Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Magazine Photos Fool Age-verification Cameras

Posted by timothy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 01:11 PM
from the porn-magazine-photos-doubly-so dept.
gregor-e writes "Japan has scheduled a full-scale rollout of visual age-verification on cigarette vending machines. Unfortunately for them, a Sankei Sports news reporter has determined that this system can be fooled by holding up a magazine photo of an adult."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Facial Recognition Vending Machine Debuts 172 comments
Peter Hanami writes "Yesterday in Japan, a facial recognition vending machine went on sale that can tell the age of the buyer based on a range of features including number of wrinkles, bone structure and how the skin sits on the face. It was developed as a way to stop minors from buying cigarettes from vending machines. In Japan, cigarette vending machines are a common feature on the street and presently few safeguards exist to stop younger users from purchasing them. This new machine is seen as a positive step to reduce under age smoking. If the machine doesnt deem the buyer to be of suitable age, 20 years old, the buyer must provide further identification such as a drivers licence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Impressive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mistersooreams (811324) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:17PM (#23992047) Homepage

    Wow, this whole idea is fantastically stupid in so many ways. In a sense I admire the gall of whichever company sold this technology, as they must have known that it couldn't possibly work. No doubt they'll roll out some ad-hoc solution to the magazine workaround (earning themselves another hearty payday as all the machines are updated). This can be repeated for each new workaround until everyone involved retires rich and their customer is too embarrassed to admit that the whole thing was obviously a waste of money.

    At least it's a tobacco company getting shafted. Can't feel too sorry for them.

    • Re:Impressive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Valar (167606) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:23PM (#23992091)

      Eh, actually they don't want it to work. This way they can say "we tried to stop it from selling to kids!", but when the machine dispenses anyway they can make some extra bucks. It could easily be a way to avoid the age limits on who they can sell to.

    • Re:Impressive (Score:4, Insightful)

      by deepgrey (1246108) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:28PM (#23992147)
      The whole idea of cigarette vending machines is itself fantastically stupid if there is an age cutoff for the legal purchase of cigarettes. Can you just imagine what Japan would be like if marijuana were legal there?
      • Their place is in an age-restricted building or room.

        Cigarette vending machines in bars, casinos, adult-entertainment establishments, and other placed where Junior can't get in without bribing the doorman, er, I mean presenting a convincing fake id, are no problem.

        If they really wanted to handle this with a machine, they would make you insert your driver's license, tell you to close either your left eye or right eye or make some other facial expression at random, then compare the faces. They would double-check with the driver's license database to make sure the face on the license matched the face on record.

        Thankfully, we aren't quite to this 1984 scenario yet, but this is coming.

        • According to the article, if you fail the visual check you have to insert your license. My question would be why don't they just always require the license? If you're old enough to smoke you should have a license. No idea how it works over there but I thought you could get a "non driving" driver's license here in the states to use as an ID.

          I suppose this also says something about how many people there smoke, if they have to have cigarette vending machines around every corner. Here there are no such things anymore and I don't see anyone rioting over it. One would think the only reason they have those vending machines right now is to sell to underage smokers. Which is probably why the whole issue is under attack in the first place.

          Anyone have any stats on what effect the age verification systems are having on cigarette sales from machines? I wouldn't be surprised to see sales drop 80%. For the sheer convenience and that most smokers are 1 or 2 pack a day addiction, you'd think most reasonable smokers would be buying cartains, not singles. Prices in the machines tend to be higher than by the cartain too,

          • by Deagol (323173) on Sunday June 29 2008, @03:12PM (#23993001) Homepage
            ...reasonable smokers...

            There's the main flaw in your logic. Anyone who pays (way too much) for the privilege of habitually inhaling toxic smoke and gases (which is contrary to any living creature's survival instinct) cannot be described as "reasonable". Reason doesn't come into the equation for estimating how nicotine addicts will profit the tobacco companies.

            • Somebody once told me that it's not the days in your life that count, but the life in your days. Is your entire goal in life to live to the oldest age possible? If so, you should probably avoid driving cars or being near major roads, stay away from computers to prevent blindness and spend most of your day maintaining whatever the currently accepted level of aerobic exercise is.

              Fuck that. Life is about having some fun too. If I enjoy inhaling toxic smoke, then maybe that is the way I want to have the fun in my life, and if me choosing what I want to do for fun doesn't match your "reason" or Big Brother's "reason" then fuck you both.

              • by Sapphon (214287) on Sunday June 29 2008, @05:31PM (#23993949) Journal

                If I enjoy inhaling toxic smoke, then maybe that is the way I want to have the fun in my life, and if me choosing what I want to do for fun doesn't match your "reason" or Big Brother's "reason" then fuck you both.


                If you have the mental faculties to be able to properly weigh the risks of the actions you choose against their benefits to you – whether that be using a computer all day or smoking – and there are no social costs inherent in your actions, then by all means, do what you want.

                But society has decided that if you are under a certain age you do not have these required decision making capabilities, and so you are restricted from making the choice. That is all.

                If a child really wanted to inhale toxic fumes its parents could make that choice by going to the cigarette machine and buying the fags, but the child itself can't. Seems reasonable to me.

                (This post restricts itself to the narrow issue of age restrictions and ignores facets such as taxes on "undesireable" goods)

              • >>...stay away from computers to prevent blindness...

                Wait, computers make you go blind? I thought the only thing that made you blind was masterb... OOOHHHHH I get it.

            • by smellotron (1039250) on Sunday June 29 2008, @04:21PM (#23993457)

              habitually inhaling toxic smoke ... contrary to any living creature's survival instinct

              Whoops, you just made the assumption that survival instincts are based off of long-term cost/benefit ratio. On the contrary, most instincts (fight-or-flight, sexual attraction, whatnot) are based off of estimated short-term benefits. Hence why people continue to smoke...

              • it satisfies an immediate craving (if you're already addicted)
              • nicotine gives a nice little buzz
              • it is perceived to reduce stress

              Regardless of its truth and long-term effect, the "inhaling toxic smoke" argument borders on propoganda. It completely ignores one side of the argument.

              • by Deagol (323173) on Sunday June 29 2008, @09:00PM (#23995513) Homepage
                Well, sure, if you're already hooked, then your points hold true. However, you truly have to be a follow-the-crowd dumb-ass to force your way through the initial phases of smoking in order to become tolerant of the practice and then become an addict. Unlike like other addictions (such as chocolate, whippets, or booze) which are *initially* pleasurable, a first time smoker's response of usually one of distaste.

                Ever wonder why so many movies or TV shows portray this scene:
                1. Some bad boy/girl wannabe lights up their first smoke
                2. They choke and cough, being generally shocked at how awful it is
                3. They are then ridiculed by the veteran bad boys/girls who do smoke

                This is such a common theme because -- wait for it -- the short-term instincts of animals tells them that smoke (or its source) is hazardous to the animal's health or well-being.

                I'm about as anti nanny state as most people get. The poster who offered me the friendly "fuck you" totally missed the point. I don't wish to curb such self destructive behavior -- more power to those who enjoy it, so long as it doesn't negatively affect my own health, taxes, or insurance premiums. I just want smokers to acknowledge their habit is about as rational as shitting in their own water supply or jumping from cliffs.

            • addiction and logic do not work in tandem. addiction is the defeat of logic, therefore you cannot use logic to describe the actions of the addicted.

              Try talking to someone with an addiction. Be it alcohol, nicotine, or crack. Try reasoning with them. Odds are they will agree with you but won't change their behavior.

          • They don't always require a license because most people don't have licenses. Getting a license is a multi-month, several thousand dollar (or several hundred thousand yen, actually) ordeal. People that don't live in rural areas don't need cars and in congestion choked cities, cars are mostly luxury items.

            The article is pretty skewed. The real story is that Taspo [wikipedia.org] is starting July 1st. Taspo is a card based system that doesn't use any age verification. It's being deployed nationwide. You have to apply for a Taspo card using some form of state-issued photo identification. Maybe there's a weak link in the application procedure, but only one card is issued per person and cards that have been lost or are being abused can be disabled remotely. The article says that there will be 4000 age verification machines (in a country of 130 million), but I've never seen one. Every day, I see dozens of machines that say Taspo will be required starting July 1st. All the smokers I know have Taspo cards.

      • by MrMr (219533) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:52PM (#23992387)
        Can you just imagine what Japan would be like if marijuana were legal there
        Slightly more like here?
      • by dj_tla (1048764) * <.ac.wahs. .ta. .yalokebrt.> on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:58PM (#23992447) Homepage Journal

        Can you just imagine what Japan would be like if marijuana were legal there?

        Awesome

      • Re:Impressive (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rubberchickenboy (1044950) on Sunday June 29 2008, @02:27PM (#23992647)
        Can you just imagine what Japan would be like if marijuana were legal there?

        It would be a huge improvement. I love it here in Tokyo, but sometimes it would be nice to burn one with some Japanese friends just to chill out. So many people here are overly-stressed, anxious, and unwilling to talk about it. Sure, those things are cultural, but they're also the sorts of things pot actually helps alleviate.

        What's better? The high rate of suicide in Japan? How about the high incidence of alcohol poisoning? I fail to see how pot would make things worse.

        Unfortunately, MacArthur made sure that Japanese demonize marijuana and think of it as more dangerous than heroin or cocaine.
          • Re:Impressive (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Free the Cowards (1280296) on Sunday June 29 2008, @04:23PM (#23993477)

            The funny thing is that a lot of young people talk this way. And yet when they get older, they don't start offing themselves. Turns out that while a lot of people talk about how they'd rather die than be decrepit, when they're actually faced with the choice nearly all of them choose life.

        • That's true....if you really know their of drinking age. PLCB has been cracking down alot here on stuff like that. Bars in my area have resorted to either NOT selling tobacco or having it behind the bar.
    • Re:Impressive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by snarkh (118018) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:36PM (#23992239)

      It is similar to airline security mentality -- make everything secure by installing a fancy machine.
      If it is sufficiently expensive, it must be effective.

  • by nightglider28 (1243916) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:22PM (#23992085)
    It's funny when people try to create a complex system in which someone finds a tiny, simple hole. On a related note, wouldn't it be a better idea (and probably more cost effective than continual update to the security) to have some sort of ID scanner in addition to the cameras?
  • Cracking at its best (Score:3, Interesting)

    by paratiritis (1282164) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:24PM (#23992099)
    Fool the system by giving it false information. The recognition program never gets a chance to work.

    BTW it is easy to fix this if the machine asks the people to move. This will work ... for about a week, until they start creating animations of old people that can move on command for EEEs or other such netbooks.

    • by CaptainPatent (1087643) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:34PM (#23992223) Journal

      BTW it is easy to fix this if the machine asks the people to move

      Or better yet, add a second eye to make sure the subject has... depth!

      • by FooAtWFU (699187) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:40PM (#23992279) Homepage
        Goodbye old-people photos, hello old-people masks?
      • by v1 (525388) on Sunday June 29 2008, @02:59PM (#23992887) Homepage Journal

        more likely temperature. When taking a urine sample for example, one of the things the tester does immediately is check the temperature of the sample. This helps prevent people from bringing in a medicine bottle etc with a 'clean' sample to drop in the cup. if it measures much below 95 deg, they will know you brought it in.

        Reminds me of something I read awhile back, guy tried this stunt and didn't get caught until later. "Mr Doe you'll be happy to know you passed your drug test. The doctors also felt they should inform you that you are approximately two months pregnant." oops...

        So expect thermal (I.R.) sensors. Most digital cameras (CCDs) are highly IR sensitive anyway if you remove their IR filter, so this has to be a really easy mod for them to make. Won't be terribly easy to fool. A bit like those thermometers used to measure high temperatures of materials. They usually have a red laser light dot shine on the target, but that's purely for aiming. It shows where the IR sensor in the test unit is focused on. They can do this same thing with the face presented to measure the surface temp of the image. (without needing the red laser dot since the target is being presented in a known location)

  • by davidwr (791652) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:27PM (#23992141) Homepage Journal

    Japanese vending machines are now configured to dispense pictures of cigarettes.

    • by CaptainPatent (1087643) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:39PM (#23992269) Journal
      Even better is if the machine was re-designed to detect magazines and other pictures of people and actually did dispense pictures of cigarettes.

      The machine could even keep their money, because I doubt a teen is going to report a cigarette machine took it!
  • by Tumbleweed (3706) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:39PM (#23992267) Homepage

    "Little Brother" by Cory Doctorow. I just finished it, and it's full of stuff like ths. Great book, btw, HIGHLY recommended.

  • So this machine can determine 17 from 18 accurately? That would be a good iPhone app!
  • by ebbomega (410207) on Sunday June 29 2008, @01:42PM (#23992289) Journal

    Steal a picture of the CEO, photocopy, put it back, hold up in front of your face when trying to access the secret room and let it scan you.

    God I wasted so many damn hours on that game.

  • by LM741N (258038) on Sunday June 29 2008, @02:21PM (#23992605)

    Wait, a McCain picture might give error messages indicating you are TOO old to buy cigarettes.

  • by Feanturi (99866) on Sunday June 29 2008, @02:25PM (#23992639)

    So I don't know why any trust is given to a machine to guess someone's age based on the appearance of their face. A lot of retailers I've seen have a sign posted at the till that says they will ask for ID if you look under 35. 35! This enormous margin of error is due to the fact that you really can't tell if someone is over or under 18 without some seriously obvious clue. I was 30 before people stopped guessing my age to be 20. My neice was able to get service in a bar once at age 14, and it could easily be seen why.

  • by mrpull (112590) on Sunday June 29 2008, @02:33PM (#23992713)
    This story immediately reminded me of the 12 year old me guessing my way through the quiz before playing Leisure Suit Larry.

    Who the hell is Spiro Agnew? LSL taught me.

    Also, why didn't I find out Alt-X would skip that quiz until nearly 20 years later?

    mr.
  • Easy Fix! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MWoody (222806) on Sunday June 29 2008, @06:32PM (#23994325) Homepage

    The solution is obvious: make it illegal to sell magazines with pictures of adults to minors.

    • by Erikderzweite (1146485) on Sunday June 29 2008, @02:53PM (#23992849)
      They did. Read this thread more accurate. A possible solution would be to place digital photo on RFID chip and let face-recognition software compare both faces. But if a kid wants to buy cigarettes, it will buy it. By taking his father's RFID and printing his photo, for example. The cigarette machines are the real problem. Disassemble them, make only a few authorized sellers sell cigarettes anyway and make sure those few do have strict age controls.
      Problem But tobacco companies' lobby will do anything to prevent it. So will do nicotine-addicted to get another cigarette.