this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
219 points (97.0% liked)

Privacy

31892 readers
543 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 119 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 55 points 3 months ago (1 children)

400-700 for a single article of clothing with no mention of what facial recognition software this affects, how effective it is and what is the failure rate, error bounds, etc. Sounds like a scam.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I wouldn't call it a "scam" just manipulative marketing. This stuff doesn't seem like it'd work for any of the modern facial recognition options, but that's just a guess. If it did work well and they were proud of it, you can be sure that'd be part of the marketing, so it at best is mediocre if not useless.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

So I don't know if you guys actually read the article or not but they absolutely DO claim that it works against YOLO which they claim to be the most popular recognition software. I don't know about how factual any of that is, but they do make the statement.

[–] ruplicant@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call it a "scam" just manipulative marketing

the difference?

[–] HumanPerson@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Not who you asked, but I think some might argue that it would be a scam if you ordered it and it didn't arrive or something like that. If it works against one facial recognition model than technically it is just bad marketing. Either way is bad, though.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 54 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Unfortunatly its a cat and mouse game. Except the cat is a easily deployable software problem and the mouse is buy new clothing hardware problem.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (5 children)
[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

they've been around for some time now: https://www.reflectacles.com

Ghost uses a frame-applied material that reflects both infrared and visible light. In low light environments they will maintain your privacy on cameras using infrared for illumination and also block 3D infrared facial mapping during both day & night. The visible light reflection can make you anonymous in images/videos using a flash in low light.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 3 points 3 months ago

Ghost is $170 (US, I'm assuming). Not great but not bad for a wicked cool looking pair of sunglasses. Considering Ray-Bans are around $200 (and, no offense, look like they're from Tesco), and that Ghost are privacy focused, I'd say that price seems not that bad. Still high, though.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If they can target the underlying architecture of the models like nightshade does, it will actually be quite hard to deal with for the surveillance companies.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Interesting concept if we can target and poison the definatly stolen training data.

[–] z00s@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (8 children)

The method that Cap_able has patented allows the wearer to incorporate the algorithm into the fabric of the clothing and still look stylish.

I was with you up until the stylish bit

[–] finley@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

Everyone’s a critic

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I for one think looking like a texture ripped from DooM is stylish.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This will work for about 10 minutes. Better off wearing a facemask, bandana, juggalo face paint, etc

[–] lessthanluigi@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'll take the juggalo face paint even though I am not a juggalo

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] strawberry@kbin.run 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

can't they still id you with a mask? apples face id can work with a mask. though I suppose that has depth data too

[–] TragicNotCute@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Almost certainly. The facial ID is good enough that US customs didn’t even want to see my passport. Just a photo was enough to let me back in the country. I even significantly changed my hair between departure and arrival. Shit is scary.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It's only a matter of time before a cop charges someone with obstruction for trying to disrupt a camera system (during the commission of a crime, I mean).

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago

Or they just work around it

[–] dipak@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Good for privacy! But I really doubt it would work for all recognition systems.

Some funny pitfalls that may occur - Self driving cars would prefer to hit that person if had to make a choice between him and some other human. And, there is possibility that the Street mapping cars would not blur his face for the lack of detection.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So I guess we're wearing broken JPEGs now huh?

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago

I want this to be a thing

[–] dRLY@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Glitch art clothing would be dope even if it didn't help with AI fuzzing.

[–] fernandu00@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago

$246?! I can't afford that. For that price I'd rather avoid cameras and such. Cool technology though

[–] DetachablePianist@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago

🎶"Because I'm tacky..." 🎵

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

AI probably was already patched 5 minutes after the article came out.

[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

You can't really "patch" LLMs like most software; you'd have to retrain them, no?

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah but they don't use LLMs for this, they'll use some other kind of machine learning mixed in a big pipeline of data processing. It makes it really hard to guess how much work it would take to fix. It might require retraining, might just require an easy patch of the rest of the pipeline.

My guess is that they're just shitty jumpers and there's nothing to fix anyway.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 8 points 3 months ago

Those people are just dressed like regular Australians.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This would be a good article if the pictures actually showed people wearing the clothes.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Literally the header image...

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What's with the floating heads?

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I see a couple people, and some oddly colored blobs.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Oh! HHahhahhhHah! That's a good joke! Wooshed right over my head hahahahahahahah!

Edit: correct autocorrect

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

William Gibson's Ugly Shirt come to life

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

Absolutely cool. I will have to revise all my internalized cyberpunk imagery though.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Their demo video looks horrible. They are using a trash algorithm to demo the detection failing.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

The girl also moves extremely slowly and permanently has her arms out to the side at the elbows. I assume this is the only way they could get the results they wanted to show.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 3 points 3 months ago

Similar tech has been around for a while, and it almost always gets beaten.

load more comments
view more: next ›