Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Face-Swapping Software To Protect Privacy

Posted by timothy on from the so-long-as-we-can-choose-the-swappees dept.

(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."

64 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. I thought what I'd do was... by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I thought what I'd do was... by Kamineko · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about a Face Off reference?

    2. Re:I thought what I'd do was... by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

      I'll toss the scramble suit reference at your receding backside. Hey! It's a perfectly good Philip K. Dick reference!

  2. New Name by EdIII · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let's call the Automatic Fugly Machine.

    Dear god, they mangled those 2 celebrities *bad*. I think Denzel should sue them.

  3. Good news everybody! by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we don't have to do it the old fashioned way.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  4. Gee I would like to "face swap" my ugly face! by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anything will help my ugly face! My face will scare Medusa!
    I remember a long time ago one of my co-workers was using a dating website in the 1990's and put another person's picture instead of their own picture. It would be interesting to picture of the girl when she arrived for the date!

  5. Kind of like this? by neildiamond · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G9jA-FGGd8

  6. Google StreetView does this already by Coopjust · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unfortunately, I don't have any links saved, but I have seen several instances on Google Street View where faces have been blurred far beyond recognition, as well as license plates.

    The group photo thing sounds cool. Microsoft has a Research app called Group Shot that can stitch numerous photos together to make a group shot. The problem is, people aren't statues, and the movement of bodies becomes very obvious when a part of someones shoulder is 3 inches higher than the part next to it. I'd gladly pay for a consumer ready adaptation of this technology.

    1. Re:Google StreetView does this already by thisissilly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've seen cases where a car's hubcaps were blurred, presumably because the face-search-and-blur algorithm hit it. Here is one example (for street view of 116 Manhattan Ave, Jersey City, NJ, in case the link isn't right). It would be interesting to see what the face swapping software does when one of the faces is a hubcap or other inanimate object. The other question is how reversible is the face swapping techonolgy? Given the altered photo and one of the two originals, can the 2nd original be reconstructed?

    2. Re:Google StreetView does this already by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Why does Google respect the privacy of people on the street but doesn't respect the privacy of marked private property? I was rather dismayed at Google's lawyer effectively saying that because technology like satellites exist and have photographed private property, and because people with legitimate business with the owners of private property may be expected to be allowed to enter on to private property, that by extension the ground level databasing of a persons private property is an assumed privilege.

      --
      We are all just people.
    3. Re:Google StreetView does this already by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful


      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
    4. Re:Google StreetView does this already by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google's lawyers are still lawyers.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    5. Re:Google StreetView does this already by damiam · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe because the private property in question wasn't actually marked? From your link:

      "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.
    6. Re:Google StreetView does this already by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      I really don't see how a picture of someones house is some big invasion of privacy.

      For starters, it is a house at the end of a private road. People live on private roads because they don't want their homes to be out in public view. Their reasons for that are really no one's business but the owners of the property. I'm not arguing that pictures of a house are more intrusive, but they are still intrusive enough particularly when that house has been purposefully set out of public view. By your logic, what is the big deal about going up to the windows and photographing the interiors as well? Private property is private, as in not public, not a resource to be shared.

      If nothing else the way the owners decided to decorate the exterior of their house is intellectual property.

      --
      We are all just people.
    7. Re:Google StreetView does this already by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      That might explain why they took the pictures in the first place, it fails entirely to explain why they are fighting in court to keep the pictures. Once Google learned was notified that it was private property, they should have simply removed the pictures from StreetView at the property owners request.

      --
      We are all just people.
    8. Re:Google StreetView does this already by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      By your logic, what is the big deal about going up to the windows and photographing the interiors as well?

      It's interesting you have to resort to a "by your logic" statement to try to make a point, even when there wasn't any "by your logic" going on. Anyway, I still don't understand what all the hoopla is about. Endlessly stating "private means private" shows nothing. I simply don't understand how someone seeing the outside of a house is so invasive.

      --
      AccountKiller
    9. Re:Google StreetView does this already by damiam · · Score: 4, Informative
      Dude, no offense, but did you read the statement you linked to? Google has a simple process for removing imagery from Street View, which the property owners chose not to use. Google's not fighting to keep the photos up (since they would have happily taken them down if asked, and I think they might have done it anyway by now); they're fighting to avoid having to pay damages. It's hard to see how any damage was caused, since photos of the same house from street level were already publicly available online through their realtor's site (as well as satellite imagery, etc.), and the house is on a street that is not clearly marked as private.

      Sure, Google probably shouldn't have taken the picture in the first place, but it's hard to argue that this is the beginning of some nefarious plan to start indexing the world's private property. One of their drivers made a mistake, drove down a private lane that was not clearly marked as such, and now they're trying to avoid paying large sums of money to a couple who suffered no real damages and are clearly not acting in good faith.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    10. Re:Google StreetView does this already by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Technically the nature of a house is not private but inherently public. It's appearance, it's internal design, it's fabrication, are all public and, public approval must be sought prior building or changing an existing structure. It is called building and planning approval.

      So while I definitely do not support googles privacy invasive practices (searching, email, browsing, groups, web scanning, masquerading behind other identities), in this case there is nothing to answer. Every building whether commercial, industrial or residential is subject to public review and approval, wake up to yourselves and get over it. So in the case of the civil suit it is nothing more than a blatant grab for money.

      So technically every view of a home is public, whether front or backyard, however any activity is strictly private, whether it simply be contents or the private activity of the occupiers. So stretch it all out, google can take a photo of the windows but not of the curtains or any other internal contents or activities and should blank that out or seek approval from the occupiers when it doesn't.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Google StreetView does this already by fbjon · · Score: 1

      The nature of a house is inherently public. But after it has been built and people move ine, it is no longer just a house, but a home, and a home is not inherently public.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    12. Re:Google StreetView does this already by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      I've seen cases where a car's hubcaps were blurred, presumably because the face-search-and-blur algorithm hit it. Here is one example (for street view of 116 Manhattan Ave, Jersey City, NJ, in case the link isn't right).

      That's just because of all those cases of NJ hubcap thieves using Google street view to plan their larcenies. Those vile criminals !

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    13. Re:Google StreetView does this already by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It is still 100% subject to 'public' building and planning approval. The external of the house forms part of the built environment, the neighbourhood, which is shared by all and is subject by law to the requirements of local government with regards to appearance and structure up to including the point at which it gets demolished to make way for a new structure.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  7. Great! by lobiusmoop · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now everyone can be John Malkovich.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Great! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Even better, you can mix your face with famous actresses and see how your children would look like :D

    2. Re:Great! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Hey Yeah!

      I could do that to see what my love child would look like with Jessica Simpson. Maybe I could even send her the picture? Nothing bad could happen from that right?

      Right?

  8. Here is an example by johnny+cashed · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/27/books/manjoo-600.jpg

    Are you surprised? It is google, they sell advertising.

    1. Re:Here is an example by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      I like the demonic horn on the girl.

  9. Funny.. by dahitokiri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Use at airports? by Toe,+The · · Score: 4, Funny

    So when the airport screeners use their fancy equipment to look at our naked bodies... they can put someone else's face on them?

    The mind boggles.

    1. Re:Use at airports? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      So when the airport screeners use their fancy equipment to look at our naked bodies... they can put someone else's face on them?

      I wouldn't mind if they just went the whole nine yards and used someone elses body.

    2. Re:Use at airports? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Why do airport screeners get to have all the fun. Finally, Natalie Portman completely naked.

    3. Re:Use at airports? by zentinal · · Score: 1

      And where oh where is the reference to that warm southern corn porridge? Hmm, I guess grits wouldn't image very well.

  11. "I swear, I wasn't there!" by ryanov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:"I swear, I wasn't there!" by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      I'm planning to use it to put the face of that girl I've been stalking onto the body of some porn start. I wonder how well it'll work on video?

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    2. Re:"I swear, I wasn't there!" by complete+loony · · Score: 1
      Absolutely, the paparazzi are going to love this application.

      I bet you could use their software to crawl google and build a database of compromising images, analyze all the faces within them, then take a random photo of a celebrity and put their face in a bunch of compromising photos...

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    3. Re:"I swear, I wasn't there!" by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd assume that they'd just hire a couple of models, get them to sign release forms, and use their faces. Which will probably lead to the surreal experience of seeing the same person no matter where you look on Google Street View. A few years from now, there will probably be an FAQ that asks "Who is this guy, and how come you've photographed him all over the world?"

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:"I swear, I wasn't there!" by stoofa · · Score: 1

      The article says that they built up a library using photos of faces downloaded from the internet. So that completely defeats the whole point.

      They'll be protecting my privacy by sticking some Brazilian chap onto my face, but equally could end up protecting the same Brazilian chap by sticking my face on him.

    5. Re:"I swear, I wasn't there!" by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      The article says that they built up a library using photos of faces downloaded from the internet. So that completely defeats the whole point.

      They should just use the face of Bob and earn more slack in the process.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  12. The bad news is: by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

    It changes everyone's face to Melanie Griffith's- post surgery.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  13. Not good enough. by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  14. Next up: Chin-recognition! by KreAture · · Score: 1

    With todays advances in automatic algorithms to distort, hide and now finally swap faces I have come up with another breath-taking idea.
    You read it first on /. and I claim dibs to any and all comercial rights one could wring out of it.

    Chin-recognition etcetera!

    claims:
    1; a way, means, method, algorithm or systematic process to identify a person or other humanoid being by using the chin-region of the anatomy.
    2; as in 1, but using a different part of the anatomy including obscene or in other circumstances covered parts.
    3; further extending 2, covering behavioural patterns unless already patented.
    4; extending on 3 to also cover thought patterns and possibly also auras

    I could make a great patent-troll, all I need is money and someone to take my soul.

  15. WTF!!?! by vrmlguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:WTF!!?! by Coopjust · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's unnecesary to use a TinyURL in this instance (I don't have any idea why the submitter would), but you can hop on TinyURL and have a cookie set to preview all TinyURL links (or get Greasemonkey scripts to change all tinyurl.com requests to preview.tinyurl.com, which isn't as easily wiped like a cookie).

      That link goes to http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/publications /pdfs/Bitouk_SIGGRAPH08.pdf

      Maybe slashcode could be modified to have an option to resolve all TinyURLs to original links and to edit the submission accordingly automatically. I'm sure slashdot's servers wouldn't care if they found out that a TinyURL redirected to goatse...but it would help the readers.

    2. Re:WTF!!?! by unfasten · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or you could (or maybe slashcode can be modified to?) replace the 'www' in http://www.tinyurl.com/6ehog5 with 'preview' to make: http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ehog5

      Though I agree, it is a little weird to use a tinyurl for that link.

    3. Re:WTF!!?! by Coopjust · · Score: 1

      I read the second paragraph of your post after making mine and I see that my suggestion is exactly the same as the one I replied to (vrmlguy). Oh well. If no one on Slashdot RTFAs, why should they read the parent? :)

    4. Re:WTF!!?! by DotDotSlasher · · Score: 1

      This paper and many other interesting papers are being presented at Siggraph 2008 (a Computer Graphics conference) in August.
      Here is one list of Siggraph 2008 papers: http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/sig2008.html

    5. Re:WTF!!?! by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but did you follow the link to the random PDF? ;-)

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  16. Dude! by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    That's awesome man not only did you post a completely off-topic comment as a response to the douchebaggiest comment on this page, but you managed to Godwin the thread using only your sig.

    1. Re:Dude! by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      No, they were whining, IN TFA and small intro that "law enforcement officers security can be undermined if they can be identified".

      Question: Are the laws SO EVIL and HATED that officers risk their lives enforcing them? Perhaps it isn't the criminals to blame but those making and enforcing laws that make so many people hate law enforcers? Just because the USA is not 1936 Germany and some Americans won't lie down and get screwed completely without fighting back, doesn't make them evil, or the laws good. I think its time people woke up and started evaluating the world they live in, and whether those they pay with their taxes have the right to tell them what to do at every step, every point, and further fine and rob them of their property for "infractions".

      As far as I care, all law enforcers should be on a public list. if they are afraid for their lives, then they are doing soemthing wrong. Isn't their logic, "if you have nothing to hide, why are you afraid?"

      perhaps its time their rules applied to them as well.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  17. Cue The Matrix by Pincus · · Score: 2, Funny

    In all my photos, everybody around me will be Agent Smith.

  18. Re:Just don't make me a nigger. by RSKennan · · Score: 1

    If by nigger, you mean "ignorant person", I've got some bad news, champ.

  19. Re:Your soul by maxume · · Score: 1

    The patent office provides that as a service. Just check the appropriate box!

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  20. Long day by Konster · · Score: 1

    I read the header as, "Wife swapping software to protect your privates."

  21. Conan O'Brien already did this by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

    with If They Mated (tm) technology

    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
  22. Why not just edit the people out completely? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Well?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Why not just edit the people out completely? by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      So there are no people shaped holes in the images.

      Personally, I would have liked all the people switched into anons. Fox could have a field day. 'Google spreading the Internet hacker terrorist message!'

  23. The Windowlicker Solution by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

    Just put Richard D. James' face on everybody.

  24. video version by Sarin · · Score: 1

    it would be cool in a freaky kind of way to have somesort of plugin that could do this to video in real in time for camming and stuff.
    I'd use Donald Duck as a source.

    oh wait did I click Post Anonumousluy?

  25. Why? by Vexorian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"
  26. Not to mention... by bratwiz · · Score: 1

    This technology will also come in handy on Yahoo Personals...

    (at least it will as soon as its able to deal with barnyard animals...)

  27. Why get more than one model? by titzandkunt · · Score: 1


    All they need to do is employ the services of John Malkovich

    Job done!

    --
    Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
  28. Winston Smith by whimdot · · Score: 1

    Please collect your cards on the way out of the building.

  29. You see the Laughing Man? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Beat everyone else to the Laughing Man reference.

    He's a nut, 'cause he's a Salinger fan!

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  30. Re:Just don't make me a nigger. by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    For God's sake, do not make me a nigger.

    I hate niggers and I do everything I can to keep them down.

    If you give me the face of a nigger, all my racism against niggers will be turned back on me!

    Not to worry, only those who remained neutral in the battle between Elohim and Lucifer were cursed with black skin.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  31. data security by Benjamin_Wright · · Score: 1

    Subterfuge is a tactic of modern data security and privacy. --Ben http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2007/08/subterfuge-as-security-tactic.html

    --
    Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us