Simple everyday tips, and anti-surveillance clothing (with links to product websites): Facial Recognition Avoidance: Protect Your Privacy • STRATECTA
“Cloaking” your online photos to fool machines: A new tool to protect yourself against facial recognition software | University of Chicago News
Regarding Item 2 (Face masks), I would have expected Guy Fawkes (Anonymous) masks to get a mention. While it is still true that
if you are the only one wearing a mask far and wide (for example, at a demonstration), you will attract attention
an Anonymous mask is at least standardised.
Regarding Item 3 (Makeup and face painting), go Juggalo! 
The following link may have been posted in this forum before: Subtle makeup tweaks can outsmart facial recognition • The Register
That’s a cool idea. Needs to be a browser extension so that it is automatic, or even in-built browser behaviour, such is the scandal of the modern world.
However there’s a 100% foolproof technique here … don’t post photos online, and in particular not where it will be accessible to prying government or Big Tech. But, as the article says,
In many cases, we do not control all the images of ourselves online; some could be posted from a public source or posted by our friends
Not posting photos online is still 100% foolproof in the sense that even if you use cloaking software, your “friends” who post photos of you probably aren’t using cloaking software, and no software can defeat anything if the software is not used.
But sadly, as the article observes, if your “friends” keep on posting uncloaked photos of you, the only way of combatting that is by winning out in the numbers game i.e. posting even more cloaked photos of yourself.
I’d say it needs built in to Millipixels.
As an option, that’s a fair suggestion but I actually own a real digital camera, as well as spyphones. I aint going to be hacking the firmware on my digital camera to build in that functionality.
Also, and in any case, it wasn’t clear to me whether the cloaking software itself is capable of recognising what a face is so that it only cloaks faces where it finds them in an image or it just cloaks the whole image. I wouldn’t necessarily want it cloaking images that don’t contain faces. So I think it may need to be an option, wherever the functionality is offered.
Also, from the perspective of purity, I would prefer to own an original unmodified image. I understand of course that an image is already “modified” heavily before I even get my hands on it. I have a fairly large number of photos in my collection and I would prefer to put such hackery at the boundary between “private” and “public”.
As such therefore, I would need it in the mail client as well as the web browser - which I guess highlights the trade-offs between what you are suggesting and what I am suggesting.
It wasn’t clear to me what the effect would be of cloaking twice. So if I do have the functionality built-in to the Librem 5 and I download from phone to my collection and then I upload via browser / send via mail client and they cloak again, is that a problem?
Do we need a new JPEG metadata tag to indicate cloaking status? Would you trust the value of the tag if such a tag were defined? (That wouldn’t be a problem for me as my media workflow is mostly WadeSoft so I could easily strip the hypothetical tag unless the image source is Librem 5.)
Wouldn’t that defeat the whole purpose? Perhaps not… I suppose you tag everything as cloaked.
Maskirovka!
It’s a race with the techniques, as the AI watermarks can be defeated: AI Watermark Remover Defeats Top Techniques - IEEE Spectrum
I still don’t think they are pointles and the integration idea is good, tagging included. I’d also include here an authentication proof method for the other side of the problem: create hash as proof of the image that gets saved and maybe also uploaded somewhere you want for later comparison.
You would ideally strip the tag completely as the image leaves the private domain. The point is that if multiple internal components might add cloaking, there may be benefit in explicitly keeping track of whether cloaking has been applied so that it doesn’t get applied twice.
With option to use it or not?
~s
There was a test of face socks, a stretchy mask with eye holes that have a inkjet printed face on it. The test had acquired some President Obama face socks and the tech did not flag it as masking and tried to pull an ID as a real face. To a human eye though they are terrifying to see, hyper uncanny valley to wear on the street.