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."

23 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. 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. 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 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
    3. Re:Google StreetView does this already by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google's lawyers are still lawyers.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
  6. 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."
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. "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 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. Cue The Matrix by Pincus · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  14. 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"