Slashdot Mirror
Face-Swapping Software To Protect Privacy
(0d0 writes "Some researchers at Columbia University's Computer Vision Labratory have developed software to automatically replace faces in batches of photos. Practical applications include protecting the identities of people in Google's Street View, coupling it with a digital camera's burst mode to create a perfect group photo, or protecting the identities of witnesses or law enforcement and military personnel. Other links to coverage include Boing Boing, American Public Media, and New Scientist."
Beat everyone else to the Laughing Man reference.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
protecting the identities of [...] law enforcement and military personnel.
Funny, I don't remember LEA/military personnel actively trying to protect OUR privacy lately. One wonders why we shouldn't do the same for them.
Whose faces are they placing here? Couldn't that then be used to place someone's face in a place where they weren't? I realize it would have to be some kind of perfect storm for that to become a problem (face gets swapped just as someone was committing a crime or what have you), but... I dunno. Unless they're using fake faces, I wonder about this.
The people in the modified photographs look enough like the the original person to still be identifiable. People are still going to recognize themselves in a google photograph, if for no other reason than the combination of hairstyle, face shape, and skin tone.
That's not to say it's not impressive technology. I just don't think it's at a very usable stage yet though.
AccountKiller
Why the hell is there a tiny url (http://www.tinyurl.com/6ehog5) in this story? Where does it point? Goatse? Tubgirl? Some random PDF? This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen slip by the editors. It's not like this is Twittr, where you're limited to 140 bytes.
Maybe Slashcode needs something to automatically follow links in articles and replace them with their target if they redirect.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
that by extension the ground level databasing of a persons private property is an assumed privilege.
I'll never understand people that think they have some inherent right to control people taking a picture of something as mundane and non-personal as the outside of their house, or swimming pool.
Are you really trying to argue that a picture of your "private" house is somehow more personal than publishing pictures of your person?
The uproar about publishing pictures people in Google street view makes some sense, as people could be photographed going into an AA meeting, or shrink, or something else they wish to remain private. I really don't see how a picture of someones house is some big invasion of privacy.
AccountKiller
Google's lawyers are still lawyers.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"In its dismissal motion, Google noted that it intends to prove that there was "no clearly marked 'Private Road' sign at the beginning" of the Borings's street."
I don't know about you, but I tend to assume that roads connecting to public roads are themselves public unless otherwise noted, especially when there are multiple homes connected to the same "driveway".
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
I don't get it . Wouldn't an algorithm that does the usual "pixelifying" effect on faces it finds automatically make more sense? At least for these applications.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"