Juggalo makeup blocks facial recognition technology (2019)
Effectiveness of Juggalo Makeup on Facial Recognition
- Several comments see the makeup as a form of “dazzle camouflage” that disrupts landmark-based face detection and recognition, especially older systems trained on clean, frontal, well‑lit faces.
- Others are skeptical, calling the article clickbait and outdated (2019) and noting newer models are trained on occlusions, masks, and heavy makeup, so may be more robust.
- One person who published a paper on defeating a major social network’s face detector notes that tech has advanced significantly since then.
- Multiple commenters point out the tradeoff: you may defeat automated recognition but become extremely conspicuous to humans and non-automated police work (the “clown in a warzone” problem).
Other Identification Methods (Gait, LIDAR, Sensors)
- Several comments stress that blocking facial recognition alone is insufficient:
- Video-based gait analysis is claimed to be highly effective; some mention wide deployment in at least one country and past defense research.
- Suggestions to defeat gait tracking include altering your walk (e.g., objects in shoes), though others want empirical evidence this works on modern systems.
- Smartphone accelerometers are mentioned as a potential large-scale gait signal source.
- LIDAR is mentioned as harder to fool than video-only facial recognition.
- Some joke about needing hazmat suits or full anonymity gear.
Camouflage, Adversarial Design, and Anti-Surveillance Art
- References to designed anti-FR patterns (e.g., “dazzle” makeup, face-projecting light devices, printed patterns/shirts) as more subtle alternatives to clown makeup.
- One commenter suggests systematically categorizing Juggalo paint patterns like visual markers and even using a large “gathering” for camera calibration.
- There is interest in how far optical coatings on glasses and similar consumer products actually help, but effectiveness is unclear.
Surveillance, Law, and Social Tradeoffs
- A major subthread argues that only legal/constitutional limits on surveillance (public and private) can “meaningfully” curb it; technical countermeasures are seen as an arms race.
- Others are pessimistic: “deep state” constraints, bipartisan appetite to surveil “the other side,” corporate incentives, and public apathy are all cited.
- Proposed remedies include:
- Strong consent rules (e.g., auto-blurring faces unless consented).
- Banning or sharply limiting data sharing/selling from consumer cameras.
- Severe penalties for corporate abuse (up to dissolving repeat offenders).
- Counterpoints highlight how embedded surveillance already is: doorbell cams, cloud CCTV, auto-tagging in photo apps, and legal protection of recording under free-expression doctrines.
- Some feel “we live in public now” and that prevention opportunities were missed; others insist on continuing to push for tech-literate, less corporate‑captured policymakers.
Cultural References and Humor
- Numerous jokes and nostalgic asides about Juggalos, Faygo, “fucking magnets,” early‑2000s culture, and cyberpunk fiction depicting anti-surveillance fashion and masks.
- Several recommendations for related dystopian comics and films exploring ubiquitous surveillance and anonymity.