A cybersecurity researcher covered a Toyota in an AI-generated pattern to confuse Flock cameras

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,214   +63
Staff
What just happened? Bill Swearingen's noRecognition project is testing whether computer-generated patterns can interfere with software used to identify people, vehicles, and other objects on surveillance cameras. The project received its first public test Friday at the Def Con cybersecurity conference in Las Vegas. Swearingen worked with Donut Media to cover a 2009 Toyota Yaris with one of his patterns and drive it past a Flock camera. "We proved it was effective," Swearingen, a cybersecurity professional and founder of SIXCYBER, told TechCrunch.

Donut Media plans to release video of the test in the coming weeks.

The pattern does not stop a camera from recording. Instead, it is designed to prevent the software connected to the camera from recognizing what it sees. A person or car wearing the pattern would still appear in the footage, but the detection system may not flag it as a person or vehicle.

That is the central idea behind noRecognition. Swearingen wants to make it harder for automated camera systems to track people in public spaces. He said the project is intended to give people a way to "opt out of being tracked."

"Privacy is a fundamental right," Swearingen said.

Swearingen has spent the past year building and testing the system from his home in Kansas City. He said he has run about 31 million tests so far. The work began as a small test lab aimed at defeating individual open-source object-detection algorithms. It later evolved into a reinforcement learning model that can generate and improve patterns on its own.

He described the process as teaching the model "how to paint."

The model tests a pattern against camera-detection software. If the software can still identify the object covered by the pattern, the system adjusts it and tries again. Over time, it learns which visual elements are more likely to confuse the algorithms.

Swearingen said the model has produced patterns that can defeat all 11 open-source detection algorithms he tested. Those include software used in systems associated with Flock license plate readers, Axon body cameras, and Clearview AI. He said the model now produces new patterns every minute, adding that each unsuccessful test gives it more data and allows it to generate more effective patterns over time.

The technology falls into a category often called adversarial machine learning. It relies on the fact that computer-vision systems do not interpret images the same way people do. A pattern that looks like an unusual design to a person may cause a detection model to misclassify an object or fail to identify it altogether.

The approach differs from efforts to physically block cameras. noRecognition is not designed to hide someone from view or interfere with the camera itself. Instead, it targets the software layer that processes video, reads license plates, and identifies faces or objects.

That software has become a standard feature of many camera networks. Law enforcement agencies use it to search footage and identify vehicles or people of interest. Private companies and local governments also use automated detection tools across parking lots, streets, and other public places.

These systems can process far more video than a person could review manually. But they have also drawn scrutiny over errors and the consequences of inaccurate matches. Swearingen said his concerns about the spread of surveillance cameras helped motivate the project.

He said he noticed the density of cameras in his hometown of Kansas City and began thinking about how difficult it would be to avoid automated tracking. He also said he felt uneasy about attending a protest last year because of the possibility that cameras could track participants.

Artists and clothing makers have previously tried to develop designs that confuse facial-recognition systems. Swearingen said that work helped demonstrate that such methods were possible. His project focuses on using a model to create and refine patterns at a much larger scale.

noRecognition is also running a crowdfunding campaign for clothing printed with the patterns, including T-shirts and hoodies. Swearingen said vehicle skins could follow. He said the goal is to make the patterns large and clear enough to work at a distance without making the clothing impractical to wear or the skins impractical to use.

He is keeping his strongest patterns private for now, saying he does not want camera companies to quickly develop defenses against them.

Image credit: Donut Media

Permalink to story:

 
If your local, state, or federal government respected you as a human on any level, we wouldn't be reading this. I don't believe in a political truth, or any form of civic sports, but I do believe this is what it looks like for citizens to be taken advantage of. Feel however you want about that, just don't bother telling me about it.
 
The real problem is that the government requires every single car to have have a standard, clearly visible ID code on the back (and usually front), and can have police pull you over for obstructing that government mandated ID code. Its going to be quite difficult to spoof any camera system for long, since they will have that clear, intentionally easy to read ID code to look for. Really, license plates themselves are just gross privacy violations, its obnoxious that the government was able to get people to accept them without a fight.
 
Last edited:
If your local, state, or federal government respected you as a human on any level, we wouldn't be reading this. I don't believe in a political truth, or any form of civic sports, but I do believe this is what it looks like for citizens to be taken advantage of. Feel however you want about that, just don't bother telling me about it.
If you don't want people providing opinions on your opinion, probably a better idea to keep them to yourself instead of broadcasting them on a public forum.
The real problem is that the government requires every single car to have have a standard, clearly visible ID code on the back (and usually front), and can have police pull you over for obstructing that government mandated ID code. Its going to be quite difficult to spoof any camera system for long, since they will have that clear, intentionally easy to read ID code to look for. Really, license plates themselves are just gross privacy violations, its obnoxious that the government was able to get people to accept them without a fight.
Almost like driving is a privilege, not a right, and you have no right to privacy in a public space to begin with.
 
This is ridiculous nonsense.
A "cybersecurity professional" should know that if this ever becomes a problem (which it will not, of course), the scanner algorithms can be updated to handle it in no time.

The above is not a comment on Flock cameras, I'm no fan of surveillance. The vast majority of vehicles can be reliably tracked without cameras anyway. Just the idea is technically stupid.
 
DeNuvo.
Cant wait till tomorrow when it will be hacked, bypassed, etc.
Then, here we go again.
 
DeNuvo.
Cant wait till tomorrow when it will be hacked, bypassed, etc.
Then, here we go again.
It's not only that.
"A person or car wearing the pattern would still appear in the footage, but the detection system may not flag it as a person or vehicle."
If you masquerade your car so that it can't be flagged as vehicle, a self-driving car may not recognize it as another car it should account for when maneuvering. This puts everyone around at risk.
I really wish there were less people like this "researcher" who act first and (eventually) think later.
 
Almost like driving is a privilege, not a right, and you have no right to privacy in a public space to begin with.
Just because driving is considered a "privilege" (that whole idea itself needs a rethink, imho) does not mean we should have to purposefully make it easy for others to identify us. You can still have drivers licenses and car registration without requiring easily visible and trackable ID tags on cars. There is a gigantic difference between saying its okay to monitor what is going on in public spaces, and saying that people need to be required to make it easy to monitor them in public. Might as well just skip the ugly license plates and require everyone to have a GPS tracker in their car, if you think it is okay to force people to make themselves easier to monitor.
 
Seems pointless, the cost of painting your car can be defeated with a quick software update that can be from downloading and analyzing the designs from the source.
 
On Flock, police only catch the dumb criminals. That is why you see a lot of car thefts. Commit the crime in a stolen car.
 
If you don't want people providing opinions on your opinion, probably a better idea to keep them to yourself instead of broadcasting them on a public forum.
Almost like driving is a privilege, not a right, and you have no right to privacy in a public space to begin with.
Huge swing and a miss. But thanks for playing.
 
If you don't want people providing opinions on your opinion, probably a better idea to keep them to yourself instead of broadcasting them on a public forum.
Almost like driving is a privilege, not a right, and you have no right to privacy in a public space to begin with.
"Almost like driving is a privilege, not a right, and you have no right to privacy in a public space to begin with." Wow, what a take on this. Good little goy, bend over and make out with that boot. We are all free, regardless of what laws there are. Society doesn't need laws, only respect. Imagine giving your free will away so easily. So many brainwashed sheep need daddy government to keep them safe.
 
"Almost like driving is a privilege, not a right, and you have no right to privacy in a public space to begin with." Wow, what a take on this. Good little goy, bend over and make out with that boot. We are all free, regardless of what laws there are. Society doesn't need laws, only respect. Imagine giving your free will away so easily. So many brainwashed sheep need daddy government to keep them safe.
That's an impressive amount of philosophy you managed to invent from a sentence he never said.

Driving on public roads is regulated. That's not "giving away your free will"... it's the basic reality of participating in a society with other people. You need a license, vehicles have to meet legal requirements, traffic laws exist, and yes, when you're driving around in public, people and cameras can see you.

You can absolutely have a legitimate debate about whether Flock cameras, automated license plate readers, and mass data retention go too far. I actually think that's a worthwhile conversation.

But "society doesn't need laws, only respect" isn't an argument. It's a bumper sticker.

And calling everyone who disagrees with you a "brainwashed sheep" who worships "daddy government" doesn't make you sound free thinking. It just saves you the trouble of having to defend your position.

And in with my sarcasm...I bet you think people with a suspended license and no insurance have the right to drive too!
 
That's an impressive amount of philosophy you managed to invent from a sentence he never said.

Driving on public roads is regulated. That's not "giving away your free will"... it's the basic reality of participating in a society with other people. You need a license, vehicles have to meet legal requirements, traffic laws exist, and yes, when you're driving around in public, people and cameras can see you.

You can absolutely have a legitimate debate about whether Flock cameras, automated license plate readers, and mass data retention go too far. I actually think that's a worthwhile conversation.

But "society doesn't need laws, only respect" isn't an argument. It's a bumper sticker.

And calling everyone who disagrees with you a "brainwashed sheep" who worships "daddy government" doesn't make you sound free thinking. It just saves you the trouble of having to defend your position.

And in with my sarcasm...I bet you think people with a suspended license and no insurance have the right to drive too!
What debate is there when gov uses all the taxes to not actually fix anything and you wilfully trust them. Don't get me wrong, there are some good people in gov doing good things, but the system is a joke, to even disagree with that shows how brainwashed you have become.

Btw, most of history is made up and designed in a way to make you think a certain way. Just google ghislaine maxwell's father.
 
What debate is there when gov uses all the taxes to not actually fix anything and you wilfully trust them. Don't get me wrong, there are some good people in gov doing good things, but the system is a joke, to even disagree with that shows how brainwashed you have become.

Btw, most of history is made up and designed in a way to make you think a certain way. Just google ghislaine maxwell's father.
And there it is.

We started with whether you have an expectation of privacy while driving on a public road.

Somehow we've now traveled through taxes, government incompetence, brainwashing, fake history, and landed at Ghislaine Maxwell's father.

For the record, saying "driving is a privilege and you don't have an unlimited expectation of privacy in public" does not mean "I trust the government." Those are two completely different statements. Even a simpleton can see the distinction.

I'm perfectly capable of believing government can be wasteful, incompetent, corrupt, or deserving of scrutiny while simultaneously recognizing that laws exist and public roads are, in fact, public.

And "if you disagree with me, you're brainwashed" is a wonderfully convenient argument. It makes your position impossible to challenge because disagreement itself becomes your proof.

Anyway, I'm afraid to ask where Ghislaine Maxwell's father takes us next. I'm guessing either the Federal Reserve, the moon landing, or lizard people. 😂
 
"Almost like driving is a privilege, not a right, and you have no right to privacy in a public space to begin with." Wow, what a take on this
His take is based on reality and centuries of Western case law. Yours is based on sophomoric wishful thinking. When you're standing before a judge, which side do you think he'll find more persuasive?

...Good little goy, bend over and make out with that boot. We are all free, regardless of what laws there are. Society doesn't need laws, only respect.
News flash: whining on social media between bouts of Counterstrike doesn't make you a rebel freedom fighter, even if you do wear a cape when you post.

Your position is particularly ironic when you're currently carrying around a phone-shaped government-approved tracking device, recording not only your position at all times, but intimate details of your interactions and conversations with others. And you're worried about the government knowing your vehicle was at the intersection of Washington and 5th at 7:43pm last night?
 
Last edited:
Before any discussion, I would like to acknowledge a few things:

1) IANAL.

2) Public spaces offer zero expectations of privacy.

3) Driving is a privilege, and with any privilege, comes with an understanding of surrender of some kind.

This is why we have visible plates on all vehicles, why insurance is required, why driver's licences are required, et al.

That being said, the constitution protects us against unreasonable search and seizures without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

That is to say, publicly displaying your plates is one thing, having a police officer be able to easily see and recognise your plates with his eyes is another, (not having your plates visually obscured), and having your movements continually tracked, logged, and made available to LEOs at any time, without having any reasonable suspicion or probable cause at the time of logging, is a totally different kettle of fish.

Another totally different kettle of fish is technology applied to the vehicle —not the plate— preventing AI from recognising a perfectly visible and legible license plate.

As for AI learning to get around it, it might be able to learn to get around one particular pattern, or similar groups of patterns, but it would be hard to train it to do that for every new pattern produced. They already stuck at the one thing they are supposed to do!

What these ALPR ought to be trained on is the proper and accurate recognition of plates and their content, —e.g., GA plate, "ABC 123" with a peach, versus FL plate, “A8C I23” with an orange. Furthermore, they ought to be used only to search for and log specific plates for which a bench warrant, signed by a judge, has already been issued, otherwise, it would be an unlawful search without probable cause.

Now some may argue that Flock, et al., are private companies, and the first amendment protects us from the government. True, however,… Flock, et al., provide their services to LEAs, for their specific use in tracking vehicles, and, in the case of their sales to private entities such as Home Depot, the footage/logs are being placed in the same national database made available to LEOs. In other words, it IS a civil rights violation because it is being done as an agent under contract to the government!

The only time ALPR technology involving constant logging is not a civil rights violation, is when it is done on private property, by a private entity, and the data is stored/logged on their private servers, —whether in the cloud, or local on the property,— and is totally unavailable for law enforcement access without a properly executed search warrant, signed by a judge, —for a particular place, for a particular person or thing,— and not a fishing expedition.

P.s., just because I use the em-dash, the ampersand, the Oxford comma, and the ellipsis, —although, no ampersand in this particular post,— it does not mean that I am AI. I assure you, my intelligence is indeed genuine.
 
Huge swing and a miss. But thanks for playing.
"Huge swing and a miss. But thanks for playing."

Translation: "I don't actually have a counterargument, but I've declared myself the winner."

That's an interesting debate strategy. No facts, no rebuttal, no explanation...just announce the other guy missed and strut back to the dugout.

@Theinsanegamer made an actual point. You're welcome to explain why it's wrong.

You know... the part where you swing at the ball...

But thanks for playing. 😉
 
Back