for distributing facial recognition
Do you mean disturbing? Or disrupting?
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
6563 readers
7 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.
Would something retro-reflective be a better solution?
Yep.
And there have been examples of camera disruptive devices that use IR and while it can work, it's problematic and inconsistent.
It's about visual range. Cameras have a value for "max brightness" and "min brightness", facial recognition further narrows that range, where it can work.
The IR LEDs utilize this limited range to "blow out" the pixels in their area with "white/max" informations, overwriting facial info. So you must wear the IR Leds in your face or close by.
That camera may not have an IR filter, and the fidelity hasnto be low... both factors are not present in modern Ai optimized cameras (global shutter, min. 16 bit grayscale brightness only not 16bit divided on RGB, Filters etc.)
You are better off painting your face or printing faces on your clothes.