Picasa Rolls Out 3.0 — Now With Facial Recognition

eldavojohn writes "If you use Picasa (Google's photo sharing site), they have upgraded to 3.0 and are purportedly offering facial recognition. That's right, why tag photos of your friends when the software will group similar faces together for you? There's a new list of features including repairing old photographs by touching them up and even writing on your images. As expected, not everyone is 'ok' with Google automatically recognizing you in pictures."

Comments

You are Picasa Web Albums' bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Picasa Web Albums, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content through Picasa Web Albums, including RSS or other content feeds offered through Picasa Web Albums, and other Google services. In addition, by submitting, posting or displaying Content which is intended to be available to the general public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services.

Oh bullshit

[MikeRT]

From TFA:

This is also a larger issue for parents with small children. Other family members could tag photos of your child on the Internet. If a predator were to find pictures labeled with a location and a full name, he could gather enough information on your child to pose as a family friend in an attempt to lure your child from safety.

This is why you raise your child with a "whitelist" concept of who is a family friend. That's how my parents did it, and how most people did it when I was growing up. If I didn't know you, guess what? That meant you didn't come around enough to know you were a family friend, and no friend of my parents would have been upset if I didn't trust them and we'd never met. Why? Family friends understand that sort of thing from little kids who may have met them at most once or twice. Most of the problems should go away when they hit the teenage years because by that time, they can be reasonably expected to be able to figure these things out, and make their own way home.

I don't trust Google, but give it a rest with the sex offender crap. If your kids fall prey to this, it's your fault, not Google's fault because you should have taught them to only trust "friends of the family" that you introduced them to.

Re:Oh bullshit

[Jason Levine]

I agree. The author is criticizing Google for something that anyone can do today with normal web tools.

Another problem arises when one of your friends decides to make their name tags public. You could see pictures labeled with your name popping up on the Web without your knowledge. While this information is not necessary included in search results, it can still prove problematic.

One of my friends could take a photo of me then, without my knowledge, upload it to their web site/blog/MySpace page/whatever with the caption "This is Jason Levine." Has Web Host/Blog Software Provider/MySpace/whatever just committed a huge privacy violation? No. If a privacy violation happened (and it would depend on the nature of the photo), the friend is the one who committed it. Google's tool doesn't increase the means for privacy violations.

This is also a larger issue for parents with small children. Other family members could tag photos of your child on the Internet. If a predator were to find pictures labeled with a location and a full name, he could gather enough information on your child to pose as a family friend in an attempt to lure your child from safety.

Whenever someone uses the "child predator" argument, my BS detector goes off. And this is coming from the father of two small children. My wife maintains a blog where she posts photos of our kids and information about what they (and we) have been up to. While I've been comfortable using my real name online for quite some time (see my Slashdot user name), my wife isn't as comfortable with it. So I've helped her keep many things anonymous including our and our childrens' names. I'm sure that a determined individual could track her blog back to my real name, but casual users will need to know us by our initials.

If you are that fearful that a predator will use online tools to stalk your child then:

1. Teach your child about Stranger Danger. (We're attempting to instill this into our 5 year old without having him shut down at the mere sight of a stranger. Yes, he did take it that far at first!)
2. Know what your child is doing online and offline at all times.
3. Don't post things online that you wouldn't want any old person seeing. (Doesn't stop others from posting that stuff online, but how many people post things to their MySpace pages then complain about other people knowing about the stuff.)

A predator could stake out the local playground and look for likely targets. This doesn't mean that you abandon all public playgrounds, but that you be smart about it.

Re:Oh bullshit

[Chris Burke]

This is why you raise your child with a "whitelist" concept of who is a family friend. That's how my parents did it, and how most people did it when I was growing up.

Indeed, same here. It's the other half of that most basic of messages you give your child on being safe: "Don't talk to strangers". I remember turning away a trusted family friend from the door when I was like four. Of course he wasn't mad, I was a kid who didn't trust strangers like I should. When I was a little older, they also added another level, which was a "pass phrase" I couldn't ever tell anyone, and they'd use if there was some emergency so they had to send someone to pick me up for whatever reason.

I don't trust Google, but give it a rest with the sex offender crap. If your kids fall prey to this, it's your fault, not Google's fault because you should have taught them to only trust "friends of the family" that you introduced them to.

Well like most sexual predator hysteria, this is yet another case where they ignore the most important (though sad and disturbing) fact which is: The vast majority of sexual predators are "friends of the family" if not family themselves, and thus don't need Google or anything else to find their victims.

Re:Oh bullshit

[LordKronos]

Hopefully this doesn't double post...looks like I screwed up and lost it the first time.

Well like most sexual predator hysteria, this is yet another case where they ignore the most important (though sad and disturbing) fact which is: The vast majority of sexual predators are "friends of the family" if not family themselves, and thus don't need Google or anything else to find their victims.

Besides that very relevant fact, the whole idea of this is silly. It's what I like to refer to as the internet-predator-turned-private-investigator. If you were some sick perv and wanted to do a kid, your options are:

1) Find a photo of a random kid on the internet, figure out who the kid is, where he lives, who he/she is with at what time of day each day, where, who is around, when he/she will be alone, and then finally perform the abduction, all in a manner fitting of some crappy movie. or...

2) find a random kid alone and abduct him/her

I don't doubt that #1 has happened. It's a big world, and pretty much anything that could happen has. However, I think the fact is your kid is probably many times more at risk of being trampled in a stampede of elephants that falling victim to such an elaborate and illogical abduction scenario. At least 99.99999% of pervs are either going to go for scenario 2, or find someone in the family they can molest, or even find a kid in a chat room willing to hand out all the necessary info on request.

If there is a danger out there, it isn't automatically tagged photos.

Confused...

[nathan.fulton]

I can understand Picasa auto-tagging, that actually sounds like a nice feature. But why would this be a rights violation, or applicable to the YRO section at all? As long as you use Picasa as a picture album and don't let it integrate with web services automatically, you shouldn't have a problem. And if you do allow it to... maybe it's time to re-examine what information you entrust to a computer's discretion.

Re:Cool

[spyrochaete]

Facial recognition is nothing new. It's been in casinos and airports for years. This is the first time this technology has been available to the general public, though, if I'm not mistaken (and I probably am).

Oh God, Privacy? Get over it.

[ahoehn]

Really? Privacy, a big concern because you can choose to download a piece of software that will attempt to recognize your face? Or *gasp* a friend could import a photo of you into said software? Without your written consent? The Horror! Won't somebody please think of the children!

You think I'm exaggerating, but TFA actually says:

This is also a larger issue for parents with small children. Other family members could tag photos of your child on the Internet. If a predator were to find pictures labeled with a location and a full name, he could gather enough information on your child to pose as a family friend in an attempt to lure your child from safety. What is Google's advice on keeping your children safe?

Now will you please explain to me how this is more of a concern than some random friend tagging said photos without the use of Google's software?
 
I'm all for privacy, but this seems like a white whale. Nobody's forcing you to use Picasa, and there's really nothing intrusive about this application of the technology. I think it's just the phrase, "Facial Recognition" that brings to mind images of big brother.
 
Let's try and do a better job of picking our battles.

Re:I'm confused...

[FrostDust]

What would be the solution, then? Should Google block IPs originating from Europe? Should it be made a crime to tag any European citizens in your photos? I'm pretty sure many internet users in the west would be miffed if laws from China applied to their software and websites, simply because someone from China could hypothetically access it.

Missing the point

[astrashe]

The technology exists. It's out of the bag. It doesn't matter if Google does it -- if they don't, someone else will.

You have to assume that in a couple of years, someone can take a phone cam picture of you on the street and use it to trace you back to a Facebook page (or whatever). Or that the police can trace you back to your DMV photo.

If you can't handle that, stop posting pictures of yourself in a way that allows someone to tie them to your real name. And take down the ones that are already up there.

This is inevitable.

Re:Missing the point

[religious freak]

Agreed, this is the direction we're heading, or at least this is the capability our technology is going to give us.

Perhaps I'll miss one or two, but off the top of my head, our options are:
1) Try to stop developing tech entirely (goodluckwiththat)
2) Try to get private citizens not able to use this tech, and only allow government access to it (shutter)
3) Allow as much access as the tech itself will allow and monitor and restrict government usage (the option that seems to make the most sense to me)

As a previous poster said, if you don't like it, don't post your picture online... or perhaps you can use some kind of scrambling or anonymizing tool which will inevitably be developed by concerned citizens.

Re:It recognizes *faces*

[shmlco]

"Insisting that female performer be referred to as "actress" is sexist and minimizes their talent..."

Guess we need to drop all of the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress categories from the Oscars. Let the men and woman both fight it our for the single Best Actor award...

Re:Cool

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

...Google becomes the premier private security company.....

Screw that. Google becomes the world's premier private investigator company is a far more likely, and lucrative option for the company. They already know just about everything about just about everyone, and now they can track your face too. Plus, they've got their own satellite!

Google is looking more and more like the NSA in Enemy of the State. Where the hell did this company come from?!

Re:Please bring out Mac support

[NaDrew]

Seconded (or eighthed, or whatever). Since switching earlier this year I've been missing Picasa terribly. I haven't been successful in getting the Windows version to work under WINE, either.

Re:Google Earth integration.

[mabhatter654]

nearly everything "fun" is a crime, someplace, sometime. The problem is that "boys will be boys" type crimes, cow tipping, TPing, underage drinking, anything on MythBusters... have all become big deals when pictures are on the internet. Stuff everybody did and said even when I was a kid first wasn't illegal and second wasn't enforceable even if they did catch you.

example: light bottle rocket in your yard with little kids watching. 20 years ago.. the cops simply confiscated them (and lit them at home) Now, put the video on YouTube... now the DA give you a ticket for each rocket, raids your house, and charges you with child "endangerment" for each kid in the video or within 1 block of your house.... up to 2 years later... because it's "video evidence" see the problem.

Re:Google Earth integration.

[mabhatter654]

to borrow a a line:
  give a DA 5 minutes of video from an honest man and they'll find 5 laws broken.

Re:So true (yes, this is a 'me too' post)

[LandDolphin]

Bad decisions in your personal life could mean that you might make bad decisions in your professional life too.

Re:Please bring out Mac support

[amohat]

Picasa makes iphoto look like MS product. In fact, after using Picasa a lot, iphoto is pretty damn pathetic.

Sure, run it on WINE...that's stupid advice for your average Mac user.

Is the apparent war that's opening between apple and google to blame for no osx port? In that case, I hope google kills the iphone, too. Good riddance to bad IP.

Actually, if a PC laptop had the magsafe tech option, I would gladly trade my macbook pro if it meant that I get picasa back.

Re:Google Earth integration.

[MrNaz]

So you're OK with everyone on Earth seeing everything you've ever done?

Note: Just in case you were thinking of answering "yes" to obtusely attempt to poke a hole in my point, this is a trick question. Only a person with the shamelessness of a psychopath can honestly say they've never done something they regret doing and would be happy for everyone to scrutinize everything they ever did.

Re:Google Earth integration.

[Nullav]

And? As long as it's the same for everyone else, what's the problem? I can't imagine there being a single adult on the planet who hasn't said and done dozens of embarrassing things. The sooner that's all out of the way, the sooner we can ditch the Morality Police and get back to things that actually matter.

Re:Google Earth integration.

[dgatwood]

Yikes. Apparently nobody recognizes sarcasm.... :-)

That said, if I'm in a reasonably public place, I know that there's no expectation of privacy, and therefore you won't see somebody taking a photo of me doing something in public that I don't want other people to see.... That's really common sense, and it's more a question of having reasonable self control in public rather than a question of whether I want every aspect of my life scrutinized.

Re:Google Earth integration.

[dotancohen]

This could be handy if you see a nice lady in a bar and want to become a stalker.

Or a nice, vulnerable-looking kid. I see this getting out of hand real quick.

Oh, won't someone please think of the chi... OH FUCK IT!

Re:So true (yes, this is a 'me too' post)

[andy.ruddock]

Why is going to a party and getting drunk necessarily a "bad decision"?
Sure, it's not the healthiest thing you can do to your body, but not relaxing and letting loose once in a while isn't too good for your mind either - and that could lead to bad decision making.