[Phase-2] HIP-78 - Clarify mirrored images during registration

HIP: 78
title: Clarify mirrored images during registration 
author: Ludoviko
status: Phase 2
created: 2023-01-09

Simple Summary

This HIP will update and specify in the Policy the “orientation” issue with the policy text.

Abstract

An increase in challenges using the mirrored images has become the target of bad actors exploiting the written policy. There is a need to update the policy so that this exploit is removed.

Motivation

Mirrored images are not a valid cause for a profile challenge, since both human and computer vision are able to perfectly distinguish human faces when they are mirrored (source: check if you identify yourself every morning in the bathroom mirror).

As @ArkaYana mentioned in a message in Telegram, the reason for ammending the policy are straightforward: “A mirrored image is a reflected version of an original image, while a rotated image is an image that has been rotated around a specific point. These terms refer to different ways of transforming an image, and they are not the same thing. A mirrored image is not necessarily a rotated image, and vice versa.”

Math-savvy people might argue that a mirrored image is a rotation over a three-dimensional plane, but that is beyond of what the policy is specifying and should not be used as an argument against registrants.

Specification

For inter-phase period 2 to 3, the exact specification will be layed out but the principles of the change in the policy text are the following:

  1. A profile picture that is mirrored from the corresponding video is not cause for a challenge.
  2. A mirrored video when the spoken phrase confirmation is chosen is not grounds for a challenge.

Rationale

(Recommended for Phase 2)

Implementation

(If necessary, recommended for Phase 3)


Resumen simple

Este HIP actualizará y especificará en la Política la cuestión de la “orientación” con el texto de la política.

Resumen

El aumento de los desafíos que utilizan las imágenes reflejadas se ha convertido en el objetivo de los malos actores que explotan la política escrita. Existe la necesidad de actualizar la política para que este exploit sea eliminado.

Motivación

Las imágenes reflejadas no son una causa válida para un reto de perfil, ya que tanto la visión humana como la computacional son capaces de distinguir perfectamente los rostros humanos cuando están reflejados (fuente: comprueba si te identificas cada mañana en el espejo del baño).

Como mencionó @ArkaYana en un mensaje en Telegram, las razones para modificar la política son sencillas: “Una imagen reflejada es una versión reflejada de una imagen original, mientras que una imagen rotada es una imagen que ha sido rotada alrededor de un punto específico. Estos términos se refieren a diferentes formas de transformar una imagen, y no son lo mismo. Una imagen reflejada no es necesariamente una imagen rotada, y viceversa”.
Los expertos en matemáticas podrían argumentar que una imagen reflejada es una rotación sobre un plano tridimensional, pero eso va más allá de lo que especifica la política y no debería utilizarse como argumento contra los solicitantes de registro.

Especificación

Para el periodo entre fases 2 y 3, se establecerá la especificación exacta, pero los principios del cambio en el texto de la política son los siguientes:

  1. Una imagen de perfil que sea reflejo del vídeo correspondiente no es motivo de impugnación.
  2. Un vídeo reflejado cuando se elige la confirmación de la frase hablada no es motivo de impugnación.

HIP traducida utilizando DeepL

4 Likes

I am operating under the assumption there will be two opinions until the fork is complete. Here are two seperate approaches to the proposal that either fork may find appealing to use for their needs regarding the front-facing submitter picture.

The first change is easier to implement with a focus on explicit guidelines. The second change will require some UI development but allows for flexibility.


Sybil Resistance Focused HIP:

Simple Summary:

  • The proposal outlines changes to the criteria for the front-facing submitter picture pertaining to mirroring.

Abstract:

  • This proposal outlines the criteria for the front-facing submitter picture in a decentralized identity system with a focus on sybil resistance.
  • The new criterion specifies that the picture must be clear, recognizable, and not mirrored or rotated, in order to effectively prevent the creation of sybil accounts and ensure the accuracy of the face recognition system.

Motivation:

  • The use of clear and recognizable pictures is critical for the effectiveness of a face recognition system and the prevention of sybil accounts.
  • This adjustment can help to avoid profile rejections and ensure that individuals and organizations can successfully register and use their digital identities in the system.

Specification:

Current Policy:

  • The picture must be in the right orientation for the face to be recognized. Image
    rotation is not allowed

Proposed Policy:

  • The picture must be taken in a way that the face is clearly visible and recognizable, without the need for image manipulation or adjustment by the juror.
  • The picture must not be mirrored or flipped in relation to the video submission, and must be a recent and accurate representation of the individual’s appearance.

Flexibility Focused HIP:

Simple Summary:

  • The proposal outlines changes to the criteria for the front-facing submitter picture pertaining to mirroring.

Abstract:

This proposal outlines the criteria for the front-facing submitter picture in a decentralized identity system with a focus on flexibility.

  • The new criterion allows for flexibility in the case of mistakes, by allowing jurors to adjust the orientation of the picture using a simple user interface.

Motivation:

  • Allowing for flexibility in the case of mistakes can help to ensure the inclusiveness and accessibility of the system, while still maintaining its integrity and effectiveness.
  • This can help to avoid profile rejections and ensure that individuals and organizations can successfully register and use their digital identities in the system.

Specification:

Current Policy:

  • The picture must be in the right orientation for the face to be recognized. Image
    rotation is not allowed

Proposed Policy:

  • The picture must be taken in a way that the entire face is clearly visible and recognizable.
  • In the case of a picture being submitted mirrored or rotated by mistake, jurors may adjust the orientation of the picture using a simple, rotation and mirroring user interface.
  • The adjusted picture must still meet all other requirements in the policy, including being clear, recognizable, and not digitally manipulated outside of rotation or mirroring.

This idea of a simple UI interface first came up in TG from Nicobilinkis here. It is a good idea, of course, this second option requires there to be such a UI in the first place. Although it doesn’t seem to be especially difficult to implement in terms of development. Up, down, left, right, flip horizontal, flip vertical.

The alternative to this for the second HIP is to take an opposite approach to the first, and make mirrored and rotated imaged acceptable, however, considering Kleros is still the juror in the cases, they would have to accept the new terms required of jurors and training in the new UI if it becomes a reality.

1 Like

Hello, I have updated the HIP to move forward with this proposal.

Voy a opinar sobre esto. Es importante la inclusividad de las personas, pero también lo es la seguridad del proyecto, y en mi opinión no son incompatibles. Las distintas soluciones que en mi opinión sería lo mejor, pasarían por una parte por trabajar para que las personas que se registren pasen antes por mecanismos donde se les revise el perfil para que no existan esos errores ya conocidos y por otra parte y mas importante porque se “castigue” de manera ejemplar a quien decida lucrarse con ese tipo de situaciones. Lo que es una incongruencia es que por un lado se venda que aprovecharse de eso es una calamidad y por otro se mantenga en el equipo principal a gente que se ha lucrado y a saber si se sigue lucrando de esos mismos hechos.

Si escuchás la última llamada de la comunidad, podrás escuchar que no hay ninguna amenaza a la seguridad del proyecto si se permite una imagen reflejada. Se trabaja hace más de un año en el grupo de Profile Check y ahi estamos constantemente ayudando a personas con este problema, pero no todas las personas acceden a Telegram.
La forma de castigar a las personas que se aprovechan de esto viene por el lado de la HIP de Vouchallengers que también está en tratamiento.

Escuché la última llamada de la comunidad, pero créeme que es difícil centrarse cuándo se hablan de ciertos temas con tanta hipocresía. El caso es que si todo esto de la imagen reflejada no afecta a la seguridad del proyecto ni cambia nada, no creo necesaria ni una hip para especificarlo, veo mas necesaria la hip del castigo a las personas que se lucren con eso.

1 Like

Now there has been some additional time to disscuss mirrored images with a few jurors and DAO members to gain more democratic input, the initial consensus, with the exception of Disputer.eth, is that mirrored images should be allowed. Jean, Matute, and myself agree they should be allowed as a mirrored image has:

  • Low impact on automated facial recognition
  • Low impact on sybil resistance

Overall there is a low risk associated with the inclusion of mirrored images in relation to the video. Unless more people speak out against mirrored images with convincing reasoning, there is little grounds for rejection of them.

Historically, I have been against mirrored-image rejection, as my initial statement about rotation vs mirroring is evidenced in the body of this HIP’s motivation. My motives are clear for the handful of folks questioning them.

However, mirrored videos are still up for debate. This inverts the ethereum address, and, as such, relates to a section of policy covering ethereum address legibility, in addition to mirroring.

If you wish the HIP on mirrored images to pass in good time, then removing the lines concerning video mirroring would speed that up.

Otherwise some additional discussion about mirrored videos needs to occur before this could pass through phases in a democratic manner.

1 Like

Specification point 2 of the HIP allows videos that use phrase confirmation to be mirrored. We could add an explicit prohibition for the sign method if needed.

The proposal passed to Phase-3. I invite everyone to give feedback on the proposal so it can be uploaded ASAP.

To whomsoever it may concern.
I am requesting everyone to please stop this mirror image challenge practise. We are not realising that how painful it is to loose money just because of one mistake of mirror image ( which actually is not even a mistake in real ). These people are not frauds , they are rather people who wants to be part of proof of humanity. When people are challenged specially for small mistakes- they not just loose money but end up calling it a scam. Do we want to be known as scamsters or we wanna pick the right word from our name itself i.e “humanity” . By allowing mirror image challenges we are somewhere not acting like human. !

2 Likes

Please explain one thing to me; I keep hearing this claim that mirrored photos should be permitted as both humans and AI are able to recognize the face. Although, there is 0 explanation as to why rotated photos and videos should be forbidden; a human would simply turn their head, and an AI could create 4 different branches of each possible rotation.

Thus, in my humble opinion, the only logical thing to do is allow or forbid both rotated and mirrored photos, rather than treating them as separate entities.

For videos, of course mirrored should be forbidden. But I don’t see why rotated is.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

A short explanation of why rotated is not covered in this hip is that it would be harder to pass since a) there would 2 sort of different things to vote, b) it wasn’t part of phase 2 so it could be challenged in the Governor (thanks to @jragosa and his HIP5 that condemned normal dao procedure) and c) Regular DAO filibusters would argue that “oh but it registry would become less secure, attackers might fool us by putting an upside down pic” etc.

2 Likes