
Historians are using facial recognition to identify people in Civil War photos - prismatic
https://slate.com/technology/2018/11/civil-war-photo-sleuth-facial-recognition.html
======
cetra3
We're doing something similar for school archive photos in our product. We use
class photos to find student labels, then use that to cross reference other
photos around the same time period.

------
andrewtbham
Is this a repeat?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18587607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18587607)

------
ComputerGuru
For all the people talking about consent in this thread... I just want to
point out that the Civil War significantly predated the phone camera, modern
digital cameras, or even the first film point and shoot cameras.

We call it “posing” for a photo because they literally had to pose without
moving for at least 15 minutes (and probably more in the mid-1800s).. just
like you would have to remain in-place holding a pose for hours while having
your portrait painted in the eras past.

Interesting fact: it’s also the reason why photos from the 1900s all feature
the same grim countenance and subjects look like they’ve lost all interest in
life - it’s not possible to hold a friendly face for the duration of time it
takes the film to expose.

~~~
ericpauley
There are a couple myths here. Civil War photography achieved shutter speeds
on the order of seconds, and camera technology isn't the strongest explanation
for the lack of smiles.

Source: [http://time.com/4568032/smile-serious-old-
photos/](http://time.com/4568032/smile-serious-old-photos/)

~~~
stareatgoats
Interesting. Early photograph subjects may have posed as if they were objects
of portrait painting. And

> Though saints might be depicted with faint smiles, wider smiles were
> “associated with madness, lewdness, loudness, drunkenness, all sorts of
> states of being that were not particularly decorous,” says Trumble.

------
drdeadringer
I like this type of application for this technology. A good tightrope rabbit
hole is: what if "the unknown soldier" is identified writ large?

Personally, I would love to have some folks in Ye Olde Family Photographs
identified.

~~~
ComputerGuru
For those that aren’t aware, at least in the case of the United States, the
soldier buried in The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier’s identity was not
_initially_ unknown. They started off with several bodies of appropriate
stature whose identity was known (but closely guarded) to those that procured
them, then mixed them up and played a game of shells with the coffins to
purposely un-know the identity.

All that is to say, if somehow “facial recognition” could identify the remains
of the Unknown Soldier, the hope is that whosoever discovers that keeps it to
themself.

~~~
twtw
> whose identity was known (but closely guarded)

I can't find any resources online to confirm this - everything seems to
indicate several unknown soldiers were exhumed and one was selected (from each
conflict). Do you have any pointers to references where I could learn more?

------
21
This work is unethical. Those people never approved for their privacy to be
violated in such a flagrant way.

Would you approve researchers from 100 years in the future using facial
recognition to identify and shame meat-eating bastards from today, such as you
or your friends, such that for example your work and legacy to be de-
platformed?

~~~
jMyles
Sarcasm? If so, it's very well done.

If not:

> Would you approve researchers from 100 years in the future using facial
> recognition to identify and shame meat-eating bastards from today, such as
> you or your friends, such that for example your work and legacy to be de-
> platformed?

My approval has nothing to do with it. I don't own photons after they bounce
off my face. And I don't own anything after I'm dead.

~~~
cf498
>My approval has nothing to do with it. I don't own photons after they bounce
off my face.

They should not exist in the first place, except made by people who have my
clear consent for that specific picture. And those would know the limitations
on publishing them.

Mass surveillance is a clear and apparent threat to society. The idea of a
completely transparent human without any shred of privacy left is simply
abhorrent.

Hello 1984

edit: I read "Photos"

~~~
ghaff
No. At least in the US you have no rights to photos taken of you in a public
place except for certain specific situations. For examples, photos used for
commercial purposes (e.g. ads, marketing materials) in which you are clearly
recognizable (not part of a crowd shot) require model releases. However if I
take a photo of you on the street and publish it in a personal blog, article,
etc. you basically have no recourse. If you hold your breath and turn purple,
I might take it down to make you go away but I have no obligation to do so.

~~~
cf498
I am not from the US and have no plans to ever go there. Germany has the righ
to the use of the personal image. "Recht am eigenen Bild". There are limits,
as when you are just a person in a crowd or a person of public interests, but
focused shots without your consent are generally a no go. It is part of the
right for "Informational self-determination"

~~~
jMyles
What you are describing as a "right" is actually nothing more than an
abridgment of the right to conduct simple journalism. You have no right to
direct what I remember and your government has carefully spun this to ensure
that you can't remember what you want to without being subject to absurd legal
frameworks.

Fortunately, at least for the moment, this law is not enforced, as evinced by
the people taking photos of people all over the place in Berlin without asking
for "consent."

~~~
cf498
It is a basic human right. Sadly one you do not enjoy. And I am sorry it is
that way.

I didnt think I had to have this kind of discussion here. What would I say to
a person that thought freedom of religion was nothing but a legal framework?

I am making a moral argument here. Developing facial recognition software is a
step towards a dystopia

~~~
jMyles
I come to Germany all the time. The reality on the ground is no different:
people enjoy a right to use cameras (and otherwise conduct journalism). I
didn't even realize you had this absolutely stupid law on the books, but for
your sake, I'm glad its unenforced.

~~~
cf498
Tbh I am shoked that this is that big of a cultural difference, but i guess
god to know? The right to ones private information is one of the core
principles of the German Hacker community.

Do you by any chance have some material on the moral position of the US hacker
community on privacy? It seemed I assumed far to many similarities.

~~~
jMyles
No, it is not a cultural difference. People in Germany do not largely believe
that they own every particle that bounces off of them. Your position is
ridiculous and not widely held.

~~~
cf498
Thats a hypothesis you can easily test the next time you are in Germany. Shove
random people in the street a camera in the face and scream "PHOTONS WANT TO
BE FREE".

~~~
jMyles
People in both places will react negatively to having their personal space
invaded. People in both places will react positively to freedom of journalism
and expression.

Although there are many cultural differences between our homes, this is not
one of them.

