Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Security Hardware Technology

Cell Phones Learn to Recognize Their Owners' Faces 198

Posted by samzenpus from the smile-and-dial dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Oki Electric this week began marketing a technology that inexpensively adds face recognition to camera-equipped cell phones. Oki's 'Face Sensing Engine' middleware decodes facial images within 280 milliseconds on a 100 MHz ARM9 processor, and can restrict access to mobile devices by recognizing their owners. Its purpose is to safeguard sensitive personal data -- such as email addresses and phone numbers -- in the event of loss or theft of their devices. The technology works by locating and mapping key facial features -- such as eyes, eyebrows, and mouth -- and adapts to changing facial conditions such as winking and smiling, according to Oki."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cell Phones Learn to Recognize Their Owners' Faces More

Cell Phones Learn to Recognize Their Owners' Faces

Comments Filter:

  • Woah... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Seoulstriker ( 748895 )
    Somehow I read "feces", and then I thought about Dilbert dropping his shirt pocket materials down the toilet and even his glasses.

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • many special cases to ponder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by has2k1 ( 787264 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:01PM (#13832956)
    I see a bruised accident victim denied access to make an emergency call.

  • I am not a secret agent. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tuna_boat_tony ( 923673 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:03PM (#13832973)
    All of this security is great if you're a secret agent, but I am not employed by the CIA. If I were to loose my phone, I would hope the finder would use the information in there to try to return the phone. What happens when someone with good intentions finds my phone and can't return it because I presumed him/her to be a theif and "safe"guarded it with this new technology?

    • Re:I am not a secret agent. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kaimelar ( 121741 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:17PM (#13833054) Homepage

      If I were to loose my phone . . . What happens when someone with good intentions finds my phone and can't return it?

      Dude, what to you think will happen if you just turn your phone loose like that? Keep it on a leash and you won't have to worry about someone returning it. ;-)

      All in good fun. Now let me post something on-topic so I don't seem like a jerk. My last PDA had a feature that would show a certain screen when locked -- the idea being that if it was lost, your data was still behind a password, but you could put a message saying, "If you find this device, please contact John Doe at . . . " on the chance that the finder would have the good intentions you speak of and return it. Perhaps phones could have something similar? Of course, a similar solution in your case would simply to not turn this security feature on.

      • Already exists... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Sviams ( 708968 )
        Such functionality is actually common in my part of the mobile world (Symbian/UIQ), for example my Motorola A1000 does exactly what you describe and I'd suspect others do as well.

        My own idea for protecting content on a mobile phone is to encrypt all personal data, including calendar entries, contacts, SMS messages (in the air as well as on the device) and potentially also VoIP data.
        • Pocket PC devices display the "Owner Information" data on the password screen. My last phone didn't do this however. My data is more important than the (replaceable) hardware. I'd rather not have it back & claim insurance than know that someone out there (who is a potential thief) has a complete copy of my schedule, including info on my home address and when I'll next be out of the country.

          • Re:Already exists... (Score:4, Funny)

            by morcheeba ( 260908 ) * on Thursday October 20, 2005 @05:58AM (#13834318) Journal
            I had the same problem, but I solved it. I added extra things on my schedule the potential thief would be sure to find...

            - .357 magnum arrives in mail - decide which gun i should sell (if only they made gun racks that could hold 25 guns instead of 24!)
            - speak at the academy about my personal experience of the stopping power of armor-piercing vs. hollow point. Bring a few guns for the demo.
            - Building inspector arrives - remember to disable the booby traps near the garage
            - Feed the man-eating lion in the basement. Secure door so he doesn't get out again.
            - Tell whacky Dave across the street that he can't stay up all night practicing for sniper school. It's not funny when he draws a bead on me at 3 am when I go to the bathroom.
    • Don't turn this feature on, then, or buy a different phone. It's not like the government is mandating that this is installed and available on all phones, ever. Sheesh.

  • Very interesting idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:04PM (#13832982)
    It's easy to offhandedly say who cares about the phone numbers of my friends and family. But for a sales force, keeping their contacts' information secure is one very important aspect of the job. If it is possible to create this security without requiring large lagtimes (like entering a PIN) or fault-prone hardware (fingerprint scanners), security becomes easier and safer than before for the average user.

    I'd be anxious to see how well it works in the real world before trying it out, but if it is an inexpensive piece of middleware, I wouldn't be surprised if it started turning up on the high-end phones in Japan and Korea. I'd be surprised if they started showing up here in the U.S., but I'd be surprised if any sort of cutting-edge technology showed up for general consumption here.

    I wish they had a demo.
    • Are any bypasses allowed?

      Let's just say I was in a car accident and because of this, my face isn't as was recorded in the phone. Would I still be able to dial 911?

      • My guess is that only the phonebook and recently called/received lists would be blocked. This is to safeguard the information on the device, not to make it impossible to make calls.

        Although I'm sure that you'd be able to set that too. However, as others have noted in this thread, emergency calls can still be made from PIN-locked phones and phones without any service provider. It's a software setting, so it's probably up to the user how much or little access he wants to grant unauthorized users.
    • If it is possible to create this security without requiring large lagtimes (like entering a PIN) or fault-prone hardware (fingerprint scanners), security becomes easier and safer than before for the average user.

      Thing is, I would say this technology fails that requirement. Sure, the software can parse the image in 200ms, but that's just bullshit marketing. On my device, it takes at least a second to initialize the camera. You need to line up the camera to take the picture, meaning that you either have to

  • This could have a serious downside for serial killers. Just image the movie Scream if their telephone required facial recognition? It may sound like a good idea but such things often have unforseen problems like ruining storylines to "B" horror films.

  • But what if (Score:5, Funny)

    by OneArmedMan ( 606657 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:07PM (#13832997)
    my evil Twin gets hold of it ?

  • Sounds really inconvenient... (Score:4, Funny)

    by RandomPrecision ( 911416 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:08PM (#13832999)
    ...if you're Michael Jackson.
  • In other news, muggers to start taking photos of their victims.

    Seriously, I wonder if this can be fooled by a picture. Although it'd still provide some security if you just lost your phone somewhere...
    • Better to just play it safe and take the entire facial skin. If wearing it in public gets you too many odd looks, you can always make a photo of it later. BTW, storage in the fridge away from baking soda and an occasional wipe with saddle soap will keep your passwords their freshest.

  • Uh, great. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:11PM (#13833017)
    And what if for some reason I need to use my cell phone in the [i]dark?[/i]

  • Cost of failure is too low to justify this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Cowdog ( 154277 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:14PM (#13833039) Journal
    I think they are treating the phone a little too much like a gun.

    It's not like it will be the end of the world if someone can access my personal phone information. I can control what I store on there; it's my own choice whether to put private things in a phone, and while the list of people I call is private, it's really not that big of a deal. And there are other ways of remotely restricting access.

    Seems like a case of some technologists with a hammer, looking for a nail.
    • I think cell phones are becoming too much like pet squirrels [mit.edu]. Soon, they'll learn to breed like crazy during summer - they already know how to hibernate.
    • I think they are treating the phone a little too much like a gun.

      Ah, but phones don't call people; people do!!

      It's not like it will be the end of the world if someone can access my personal phone information.

      Depends what info you have on their. Some folks, like myself, have a PDA with ALL of my personal information on it. Schedule, family, phone banking, all of it. No passwords for sure, but more than enough info to commit idenity theft etc, or know when my house (address is listed) is going to be

    • I disagree entirely. Phone numbers aside, many cellular phones these days cost nearly 1000$. If they don't justify some higher level of protection (render them unusable for thieves, protect the owner from liability for expenses incurred by calls by a thief, etc...)

      I think we need a combination of the technologies, such as gait detection, facial and voice recognition. Because the sensors being employed are already a part of the phone hardware, I think it's silly not to include them.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:17PM (#13833051)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Just Great.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Druox ( 911165 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:19PM (#13833058)
    Face recognition? I think that's the last thing most people would want - It would be the high-school-blind-date-gone-wrong scenario. Millions would get their new "face recognition" phone in the mail...Open it up, and it takes one look at you and scrolls across the screen "Oh..wow..um yeah, I think that I just wanna be friends... you're a really nice guy though." Nothing like being shut down by a Motorola, especially the one with the nice ass (charger base).
  • ...and adapts to changing facial conditions such as winking and smiling
    So does this mean we'll be able to send emoticons in text messages... using our face? Woah, what an age we live in...

    • Re:Huh... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ReformedExCon ( 897248 )
      Were you just joking, or did you get a chance to see this little animated GIF demo:

      http://www.oki.com/jp/FSC/vc/en/ [oki.com]
    • I KNOW.. I mean, to type :-D, you're actually going to have to smile! And to type LOL, you better be laughing out loud. And you can't type ROTFLMAO without actually doing it. Literally. Granted, there may be damage to phone and/or user from typing :-! or X-P, but that's the price you pay to shave seconds off your text messaging time.
  • Seriously though the only time I "lost" a phone facial recognition wouldn't have helped. Fecal yes, facial no. Sorry but it's imparative to all that they know.

    "Whatever Security does for you it also does to you"
  • Call me grumpy old man, but why does everything have to have face recogniation, fingerprint, video, camera, mp3 player, etc in it?

  • Yeah, Real Secure There (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SecretAsianMan ( 45389 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:38PM (#13833140) Homepage

    How is this better than a good password? My passwords are private. My face is public and goes everywhere I go. All someone has to do to crack my phone is take a picture of me, print it, and show it to my phone. Bang, now they can call Elbonia on my dime.

  • Haven't we heard this already half a year ago? http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/174 9200 [slashdot.org]

  • This is a good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by killa62 ( 828317 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:49PM (#13833187)
    however, wouldn't the security of this "technology" be compromised by merely taking a picture of the owner with a camera and then stealing the phone? The phone will react to the face on the printed picture and allow access to it, potentionally allowing the thief to disable this "feature" and resell the phone..
    How likely is this
    In other words...
    1. Take picture/video clip of person owning phone
    2. Steal it!
    3. Print picture or show vid clip using your computer monitor
    4. disable the identity protection
    5. ???
    6. PROFIT!!!

  • Once you've stolen Paris Hilton's phone... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:49PM (#13833192)
    ... just go pick up a copy of People magazine and hold up the picture in front of the phone.
  • You've just been in a car accident where your head goes through the windshield. You try and dial 911, but your hal-9000 phone politely informs you,"You're not Dave. Daves not here man." So you can't call for help.

  • Voice Recognition? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ma3oxuct ( 900711 )
    I find it way more practical to have voice recognition than facial recongnition for security reasons. Someone's voice could get recorded and then played back, but if a specific phrase would be recognized only, then it would be kind of tough to force a the owner to say it to a recorder.
  • so on a bad hair day you don't need to talk on the phone, either!

  • oh great (Score:2, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 )
    "Attention, Ugly, you have voicemail"
           

  • But, are security concerns gonna be answered? (Score:3, Informative)

    by davidsyes ( 765062 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:01AM (#13833413) Homepage Journal
    GODDD, is this news? I wonder what they're doing for security.

    Even before following TFA's link, I recalled hearing or reading about this when I was in Japan from Dec 04 to Feb 05. So, for this response, I "googled" it, and though I left on 24 Feb, and these links I'm supplying are dated 28 Feb, the news is sourced from material in the making long before that.

    OMRON Announces 'OKAO Vision Face Recognition Sensor', World's First Face Recognition Biometric for Mobile Phones

    http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=9494 [japancorp.net]

    Face-recognition security comes to mobile phones
    http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS7172421600.html [linuxdevices.com]

    As for the Omron URL, this is an excerpt:

    "To use the unit, the user simply takes his or her own photo. The 'OKAO Vision Face Recognition Sensor' will automatically detect the user and unlock the unit. The identification process takes less than a second from snapping the photograph. Further, their is no need to adjust the camera position when taking the photo. If the face is included in the photo, the sensor will detect the owner automatically."

    However, it says nothing to ally to allay fears that a thief could place before the camera a picture of the owner of a stolen camera. It might be possible that the camera may someday have strobes or some thermal sensors that try to detect heat from a human body temp range, but that could be fooled with a transparent "Mission: Impossible" mask of the Gerry Anderson type (I purposely ignored the recent MI stuff since I loath money-grabbing remakes or remakes-in-title).

    I suppose a good security feature set would include:

    1. thumb or finger sensor with thumb print/fingerprint biometrics
    2. retinal scan (with enhancements to determine live/dead eyeballs
    3. breath, saliva or mucous tissue sample scan and later match/compare
    4. electrolytic sample (to determine voltage of live/dead person)

    If they can do that (put a mini-lab in the phone) then probably only CIA, NSA, MI6 and Japan's pending MI6, Mossad, and others would surely buy up these phones, or any other devices so equipped/secured.

    Image word: entice, just as this "article" was "enticing"...

  • augmented reality (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sonamchauhan ( 587356 ) <sonamc@gmaDEBIANil.com minus distro> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:08AM (#13833433) Journal
    Maybe one day this will be built into 'augmented reality' spectacles : you see an old colleague after years, and your glasses mark him up as "Mark Jones"

  • But.... (Score:2, Funny)

    by fatmal ( 920123 )
    I'm right-handed and I've got more freckles on the right side of my face - if, for whatever reason, I hold the phone to the left side of my face does the phone still work?
  • I've got a couple of HP iPaq 5450's, the models with the finger print reader (to be used in lieu of a PIN).

    I've disabled the drivers for the reader, as it chews up too much CPU. It would be one thing if the reader were only active when authentication were requested, but the way it works out of the box it is always active and renders the machine somewhat unresponsive at times.

    Neat trick, but I just don't use the feature.
  • You've just been mugged, your face looks like hamburger, you need to call 112 and your phone kicks you in the balls by telling you it doesn't like your face anymore.

    Biometrics are ok, but you need to use more than one - facial recognition on its own won't be any good.
    • and your phone kicks you in the balls by telling you it doesn't like your face anymore.

      GSM phones (not sure about other types) will always call emergency if you type 112 into the keypad, regardless of security. They will even do this without a sim card installed.

  • Most mobile phones I've owned have had the ability to set a PIN that must be entered either at phone startup or when unlocking the key pad. Given all the ways in which facial recognition can fail (and I've had a couple of friends in accidents and fights that have left them so brused and swollen *I* had trouble recognising them), what possible advantage is there other than the "wow, cool!" factor?
    • I could imagine a better use than security would be to let it scan other's faces, and then have the name displayed. That would help with bad name memory.

      One problem of course would be how to do it without the other one recognicing it.
  • Does that mean I will have to start shaving on a regular basis?

  • Whoops... (Score:3, Funny)

    by KlausBreuer ( 105581 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @04:00AM (#13833999) Homepage
    So, ladies and gentlemen, be honest: how many times has it happened to you that you drag yourself out of bed, look at the thing in the mirror and say: "I don't know who you are, but I'll wash you anyway"?

    Come on, after a weeks hard work even friends have asked me in the first moment who I am... ;)

  • I'm so friggin sick... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by going_the_2Rpi_way ( 818355 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @06:07AM (#13834336) Homepage
    Of these phones that are trying to be PDA or biometrics or video cameras. What I'd rather have is a phone that's just trying to be a phone

    I mean I honestly don't care if my phone recognizes my gate or face or anything else. And if I lend my phone to someone, I want them to be able to use it. If they steal my phone, well it was probably my own dumb fault anyhow and I'll talk to my carrier.

    I wish they'd just focus on making better phones that has better audio quality and cut out less. The phone I have today (1 yr old give or take) is still nowhere near as good as it should be in a major urban setting. Surely the processor cycles being dedicated to all these cool new features could be used for some additional signal processing?
  • Not again! I worked on face recognition for several years, for applications unrelated to security (e.g. searching photo collections for family members). Time and time again people said "Hey, you could use this for access control!" and would't listen when I pointed out that you would be lucky to get a recognition accuracy of 70% in real-world conditions. I've implemented methods which claimed a 99.X% recognition rate and found the real-world results were often as low as 60%... I assume people don't lie when
  • What if I get beaten up and need to call the police? My face could be bruised beyond recognition and the phone won't let me call the police.
  • Even a cell phone without a network subscription can call 911 in the US (IIRC) so this technology would not get in the way of making an emergency call.
  • You can only use it before or after you have applied makeup? :)
  • What about cellphones crashing on halloween?
  • Great, just one more thing that will say "Oh my god... Harold, is that really you? I don't even recognize you!" after you get in a horrible disfiguring accident involving lye, spit, and a rottweiler in heat. And your name's not even Harold!
  • We're moving into an era where it will be essential for our phones to trust us in order for us to deal with the world. It's at least as important that we can trust our phones. With proprietary, closed OS and SW on practically all of these phones, that means trusting the corporations that make them and distribute them. We've had to trust the phone companies for a century, but that was when all they did was carry our voices - important, but not all-encompassing. And that was when telcos were much better regul
  • "I assume your hand will open this door whether you are alive or dead". Or was it conscious or unconscious? OK, I don't remember the exact quote, but you get the idea. I always loved that quote from data since it showed a side of him you rarely saw (and was potentially out of character but I didn't care).
  • The matching algorithm takes nearly 1/3 of a second on a 100MHz ARM9. That's a noticeable lag, and it will be even more noticeable on slower or weaker processors, which is just about all of the phones on the market now.

    (For comparison, the Nintendo DS's main CPU is an ARM9, but it runs at only 67MHz.)

    Apart from the potential problems that could arise from false negatives and false positives, it's just too slow to perform acceptably yet.
  • It's a phone, right? Most phones these days do voice dialing. So why not use voice recognition for a voice password?

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close