[web007]

Look up "CV dazzle" for the equivalent in the modern age, makeup effects to avoid facial detection / recognition.

[vasco]

By far the most common usage in the real world is in camouflaging prototype cars while being tested on the road https://www.bmw.com/en/automotive-life/prototype-cars.html

This way paparazzi can take pictures but it's hard to distinguish the shapes.

[mattlondon]

I think they also sometimes wrap polystyrene blocks under the camouflage too, so that particular curves on e.g. the wings or nose etc are altered by virtue of the camouflage having to confirm over that too.

[skhr0680]

That's really interesting. The times I've seen Toyota street testing pre-release cars, they were not disguised whatsoever, and had unmissable "factory" number plates

[bsenftner]

I'd say the most common usage in the real world is click-bait surveillance fear articles discussing CV-Dazzle and the entire surveillance state being erected. The theater around all this is as much "it" as the things themselves.

[gmueckl]

I've seen plenty of these cars around Stuttgart and Munich. These patterns make it surprisingly hard to discern details in their shapes. Add to that the fact that early prototypes are deliberately padded to obscure their actual design and there's virtually no way to tell what the final production car will look like when you see these on the road.

[MrBuddyCasino]

You can see these cars (called "Erlkönig") all the time when driving near car manufacturer headquarters, and often also elsewhere on the Autobahn.

[mattclarkdotnet]

The car manufacturers do this for the coverage (pun intended). It probably also feels cool if you are on the team.

[NackerHughes]

I remember that when it first came out. I get it’s a theoretical or fashion type thing, but the concept seemed flagrantly absurd to me. Block automated facial recognition in a way that in turn makes your face instantly recognisable in any crowd…

[glenstein]

I've heard this as a reaction to the strategy before. "Now you're much more recognizable!" Well, yes and no. You're identifiable in the sense that you're unique among people in a crowd. But that equivocates between two different senses of identify. There's nothing actionable about looking at a person who looks different and saying "well they look different." That doesn't attach to any database or anything.

Meanwhile, positive facial identification attaches to all kinds of legal and intelligence infrastructure. Now, you can be charged with crimes, have a warrant executed against you, can be accused of supporting terrorists if you show up to a protest, etc.

I suppose I don't think the criticism is wrong, but it seems to presume that this is new information not previously understood rather than an intentional calculated risk.

[genewitch]

A hat with infrared LEDs aimed out, such that there was a torus of light around your face. Invisible to humans (generally), only visible to cameras.

It won't "work right" on cameras that have permanent IR filters. Maybe. I haven't tested this in years.

I have a feeling that IR of the correct strength and frequency would be dimly visible to humans, though. Similar to cameras with monochrome night vision via IR LED.

[bsenftner]

And it is trained FR algorithm specific, so more than useless in the real world where one does not know what FR system is in use.