MovieChat Forums > Sneakers (1992) Discussion > Voice print oddity (and rant)

Voice print oddity (and rant)

posted 11 years ago by avortac
14 replies | jump to latest

Why would they have a set sentence for voice print identification?

(It takes some restraint not to comment how silly the sentence is)

Wouldn't that be kind of stupid and also a security risk (for the reasons shown in the movie)?

I mean, if you are going to have a voice print security like that, why not have someone say a RANDOM sentence, instead of the same, exact sentence every time? I mean, we are talking about a talking human being here, he can surely read ANY piece of text fluently and with confidence.

Even with the more primitive speech recognition systems of 1992, this should not have been any kind of a problem. Heck, even ONE random word would be better than a long sentence that always stays the same!

But then again, this movie ALSO has the typical hollywood-ism of having a motion-blurred, unclear, low-resolution VCR video still image first zoomed into, and then the details of the zoomed area "enhanced" to a crisp, perfect, motion-blur-free photo that is seemingly the product of a professional photographer, with perfect lighting and focus in high resolution (at least considering the resolution of the zoomed area).

It's like taking a lores photo of a wall from 20 meters away, and then taking that picture, and by "zooming and enhancing", managing to bring out a perfectly detailed banana fly where you can see the hair on its little legs and posing perfectly for the camera in perfect lighting.

This is one of those movies that anyone with even one IQ point more than the mass audience it's surely aimed for, will groan .. again, and again, and keep groaning, until the very groan-inducing ending.

WHY can't they EVER get any computer stuff right? Sure, they had one tiny 'hacking-scene' shown pretty realistically in one of the 'The Matrix' sequels (though they don't deserve to be called that), and "War Games" had some realistic parts, and in some other movies I think I have seen some pretty realistic-looking stuff here and there, but why is it so often like this, especially in a movie, that's pretty much ABOUT technology, hacking, social engineering, etc..

Maybe they should have paid the 'expert' real money instead of just arranging his wife to meet Robert Redford.

I would love to see a movie with realistic computer scenes throughout, without any kind of hollywood-stupidity like this. I mean, enough with the stupid huge-lettered, red, blinking "ACCESS DENIED" notifications (and similarly the equally stupid and huge-lettered, green, blinking, "ACCESS GRANTED" notifications) and this "let's take two pixels, zoom and enhance and see lots of detail in high resolution!"-stupidity.

It's like there are no actual computer users living in hollywood. Otherwise, I can't explain why otherwise almost credible movies have these AWFULLY moronic computer parts that probably even some of the more awakened masses wouldn't be fooled by anymore. I mean, surely SOMEONE must start questioning some of these stupidities by now!

There is absolutely NO NEED for the computer bits to be this stupid! Especially in a movie supposedly made for "hackers" (which used to mean 'computer hobbyists' and the like).

[–] Kruleworld 11 years ago

I feel your pain, i saw some csi type show the other day that had a satellite take a readable picture of a car's license plate.WTF!!!

but the terminology for computers has changed somewhat. eg END OF LINE in Tron.

Reality is a nice place to visit, but i wouldn't want to live there

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

I feel your pain, i saw some csi type show the other day that had a satellite take a readable picture of a car's license plate.WTF!!!

That's real technology...

They could read something 4-5 inches in size with 1960's technology, and that is STILL classified(https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=45&v=1shlTNnlV9w). What they are capable of with today's technology is more than enough to read a license plate, or even a VIN.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/132950-csi-style-super-resolution-image-enlargment-yeeaaaah

[–] Kruleworld 9 years ago

pfft. excuse me while i scoff at your claims. if it's still classified, how do you know about it? and relating to my example, if it's still classified, why would the LAPD be using it? you are also missing the main point of satellite's reading license plates... that is you can't see them from above. most satellites don't shoot more than a few degrees off 90° straight down (limited by the depth of field of the lens) so you'd only see a sliver of a license plate unless it was at the edge of the photographed area.

"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok"

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

excuse me while i scoff at your claims. if it's still classified, how do you know about it?

Do minimal research. They will discuss the capabilities, but they refuse to release the images so we can see for ourselves.

You are a bigot(a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) that cannot be bothered to use the best information tool ever invented that is at your finger tips right now.

Have a nice life being skeptical and confused for no good reason.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

It's a nice rant. But there's reality and then there's "what works on film". I really don't want to see a movie about hacking that's realistic. That would be more boring than watching two guys playing PONG.

[–] GeoDude 11 years ago

Voiceprint matches a spoken phrase against a stored template. Like comparing your face to the photo in your passport. I see no problem with the technology used in this movie. It rings amazingly true, especially for 1992. The voiceprint technology can distinguish one speaker from another by reference to the voice characteristics in the template.

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_recognition#Verification_versus_i dentification

speaker verification is a 1:1 match where one speaker's voice is matched to one template (also called a "voice print" or "voice model")

[–] mcgill_j 11 years ago

I don't think anyone ever said Sneakers was made for Hackers. In fact probably ZERO mainstream movies have been "made for hackers". Hence the word mainstream. Sneakers is a fun little caper flick. And more and more often I think its more hit than miss than some movies. Can anyone remember the movie "Hackers"? Now that was AWFUL.. but many people seem to enjoy it. But both films have inspired a generation into computers. And showed them maybe doing things they couldn't quite do, yet, but much like the original Star Trek shows what could be. And inspires people to go into that field.

If you're looking for a film to show the thrill of someone sitting in a filthy sweatshirt swilling Mountain Dew and munching Doritos, then bless you. I quite enjoyed the film.. flaws and all.

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Even with the more primitive speech recognition systems of 1992, this should not have been any kind of a problem.

Incorrect.
Systems in those days were lucky to get the correct word, much less be able to tell one person from another saying the same word.

It is one thing for a computer to be able to take sound and be able to identify the word being spoken. It is a whole other level of sophistication for the computer to Identify a specific individual saying a word.

In otherwords.... Speech recognition and voice identification are NOT the same thing.
One identifies the word being spoken, the other identifies the person speaking of the word.

The reason for a specific phrase is so that the computer has a database of those specific words as they are spoken by that specific individual. It must have a database to compare to in order to ID the speaker.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Kruleworld 11 years ago

Even with the more primitive speech recognition systems of 1992, this should not have been any kind of a problem.

i also have issue with this. Voice recognition back then had to be 'trained' to know each and every word. to have a 'random' word assigned to your security, every user would have to speak all of those words before hand. Doing one sentence for everyone would be a LOT easier.

...
Reality is a nice place to visit, but i wouldn't want to live there

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

BINGO!
And even then, with the training, the computer would not recognize or completely misinterpret the speech for about every 4th or 5th word.
Practically unusable as you spent more time going back and correcting and editing the speech to text errors from the program than had you just typed it out yourself.

To make the claim he did was just ludicrous.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 7 days ago

I very much doubt that that tape recorder had good enough audio quality to be recognized.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lee_73 9 years ago

where Garcia in "Criminal Minds" can locate any piece of information that ever existed within minutes, now matter how old, how unlikely to have been digitized, or how well protected by firewalls, encryption, or isolated systems

Always makes me cringe, and I don't even watch the show.....
I'll cross check people who ate a bagel last week with those who wear size 10 shoes with those who had a cousin go to Michigan State..... humbug!