Slashdot Mirror


Google Begins Blurring Faces In Street View

mytrip notes a News.com article reporting that Google has begun blurring faces in its Street View service, which has spawned privacy concerns since its introduction last year. Google has been working for a couple of years to advance the state of the art of face recognition. Quoting News.com: 'The technology uses a computer algorithm to scour Google's image database for faces, then blurs them, said John Hanke, director of Google Earth and Google Maps, in an interview at the Where 2.0 conference...' Google wrote about the program in their Lat/Long blog."

39 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Anonymity by Descalzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the nice thing about living in a town no one cares about/knows about.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    1. Re:Anonymity by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yah, I too live in a small town that Google Street View will never get to. But what I really like about our little town is how much personality it has! I mean, just the other day I saw a couple of college kids driving around down in a little car with this big metal pole with a weird round black thing on top of it sticking out the middle of the roof . Those crazy kids! Must've been some weird fraternity prank or something.

  2. Kudos to Google! by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's been awhile since a Google post on Slashdot has focused on the company improving our privacy. Good work!

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    1. Re:Kudos to Google! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I don't know... the one about blanking out maps of China sure seems to improve privacy.

    2. Re:Kudos to Google! by wattrlz · · Score: 3, Funny

      They let Chinese people read /. ? (just a joke in case anyone is itching to use some mod points.)

    3. Re:Kudos to Google! by nbert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ignoring the sarcasm: There's a big difference between a country requesting to blur out parts and individuals not wanting to appear in certain areas. It's a good thing that they blur out faces and I was quite surprised that they didn't consider it before Street View launched.

      IMO governments have to be as transparent as possible for a good reason. It's a different story if you as a "normal" person walk by a brothel or sit in a park (half-) naked. It all depends on the time the google truck passes and I don't see a reason why we have a right to see these people the moment they were photographed...

    4. Re:Kudos to Google! by njcoder · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, most people could probably care less about faces. As long as stuff like this shows up from time to time.

    5. Re:Kudos to Google! by DreamingReal · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree completely. That was taken across the street from my Dad's house. I think I really need to visit my old man more often.

      --
      We want some answers and all that we get
      Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat

      - Ministry
    6. Re:Kudos to Google! by njcoder · · Score: 5, Funny

      They may have to develop a new recognition tool Yes!

      to blur things like that. No!
    7. Re:Kudos to Google! by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMO governments have to be as transparent as possible for a good reason. It's a different story if you as a "normal" person walk by a brothel or sit in a park (half-) naked. It all depends on the time the google truck passes and I don't see a reason why we have a right to see these people the moment they were photographed... The government should be as transparent as possible because it is of and for the public.
      Walking by a brothel or sitting in a park (half-)naked also happens to be in public.

      Why wouldn't "we have a right to see these people the moment they were photographed..." in public?
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  3. blurred post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    jngpu gurz hfr fbzr erirefvoyr zrgubq yvxr ebg13, gubfr abbof

  4. Other uses for this technology by muellerr1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would be cool if there were an option on sites like Facebook or Flickr to blur the faces on my photos for anyone but my friends.

    With technology like this, I wonder how far away Google Image Search is from being able to search image content?

  5. Print a giant face over your storefront by SkyMunky · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Print a giant face over your storefront/building just to see what happens.

    1. Re:Print a giant face over your storefront by ReverendLoki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was just thinking how well this would work with reproductions of faces.

      The smiling, friendly faces of your local anchorpersons on that billboard for the nightly news? Blurred.

      How about that chimp staring out from that zoo as the Google van went past?

      And what about the mannequins in the storefront window?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  6. Blurred beyond recognition? by DaveM753 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn...there goes my 15 minutes of fame.

  7. What privacy concerns? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Google has begun blurring faces in its Street View service, which has spawned privacy concerns since its introduction last year.

    My understanding is that people in public should have no expectations of privacy. Or is that just a U.S. thing? Furthermore, as their algorithms get better, will Google skip blurring the faces of famous people? They certainly have no expectations of privacy in public.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:What privacy concerns? by Moridineas · · Score: 5, Funny

      My understanding is that people in public should have no expectations of privacy. Or is that just a U.S. thing? Actually, in the rest of the more civilized world, you're not allowed to look at people without their permission. Just one more way in which the US is lagging behind!
    2. Re:What privacy concerns? by thomasdz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My understanding is that people in public should have no expectations of privacy.


      That's an overly simplified view. Are you saying that in public it should be legal to be able to take pictures of anybody from any angle/viewpoint? (eg: upskirt)
      Can I take my parabolic microphone and start recording people's conversations 100 meters away and then post the conversations on the Internet?
      Why can't people walk around with no clothes on in public if they aren't doing anything weird or being "sexual" (whatever that means)?
      If there are no expectations of privacy, then what's the problem? (sarcasm)

      I would modify your "no expectations of privacy in public" to "reduced expectations of privacy in public"

      --
      Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
    3. Re:What privacy concerns? by AxemRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're getting away from the point though. Google isn't taking up-skirt pictures. They aren't using a telephoto lens. They aren't recording private conversations. And no one is walking around naked! Google is taking pictures from a normal vantage point.

      Are we going to start going after the newspapers and TV stations too? After all, they take plenty of videos and pictures of places where people and standing around in the background and may not realize that they're being photographed or taped.

    4. Re:What privacy concerns? by Fozzyuw · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's an overly simplified view. Are you saying that in public it should be legal to be able to take pictures of anybody from any angle/viewpoint? (eg: upskirt)

      Interesting that you should say that... as this was a recent BBC article I read. And it's not even "upskirt", it's just taking pictures of peoples behinds. Of course, the best part is the last sentence...

      He might have some explaining to do when he finally gets home.
      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    5. Re:What privacy concerns? by joe_bruin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The expectation for most of us is that there is no random, permanent, publicly displayed record of where we go and what we do, regardless of whether we do it in public or not. That is, in public we don't have privacy, but we generally have anonymity, and street view busts this. Yes, it's entirely possible that someone will take a picture of you and it will end up on the news or the internet. But for people doing something that is generally not newsworthy but they may want to keep private, there is an expectation that this will not happen. This is the same reasoning that makes people opposed to RFID tracking. Yes, someone can follow you around in their car and make notes of what you do, but that is different from a systematic logging of where you are which could happen at any time and any place.

      What if a Google camera catches you: ...buying drugs? ...walking into your ex girlfriend's house? ...entering an abortion clinic? ...picking your nose? ...hanging out in front of a gay bar? ...attending a communist party meeting? ...golfing on Sunday? ...doing something you don't want your friends and neighbors finding out about?

      Most of these things may not mean anything to you, but they may mean a lot to some people. Now, if Google announced "we will be taking pictures of this street at 4pm on Monday, don't be there if you don't want your picture taken", that would be a perfectly reasonable solution to this whole thing.

    6. Re:What privacy concerns? by croddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is a gross oversimplification to say that once in public, one should have no expectation of privacy.

      People have to go into public to do normal things. This does not mean that any level whatsoever of data gathering on your public activities is acceptable. Certainly would you see the privacy implications if Google were to attach a GPS unit to your car and record where you drive -- sure, you're driving in public, but that does not mean it would be okay for Google to record detailed records of your trips. Likewise it would be inappropriate for Google to follow you with a video camera. Perhaps you don't, but a lot of folks feel that intermittent still images taken by Google's drive-by surveillance crews are also too invasive.

      The advancement of photographic and image processing technology has introduced privacy concerns that existing laws could not foresee. The ease with which massive amounts of personally invasive information can be gathered, analyzed, and then distributed in bulk has changed the way we should think about privacy -- even privacy in public.

  8. Re:Can you focus out-of-focus pictures by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can't add pixels that aren't there, and an out of focus picture is effectively a lower resolution.

    You can, however, apply statistical analysis and AI learning techniques to guess the likely locations of pixels. In that way, you can sharpen a photo somewhat, though it may be inexact. My understanding is that contextual analysis is the next step- if you have pictures of a person and a blurry person, and have more pictures of that person and less-blurry people, you can make predictions about who the fuzzy people are.

    Of course, I wear a beard so that I'll always be fuzzy.

    --
    "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
  9. Awwww by DeadPanDan · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should have used Laughing Man logos. You blew it Google.

  10. Other applications? by Digestromath · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could these enhanced algorithms be used to blur the faces of the hideous women I bring home from the bar? If not in real time, I'll accept them being blurred in my memory.

    1. Re:Other applications? by thereofone · · Score: 3, Funny

      Try improving your Alcohol algorithm, I hear the Tequila sets work very well but you might have to apply Lime and Salt.

  11. Slashdot has this story totally wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google isn't blurring faces in the photos, but is actually blurring people's faces. Somehow, the Googlebotmobile blurs peoples' faces as it drives by, and so far no one has figured out a way to undo it.

  12. Invisible watchers... by argent · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because, you know, the LAST thing I want to happen when I'm out on a public street is to be seen by millions of invisible people hiding in the Google van.

    O HI, I FIXED UR POST, KTHX.

  13. I'm so relieved! by dsouza42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like Google also cares a about horse privacy. That's really great! I woudn't want anyone recognizing my horse if he's caught doing something embarassing out in the street.

    1. Re:I'm so relieved! by ChocoBean · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Google Algorithm obvious has mistaken the horse's face for Sarah Jessica Parker's.

    2. Re:I'm so relieved! by nephillim · · Score: 4, Funny

      That was Sarah Jessica Parker you insensitive clod!

  14. Google has been developing this for some time. by lhaeh · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article from a year ago shows that Google has had public implementations of facial recognition for some time. Simply appending &imgtype=face to a Google image search URL will just show images of faces.

  15. Do you have difficulty with multiple choice exams? by hobbit · · Score: 4, Funny

    Q: Option A or option B?
    A: Yes.

    --
    "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
  16. Why not blank? by nameer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why blur? Haven't we learned yet that the goal is no information, not less information? O.K., this is probably not one of those cases where someone will go to the trouble of trying to deconvolute the image. But really, just drop a white circle over the face and be done with it. Blurring gains nothing and leaves trace information.

    --
    "Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
  17. Re:Can you focus out-of-focus pictures by pavon · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can't add pixels that aren't there, and an out of focus picture is effectively a lower resolution. No, it isn't. Think about an unfocused camera - all the light is still hitting film/CCD, it is just spread out. So from an information theory point of view you haven't lost any data, you just put it into another form. If you consider what would be a single point of light, the energy in that point is spread out in a normal distribution (aka bell curve, aka gaussian). So the blurred image is just all these Gaussians functions overlayed on top of each other. Computer blurring algorithms do pretty much the same thing.

    From a signal processing perspective, this is the same as convolving with a Gaussian. And if you take the Fourier transform of that blurred image, you get the transform of the image multiplied by the transform of the Gaussian (which is just another Gaussian). From there all you have to do is divide by this Gaussian, take the inverse transform, and walla, you have the desired non-blurred image. This is called a deconvolution, and I've written code to do this for an image processing class.

    There are some caveats. You have to guess how blurred the image is - what focal length is and what not. Noise and compression can kill you, so you need to filter those out first (or limit your deconvolution filter to low frequency content). In addition at the edges of the image (or edge of the blur boundary) information is genuinely lost as the gaussian falls outside the boundary and is discarded.

    Focus Magic is a commercial package that refocuses blurred images, and they have some interesting sample photos.
  18. Re:Can you focus out-of-focus pictures by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can't add pixels that aren't there, and an out of focus picture is effectively a lower resolution.

    You can, however, apply statistical analysis and AI learning techniques to guess the likely locations of pixels. In that way, you can sharpen a photo somewhat, though it may be inexact. My understanding is that contextual analysis is the next step- if you have pictures of a person and a blurry person, and have more pictures of that person and less-blurry people, you can make predictions about who the fuzzy people are.

    This is wrong. An out of focus picture is not lower resolution. All the original information is still there, it's just been smeared in a mathematically consistent manner - something called the point spread function of the lens at that degree of misfocus. It's very possible to mathematically focus a misfocused picture after it's been shot. The main barriers are not knowing the particular lens' exact point spread function, sensor noise (the de-convolution spreads the sensor noise to adjacent pixels), and grid resolution. But the site I linked to shows you can still get pretty decent results using a generic PSF.
  19. Re:Can you focus out-of-focus pictures by pavon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh, one other caveat, is that when you quantize the blurred image (assign each pixels a discrete, say 24-bit, value), you will also loose some information.

    Furthermore, I should mention that given the size of peoples faces, and the amount of blur that Google is likely to use, the entire blurred section will be near enough to the edge to loose significant information, so it is unlikely that much recovery will be possible.

    So, nothing I said was really applicable to this situation :) I was just surprised myself to learn that a blurred image is not the same as a lower resolution image, and so I thought I'd share.

  20. Internet out in bufftuck? by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny
  21. Why blurr? Use mine for free! by Serindipidude · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't waste CPU cycles blurring the image. Just past my face over everyone else's. I don't mind at all! Anyway, people who don't want to be recognised in public should know better that to leave home not wearing a burka.