Is Microsoft Kinect Racist?

[¿Que?]

This story is actually kind of humorous, and sheds some "light" (you'll get this when you read the article) on race issues, I think. Either that or it's absurdly absurd absurdity might make you smile.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372205,00.asp


The system recognized one employee inconsistently, while it was never able to properly identify the other despite repeated calibration attempts. However, Kinect had no problems identifying a third dark-skinned GameSpot employee, recognizing his face after a single calibration. Lighter-skinned employees were also consistently picked up on the first try.
Microsoft agreed. "Kinect works with people of all skin tones. And just like a camera, optimal lighting is best. Anyone experiencing issues with facial recognition should adjust their lighting settings, as instructed in the Kinect Tuner," the company said.What I'm wondering though is how does lighting affect the user's experience in real life. Sure, Microsoft says you need proper lighting, but people often play video games at night, sometimes in the same room as people who are sleeping. Will people be able to use Kinect in these situations? What are the implications of all of this?

[mlgb]

flailing around with a motion sensitive gimmickcotroler while people are sleeping in the same room seems inconsiderate to begin with, regardless of the lighting situation.

[Reznov]

Haha, stuff like this always gets me :laugh:

My question is, is he serious?

[GPDP]

It's not racist, it's just shit.

[Rafiq]

It's not Racist at all, I'm pretty sure Microsoft didn't do it on purpose.

It's just a shit system in General.

[¿Que?]

Haha, stuff like this always gets me :laugh:

My question is, is he serious?
Who me? Yes I am serious. Anyone who knows anything about race theory, knows there is plenty of evidence to suggest that systems of racism often operate at an extra-categorical level. For example, I read a study which suggested that students who felt racism at their school generally had darker skin tone, that is regardless of race. Thus feelings of racism, which often coincides with real racism, coincided with darker skin. So no this is not a joke.

But all seriousness aside, I do find it a bit trivial. Video games are a waste of time. But what if this technology is used for access to buildings, or things like that...

[apawllo]

don't know that it's racist per se. it's potentially an example of white privilege though. if blacks were as involved in the production of microsoft products as whites, there's a strong possibly this wouldn't be happening...

[¿Que?]

don't know that it's racist per se. it's potentially an example of white privilege though. if blacks were as involved in the production of microsoft products as whites, there's a strong possibly this wouldn't be happening...
Well, to be honest, I can't really be sure anything is actually happening. There's only possibilities at this point.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How on Earth is this news? Of course a facial recognition system isn't going to work properly under sub-optimal lighting conditions! Especially if the difficulty of the task is compounded by dark skin, which reduces contrast (it's also why darker skins appear to age better - it's harder to see the wrinkles).

Before assuming malice (in this case, racism), it's a good idea to rule out blundering incompetence (on the part of the operator and/or the builders/programmers) - remembering this is Microsoft we are talking about. People tend to be stupid, or just don't think, way more than they actively seek to be evil.

[apawllo]

How on Earth is this news? Of course a facial recognition system isn't going to work properly under sub-optimal lighting conditions! Especially if the difficulty of the task is compounded by dark skin, which reduces contrast (it's also why darker skins appear to age better - it's harder to see the wrinkles).

Before assuming malice (in this case, racism), it's a good idea to rule out blundering incompetence (on the part of the operator and/or the builders/programmers) - remembering this is Microsoft we are talking about. People tend to be stupid, or just don't think, way more than they actively seek to be evil.

i don't think people have assumed. a problem has arisen, so naturally people have begun to ask questions. you're the one making assumptions that everything is fine.

yes, this is indeed microsoft. a giant corporation of this nature would never make a mistake or oversight... :laugh:

[Sam_b]

Every time I go on this forum I think i've seen it all, until yet another user asks one of the most idiotic questions I've ever heard.

I reckon Baa-Baa Black Sheep is a racist song as well, eh pal? Get a grip.

[Dr Mindbender]

Every time I go on this forum I think i've seen it all, until yet another user asks one of the most idiotic questions I've ever heard.

I reckon Baa-Baa Black Sheep is a racist song as well, eh pal? Get a grip.

to be fair though i dont think the OP started the thread as a serious question if you bother to read his first post correctly.

[¿Que?]

Yeah, the title was being ironic. A particular piece of technology, that is, an inanimate object, cannot exactly be racist can it...at least not yet. Maybe we can program racism into cyborgs in the future, who knows. The point I'm trying to make is that microsoft had to have tested these devices before they went on sale, so who were they testing them with. Only microsoft has this information, unfortunately, so we can't really know the answer unless microsoft wants to release who they were testing the kinects with.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i don't think people have assumed. a problem has arisen, so naturally people have begun to ask questions. you're the one making assumptions that everything is fine.

Shoddy design is "fine"? Since when?


yes, this is indeed microsoft. a giant corporation of this nature would never make a mistake or oversight... :laugh:

That's exactly what I'm saying, you divot.


The point I'm trying to make is that microsoft had to have tested these devices before they went on sale, so who were they testing them with. Only microsoft has this information, unfortunately, so we can't really know the answer unless microsoft wants to release who they were testing the kinects with.

I think it's more likely they failed to account for poor lighting rather than skin tone.

[¿Que?]

I think it's more likely they failed to account for poor lighting rather than skin tone.
That's a rather odd thing to say. Poor lighting is not a sufficient cause to produce user issues.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's a rather odd thing to say. Poor lighting is not a sufficient cause to produce user issues.

When you consider that the system had no problem identifying someone else who was dark-skinned, I'd say that rules out racism on the part of the developers, and points to user error being the most likely cause. A lot of the time this turns out to be the case - that's why tech support ask questions like "is your machine turned on/is it connected to your PC" and other seemingly-inane queries, because it turns out that quite a few people seem to drop a couple of dozen IQ points in the presence of technology.

[¿Que?]

When you consider that the system had no problem identifying someone else who was dark-skinned, I'd say that rules out racism on the part of the developers, and points to user error being the most likely cause. A lot of the time this turns out to be the case - that's why tech support ask questions like "is your machine turned on/is it connected to your PC" and other seemingly-inane queries, because it turns out that quite a few people seem to drop a couple of dozen IQ points in the presence of technology.
It doesn't necessarily rule out racism, but that isn't the point, anyway. The point is first, what do actual tests show (the one's that Microsoft did). Whatever this article shows, is just that something may be going on, we don't know if it is user error, or incorrectly calibrated default settings, faulty item or what. There just isn't enough evidence. But it doesn't do us any good to get an official statement from Microsoft, without any reports on the testing. Not just who they tested with, but what the lighting conditions were, who set up the equipment, and things like that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It doesn't necessarily rule out racism, but that isn't the point, anyway. The point is first, what do actual tests show (the one's that Microsoft did). Whatever this article shows, is just that something may be going on, we don't know if it is user error, or incorrectly calibrated default settings, faulty item or what. There just isn't enough evidence. But it doesn't do us any good to get an official statement from Microsoft, without any reports on the testing. Not just who they tested with, but what the lighting conditions were, who set up the equipment, and things like that.

So something may be going on, but we don't have enough evidence either way yet, and it's not likely we'll be getting some any time soon. Wow, what a scoop!

This brings back the question of newsworthyness. It looks to me like this would have been nothing but a minor user issue had not some bloggers picked up on the minor detail of skin tone and ran with it. If people want to discuss racism in the world of Information Technology, I'm sure there are much more substantial conversation starters than this storm in a teacup.

[¿Que?]

From an anticapitalist point of view, I see nothing wrong with putting a little pressure on Microsoft, regardless of the truth of the matter. There is more at stake than dialogue, the point is to confront capital on our terms. If no classes exist, no class can be predominantly any race. Should the information show nothing, fine, but in principle it should be public, so that we can at least confirm it. At the very least, the people who are going to be using the device should have some say as to its design. They should be included in the process.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

From an anticapitalist point of view, I see nothing wrong with putting a little pressure on Microsoft, regardless of the truth of the matter. There is more at stake than dialogue, the point is to confront capital on our terms.

In which case, would it not simply be more honest to just attack Microsoft outright for its real crimes (I'm sure they exist), rather than imaginary ones dreamt up by (most likely) liberal bloggers for their own self-aggrandising purposes?

[¿Que?]

In which case, would it not simply be more honest to just attack Microsoft outright for its real crimes (I'm sure they exist), rather than imaginary ones dreamt up by (most likely) liberal bloggers for their own self-aggrandising purposes?
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why should we ever, have to defend Microsoft, even if they are legally right. Even if their claims are backed by evidence, I will never defend Microsoft for anything, ever!