* In this paper, recognition of blurred faces using the recently introduced Local Phase Quantization (LPQ) operator is proposed. LPQ is based on quantizing the Fourier transform phase in local neighborhoods. The phase can be shown to be a blur invariant property under certain commonly fulfilled conditions. In face image analysis, histograms of LPQ labels computed within local regions are used as a face descriptor similarly to the widely used Local Binary Pattern (LBP) methodology for face image description. The experimental results on CMU PIE and FRGC 1.0.4 datasets show that the LPQ descriptor is highly tolerant to blur but still very descriptive outperforming LBP both with blurred and sharp images.
Blurred face recognition via a hybrid network architecture (2000) at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=906198
* We introduce a hybrid recognition/reconstruction architecture that is suitable for recognition of images degraded by various forms of blur. This architecture includes an ensemble of feedforward networks each of which is constrained to reconstruct the inputs in addition to performing classification. The strength of the constraints is controlled by a regularization parameter. Networks are trained on original as well as Gaussian-blurred images, so as to achieve higher robustness to different blur operators. Face recognition is used to demonstrate the proposed method and results are compared to those of classical unconstrained feedforward architectures. In addition, the effect of state-of-the-art restoration methods is demonstrated and it is shown that image restoration with the proposed hybrid architecture leads to the best and most robust results under various forms of blur
*
When you hide a face by the means of a blur filter then your image processing software simply utilises an algorithm (a specific sequence of steps of calculations) in order to modify some pixels by replacing their colour with the colour of another pixel.
The image processing experts have now found a way to recognise faces from blurred photos, inverting (in practice) the sequence of the algorithm (by performing the same steps and calculations in the reverse order). This explanation is not fully correct in the scientific sense, but it is the only way to explain it to you in simple terms without resorting to complex mathematics (I study machine vision doing an MRes in the South East, and while working on my dissertation I freaked out after I stumbled upon these articles!) I just hope you can appreciate the danger!!
What this means is that when you upload a photo with blurred faces, the cops can simply process your photo with a forensics program and reveal your faces without the blurring effect! It's as simple as 1-2-3 or A-B-C!
The good news though is that the solution is even simpler: you just refrain from using the blurring filter and you paint the whole face with your image processing software's pen by only using one simple colour (black or white), but NEVER the skin's colour because if you copy it then it MAY prove useful for analysis! see this:
Contribution of color to face recognition (2002) at http://web.mit.edu/bcs/sinha/papers/yip_sinha_ColorFaces.pdf
* One of the key challenges in face perception lies in determining how different facial
* attributes contribute to judgments of identity. In this study, we focus on the role of color cues.
* Although color appears to be a salient attribute of faces, past research has suggested that it
* confers little recognition advantage for identifying people. Here we report experimental results
* suggesting that color cues do play a role in face recognition and their contribution becomes
* evident when shape cues are degraded. Under such conditions, recognition performance with
* color images is significantly better than that with gray-scale images. Our experimental results
* also indicate that the contribution of color may lie not so much in providing diagnostic cues to
* identity as in aiding low-level image-analysis processes such as segmentation.
*
By replacing all the face's pixels with another colour all the information is lost for good (except if you use an image format that keeps undo levels or other metadata) and no one can recover it (not even their all-powerful god).
But I have more for you... there is also a program that can recognise the same person in two different photos as long as she or he wears the same pair of jeans!! have a look at this:
A Garment in the Dock; or, How the FBI Illuminated the Prehistory of A Pair of Denim Jeans (1998-2004) at http://mcu.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/293
* This article looks at research carried out at the FBI Laboratory’s Special Photographic Unit in the identification of denim trousers from bank surveillance film. This research, which was published in 1998, showed that despite the ubiquity of jeans, each pair has individual identifying characteristics caused by the manufacturing process and by wear, and that these might be used as evidence in the identification of criminal suspects. What the FBI research also inadvertently illuminated was an otherwise hidden relationship between garment, maker and wearer, in an effective - if accidental - reversal of commodity fetishism.
Enlighten your comrades, translate it, and remember: knowledge is power! Freedom to everyone!
Comments
Hide the following 25 comments
Dodgy advice -
13.05.2009 07:18
(A) Sab x
better
13.05.2009 07:58
ratamahatta
Think about it...
13.05.2009 08:21
If you blur the face using a blur tool then it can be undone. If you paint over the face and there is no metadata you ca not get the old picture back.
Paint then blur if you quite fancy the asthetics of bluring. I prefer the old Stalin esk Black Pen look personly..
James Smith
RTA A Sab
13.05.2009 08:23
Instead, paint over them with a solid colour.
Not much scope for disinfo there.
CH
Meta-data
13.05.2009 08:56
There are various free applications available on the web for JPEG metadata removal.
Mike
easy
13.05.2009 09:09
in the know
"and there is no metadata"
13.05.2009 09:50
What it means is once you have your photograph in Photoshop/Gimp/ Paintshop /whatever, once you have obscured the faces by cutting or painting, then you have to copy the entire image and paste it as a new image. I imagine (hopefully) that IM strip metadata but other sites won't, so it is best practice imao.
Danny
Guass
13.05.2009 09:55
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function
But given the lack of any 'unGuass' plugins, I suspect not... so the post may well be hoax.
The poster above got it wrong. The English paedo was caught because he used the SWIRL function, which moves data in a set pattern. Google "mr swirl" for more.
One thing is for sure, as another poster remarked, using a solid colour and a "paintbrush" will be irreversible... BUT only so long as the image is rendered down or saved to a jpeg. If you have a multilayered file (jpeg is never layered, so you will be safe using that format) the 'blacking/whiting out' can simply be switched off. So if you need the image in a non-jpg format, and aren't sure what I mean by 'render' or 'layer', then get a trusted person who does know to do it!
Mystery Photshopper
sorry...
13.05.2009 10:11
(A) Sab x
What's gone is gone: Some more thoughts
13.05.2009 10:14
In the first it doesn't specify what it means by blur (be it Guassian or motion) and in the second, despite the fact that Guass is mentioned it doesn't mention any tolerances of blur extent...
One thing it cannot be true, is that an algorithm could retrieve data that has been lost through the degradation of reiteration. In other words, if something is Gaussed to the degree that the image becomes one homogeneous tone, there can be no going back.
But if the Gauss has only lost 10% of the detail, then logically only less than 10% of the original detail could be accurately predicted by "forensics". And if the processes is predictive and thus less than 100% accurate, that means there are to some degree (likely increasing in inaccuracy in relation to the severity of blur) be artefacts introduced (as there are in exxisting sharpening tools, or in audio denoising algorithms. )
But basically the common sense rule applies: if the data is lost there is no brining it back... well not least till some brainiac comes up with some spiffy way of extracting the data from incidental environmental sources effected by the primary source (reflection etc.)
So the original post definitely smells of shit, if nothing else by its lack of caveats in line with what it is citing.
But again, one things is right: a block of black or white can't be reversed so long as teh image is "flattened" (rendered down... single layered...)
Kind of reminds me too of the J7 Truth idiots that started claiming the suicide bombers last will & testament videos were fakes, citing some obscure piece of animation software. Turns out the software was chiefly causing a stir because of it's voice formants to facial expression animation grammar, and was visually about as convincing as a sock with with two buttons on it in terms of being natural.
Mystery Photshopper
Metadata???
13.05.2009 10:29
Exif will surely tell cops nothing much more than what camera was used and at what settings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif
And surely any incriminating data within the file header will only be something that can identify the originating computer and would therefore be replicated by creating an new file on the same machine???
I'm not even sure if any image formats store non-image related data within the file (like MS Office files do)?
I can't start to imagine what either the EXIF or the file header could add to the forensic process at all (other than saving a minor step being needed) let alone being relevant to Guass?
The EXIF info can probably be all reverse engineered anyway.
Could you be more specific? Because it is news to me!
Mystery Photshopper
Mike
13.05.2009 10:37
I had hitherto believed the thumbnails were produced on an adhoc basis within the camera or within the OS.
This vague reference is the best I could find on a busy day:
http://canton.elegal.ca/2006/06/14/beware-of-digital-photo-thumbnail-metadata/
Thanks.
Mystery Photshopper
Jeans and other identifiers
13.05.2009 10:38
"This article looks at research carried out at the FBI Laboratory’s Special Photographic Unit in the identification of denim trousers from bank surveillance film. This research, which was published in 1998, showed that despite the ubiquity of jeans, each pair has individual identifying characteristics caused by the manufacturing process and by wear, and that these might be used as evidence in the identification of criminal suspects."
That doesn't apply to properly sized images on Indymedia, and to suggest it does is to encourage paranoia that would harshly limit any photographs here as no UK jury would convict on this supposition. It does however suggest black and white photographs are safer, less identifiable for clothes and such.
Danny
Remaining anonymous
13.05.2009 10:54
Check out this article for tips on remaining anonymous
http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2008/10/11/fashion-tips-for-the-brave/
It's just as likely that if you are photographed by indymedia with identifiable features or clothing you have also been photographed by the cops or mainstream media who wont blur anything.
Me
Learn somehting new every day...
13.05.2009 11:04
http://no.spam.ee/~tonu/exif/?srcid=711&src=http://place.ee/album2/albums/userpics/11181/triinu.jpg
http://michaelzimmer.org/2006/06/13/the-hidden-photos-within-photos/
And how to strip them out:
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-remove-the-metadata-from-your-photos-windows-only/
So the rule is:
When you edit out faces: strip out the thumbnails!
Mystery Photoshopper
super anon
13.05.2009 11:12
but as mentioned before, it shouldn't affect us, as we should be masked up. no matter if we're being naughty or not.
but if their are none masked up people in a photo, I would print out a photo, put a black piece of paper (or marker pen) over the faces, then take a photo of my photo. easy as poo.
sometimes simple is the best, because they write the software we use, (unless your using gimp)
their will always be ways of uncovering people, and for all the bad the police do, I'm not gonna kick up a fuss about anti-peado measures.
mask-up and don't get caught out. end of
eye see you!
The original post is correct
13.05.2009 11:48
As others have said the best method is ruddy great big black blob on the face to cover it, you should then print screen it to a new image to strip some of the attached data, and then save it in a non multilayer format.
I thought everyone already knew that blurring was ineffective... apparently not. Debluring techniques have been used for years to catch paedophiles and rapists.
Stay safe
This article in Greek
13.05.2009 12:18
Crosslinker
Stay safe
13.05.2009 15:37
Just saying "it is correct" and adding yet more anecdotes doesn't really help anyone.
Mystery Photoshopper
photographer scum
13.05.2009 16:09
The thing is though, there are hundreds of other ways for the state to identify you, even without seeing your face.
I see little point in photographing activists whilst out. leave that to the fitscum.
{A}
Digital cameras have finger pritnts too...
13.05.2009 17:37
http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/23/pixel-noise-said-to-create-unique-camera-fingerprint/
so we are back to the usual advice "if you are doing anything dodgy don't be photographed doing it and if some one is doing something dodgy don't photograph them" and if you do don't put it on the web
Simples!
photographer
meta data goes on photoshop ?
13.05.2009 19:30
Can someone confirm this please.
.cold stomper
Cut n paste
13.05.2009 20:06
Cameras and printers have built in identifiers, search the archive here. Truth is this level of detail has never been brought to court except in paedo cases. In which case, stop abusing kids or be afraid of more than the police.
Ex Adobe Danny
Pixelate
14.05.2009 14:43
Unbluring is nothing new, it is just difficult and cpu intensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution
And of course the easiest blurs to unblur are software generated blurs for obvious reason.
Pixelate
If two different faces blur to the same image, it can't be undone.
15.05.2009 15:58
The people who have been caught out (mostly paedophiles) have just used something to swirl or twist the image around. In that case you can just twist it in the opposite direction and undo it.
But in general a blurring is a one way process. Maybe statistical analysis of possible originals of a blurred image might be of some use in picking out which originals look like real faces. That's the route I would go down if I was trying to do this, anyway. It wouldn't work if a face was blurred multiple times with different methods though.
Probably best to blur the whole image slightly and pixelate faces as well, like some other people have said. The more detail the police can get from it, the better for them.
Obviously avoid posting images with people in them at all without their permission. But sometimes you may want to e.g. ALF activists posing with liberated animals, etc.
I read recently some paedophile got identified because part of his thumb was in an image and the thumbnail was slightly unusual.
moi