
Practical Attacks on Face Recognition with Infrared [pdf] - alexanderdmitri
https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04683
======
bsenftner
This does not work for FR that does not observe IR. Which is most FR systems,
because most FR systems have to use legacy video hardware several years, often
a few camera generations, back. Including wholly optical CCD systems.

However, a similar fashion accessory does an even better job: some fashion
hats have blinky LEDs on them; blinky LEDs cause a camera's components to
adjustment for the unusually bright light, which are then gone, than back
again. The mechanism in most security cameras cannot adjust for the lighting
changes as fast as the LEDs are blinking, causing no good captures of the face
beneath the blinkly LEDs.

~~~
lakechfoma
Don't a lot of image sensors pick up infrared? I don't have any IR remotes to
test modern stuff with, but I know my Galaxy S5 and every phone and point and
shoot camera I had before that would register the light from IR remotes.

I guess that's a cheap filter away from being fixed anyway.

~~~
bsenftner
Sure, lots of image sensors pick up IR. But they are not in the millions of
legacy security camera systems at banks, grocery stores, college, corporate
and campus security systems.

The majority of the surveillance systems of the world are 10-20 years old.
they work fine, for their original purpose, and the owners want to add FR, not
purchase an entire new system requiring the loss of their previous investment.

~~~
subway
Say what?

All those legacy systems (probably) shipped with a weak IR filter, but the CCD
on the the devices will more than happily react to a bright IR light.

This is even how the majority of "night" cameras operate. They ditch the IR
filter, then illuminate the scene with IR.

~~~
lakechfoma
Yeah this is what I was getting at. How many old cheapo security cameras have
no or bad IR filters if that was still the standard for ~2012 flagship Android
devices...

------
joshgel
> Health concerns. It is unclear if an attacker would get his eyes and face
> skins hurt, under the exposure of such a large amount of infrared in a long
> period of time. If this is true after confirmation from physicians,
> attackers may not dare to launch attacks with this method, worrying about
> their health.

As a physician, I don't understand this to be a serious concern. UV light is
the opposite side of the viable spectrum from IR

This is fascinating. What a great idea.

~~~
teuobk
Intense IR can damage the eye; more specifically, it can lead to cataracts.

Prior to learning to arc weld, I always thought the primary danger of looking
at the arc without protection was UV exposure. However, it turns out that IR
exposure is also problematic. See, e.g.,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassblower%27s_cataract](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassblower%27s_cataract)

~~~
CaptainZapp
_more specifically, it can lead to cataracts._

Not to downplay it, but cataracts are probably the easiest operational
procedure on the human body. At least in the rich world.

Most people will have to deal with that at one point in their life.

Source: Myself; I got both of my eyes fixed last year. While I can appreciate
the horror of your eyes cut up, the actual operation is really minimally
invasive.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that excessive IR - or UV exposure is generally a
good idea.

