they never will. This will be used to alert soldiers to people they should watch carefully, and possibly even bring in for questioning.
It's always been pretty clear in this war that if we have the choice between killing or capturing someone, we would much rather capture them (we didnt kill saddam after all).