Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Picasa Rolls Out 3.0 — Now With Facial Recognition

Posted by timothy on from the face-in-the-crowd dept.

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."

29 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Re:picasas? by MrCoke · · Score: 5, Funny

    He downloaded it twice.

  2. Ah good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It can sort my porn.

  3. App first, site afterwards. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google's Picasa is a photo-manipulation application that you download to your computer and install so you can manipulate images. It includes the capability of uploading those files to PicasaWeb, which is actually the photo-sharing site...

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:App first, site afterwards. by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 5, Informative

      And it actually is great tool for managing (and non-destructive basic editing of) your pictures (unless you are a pro and in need of production house pro tools).

      I have been Picasa user even before it was purchased by Google, and it has been pretty good for everything I need to do with my personal pictures (over 20000 now).

      This is a big update - not only face recognition, but a lot of new tools are added or enhanced. Now you can even make/edit movies (basic, but good), which otherwise was view-only till 2.7.

      A good video on new features: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rskC6c_5L1M

  4. It recognizes *faces* by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but you can still sort by actor.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. Google Earth integration. by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm waiting for Google Earth integration, where it matches your face with images on street view and finds you on planet earth.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    1. Re:Google Earth integration. by cojsl · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can currently manually geotag with Picasa: http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=43896

    2. Re:Google Earth integration. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Google Earth integration. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Google Earth integration. by Nullav · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  6. Can't Wait .... by Luthair · · Score: 5, Funny

    to find out if you tag someone mooning the camera, if the facial recognition will eventually 'recognize' a friends face.

  7. Families by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering that members of a family typically bear a very strong resemblance to one another (with identical twins being the extreme case), I would think this would be one of the tougher trials for a facial recognition algorithm.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Families by pnutjam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It seemed to be very confused by my wife and daughters. Even some of her relatives showed up.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    2. Re:Families by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 5, Informative

      Er... I too thought this was a feature of Picasa (desktop), but the summary is really really bad and misleading - the feature is actually in Picasa Web.
      You do not have to do anything if you already have pictures uploaded there - just enable the option in the new updated user interface (this option is not on by default), it may be a while your pictures are scanned (23 mins for me), and then you will be able to start playing with faces and tags.

  8. Please bring out Mac support by asmitty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This was one of my favorite programs when I was on Windows, and I miss its use on my mac. I enjoy iPhoto, but Picasa just had so many features that I loved and used and find so much better than iPhoto. Things like watching folders to see when new pictures were added, moved, and deleted. Cmon google...

    1. Re:Please bring out Mac support by chelsel · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just downloaded the Picasa3 beta and it installs and runs using Darwine http://www.kronenberg.org/darwine/ on the Mac.

    2. Re:Please bring out Mac support by NaDrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      To Mac. I've installed Darwine and was able to run the Picasa/Win installer and it even launched, but dies when I try to find photos to catalog.

      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  9. Oh bullshit by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh bullshit by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Oh bullshit by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Oh bullshit by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  10. Oh God, Privacy? Get over it. by ahoehn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
  11. Missing the point by astrashe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:picasas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the internets.

  13. Re:How do you start the facial recognition feature by philgross · · Score: 4, Informative

    Picasaweb (Google's photo-sharing website) does the facial recognition, not the Picasa application. On the Picasaweb site, you can opt-in to the facial recognition stuff, and it will bulk process your uploaded photos. To use it you have upload some photos to the web first, using the Picasa app.

  14. Re:How do you start the facial recognition feature by wolruf · · Score: 4, Informative

    You have to modify Picasaweb settings to 'English US' then save/ok, go back to settings and now a 'Face tag' prefs exists

    --
    wolruf@gmail.com
  15. Direct download link by Archimonde · · Score: 4, Informative

    As there are no valid links in any of the pages linked in the story, I managed to find one manually:

    http://dl.google.com/picasa/picasa3-setup.exe

    --
    Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
  16. Re:Facial recognition by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are faces in porn?!

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  17. Re:God I hope this works... by woobieman29 · · Score: 5, Funny
    So, if you are "R2.0" and your son is "R3.0", why do you need the one decimal point level of precision? Why not "R2" and R3"?

    PLEASE tell me that you aren't tracking the ejaculations that do not result in conception as the "dot releases"...

    --
    \/\/oobie