{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02466281310211946, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007129094412331407, 'mean_word_length': 4.710671067106711, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Vision Security - the role of imaging for observer and observed

Vision Security is the topic area that covers the intersection of Security with the human, who is the observed or the observing data subject, and who is most commonly the final user, customer or beneficiary of Security. For humans, the visual system is the main channel through which we receive information. The complex interplay between a human’s perception of security and the associated trust in the system, and the actual digital components of security, opens a new and exciting topic area for imaging and imaging related problems. We focus in this paper on three areas; security and the perception of security, forensics, and biometrics. Introduction Security is of tantamount importance in our society, since security builds trust in the value of an item, in its originality and its integrity. Thus, security has direct and important applications in commerce, in contracts, the arts, cultural heritage, etc. Virtually in all areas of human interaction, trust is an essential component. In the digital age, a whole new set of security problems came into existence and there is a considerable amount of work in digital security. What has been often overlooked, however, is the boundary line between the digital and human components of a system and this boundary line – we call it Vision Security – is where color imaging plays an essential role. Without imaging, the secured data would be an abstract entity that does not fulfill its purpose in the interaction, imaging is what ties together the digital and human sides of security. The role of imaging is crossing the boundary lines in both directions. On one hand, the digital system can learn from the human and from the human visual system to perform tasks that are very hard for a computer, but are seemingly easy for any human. On the other hand, imaging serves as the bridge that conveys both information and security&trust from the digital side to the human user. Security and the Perception of Security One everyday example of the difference in value and perceived value, as well as the difference in security and perceived security is common paper currency. The days of a “money” having an actual intrinsic value, as it had (and still has) with, for example, gold coins, are long gone, with most countries abandoning, or effectively abandoning the Gold Standard around the time of the first World War [1]. As described by Masuda et al. [2], a €100 note when used as tissue paper, would have an intrinsic or “use value“ of less than a cent. Even adding the manufacturing cost to the use value wold only increase the total value to a few cent [3]. For example, a €100 note is produced at roughly €0.07 (note the date of reference [3]). The only reason we associate the higher value of €100 with that note is that other people around us are willing to exchange goods and services worth €100 with us for the possession of the note. It is the trust of the interacting parties in the system and in each other that establishes the reality of the face value. For that reason alone not withstanding other reasons individual countries and governments invest a serious effort in maintaining the trust by punishing counterfeiting or other manipulations of the value and trust. A part of this equation is the actual trust we put in the authenticity of the note. A different piece of paper with the same “claimed” face value might not give us the same trust if there is something that does not seem right. And here, it is our visual system that often gives us the first indication and that works as a warning mechanism creating suspicion. As Masuda stated “Confidence in currency is a subjective matter of people’s trust in banknotes”[2]. But what relates the confidence and trust? A very technical hypothesis would be that some objective metric, like number of security features inside the note, would be the best indicator for the confidence people have in the value. However, when looking at the correlation between “trust” expressed as a ranking of the difficulty to counterfeit a banknote, the respondents showed a low correlation between their assessment and the number of actual security features (known to the authors of the study) contained in the various banknotes from different countries. This is shown in Figure 1. FIGURE 1: CORRELATION BETWEEN ASSESSMENT AND ACTUAL NUMBER OF SECURITY FEATURES. The situation changes considerably, when we display the correlation between the observer assessment and the number of security features noticed by the same observer (Figure 2). In this case, a high correlation degree was obtained (an R2=0.8769 up from R2=0.2321). Figure 2 strongly suggests that “what we see” is what influences our assessment of security in a powerful way. This is exactly the overlap between Vision and Security that we mentioned in the beginning. Without a deep understanding of the human and human visual system we will be very inefficient in creating and using Security in a manner that is effective against attack and at the same time effective in generating the required trust from the user. FIGURE 2: CORRELATION OF ASSESSMENT AND RECOGNIZED