3D Face Reconstruction: the Road to Forensics

3D face reconstruction algorithms from images and videos are applied to many fields, from plastic surgery to the entertainment sector, thanks to their advantageous features. However, when looking at forensic applications, 3D face reconstruction must observe strict requirements that still make its possible role in bringing evidence to a lawsuit unclear. An extensive investigation of the constraints, potential, and limits of its application in forensics is still missing. Shedding some light on this matter is the goal of the present survey, which starts by clarifying the relation between forensic applications and biometrics, with a focus on face recognition. Therefore, it provides an analysis of the achievements of 3D face reconstruction algorithms from surveillance videos and mugshot images and discusses the current obstacles that separate 3D face reconstruction from an active role in forensic applications. Finally, it examines the underlying data sets, with their advantages and limitations, while proposing alternatives that could substitute or complement them

3D Face Reconstruction: the Road to Forensics

3D face reconstruction algorithms from images and videos are applied to many fields, from plastic surgery to the entertainment sector, thanks to their advantageous features. However, when looking at forensic applications, 3D face reconstruction must observe strict requirements that still make its possible role in bringing evidence to a lawsuit unclear. An extensive investigation of the constraints, potential, and limits of its application in forensics is still missing. Shedding some light on this matter is the goal of the present survey, which starts by clarifying the relation between forensic applications and biometrics, with a focus on face recognition. Therefore, it provides an analysis of the achievements of 3D face reconstruction algorithms from surveillance videos and mugshot images and discusses the current obstacles that separate 3D face reconstruction from an active role in forensic applications. Finally, it examines the underlying data sets, with their advantages and limitations, while proposing alternatives that could substitute or complement them.Comment: The manuscript has been accepted for publication in ACM Computing Surveys. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2303.1116

Defending Face-Recognition Technology (And Defending Against It)

This Article looks beneath the surface of attacks on face-recognition technology and explains how it can be an exceptionally useful tool for law enforcement, complementing traditional forensic evidence such as fingerprints and DNA. It punctures myths about the technology and explains how existing rules of criminal procedure, developed for other kinds of forensic evidence, are readily adaptable to face-recognition. It opposes across-the-board restrictions on use of face-recognition technologies and advocates a more sophisticated set of guarantees of defendant access to the information necessary to probe reliability of computerized face-matches. Defendants must have reasonable access to the details of the technology and how it was used so that they have a meaningful opportunity to inform the factfinder of doubts about reliability. Part II explains the technology, starting with machine learning, which enables a computer to represent faces digitally based on their physical characteristics, so that they can be matched with other faces. This part also explains how shortcomings in the algorithms or training database of faces can produce errors, both positive and negative, in identification. Part III explores existing and potential uses of face-recognition in law enforcement, placing the technology into the context of traditional police investigations. Part IV summarizes the relatively sparse caselaw and the much fuller literature on face-recognition technology, in particular, evaluates claims of threats to privacy, and analyzes legal principles developed for analogous conventional criminal investigative and proof methods. Part V constructs a legal framework for evaluating the probativeness of face-recognition technology in criminal prosecutions, develops strategies, and offers actual cross examination questions to guide defense counsel in challenging face-recognition technology. Part VI acknowledges that some specific uses of the technology to scan crowds and streams of people may need judicial control and suggests a draft statute to assure such control

Portraits, Likenesses, Composites? Facial Difference in Forensic Art

The police composite sketch is arguably the most fundamental example of forensic art, and one which enjoys considerable cultural prominence. Intended to produce a positive identification of a specific individual, composites are a form of visual intelligence rather than hard evidence. Based on verbal descriptions drawn from memory deriving from highly contingent and possibly traumatic events, composites are by definition unique and precarious forensic objects, representing an epistemological paradox in their definition as simultaneous ‘artistic impression’ and ‘pictorial statement’. And despite decades of operational use, only in recent years has the field of cognitive psychology begun to fully understand and address the conditions that affect recognition rates both positively and negatively. How might composites contribute to our understanding of representational concepts such as ‘likeness’ and ‘accuracy’? And what role does visual medium – drawn, photographic or computerized depiction – play in the legibility of these images? Situated within the broader context of forensic art practices, this paper proceeds from an understanding that the face is simultaneously crafted as an analogy of the self and a forensic technology. In other words, the face is a space where concepts of identification and identity, sameness and difference (often uncomfortably) converge. With reference to selected examples from laboratory research, field application and artistic practice, I consider how composites, through their particular techniques and form, contribute to subject-making, and how they embody the fugitive, in literal and figurative terms

A survey on heterogeneous face recognition: Sketch, infra-red, 3D and low-resolution

Heterogeneous face recognition (HFR) refers to matching face imagery across different domains. It has received much interest from the research community as a result of its profound implications in law enforcement. A wide variety of new invariant features, cross-modality matching models and heterogeneous datasets are being established in recent years. This survey provides a comprehensive review of established techniques and recent developments in HFR. Moreover, we offer a detailed account of datasets and benchmarks commonly used for evaluation. We finish by assessing the state of the field and discussing promising directions for future research

Facing Injustice: How Face Recognition Technology May Increase the Incidence of Misidentifications and Wrongful Convictions

Part I of this Article explains how face recognition is used in conjunction with eyewitness identification in the law enforcement context. Part II explores how and why the growing use of face recognition technology may increase, rather than decrease, misidentifications and therefore wrongful convictions. Part III recommends policy changes that should be considered, including some of the reforms to eyewitness identification procedures that have been advanced by others. This abstract has been adapted from the author\u27s introduction

A Synthesis of the Science and Law Relating to Eyewitness Misidentifications and Recommendations for How Police and Courts Can Reduce Wrongful Convictions Based on Them

The empirical literature on perception and memory consistently demonstrates the pitfalls of eyewitness identifications. Exoneration data lend external validity to these studies. With the goal of informing law enforcement officers, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, judges, and judicial law clerks about what they can do to reduce wrongful convictions based on misidentifications, this Article presents a synthesis of the scientific knowledge relevant to how perception and memory affect the (un)reliability of eyewitness identifications. The Article situates that body of knowledge within the context of leading case law. The Article then summarizes the most current recommendations for how law enforcement personnel should—and should not—conduct eyewitness identification procedures. Finally, the Article concludes by making law and policy recommendations for handling eyewitness identification evidence in ways that can reduce wrongful convictions

From Ban to Approval: What Virginia\u27s Facial Recognition Technology Law Gets Wrong

Face recognition technology (FRT), in the context of law enforcement, is a complex investigative technique that includes a delicate interplay between machine and human. Compared to other biometric and investigative tools, it poses unique risks to privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. At the same time, its use is generally unregulated and opaque. Recently, state lawmakers have introduced legislation to regulate face recognition technology, but this legislation often fails to account for the complexities of the technology, or to address the unique risks it poses. Using Virginia’s recently passed face recognition law and the legislative history behind it as an example, we show how legislation can fail to properly account for the harms of this technology