Totall recall
August 15, 2016 10:58 PM Subscribe
The Detectives Who Never Forget a Face
London’s new squad of “super-recognizers” could inspire a revolution in policing.
[Super recognizers previously]
London’s new squad of “super-recognizers” could inspire a revolution in policing.
[Super recognizers previously]
Are they good at spotting rogue programmes?
posted by GallonOfAlan at 1:56 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by GallonOfAlan at 1:56 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sounds like the next handwriting analysis or polygraph test. You never know what the next exciting new way for hucksters to send innocent people to jail or worse will be!
posted by darksasami at 3:04 AM on August 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by darksasami at 3:04 AM on August 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
The team is called the super-recognizers, and each member has taken a battery of tests, administered by scientists, to establish this uncanny credential.
wow!!
posted by mannequito at 3:06 AM on August 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
wow!!
posted by mannequito at 3:06 AM on August 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
So, there's this department of people who are really good at recognising faces. And, in the UK, a policeman's testimony in a court is given a special weighting owing to their training as officers of the law, for example with their notes in their notebook being regarded as 'the true version of events'.
The super-recognizers already have made a difference in U.K. law. Traditionally, an officer who identified someone in court had to demonstrate prior acquaintance with the individual. But the super-recognizers have succeeded with prosecutions in which they have offered “indirect identifications”—establishing familiarity with a suspect through repeated exposure to his likeness on CCTV.
So now we have a department of people who can claim, via fuzzy CCTV pictures, that somebody has done a crime and needs to be arrested toot sweet. I'm sure this won't ever get abused. The British police force are incredibly even-handed. Even at the highest levels of service.
posted by The River Ivel at 3:13 AM on August 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
The super-recognizers already have made a difference in U.K. law. Traditionally, an officer who identified someone in court had to demonstrate prior acquaintance with the individual. But the super-recognizers have succeeded with prosecutions in which they have offered “indirect identifications”—establishing familiarity with a suspect through repeated exposure to his likeness on CCTV.
So now we have a department of people who can claim, via fuzzy CCTV pictures, that somebody has done a crime and needs to be arrested toot sweet. I'm sure this won't ever get abused. The British police force are incredibly even-handed. Even at the highest levels of service.
posted by The River Ivel at 3:13 AM on August 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
There's a link to the Cambridge Face Memory Test at the end of the article.
So I knew I was bad at recognizing faces, I didn't know how bad I was: "Your accuracy in the experiment was: 0%" Ha, beat that! One time a friend got mad at me for asking if he wore glasses, in my defense I was driving so couldn't look over, but he'd worn glasses all his life wasn't amused that I never noticed.
posted by peeedro at 4:09 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
So I knew I was bad at recognizing faces, I didn't know how bad I was: "Your accuracy in the experiment was: 0%" Ha, beat that! One time a friend got mad at me for asking if he wore glasses, in my defense I was driving so couldn't look over, but he'd worn glasses all his life wasn't amused that I never noticed.
posted by peeedro at 4:09 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I found this article charming, but the level of surveillance the UK tolerates chilling.
posted by corb at 4:23 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 4:23 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unlike Americans post-Snowden?
posted by moody cow at 4:49 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by moody cow at 4:49 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can hardly wait for the Super-Sizers vs Super-Recognizers Super Smack Down! With special guest appearance by The Super-Tasters!
posted by briank at 5:01 AM on August 16, 2016
posted by briank at 5:01 AM on August 16, 2016
the level of surveillance the UK tolerates chilling
You don't go round lookin' like a wrong 'un you got nothing to fear. Most like.
posted by Segundus at 5:09 AM on August 16, 2016
You don't go round lookin' like a wrong 'un you got nothing to fear. Most like.
posted by Segundus at 5:09 AM on August 16, 2016
I found this article charming, but the level of surveillance the UK tolerates chilling.
I'm really not sure just how Americans came to believe that the UK has extraordinary levels of surveillance.
It has a lot of surveillance but so do American cities. Here is information on Chicago's police surveillance infrastructure. I've noticed that whenever there is a hit and run in Chicago there is almost always a surveillance footage photograph of the vehicle released.
The biggest difference, I think, is that the law in the UK requires large signs declaring both public and private surveillance.
posted by srboisvert at 5:26 AM on August 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm really not sure just how Americans came to believe that the UK has extraordinary levels of surveillance.
It has a lot of surveillance but so do American cities. Here is information on Chicago's police surveillance infrastructure. I've noticed that whenever there is a hit and run in Chicago there is almost always a surveillance footage photograph of the vehicle released.
The biggest difference, I think, is that the law in the UK requires large signs declaring both public and private surveillance.
posted by srboisvert at 5:26 AM on August 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
The key quote from the cop in charge of the unit says it all: "a lot of other countries have issues with human rights and that sort of stuff.”
Yeah, some of us do have issues with that "stuff." Combine the creeping multifaceted universal surveillance regime with the typical police attitude stated above and the demonstrable fallibility, if not malign intent, of the courts and you've just built a modern gulag - paid for by the inmates.
posted by sudogeek at 5:29 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, some of us do have issues with that "stuff." Combine the creeping multifaceted universal surveillance regime with the typical police attitude stated above and the demonstrable fallibility, if not malign intent, of the courts and you've just built a modern gulag - paid for by the inmates.
posted by sudogeek at 5:29 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
People in the U.S. are under just as much surveillance, but (overtly) by private companies instead of by the government. For years now companies have aggregated and data-mined what's captured on security cameras so that they know what you paused and looked at every time you wandered around a particular chain's retail stores, and various other metrics. And here, they can keep that information as long as they want and do whatever they wish with it because we don't even have the half-hearted attempts at privacy laws that Europe does.
Now that private operation of drones is a thing, that surveillance doesn't need to be limited to what fixed security cameras can see.
As far as covert surveillance like what the NSA does as mentioned by moody cow, in addition to online activity everyone has cameras in their laptops and smart televisions and carries them around in their phones. It seems like en masse covert collection of video would offer practical problems at this point, and I haven't heard that anything like that is going on so far, but we shortly will probably be carrying around far more cameras and sensors that we're aware of.
posted by XMLicious at 5:46 AM on August 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Now that private operation of drones is a thing, that surveillance doesn't need to be limited to what fixed security cameras can see.
As far as covert surveillance like what the NSA does as mentioned by moody cow, in addition to online activity everyone has cameras in their laptops and smart televisions and carries them around in their phones. It seems like en masse covert collection of video would offer practical problems at this point, and I haven't heard that anything like that is going on so far, but we shortly will probably be carrying around far more cameras and sensors that we're aware of.
posted by XMLicious at 5:46 AM on August 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Is this viral marketing for a new BBC police procedural... with a twist?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:48 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:48 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
It has a lot of surveillance but so do American cities.
I lived one block from MacArthur Park (2003-05) and learned just how intense security theater had become for a city I heard expressed by many as "next" in terms of 9-11. I was balancing this experience with Mike Davis' titles like City of Quartz, and would eventually learn about the massive security bunker in LA with its cameras and traffic controls. These were the days of Friendster and MySpace. What XMLicious notes both exceeds and differs from what Homeland directives empowered.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 5:59 AM on August 16, 2016
I lived one block from MacArthur Park (2003-05) and learned just how intense security theater had become for a city I heard expressed by many as "next" in terms of 9-11. I was balancing this experience with Mike Davis' titles like City of Quartz, and would eventually learn about the massive security bunker in LA with its cameras and traffic controls. These were the days of Friendster and MySpace. What XMLicious notes both exceeds and differs from what Homeland directives empowered.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 5:59 AM on August 16, 2016
If only I lived in London I could have a new career!
Cambridge Face Memory Test
Thank you for taking part in this experiment.
Your accuracy in the experiment was: 92%
The average score on this test is around 80% correct responses for adult participants.
A score of 60% or below may indicate face blindness.
posted by pjsky at 6:12 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Cambridge Face Memory Test
Thank you for taking part in this experiment.
Your accuracy in the experiment was: 92%
The average score on this test is around 80% correct responses for adult participants.
A score of 60% or below may indicate face blindness.
posted by pjsky at 6:12 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I should probably mention I find the surveillance state to be totally creepy and I have no desire to sit in an office and look at suspected criminals all day. So my talents shall go untapped, unused, unspoken....
posted by pjsky at 6:23 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by pjsky at 6:23 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
If only I lived in London I could have a new career!
Contact your local police department or FBI branch office. Maybe there's a weird part-time job awaiting you. They could call you in like you're a sniffer dog or a psychic, and then you'll get into the local news.
I'm just wondering if there's a similar test for remembering the names of people introduced to you. Because I'm one of those people who never learn anyone's name. Am I "name deaf" or something?
posted by pracowity at 6:28 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Contact your local police department or FBI branch office. Maybe there's a weird part-time job awaiting you. They could call you in like you're a sniffer dog or a psychic, and then you'll get into the local news.
I'm just wondering if there's a similar test for remembering the names of people introduced to you. Because I'm one of those people who never learn anyone's name. Am I "name deaf" or something?
posted by pracowity at 6:28 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
pracawity -- why does the possibility of becoming a "sniffer dog" of faces not light me up with enthusiasm .... ? Though perhaps I should add ACED THE CAMBRIDGE FACE MEMORY TEST to my LinkedIn profile!
posted by pjsky at 6:33 AM on August 16, 2016
posted by pjsky at 6:33 AM on August 16, 2016
IIRC when this was being mentioned on radio 4 about 8 months ago the super-recognisers were scoring 99% not 92%. Sorry pjsky, you're more like me who can spot people that they know at a distance and can remember the people I've met, even briefly, but unfortunately I'm rarely able to remember their names. When it gets really annoying is when I can rattle off how I know you, where I know you from, portions of conversation we've had, but am still unable to remember your name. Especially creepy when I can remember where I've seen you, but have never spoken to you at all, merely driven past/seen on the bus but never actually interacted with.
I also find I can identify people from a much greater distance than Mrs. Koolkat. Even if they're facing away from me. I think I can recognise something about their gate or how they stand that can act as an identifier in my brain.
Who knows I'm sure I'm quite odd in that respect.
posted by koolkat at 6:51 AM on August 16, 2016
I also find I can identify people from a much greater distance than Mrs. Koolkat. Even if they're facing away from me. I think I can recognise something about their gate or how they stand that can act as an identifier in my brain.
Who knows I'm sure I'm quite odd in that respect.
posted by koolkat at 6:51 AM on August 16, 2016
Koolkat: gait recognition is a pretty well studied thing. Whilst I was at university, my undergrad supervisor had read about how D-Day landing troops were trained to recognise soldiers from their unit by their gait (so that in the confusion of storming a beach they could reduce the number of people killed by their own side). The link above to his profile page has links off to various places with more details.
As for super-recognizers? I'd love to see more studies about this; 99% means that 1 out of every 100 is wrong. There are 65 million humans in the UK. Getting 1% of them wrong is 650 000 people. On the flip side, biometric gates that do automatic face recognition (at airport immigration say) have lower tolerances than this. Frequently, the cameras are linked up to an immigration officer. If the gates are unsure, they'll display the passport picture and the camera of the person presenting to the officer, and they'll make the go/no go call.
I wonder how immigration officers typically score on the test.
posted by sarcas at 7:33 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
As for super-recognizers? I'd love to see more studies about this; 99% means that 1 out of every 100 is wrong. There are 65 million humans in the UK. Getting 1% of them wrong is 650 000 people. On the flip side, biometric gates that do automatic face recognition (at airport immigration say) have lower tolerances than this. Frequently, the cameras are linked up to an immigration officer. If the gates are unsure, they'll display the passport picture and the camera of the person presenting to the officer, and they'll make the go/no go call.
I wonder how immigration officers typically score on the test.
posted by sarcas at 7:33 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
If only I lived in London I could have a new career!
Your accuracy in the experiment was: 92%
Same score here. The early rounds felt easy, but the blurry night-time stuff was hard going. I suspect that's what separates the super-recognisers from the pretty-decent-recognisers.
posted by rory at 7:59 AM on August 16, 2016
Your accuracy in the experiment was: 92%
Same score here. The early rounds felt easy, but the blurry night-time stuff was hard going. I suspect that's what separates the super-recognisers from the pretty-decent-recognisers.
posted by rory at 7:59 AM on August 16, 2016
I scored very high on this test but I still think the idea of an army of "super-recognizers" is about as well thought out as those people the TSA thinks can detect liars through "micro-expressions".
So basically when's the prime time detective serial based on this going to premiere?
posted by dis_integration at 8:07 AM on August 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
So basically when's the prime time detective serial based on this going to premiere?
posted by dis_integration at 8:07 AM on August 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Aren't microexpression pretty much established science, at least in their basic form?
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:24 AM on August 16, 2016
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:24 AM on August 16, 2016
I scored 94%! Where do I line up to join the Surveillance Overlords?
posted by LMGM at 9:27 AM on August 16, 2016
posted by LMGM at 9:27 AM on August 16, 2016
Aren't microexpression pretty much established science, at least in their basic form?
Now there are seventeen different things a guy can do when he lies to give him away. A guy has seventeen pantomimes. A woman's got twenty, but a guy's got seventeen. And if ya know 'em like ya know your own face, they beat lie detectors all to hell. What we got here is a little game of show and tell. You don't wanna show me nothin'. But you're tellin' me everything.
--Coccotti(Christopher Walken), True Romance(1993)
Microexpressions cannot be controlled as they happen in a fraction of a second, but it's possible to capture someone's expressions with a high speed camera and replay them at much slower speeds.
--Wikipedia/ResearchGate
posted by lazycomputerkids at 9:52 AM on August 16, 2016
Now there are seventeen different things a guy can do when he lies to give him away. A guy has seventeen pantomimes. A woman's got twenty, but a guy's got seventeen. And if ya know 'em like ya know your own face, they beat lie detectors all to hell. What we got here is a little game of show and tell. You don't wanna show me nothin'. But you're tellin' me everything.
--Coccotti(Christopher Walken), True Romance(1993)
Microexpressions cannot be controlled as they happen in a fraction of a second, but it's possible to capture someone's expressions with a high speed camera and replay them at much slower speeds.
--Wikipedia/ResearchGate
posted by lazycomputerkids at 9:52 AM on August 16, 2016
I scored 39 percent. I'm surprised I don't mistake my husband for a hat.
posted by Daily Alice at 9:59 AM on August 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Daily Alice at 9:59 AM on August 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
97%. I've never thought of myself as being particularly good with faces, either. I approached it geometrically, and was able to see the shapes.
I dunno. I don't know what it proves or think that it suggests that I ought to be able to be some sort of supercop.
posted by MythMaker at 10:06 AM on August 16, 2016
I dunno. I don't know what it proves or think that it suggests that I ought to be able to be some sort of supercop.
posted by MythMaker at 10:06 AM on August 16, 2016
68% Which I find deeply comforting, since I always say I am shit at faces. Now science agrees!
posted by dame at 12:26 PM on August 16, 2016
posted by dame at 12:26 PM on August 16, 2016
60%, right on the point for possible face blindness, which makes sense for me. Celebrities that change their hair style can become completely unrecognizable to me.
posted by PussKillian at 1:09 PM on August 16, 2016
posted by PussKillian at 1:09 PM on August 16, 2016
I got 90%, which deeply shocks me because I once didn't recognize my dental hygienist because she wasn't wearing her white coat.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 1:32 PM on August 16, 2016
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 1:32 PM on August 16, 2016
71%. Does that mean I actually have trouble with faces? I thought I was doing pretty well until the blurry ones came out.
posted by corb at 1:44 PM on August 16, 2016
posted by corb at 1:44 PM on August 16, 2016
72%. I blame the fact that white guys all look pretty much the same.
posted by medusa at 1:57 PM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by medusa at 1:57 PM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
83% and I think I'm pretty bad with faces generally - I never see celebrities in the street despite living in NYC for 5 years (or maybe I just don't watch as much TV/movies as everyone else who claims to). In that test it just looked like 2/3 faces were artificially distorted or looked fake as opposed to actually being an actual human's face, which is how I picked the right ones.
posted by pravit at 3:10 PM on August 16, 2016
posted by pravit at 3:10 PM on August 16, 2016
I have a very strong visual memory, and I scored 100%. I like what I do, which is lucky, because I'd not really want to have to track people all day long.
posted by Ideefixe at 12:13 AM on August 17, 2016
posted by Ideefixe at 12:13 AM on August 17, 2016
> I like what I do, which is lucky, because I'd not really want to have to track people all day long
It sounds like it does have its downside, having that ability. The one cop who can't stop arresting people, even on his days off; he just doesn't get a break, recognizing people left and right.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:36 AM on August 17, 2016
It sounds like it does have its downside, having that ability. The one cop who can't stop arresting people, even on his days off; he just doesn't get a break, recognizing people left and right.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:36 AM on August 17, 2016
For those who aren't geo-locked out of it BBC TV's Click for this week is all about security and surveillance issues.
posted by XMLicious at 1:50 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by XMLicious at 1:50 AM on August 18, 2016
« Older ‘Suck It Up’ | Are rich nations turning their back on the world? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by the marble index at 1:16 AM on August 16, 2016 [5 favorites]