for distributing facial recognition
Do you mean disturbing? Or disrupting?
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
14 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
4364 readers
16 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I meant disrupting. The word recommendation broke it seems.
We don't call it autoincorrect for nothing! 🤣
It's not something you would be able to rely on all the time. Security cameras that use IR to see in the dark could be blinded by IR LEDs, but cameras can also have IR filters.
Yep.
And there have been examples of camera disruptive devices that use IR and while it can work, it's problematic and inconsistent.
Would something retro-reflective be a better solution?
That would only be effective on cameras that use active lighting to see, and image sensors have become increasingly sensitive to the point many can get a lot of definition in very low lighting conditions.
You're better off looking at solutions that fool facial recognition algorithms through the use of intense colors and patterns, like this line of clothing.
This is sadly very noticeable.
It depends on the details of the camera, the distance from the person to the lens, and the brightness and directionality of the IR sources.
If you're screwing with an apple or windows depth map webcam image sure. You can screw with desktop computers and phones easily.
If you're trying to screw with a bank for an airport, or overhead high quality security imagery, or anything with a flash, absolutely not.
I think that would make you draw lots of unwanted attention
You would be effectively screaming "I'm a person of interest"
I doubt it distributes facial recognition at all.