Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Viisage Technology (VISG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pluvia who wrote (314)	11/4/2001 9:05:50 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 536

Pluvia - read them and I think the analysis needs further work. I'm not convinced error rates are that high. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that facial recognition works at an airport. It may be better suited to the computer or casino, the recognition that doesn't involve a quickly moving subject. I welcome more studies. The ACLU privacy argument just doesn't fly today. Duke needs to think like the real Duke and forget about those namby pamby liberal tripe arguments. Take it easy.

To: Pluvia who wrote (314)	11/4/2001 11:51:57 AM
From: Pluvia	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 536

fingergal, you said: *********** I think the test results must be taken with a grain of salt. They are a data point, but are not the whole story. *********** I agree. I don't think anyone who has actually read the DOD results thinks they specifically represent how a FR system will work in an airport. What the result do happen to do very well is identify the weaknesses and strengths of FR. They show: ~ Aging between database photo and the current probe photo reduces accuracy; ~ They show lighting reduces accuracy; ~ They show distance reduces accuracy; ~ They show less than perfect pose angles reduce accuracy; ~ They show resolution of the capture photos reduce accuracy... The other point is VISG did not disclosed these results to shareholders as required by law. Furthermore they have committed fraud by making claims their software is much more accurate than it actually is. We have exposed securities fraud in a number of companies in the past. All but one are now out of business... Never have we exposed clear cases of fraud such as this and not seen the company indicted and sued for fraud. I think you need to consider that fact very carefully... We have a long history of working with the US Attorney General, various state Attorney Generals, the SEC and the FBI which is the enforcement arm of the SEC... If you think we're just a bunch of people posting on stock boards you're in for a rude awakening. Enjoy =)