Google Patents Software To Identify Real-World Objects In Videos

Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by ccguy · 2012-09-01 20:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

The larger question, unaddressed in this patent, is whether we want our individual personal data to be tagged, filed, and logged without permission or choice."

How is a video uploaded to youtube 'individual personal data"? Sometimes it seems like we just want to complain about stuff.
I definitely want my (very few) youtube videos categorized, and most importantly, I want to be able to look for video contents.

By the way, the IO keynote demoed a search by content on pictures uploaded to google drive (the speaker typed 'pyramid' and the search returned 2 pictures with background pyramids), so this seems like an obvious improvement over that.

Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by c0lo · 2012-09-01 20:53 · Score: 2

The larger question, unaddressed in this patent, is whether we want our individual personal data to be tagged, filed, and logged without permission or choice."
How is a video uploaded to youtube 'individual personal data"? Sometimes it seems like we just want to complain about stuff.
True. A bit further and someone will question whether the objects (captured in the clip) themselves may or may not... well... object.
I mean... can you imagine the shame of a jiggling conical green jelly object to be tagged "dildo"? (spoiler: no pr0n was linked in the course of this posting).

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Knuckles · 2012-09-01 20:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

How is a video uploaded to youtube 'individual personal data"?.
It can be non-private for the uploader, but private for other people in the video. You don't always know when you are in a video, and even if do you often cannot prevent it from being uploaded.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-09-01 20:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

The larger question, unaddressed in this patent, is whether we want our individual personal data to be tagged, filed, and logged without permission or choice."
How is a video uploaded to youtube 'individual personal data"?

How about the following scenario ...
You were present at a certain event, and someone took a vid of that event
Somehow you ended up in the vid
And the vid was uploaded to youtube, by someone other than you
Without this patent (or similar tech), someone happened to watch the vid on youtube might recognizes you
With this patent (and similar tech), they can now start categorizing every "familiar subject"
Whether or not your face end up in the list of "familiar subject" is another story, but the gist of the thing is, it's possible now to categorize everything

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, once they know that you're in the video they can notify you and you can ask them to blur you out. It's all a matter of what the law says, and if you don't like the laws, don't blame the company. Blame the politicians.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by VortexCortex · 2012-09-01 21:54 · Score: 1

How is a video uploaded to youtube 'individual personal data"?

If I video tape my genitalia and upload it to Youtube it would be individual personal data. Indeed, the video game glitches and prototypes I've uploaded to Youtube are my personal data. It's mine. I created it. Now, that said: If You see a copy of the PS1 game "Unholy War" on the coffee table in the background of my hypothetical "Coming to God" video featuring my individual and personal data, I would be pleased if you would be able to click said PS1 game and buy it, to play in your emulator -- Hexagonal Strategy gameplay like chess (or Battletech) + Arena Style 3D Deathmatch. Mmm, tasty, when publishers still took risks -- If that link automatically becomes "product placement", and I get paid for your referral link which results in some payment for my efforts in recording and making available the video: I'm all for it.
If you don't want to be seen in public, then just don't do that. As a regular Slashdot poster I'm fully qualified to inform you that it's perfectly possible to never be in public. My allergies were bad this past year (no, I mean crippling so, to the point of catching pneumonia due to fluid on the lungs -- In Houston, we have a Problem in that you get all your vitamins in one breath), so I stayed indoors almost exclusively and had my groceries and everything else delivered to my residence for about a month. However, were I to have been in public when my individual personal data had been video recorded then perhaps some one else would have shouldered the burden of editing the video, and they would monetise my junk via advertising referral traffic from Call of C'thulhu... I call it the "Bat Wing" when its stretched like that, but you can't fault the computers image recognition -- Nothing's perfect.
The point is, private data can also be public. I'm cool with monetising it as long as I get a cut. If it has to be monetised to support the traffic, then maybe I don't want it online. Movie Stars get to control monetisation of their likenesses, so should we all. If the stop and rob down the street wants to monetise the fact that I buy Zig Zags, Sunny-D, Ben & Jerry's and Hustler (for the photography, the stories are tasteless), then so be it -- I've got nothing to hide, but they shouldn't have anything to hide either: I'd like a cut of the video I helped make, it's only fair.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by horza · 2012-09-01 22:11 · Score: 3, Funny

This is the Facebook face recognition. In the Google scenario it would now be able to tell you 84% of your photos have a cat in.
Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by dell623 · 2012-09-01 22:34 · Score: 1

Host it yourself. Why are you uploading it to Youtube then? And if the data is public, do you realize anyone can crawl through it, not just Google? The patent says nothing about monetizing it, and if the video is viewable, anyone can run such algorithms and get data off it, not just the hosting website.
Private data cannot be public. Keep it private. If you make something public, expect it to be stored for eternity even if you try to delete it, have all your pictures and videos crawled through by algorithms with face and object recognition.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by ccguy · 2012-09-01 22:54 · Score: 2

How about the following scenario ...
You were present at a certain event, and someone took a vid of that event
Somehow you ended up in the vid
And the vid was uploaded to youtube, by someone other than you
Well, then you are already in youtube. The only difference now is that you are indexed. If it worries you, just look for yourself (assuming you can somehow) and if you show up ask for the video to be taken down, or for your image to be blurred, assuming you have any legal right to do that.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 23:03 · Score: 0

Well, once they know that you're in the video they can notify you and you can ask them to blur you out.

And how are Google going to contact me? They don't have any permitted means of doing so.
I suppose they could dredge the uploader's Gmail e-mail history and send a mail to all the John Smiths therein...
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by MrHanky · 2012-09-01 23:11 · Score: 1

Once you publish it, it's no longer your personal data. It might be yours, but it's public.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 23:28 · Score: 0

Unless you live like the unabomber, Google knows at least three ways to contact you. Heck, I am "anonymous" and they contacted me the other day.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 00:41 · Score: 0

The problem is that at that point it's too late. Unless you're suggesting that we only spend our time searching over and over again. It wasn't as big of a deal in the past when somebody we knew would have to view the video and tag it or random come across it. With this it's even more public than it was previously.
Same with the face recognition stuff. It wasn't a big deal being in somebody's photo when it wasn't indexed and tagged, but now it's a lot easier to find out what pictures a random person is in.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 00:46 · Score: 0

I distinctively remember that not even five years ago, everybody here said the exact same thing I'm saying now, and how it would be a trap, that Joe Random would fall for, but we would be too smart to fall for. Yet, now you get modded to oblivion even here, for daring to mention that the concept of "owning" information is utter nonsense. Because now, even here, people truly believe, that you can retain ownership/control over information, even after passing it on no completely non-controllable entities.
The sad fact is: The content Mafia propaganda worked. Even on us. All it took, was time, and endless repetition.
And now you and I are the evil ones, for thinking you can't own information.
___
This is the reason, I now started to gain interest in social engineering (includes lobbying, marketing, politics, etc.)... Because nowadays, reality and facts seem meaningless, and all that counts is emotions and beliefs. Of a groupthink. So instead of getting killed by that groupthink, I'm gonna be the CREATOR of that groupthink.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Patch86 · 2012-09-02 00:49 · Score: 1

I could already be in the background of a video with a million views and I wouldn't know it. If there were a way of identifying myself in YouTube videos, I'd be able to check them and get myself blurred/video removed if necessary.
Let's face it, the cat is already out of the bag in terms of the problem you state. There are already hundreds and hundreds of pictures of me on Facebook (not one of which I've uploaded) which I can do nothing about, and god knows how many more elsewhere on the net. The best I can do is refuse to let myself be tagged on Facebook (wither using the account option, or by not having a Facebook account) and hope for the best.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by ultranova · 2012-09-02 00:53 · Score: 1

Well, then you are already in youtube. The only difference now is that you are indexed.

And that's a rather huge difference. There's a tremendous difference between "you might be seen" and "every move you made is recorded, indexed and cross-referenced automatically".

If it worries you, just look for yourself (assuming you can somehow) and if you show up ask for the video to be taken down, or for your image to be blurred, assuming you have any legal right to do that.

If it doesn't worry you, you'd feel right at home in East Germany, which utilized a manual system to keep tabs on everyone. This is basically the same system, only automated.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by ccguy · 2012-09-02 01:24 · Score: 1

Well, then you are already in youtube. The only difference now is that you are indexed.
And that's a rather huge difference. There's a tremendous difference between "you might be seen" and "every move you made is recorded, indexed and cross-referenced automatically".
Really? How exactly do my possible apparences in youtube become "every move you made is recorded, indexed and cross-referenced automatically".? There seem to be even more amazing technology somewhere.

If it doesn't worry you, you'd feel right at home in East Germany, which utilized a manual system to keep tabs on everyone. This is basically the same system, only automated.
You realize that the patent is about "Identify Real-World Objects In Videos", right?

And no, it doesn't worry me. Comparing this to East Germany is absurd and probably insulting to those who suffered its regime.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-09-02 01:33 · Score: 1

Perhaps you should read-read tfs. It's not tagging people its pulling out objects and locations. No Los of privacy for anyone except potentially the video uploader - and that person was already giving up privacy by trusting a third party.
If someone else was in the uploaded video, it wouldn't matter under this tech.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Knuckles · 2012-09-02 01:50 · Score: 1

Perhaps I should have, but I was only responding to the short-sighted idea that it would be intrinsically impossible for private stuff to end up on YT

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 03:43 · Score: 0

And the issue here is? That someone posted a video of you, that you aren't aware about. Without the search capability, probably you'd only know if it goes viral and people start pointing at you with the finger on the street. With it, you can search and try to ask the creator to take it down. Does the search help your privacy? I guess it depends how do you ask the poster to address the situation (if you don't want some Straissand effect)
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-09-02 04:19 · Score: 1

He may host it himself, but he can't make money from it using automated object recognition, because Google has just been awarded a patent for it. (Or to be more precise, at least he couldn't make money without paying exorbitant royalties to Google.)
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by dell623 · 2012-09-02 04:23 · Score: 1

Really? Even accepting the premise that he can make money through object recognition on a video of his genitals, when has Google sued someone over a software patent except in retaliation? Does he plan to sue them over a slide to unlock patent?
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Vintermann · 2012-09-02 07:35 · Score: 1

Face recognition already exists, and presents privacy problems, sure.
This is about item/object recognition, which is technically a lot more impressive, but by itself does not pose privacy problems. Before, they could find you. Now, they can find you and index the fact that you were wearing a fedora in George Square. But if they're just indexing the hat and the location, and not the face, it's no problem (unless you've got a damn distinctive hat).

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by psiclops · 2012-09-02 14:18 · Score: 2

the jiggling conical green object in the video you linked to actually had the parts from a vibrator at the base of it, and was specifically designed with tittilation in mind. (he went to a sex store to look for the most usable vibrators for his jelly, and tested various moulds some with vibratows inside them.
tagging that as dildo wouldnt really seem that inappropriate.

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by psiclops · 2012-09-02 14:30 · Score: 1

He may host it himself, but he can't make money from it using automated object recognition, because Google has just been awarded a patent for it.
no, he can't make money from it using automated object recognition be cause he doesn't have the software to do that.

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 21:29 · Score: 0

Well, once they know that you're in the video they can notify you and you can ask them to blur you out.
And how are Google going to contact me? They don't have any permitted means of doing so.
I suppose they could dredge the uploader's Gmail e-mail history and send a mail to all the John Smiths therein...
If you don't want to be shown in the video, go bitch to the person who filmed you and published the video, not the guy who watched it and said "Hey, look its Anonymous Coward right there!"
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 21:43 · Score: 0

Once you publish it, it's no longer your personal data. It might be yours, but it's public.
If you publish it, it is not longer private data, although it is still personal data.
Not disagreeing, just correcting the terminology before the trolls notice.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by manixrock · 2012-09-02 21:44 · Score: 1

I think eventually what will have to change is our *need* for privacy. We still shame and/or punish each other for stuff, thus the need for privacy. If we became an open and educational society, instead of the punitive one we are today, privacy would become obsolete.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-03 07:53 · Score: 0

Has anyone thought about the AI implications? If software can be improved upon to the point at which it can recognized objects for what they are as a human does we will be significantly closer to autonomous AI that can maneuver and interact with the real world without needing its path preprogrammed or utilizing mindblowingly expensive hardware/software to spatially map its surroundings.
Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). by BadPirate · 2012-09-04 05:33 · Score: 1

Personally I never let myself be exposed to a camera or video lens. It steals your soul. Also... It adds about 10 lbs and I'm sensitive about that sort of thing. Nobody wants a fat soul.

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.

Re:Big Brother Style Mind Reading by siddesu · 2012-09-01 20:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Are you also a Warrior-Philosopher hovering in a glass castle over California by any chance?

Expectation of Privacy by Angrywhiteshoes · 2012-09-01 20:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

>> unaddressed in this patent, is whether we want our individual personal data to be tagged, filed, and logged without permission or choice

I'm not sure that you have any expectation of privacy in this case. You're putting videos on the internet at your own will or you are in a public setting where you are being filmed. I'm not sure if things like parties are considered to be private affairs or public outings or whatever and if you can expect that your actions will be kept secret from the world or not. Either way, I don't think that you can expect much. But, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. However, I wouldn't expect that any part of my life that I freely share with the world in anyway should be kept private unless it was agreed to beforehand.

Also, with regards to Google in general, I think your permission is granted when you use Google services. When this goes live, and you don't want to participate, you can delete your youtube account and host it somewhere else. Maybe a place with more privacy control. For people who are caught in it because their friend posted a video, well, I think that kind of pertains to my babbling in the first paragraph.

Re:Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 20:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

or you are in a public setting where you are being filmed.
This expectation of privacy nonsense needs to be thrown out. It was thought up before we had the technology capable of mass surveillance, and now it's very convenient for the government and companies. The government can simply work with companies to get the info (whatever government isn't allowed to do can simply be passed off to companies). I don't expect that my actions be secret, but I do expect that I shouldn't need to walk around with a mask everywhere I go just because some idiots can't differentiate between mass surveillance and some bystander spotting you while walking down the street.
Re:Expectation of Privacy by iter8 · 2012-09-02 00:02 · Score: 1

If I had mod points today, I would give them all to you, even if you are an AC. There is a qualitative difference between the idea of being seen in public and mass surveillance combined with indexing and long-term data storage. We need more than an expectation of privacy. We need a guarantee.
Re:Expectation of Privacy by causality · 2012-09-02 00:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

The government can simply work with companies to get the info (whatever government isn't allowed to do can simply be passed off to companies). I don't expect that my actions be secret, but I do expect that I shouldn't need to walk around with a mask everywhere I go just because some idiots can't differentiate between mass surveillance and some bystander spotting you while walking down the street.
I agree with you 100% about the mass surveillance thing. I have no idea why people are so eager to portray it as a completely 100% harmless condition that could never, ever be used against them. Apparently they've never heard the saying by Cardinal Richelieu: "give me six lines penned by the most honest hand, and I will find something in them which will hang him". Now imagine that applied not only to whatever you write, but to everything you say, everything you do, everywhere you go, stored indefinitely, in a nation with so many tens of thousands of laws it's nearly impossible to never break at least one of them...

If you want to embrace a no-privacy world, I sure hope that every human being on earth, including criminals, including tyrants, thinks you're a great person and never wants to harm you, because that sure is easier to do when they know a lot about you.

Regarding the government cooperating with companies to get around restrictions placed on government, the restrictions against government merely need to be updated to include "nor shall this be done by proxy". That would make it consistent with every law telling real people what they may not do. For a couple of hypothetical examples, you are not allowed to rob someone, nor are you allowed to hire a thug to rob someone; in both cases you would be prosecuted. Hiring a hit-man won't keep you from being prosecuted for murder even though you didn't perform the act personally. Restrictions on government need to close this "by proxy" loophole. Then they will be harmonized with the kind of laws each of us are expected to obey.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 00:58 · Score: 0

>>For people who are caught in it because their friend posted a video, well, I think that kind of pertains to my babbling in the first paragraph.
I solved that problem. I don't have any friends!
Re:Expectation of Privacy by swillden · 2012-09-02 12:05 · Score: 1

This is about object recognition, not face recognition. Of course, face recognition could also be applied, but Google would likely apply the same privacy rules as they do on Google+ -- it's done only with human approval and notifies the subjects automatically and gives them the opportunity to remove the label.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Expectation of Privacy by perryizgr8 · 2012-09-02 18:36 · Score: 1

fuck privacy. if you're doing something you think will land you in trouble if revealed, you should not be doing it.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 20:28 · Score: 0

So, you enter the mall. Once inside you discover that you have left your keys in your car, so you run out to your car to get them before your car is stolen. Unknown to you one of the stores near your entrance was robbed during your short visit. The thief actually crossed the mall and used a different entrance, but you are seen entering and then exiting running.
It's not what you are doing, it is what the person monitoring the video --thinks-- you are doing.
Re:Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 21:57 · Score: 0

If I had mod points today, I would give them all to you, even if you are an AC. There is a qualitative difference between the idea of being seen in public and mass surveillance combined with indexing and long-term data storage. We need more than an expectation of privacy. We need a guarantee.
And if I had mod points I'd counter them. What we're talking about here is not mass surveillance. Yes, such technology could be used with a mass surveillance system, but Google isn't conducting mass surveillance.
There's also a difference between surveillance conducted by the government vs. a private citizen or a business. The government should not be recording or monitoring any person without a good reason to do so.
Re:Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-03 04:24 · Score: 0

Regarding the government cooperating with companies to get around restrictions placed on government, the restrictions against government merely need to be updated to include "nor shall this be done by proxy". That would make it consistent with every law telling real people what they may not do. For a couple of hypothetical examples, you are not allowed to rob someone, nor are you allowed to hire a thug to rob someone; in both cases you would be prosecuted. Hiring a hit-man won't keep you from being prosecuted for murder even though you didn't perform the act personally. Restrictions on government need to close this "by proxy" loophole. Then they will be harmonized with the kind of laws each of us are expected to obey.
I'd say these restrictions already exist. James Madison wrote the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) to the Bill of Rights to allow the assertion of rights against the government or other entities on an as needed basis. A right to privacy is certainly a fundamental human right of the sort he had in mind when he did this, and would naturally apply against both government and proxies.
When people swear oaths to uphold the law, they are swearing oaths to uphold an open-ended legal system, in which it is never permitted for government to infringe fundamental rights. Somehow this keeps getting overlooked or forgotten ...
The issue is to get our legal professionals to acknowledge these rights. Somehow in the mind of many of our legal professionals the phrase "rights retained by the people" has been translated to "rights retained by the people but only when it is convenient for the lawyers, who have an interest in having a complex, confusing, even contradictory legal system to generate lots of ongoing business for their profession". Or perhaps they have a secret clause in their oaths (to uphold the Bill of Rights) that excludes consideration of the 9th Amendment.
Re:Expectation of Privacy by perryizgr8 · 2012-09-03 05:09 · Score: 1

easily solved by more comprehensive surveillance.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

I was expecting this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 20:33 · Score: 1

After Andrew Ng's experiment with creating an unsupervised neural net of 16,000 computer cores at Google, it comes natural they have an interest in this field of photo/video tagging and start outputting some patents. There is a similar technology at (http://www.msravs.com/audiosearch_demo/) for transcribing speech to text and making archives of videos searchable by word (kind of like Google Books does for print).

Soon we will have all our huge archives of video, print and images analysed and searchable. Imagine the implications!

If you're worried about this... by Gordonjcp · 2012-09-01 20:40 · Score: 1

... you'd better not go outside. Somebody might see you! Better to stay in with the curtains drawn, and keep away from the windows just in case.

Re:If you're worried about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 20:49 · Score: 1

Why don't you provide a list where you were last time you went out?
I need to know all persons you talked to, all addresses you visited, the routes you took, and how long you stayed in each place.
Since you're not worried, I'm sure you'll provide this information ASAP.
Thanks.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Gordonjcp · 2012-09-01 21:02 · Score: 1

It's none of your damn business. If you happened to be there to see me, then fine.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-01 21:27 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is that it's OK that the technology may be deployed within a decade to answer AC's question without your getting a say in the matter, but when he (more honestly) asks you directly then it's not his "damn business"?
I like to apply the "your daughter in the bathroom" test. If you're OK with any information being processed for whatever purpose as long as it reaches public space, then you're OK with my using an infrared/whatever camera and sensitive microphone from the street to record and rebroadcast your daughter when she is in the bathroom.
'cos it's none of my damn business, but I happened to be in the street picking up this data.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Gordonjcp · 2012-09-01 21:32 · Score: 0

If you're in a private space - like your house, for example - then you have an expectation of privacy.
If you're standing outside in the street, out in public, you do not have an expectation of privacy.
It's really a pretty simple concept to grasp. I know right-wing Americans do have trouble with reading comprehension, but I don't know how I can make it any plainer.
Re:If you're worried about this... by VortexCortex · 2012-09-01 22:14 · Score: 1

Why don't you provide a list where you were last time you went out?
I need to know all persons you talked to, all addresses you visited, the routes you took, and how long you stayed in each place.
Since you're not worried, I'm sure you'll provide this information ASAP.
Thanks.
No problem: The last time I went out was to the grocery. I used the self checkout and talked to no one. I took the fastest route as proposed by my GPS, I stayed there for 33 minutes according to my router's traffic log. The list of people's addresses I visited is empty -- this is Slashdot you fool.
Re:If you're worried about this... by horza · 2012-09-01 22:16 · Score: 1

Eh? If you upload a Youtube video then you are providing this list. The Google algorithm is not gleaning any extra information you can't get by watching the video, only cataloguing it better. For instance if you have video of you having lunch under the Eiffel Tower it will automatically be tagged "Paris".
My guess is that it will be used to pre-fill a "Suggested tags" box.
Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:If you're worried about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 22:16 · Score: 0

Somebody might see me, but it used to be unthinkable that someone could record your every move and store the results. Do not equate random bystanders seeing you with cameras or surveillance technology.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-01 22:39 · Score: 1

1) "You have an expectation of" are cowardly weasel words for "I think you should have".
2) How are "in public" and "private space" defined? Use definitions which come down to something other than "space where you do not / do have an expectation of privacy".
3) Most material ends up being published from what I think you'd call "private space" - even following someone around inevitably shows them on "private" grounds.
4) What is so special about some kinds of space that you should not have any privacy protection there? In particular, why can I follow your daughter with a remote control car and take upskirt photos? Why am I allowed to place cameras in drains so every woman passing over, including your daughter, provides a nice panty shot for me to publish? Give a sound moral argument.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 23:32 · Score: 0

The courts have already defined the things you are asking for. No need to ask the submitter to do it. If you are afraid of Google, try Bing. Either one will find you what you want.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 00:00 · Score: 0

That's as laughable as the "reasonable person" nonsense. Ambiguous garbage. Not acceptable for important matters.
The expectation of privacy nonsense needs to go. We need sensible privacy laws that don't allow for mass surveillance.
Re:If you're worried about this... by ultranova · 2012-09-02 01:14 · Score: 1

It's none of your damn business. If you happened to be there to see me, then fine.

And if I follow you 24/7 and record everything you do, is that fine too? Because that's what this is about: technology is changing the situation from me seeing you by accident to me being able to get an automated report of your actions after the fact with a simple Google query.
It used to be impossible to keep everyone under constant surveillance, even police states had to prioritize. Thus you had de facto privacy even in public, unless you drew attention to yourself. But the limits set by resource requirements are quickly disappearing. Thus we either re-enforce them through law, or we accept that we have less privacy than Soviet citizens of old.
So, are you okay with being stalked 24/7 every time you set foot outside your door, and the report being given to everyone who ever asks for it, from friends to neighbours to potential employers? Because I sure as Hell am not.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-02 01:15 · Score: 1

Yes and the courts in East Germany also defined where you have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy.
I'm looking for a moral argument, not a layman's restatement of the law.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Gordonjcp · 2012-09-02 01:32 · Score: 1

And if I follow you 24/7 and record everything you do, is that fine too?
You can if you want. You're not getting inside my house, though. I suspect you'd get bored of it pretty quickly. I can give you some GPS co-ordinates to start you off, if you're *that* interested.
Re:If you're worried about this... by nanoflower · 2012-09-02 02:49 · Score: 1

Perhaps I'm not getting in your house, but what if I set up infrared cameras that record all your movements inside your house. Or maybe terahertz cameras that can record everything in your house from outside. That's all possible today or soon will be possible so how private is your home given new technology?
Re:If you're worried about this... by Gordonjcp · 2012-09-02 06:40 · Score: 1

I suggest you seek professional help.
Re:If you're worried about this... by ultranova · 2012-09-02 10:11 · Score: 2

I suspect you'd get bored of it pretty quickly.

I would. An automated system never will. That's kinda the point here: as technology advances, I can keep you under surveillance whether or not this I anticipate to ever have any use of this information, because it'll cost me basically nothing. I can keep everyone under surveillance all the time without wasting my time and freezing my balls off sitting in bushes outside your house, or paying anyone else to do so or to analyze the results. I can just type a Google search for "juicy blackmail material for Gordonjcp" and p0wn you. That's exactly the problem.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 22:22 · Score: 0

So what you're saying is that it's OK that the technology may be deployed within a decade to answer AC's question without your getting a say in the matter, but when he (more honestly) asks you directly then it's not his "damn business"?
What he said was "If you happened to be there to see me, then fine." . So stop making shit up.

I like to apply the "your daughter in the bathroom" test. If you're OK with any information being processed for whatever purpose as long as it reaches public space, then you're OK with my using an infrared/whatever camera and sensitive microphone from the street to record and rebroadcast your daughter when she is in the bathroom.
In the US the courts have ruled that such methods would constitute as "eavesdropping" (not legal terminology just FYI). The standard is generally that if it's detectable by a human it's no longer private, such as leaving your curtains open or making enough racket to be heard from the street.
But you're still missing the point. The problem with everything you brought up regards the fashion in which the recording was obtained, not in what was done with the recording after the fact. The tech in this story has nothing to do with obtaining the recording, but what is done with it afterwards. If we assume that the recording was legitimately done and distributed in a legal fashion, then there should be no issue with Google scanning the information. If we're talking about government, then it's a slightly different story- government should not be in the business of gathering data on anybody who they don't have a good reason to suspect is involved in criminal activity.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-03 00:10 · Score: 0

True setting up those cameras is definitely a job for professionals
Re:If you're worried about this... by Gordonjcp · 2012-09-03 01:23 · Score: 1

The difficulty being, of course, that there's really nothing to see. One thing that I've discovered over time is that it's generally best to avoid doing illegal things out in public where people can see you.
Re:If you're worried about this... by Anguirel · 2012-09-04 15:03 · Score: 1

Alternative solution: Get society to stop being so puritanical that blackmail is possible for otherwise innocuous and harmless actions. This also has a bonus effect of eliminating blackmail as a lever for corruption. Additional bonus: when applied to members of congress, eliminates bribery as a method for corruption. In fact, most if not all corruption requires secrecy.
That is, instead of advocating for privacy, advocate for complete and extreme transparency.

--
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.

Alzheimer's by Sqr(twg) · 2012-09-01 20:41 · Score: 1

What I want is a little webcam that I can put on my shoulder, and which records everything (without uploading it anywhere). Then, when I want to know where my keys are, it'll show me the last recorded images that have keys in them.

Re:Alzheimer's by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 02:30 · Score: 0

What I want is a little webcam that I can put on my shoulder, and which records everything (without uploading it anywhere). Then, when I want to know where my keys are, it'll show me the last recorded images that have keys in them.
Almost a good idea there. But if your brain is temporarily so weak that you can't remember where you left your keys, I'd really rather you not get behind the wheel and on the public streets until your condition has improved. What else are you at risk of temporarily forgetting? Signalling your turns? Following posted signs? Braking for pedestrians? Stay home and give it a rest until your brain is somewhat less foggy.

privacy implication FUD by dell623 · 2012-09-01 20:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

What exactly are the new privacy implications of this system? Governments in western democracies are deploying facial recognition systems at street corners and license plate recognition systems to track vehicle movement, what does this bring that makes things significantly worse?

That last link is particularly egregious. It points to Chromebooks as a device that is dependent completely on Google services. How about also mentioning devices that already do the same, except that they have about a 100 times more users - iPhones and iPads. And even Windows devices are going the same way. What on earth does with ave to do with this patent, and how about mentioning that this isn't specific to Google. I am tired of this FUD implication that Google can steal all your data while others can't? What Google could do theoretically all other 'cloud' providers could do too, theoretically. How about comparing their actual records? Has Google turned on face recognition without your consent? Has Google changed your email contacts and personal email address on your profile and wiped your phone contacts? Do you really think Apple can't access the same stuff in theory from your iPhone the way Google can from their devices? Or the Facebook app that installs with just about every permission available?

And again, what does any of it have to do with this patent. If you upload a video to youtube for the whole world to see, is it really a big deal that Google knows that you use a Macbook?

the article says "Google's own vision for the future of computing is a Chromebook/Chromebox that's completely dependent on their own services for everything". Really? What's Apple's vision of computing? Amazon - ever used a Kindle Fire? In fact, Google sells very few Chromebooks, and most Google affiliated devices sold are Google Android devices, which offer far more freedom. You can use it with non Google accounts. You can disable and remove Google services, and Google allows apps that compete with Google services (Apple bans those - reproduce the functionality of an Apple service or app and you get banned). Amazon is equally restricted if you've ever used a Kindle Fire.
And there are several unlocked Android phones and devices where you can install Google free versions of Android like Cyanogen, and do whatever the hell you want without the privacy implications. How about raising awareness of those for people who are really concerned about privacy instead of spreading all this 'Google will steal all ur dataz oh noez' FUD. That ship bolted, the horse has sailed etc. ALL current device makers do that or are moving towards that model. Go to all the trouble of using and informing about Linux or De-Googled Android devices, or shut up and talk about real disasters when they happen like Facebook's several privacy booboos or the Google Wave fiasco. Not this FUD.

Re:privacy implication FUD by BSAtHome · 2012-09-01 21:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

The question is not whether this is a useful technology. The real question is whether that what /can/ be done /should/ be done. The technology is without any feeling; it is us who bring feelings into play when we use technology.
Access to information, be it local or global, is not inherently bad. We can use it to learn and promote. However, not everyone has the same intentions and that is where it gets problematic.
If we make all information readily available in a way that we all become transparent, then not only can we use this for a positive benefit for us, but it can and _will_ be used against us. That is why it is so important to think about the consequences of any (technological) creation before it is actually made.
Re:privacy implication FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:12 · Score: 0

Do you work for google? Nice strawman post going wildly off topic to spread your own positive FUD about google
Re:privacy implication FUD by PixetaledPikachu · 2012-09-01 21:24 · Score: 0

How about also mentioning devices that already do the same, except that they have about a 100 times more users - iPhones and iPads. And even Windows devices are going the same way. I am tired of this FUD implication that Google can steal all your data while others can't? What Google could do theoretically all other 'cloud' providers could do too, theoretically. How about comparing their actual records?

I think that Google might be in a slightly different position since Amazon and Apple already get money from you from selling their devices and services. Google and Facebook on the other hand, will only get money by selling us (and our data) as a target for their real customers, the advertisers.
Re:privacy implication FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:37 · Score: 0

Just in case you have not noticed all the Google=evil shit started about the same time as the Washington DC lobby based screw google campaign. At the same time microsoft shills that thrive on posting Google is evil crap on slashdot started showing up in large numbers. And you are 100% correct services associated with the Bing thing are just about the same as those offered by Google. I predict the whole cloud thing will essentially flop as micro sd storage and usb thumb drives have become so cheap. So essentially Microsoft still has Google, Android, Samsung and all the other Android device manufactures by the balls because of the fat and ntfs patents.
Of much greater concern is the fact that with these stupid file system patents Microsoft has succeeded in extorting everyone on the planet, obviously there is some serious money under the table going to the chip and drive manufactures to not show people how easy it is to use other file systems with usb. It is high time for Sony, Samsung and all the other manufactures to put the assholes in Redmond in their place and include software to use file systems other than fat and ntfs on on pcs with simple storage devices. Then tell Microsoft to go fuck itself once and for all and stop allowing them to extort manufactures.
Re:privacy implication FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:48 · Score: 0

More strawman stuff. What thehell has this article got to do with MS patents? Nothing that's what. Except of course you think google can do no wrong
Re:privacy implication FUD by dell623 · 2012-09-01 22:07 · Score: 2

Amazon sold the Kindle Fire at zero profit or a small loss according to most accounts, they get their money from you purchasing apps and content from Amazon, they want to know your habits just as much as Google does. Also remember, Google owns Motorola Mobility now, they are a hardware company too.
Also there is an unfair underlying implication in all this that just because Google is an advertising company it makes it more likely that they will violate their policies than other companies. That's not necessarily true. There's nothing to suggest that your private data is safer with one big company than another. If it will be lucrative for Google at some point to consider selling personal data about you, you can be damn sure Apple will have the same incentive to share the data it gathers from Apple maps and Siri and your contact list and iCloud and everything else. The only effective remedy is legal safeguards to keep all companies on their toes about privacy knowing there will be hell to pay if they screw up, rather than some vague idea notion that if you don't use Google services you'll be safer.
Privacy concerns with current technologies isn't just a Google issue. Raising alarm over a vague patent application is just stupid with so many real things to worry about, like TrapWire and INDECT.

Prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 20:51 · Score: 0

n/t

Re:Prior art by SwedishPenguin · 2012-09-01 21:37 · Score: 1

Yeah that was my first thought, how can they patent something that the research community has been doing for years?
Re:Prior art by dell623 · 2012-09-01 22:36 · Score: 1

You can patent anything these days. It's slightly less worrying to see Google patenting stuff because they have only used patents defensively. I am sure these days Google patents absolutely anything they can think of.
Re:Prior art by icebraining · 2012-09-01 23:48 · Score: 1

Sigh. They're not patenting the recognition, they're patenting a specific method of doing so. You need the read the claims.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Prior art by leptogenesis · 2012-09-02 01:29 · Score: 1

they're patenting a specific method of doing so.
There is nothing specific about the methods they're patenting. I just worked on a very similar project, and after reading the patent, I see very little separating what they patented from what we did. Indeed we don't use dimensionality reduction the way they suggest (although we did use it for a while), and we don't provide specific names for the objects we discover (though we have talked about doing so via crowdsourcing). Indeed our work is more recent than the patent filing, but people have been attempting similar things for ages (e.g. [1], [2]...they are very easy to find). Worse, the two papers I cite provide enough detail to actually produce a working system, whereas the patent provides little detail beyond a few references to well-known machine learning and computer vision techniques. And even when they suggest methodology, it's always "maybe we'll use this, maybe not", and further they tend to list several potential methods without any indication that they've researched which ones work.
Re:Prior art by plover · 2012-09-02 02:53 · Score: 1

You do realize that at the bottom of your project's page you list your sponsors, and they include Google. Did you carefully read the terms of the grant? It wouldn't surprise me if they own some kinds of rights to your work.

--
John
Re:Prior art by leptogenesis · 2012-09-02 03:26 · Score: 1

I don't even have access to read the terms of the grant, since the grant is for my advisor. As far as I know, Google does not have any specific rights to the research, which is why we were able to release the results, algorithm, and code into the public domain, and nobody has ever told me that dissemination or use would be restricted in any way. It's common for compaines like Google to fund public research that they will later have no control over, since this sort of work benefits Google more than it benefits any of its competitors. And no, that benefit doesn't depend on patents; it's simply because Google has access to huge amounts of data, compute power, and machine learning/computer vision expertise.
Re:Prior art by plover · 2012-09-02 10:45 · Score: 1

That's the idea behind patents. They aren't kept secret, so you can be free to publish anything that you want about them - but they are still owned by the rightsholder. The real question you could ask your advisor is if you are free to build a product or a business around this research, or if he is free to do so. If not, then it's likely the patent rights are owned by someone who is not your advisor.
Assuming it's Google, your advisor may still be free to monetize them. Whether or not Google attempts to defend them in court is a completely different issue. Google may only hold patents on the research ensuring that nobody else is in a position to clamp down on their execution. If so, that's a good thing.

--
John

Face Recognization by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-09-01 20:53 · Score: 0

Having have the time to read TFA yet, but just wondering, how does this patent differ from the Face Recognization routine?

Or maybe this patent will enable the software to pick up one particular face, out of the thousands, in the video?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Face Recognization by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-09-01 21:34 · Score: 4, Funny

Having have the time to read TFA yet, but just wondering, how does this patent differ from the Face Recognization routine?
Unlike the Face Recognization patent, this one has been written with the assistance of a spell checker.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Porn videos??!? audio description?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:01 · Score: 0

Both?

AD: There is white room with a dining table and a few chairs
AD: A blonde haired girl with large breasts is bent over the table
creaking
AD: A well endowed man is stood behind her
moans
AD: the man is thrusting faster
AD: the mans hands grab the girls breasts
moans increase
AD: the girl is moving her head back and forth, flicking her hair.
"ah ah"
AD: She looks at the camera, now we can see that she has a mans face ...

Hmm. Well Google good to see you moving accessibility technology forward,,,,,

Oh! So Google invented neural network algorithms? by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 21:10 · Score: 1

Rad.

OK, my beef is that it sounded to me that Image Recognition on a certain application got its own patent...

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.

Google Jungle View by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:11 · Score: 0

I'd like to see a radical expansion of their Street View, where someone carries a similar camera but smaller than their car uses, but walks, or uses a dune buggy or motorcycle and goes off road to collect even more data through places their cars wouldn't be able to access.

Re:Oh! So Google invented neural network algorithm by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 21:11 · Score: 1

That is application using image recognition..

Image recognition towards a certain applicaiton... ...

bah
sleep is for the weak.

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.

Re:Big Brother Style Mind Reading by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:20 · Score: 0

This provides excellent way for global mind reading. Like noted in this blog, mind reading can be nicely automated with Google's technology. In fact, this is already in use. It uses a combination of brain pattern matching, tiny video feed from your eyes and Google's technology to identify objects and context. It works wonderfully.

You might question how I know this? Because it's already in use. Such device has been planted in me and it is reading my mind. It knows my every thought and gives the device controllers voice notice of every object I put my eyes on. It is exactly like the technology Google is patenting and wants to develop. It's a huge opportunity for mass scale big brothering. I'm not entirely sure how widespread the mind reading technology is, but I do know this Google technology is part of it.

You have to fight against using these technologies. Yeah, it's "Google". That's what actually worries me a lot!

Sit down on this cot, we're going to give you a shot which will make you much more relaxed. And then
we are going to show you to your new room. Sorry, it has a very small window and you won't get out much,
but you will be safe from THEM.

.

A more likely use by robvangelder · 2012-09-01 21:24 · Score: 2

Is landmark identification within Google Street View

Re:A more likely use by ChinggisK · 2012-09-02 00:50 · Score: 1

Or Project Glass.
Re:A more likely use by gl4ss · 2012-09-02 03:29 · Score: 1

"virtual light" by gibson.
that's where project glass is headed (meant to be). it's pretty obvious too.
but if the general IDEA of it gets patented.. that's fucked up. because it's an obvious idea, tying it doing processing on a server should not be patent worthy. some individual algorithms in the machine vision part maybe would be patent worthy..

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Who would be the lesser of two evils? by pinkushun · 2012-09-01 21:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is bound to happen. The question is:

Would you prefer Google to patent this, or someone like Apple?

Personally I would trust Google to consider user rights a little bit more, but the exploitation of such a system is damn scary.

Re:Who would be the lesser of two evils? by MrMickS · 2012-09-01 21:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

Personally I would trust Google to consider user rights a little bit more, but the exploitation of such a system is damn scary.
I'd be interested to hear your reasoning behind that.
Google still have WiFi data that they collected when creating street view. Google and privacy aren't too things that go too well together, the overall impression I have is that they don't care about it at all.

--
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Re:Who would be the lesser of two evils? by Henriok · 2012-09-01 21:53 · Score: 0

Personally I would trust Google to consider user rights a little bit more, but the exploitation of such a system is damn scary.
So you'd rather trust a company who's business model is to sell information collected from and about you to who ever is willing to pay than a company with a reparation to not share any collected information about anything to anyone, no matter what the price?

--

- Henrik

- when the Shadows descend -
Re:Who would be the lesser of two evils? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 01:01 · Score: 0

You mean because Google, which, in case you chose to ignore that, is just a giant advertising company that sells you as their product, has somehow maintained to retain a better corporate image?
Yeah, because in comparison to Stalin, Hitler was a lot better.
And that tooootally means, it's OK for Hitler to kill Jews...
(If you now knee-jerk to "Godwin's Law", read up on the concept of a hyperbole to emphasize and highlight the crucial key point of an argument so even blind idiots get it.)
Re:Who would be the lesser of two evils? by snakeplissken · 2012-09-02 02:48 · Score: 1

actually i think your post would be an anti-godwin since
a) it wasn't anyone in the forum that you compared to hitler,
and
b) hitler came out the better in the comparison
Re:Who would be the lesser of two evils? by Patch86 · 2012-09-02 02:51 · Score: 1

... than a company with a reparation to not share any collected information about anything to anyone, no matter what the price?
Apple? You know they operate (as a minority income) exactly the same business model as Google right? They're just not as successful at it, and far more successful with their other revenue streams.
http://advertising.apple.com/
By the same token, Google also have the Apple business model (sell devices and services for cash to customers), but they're just not as good as that bit as Apple.
All companies are basically the same...
Re:Who would be the lesser of two evils? by tooyoung · 2012-09-02 05:34 · Score: 1

If it were Apple patenting this, we would be seeing hundreds of comments about how this was completely obvious, followed by hundreds of comments pointing to loosely related 'prior art'. Future Apple stories would be littered with highly moderated posts bemoaning the fact that Apple had patented using a camera.
Re:Who would be the lesser of two evils? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 19:47 · Score: 0

So you'd rather trust a company who's business model is to sell information collected from and about you to who ever is willing to pay than a company with a reparation to not share any collected information about anything to anyone, no matter what the price?
The question is: do I trust *any* company that is subject to U.S. (or other) laws that will make this information available to law enforcement? Or maybe I don't trust them to keep the information secure, so that outside parties may illegally gain access, such as foreign governments or hackers?
Re:Who would be the lesser of two evils? by pinkushun · 2012-09-03 02:23 · Score: 1

Indeed, they might not care at all, but they act like they may give an iota of a crap.
The debacle with Google collecting Publicly Open Unencrypted WiFi Communications was controversial, and even intentional *gasp*, yet:

But, the commission said, Google did not engage in illegal wiretapping because the data was flowing, unencrypted, over open radio waves.
I concede this means little regarding moral privacy, I mean they did it anyway, right?!
It was a wake-up call to people who are too ignorant or lazy to secure their networks. People need to learn, good for Them!
It falls in line with a campaign to raise awareness about what information you put out there.

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS PATENTABLE!?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:42 · Score: 0

I've been going to lectures and seminars on people trying to do this for years. How in hell is it not obvious, or logical progression, or any of the other things that should prevent a patent?

Re:WHY THE FUCK IS THIS PATENTABLE!?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 01:22 · Score: 0

Doing this is obvious, I'm guessing that the methods they're employing aren't. It's sort of like barbed wire, people had been making fences for centuries, but nobody had come up with that particular type of fence before then.
Re:WHY THE FUCK IS THIS PATENTABLE!?!? by Patch86 · 2012-09-02 03:00 · Score: 1

Hopefully (I've not checked) they're patenting a method of doing so, not just the woolly concept of "do it". That's the actual idea of patents, and why the Apple design patents are so daft. Anyone can say "I'm patenting thin rectangular devices" without having any designs that actually do so. But if I try to patent "a device for heating water to boiling point", I'd be expected to actually include the specific design for my kettle.
If Google have genuinely come up with a new, reliable way of doing something that "experts in the field" have been trying to do for years without success, that's a genuinely important invention. The sort the patent system is actually designed to reward.

Privacy Issues Aside... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:46 · Score: 0

There are some real world military applications for a patent such as this. Say someone takes a video that is less than kind to a particular government. That government can then learn where that video was take, who it was taken by, and where that person lives. Big brother indeed, with a darker twist.

All your privacy belong to us! by CuteSteveJobs · 2012-09-01 21:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem is you don't have a say over this: Even if you're not a iPhone-weilding Youtube-uploading Instagram-snapping Facebook-addicted Gmail-enabled Twitter-junkie, you will have friends that are and upload information about you without thinking about it. I'm Privacy aware, but many non-technical people aren't. Now add to that webcams and surveillance video and there is no escape. No wonder they've been dragging their heals on privacy legislation with real teeth: Corporations will love it for data-mining and government will love it for surveillance.

Take this girl: She had a photo snapped of her at a friend's BBQ. They uploaded it to Flikr without thinking, and next thing she knows she's on advertising billboards: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1047772/virgin-mobile-sued-virgin

Re:All your privacy belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:51 · Score: 1

> you will have friends that are and upload information about you without thinking about it
Do not have friends - problem solved
Re:All your privacy belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 22:54 · Score: 0

OMG WTF BBQ

Update on Allison Chang case by CuteSteveJobs · 2012-09-01 21:56 · Score: 1

Here's an update on what happened with that case: Even though she was only 15 years old when the photo was taken *and* it was used in a for-profit advertising without her permission, the courts sided with the phone company (Virgin) who did this and dismissed her case. Virgin was unapologetic

http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/

Re:Update on Allison Chang case by TranceThrust · 2012-09-02 00:15 · Score: 1

It does seem a bit odd to sue in Texas. Did they file a case in Australia as well?
Re:Update on Allison Chang case by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 00:31 · Score: 0

that's what you get for using some shitty open source license like Creative Commons...
Re:Update on Allison Chang case by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 01:26 · Score: 0

And people wonder why so many choose to release works as CC-NC.
Re:Update on Allison Chang case by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 02:12 · Score: 0

Virgin was unapologetic
Are you surprised? Virgin associated itself with Phorm. Yet another reason to avoid VM.
Re:Update on Allison Chang case by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 04:27 · Score: 0

Creative Commons is absolutely not to blame here. Creative commons relates only to the requirements for distribution and comercial usage of the picture itself, which the owner of the intelectual property of that picture decided should be free with attribution. It's his decision, and Virgin respected it.
What Virgin did not respect was the rights of image of the person depicted in the picture; they used her image as means to advertise something without her consent. This sounds like nothing, but consider for example if she were an employee of the competing cell phone operator. It only gets worst when you consider the fact that she was a minor when depicted.
On the flickr thread, I found a perfect comment:
"""
Using a persons image requires a model release, it does not matter what the photographer wants to do with their rights. The subject of the photograph DOES have rights regarding if they want to be associated with that product.
You can't just take a photo of Tom Cruise walking down the street and make a billboard "Come Cruise with us". Yes he is in public so it is ok to take his photo, yes the photographer is allowing you to use the image, no Tom did not authorise you to use his image in that context.
It does not matter if you are Tom Cruise or not, the same rights apply to everyone. Virgin are in deep deep do do. """

Hello! TLD! This exists, with code - HERE! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:56 · Score: 0

http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/Z.Kalal/tld.html

TLD

TLD is an award-winning, real-time algorithm for tracking of unknown objects in video streams. The object of interest is defined by a bounding box in a single frame. TLD simultaneously Tracks the object, Learns its appearance and Detects it whenever it appears in the video. The result is a real-time tracking that typically improves over time.

Due to its learning abilities, TLD has been advertised under name Predator. The video to the left introduces Predator and proposes several potential applications.

TLD has been developed by Zdenek Kalal during his PhD thesis supervised by Krystian Mikolajczyk and Jiri Matas. The main contributions of TLD have been presented at international computer-vision conferences. For his work on TLD, Zdenek Kalal has been awarded the UK ICT Pioneers 2011.

Key Features

TLD tracks currently only a single object
Input: video stream from single monocular camera, bounding box defining the object
Output: object location in the stream, object detector
Implementation: Matlab + C, single thread, no GPU
No offline training stage
Real-time performance on QVGA video stream
Ported to Windows, Mac OS X and Linux

Free Version

TLD can be downloaded for testing. We provide a precompiled demo (Windows) and a source code that is released under GPL version 3.0. In short, it means that any distributed project that includes or links any portion of TLD source code has to be released with the source code under the GPL version 3.0 license or later.
Commercial Version

A license has to be purchased for using TLD in closed source projects. The licencing is managed the University of Surrey. Please contact the Technology Transfer Office at the University of Surrey for further information.
More Information

High-level description of TLD
Components of TLD
Learning component of TLD
Application of TLD tracker to faces
Detailed description is in the following papers: ICCV'09 (w), CVPR'10, ICIP'10, ICPR'10
Many technical questions (e.g. installation) are being discussed in the following discussion group.

FAQ

How do you manage the number of templates in TLD?
For the moment, we do not put any constraints on the number of templates in memory. The number of templates typically stabilizes around 100, depending on the appearance variability of the object and background.
What kind of hardware is TLD running on?
TLD has been tested using standard hardware: webcam, Intel Core 2 Duo CPU 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, no GPU processing is used and runs in a single thread. The demands of the algorithm depend on required accuracy of the algorithm.
To what degree is TLD invariant to light levels?
We use illumination-invariant features for detection. So as long as the changes in illumination are global, the performance does not change. If there is a strong local illumination change, the system is learning the appearance changes thus created.

Re:Hello! TLD! This exists, with code - HERE! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:59 · Score: 0

MOD PARENT UP! wtf google someone contact this guy who made TLD.. STAT!

99% of all videos on the internet is porn by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 21:57 · Score: 0

The algorithm shouldn't be too hard if it has a 1% chance of error. Technically it's anything that ISN'T porn that it can't scan for.

O Tempora o Mores by SimplexBang · 2012-09-01 22:02 · Score: 1

Did the Gauls worry about their privacy when Caesar wrote his "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" ? Could they have done anything about it ? Did it matter ?

--
Avoid your fears , or wonder at the past

They'll get it by thetoadwarrior · 2012-09-01 22:10 · Score: 1

I'm sure the government will see to it that they get this so Google and provide them information about brown people in return.

People should host their own content or find a company not interested in takin gall their data to sell advertisements and quit handing their life to google.

Augmented Reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 22:26 · Score: 0

We all knew it was coming. Not really a new concept, smart move to patent this since everybody is suing everybody.

Surrender my privacy by collet · 2012-09-01 22:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look, I really don't care what Google knows about me. I don't care if they know every single website I visit, how many steps it takes me to get to a McDonalds, or what color my toothbrush is.

If their targeted advertising means I'll never have to see another ad for tampons and lipstick, or a bar in Austria (a place where I don't live), then I'm happy.

Re:Surrender my privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 23:31 · Score: 0

Ad blockers, it works wonders and you get to keep your privacy (or what's left of it, anyway)! (at least for the most part of the internet anyway)
Re:Surrender my privacy by cheekyjohnson · 2012-09-02 00:05 · Score: 1

Why wouldn't you care? Do you also not care if the government has access to all that information? If the government lacks information, and they know a privacy company has it, I'd say it's highly likely that they'll go after that information (and they'll probably get it, too).

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Surrender my privacy by dzfoo · 2012-09-02 00:38 · Score: 1

Fair enough. To each his own, I always say.
I, on the other hand, do care, and I expect my opinion to be just a valid as yours.
Then, if we agree on that, would you also agree that such a system should be strictly opt-in, so that those--like you--that do not care about their privacy may take advantage of whatever added value Google offers with this service?
So, why hasn't this been the case so far with other similar technologies that have the potential to threaten personal privacy--especially from Google?
dZ.

--
Carol vs. Ghost
...Can you save Christmas?
Re:Surrender my privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 09:50 · Score: 0

How sad for you that you would sell out your privacy just for targeted ads.
The fact that you see random ads means the advertiser has no fucking clue who you are, and that is how it should be. In an ideal world, there would be no advertising stalking users from page to page while executing scripts and dropping tracking cookies whenever possible. Blame the dumbfucks who added cookies to Netscape Navigator that far back for cookie tracking, and blame the engineers who first thought to use scripts for ad tracking.
As for Google, Doubleclick, Fastclick, Partner2Profit, etc. they can all go to hell. I will adblock whenever possible, block scripts and cookies whenever possible, and if I have ever clicked on an ad it is because the page moved when I was clicking or the advertiser used a fake close button.
Re:Surrender my privacy by cOldhandle · 2012-09-02 10:21 · Score: 1

You are a corporation's dream consumer - willing to give up all privacy in return for... being subjected to slightly more relevant advertising!
Re:Surrender my privacy by collet · 2012-09-02 10:28 · Score: 1

That's a fair point. I do trust my government (for the moment), and if I've committed some crime then I think they should be entitled to use this against me.
Of course, some governments are nicer than others...
Re:Surrender my privacy by cheekyjohnson · 2012-09-02 18:40 · Score: 1

I do trust my government
Well, I certainly don't. They seem to enjoy molesting people at airports and spying on people's communications. Anyone they don't like is labeled a terrorist. The people who get into the government are not and never have been perfect beings; trusting them with such ridiculous amounts of power is foolhardy.

if I've committed some crime
I'm sure you have. If you're in the US, for instance, there are so many laws that it's nearly impossible to know whether or not you have.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Distributed Camera by taiwanjohn · 2012-09-01 22:51 · Score: 1

There's a Google Tech-Talk that got posted a few days ago, which is not specifically about this patent, but may shed some light on what they have in mind: The Distributed Camera: Modeling the World from Online Photos

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC

big brother runs linux so it's all good! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 23:14 · Score: 0

sure google is an out of control monstrosity that wants to spy on you and you and sell your personal information to the highest bidder but hey they used linux in their phone so it's cool!

Turns out they were wrong by way2trivial · 2012-09-01 23:34 · Score: 2

the Revolution will NOT be televised, or it's never gonna get off the fucking ground....

too easy to identify the participants now....

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

Prior Art by Bizzeh · 2012-09-01 23:34 · Score: 0

doesnt BMW's, and Porsches rear parking cameras already do this, and do it in real time too?

--
portfolio

This has already been done by gatkinso · 2012-09-02 00:01 · Score: 1

A patent search will not turn up this patent. This particular patent holder can retroactively exercise their patent rights. They are the only patent hold that can do this.

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.

Google , Facebook .. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 00:33 · Score: 0

All the same .. they are fantastic law enforcement tools , FBI , CIA , NSA information hungry organisations
love to track and know everything about you. They dont give a donkey's tail whether or not it suits you.
It suits the needs of their masters. Spying tools for spies.
As long as idiots are jumping in " social networking " and posting their lives and letting themselves be tracked even by GPS
and the governments and law enforcement know every minute what they do and where they are , why should they stop ?

Go ahead , share your data. You feed the beast.

My life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 01:45 · Score: 0

How will this affect my puny little life exactly?
Oh, it won't in any way, shape or form?
Ok, carry on.

I'm sure I've seen something similar... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 01:58 · Score: 0

that might be considered prior art. Let me just search for that. Hmm.... what could possibly go wrong.

This has been done! by elabs · 2012-09-02 03:10 · Score: 1

Siggraph has had several submissions doing this same thing. I hope the patent fails.

Re:Big Brother Style Mind Reading by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-02 03:22 · Score: 2

Sit down on this cot, we're going to give you a shot which will make you much more relaxed. And then
we are going to show you to your new room. Sorry, it has a very small window and you won't get out much,
but you will be safe from THEM.

You must have missed the memo. The drugs are too expensive and we don't have enough space for private rooms.

Here's some tinfoil. Make a nice hat.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

I Predict by Greyfox · 2012-09-02 06:25 · Score: 1

The next story out of Google will be that the software was deleted after it realized that 90+% of the pictures on the Internet are penises and needed therapy.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

A deserved patent? by Compaqt · 2012-09-02 06:32 · Score: 1

Although I'm skeptical of software patents, if there are going to be software patents, then this would be one that deserves it.

I mean, this actually took some work and innovation. It's not a simple DrawRect (or whatever) with a rounded corner radius set, which any high schooler in a programming class could do.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

Re:A deserved patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 09:57 · Score: 0

As someone who does image recognition work, this entire thing does not deserve to be a software patent. There is nothing in this that is not part of every object recognition system out there. Take a look at the pipeline, it's exactly what every recogntion process does; they even reference a large number of different algorithms for each of the individual parts (features: SIFT, textures, color, gabor / haar wavelets; segmentation: background subtraction, spatial / temporal segmentation, clustering, etc.; dimensionality reduction: PCA, LDA, MDS, isomaps, etc.)
The only part that could be considered innovative appears to the be consistency learning. In that, Google is trying to use the large amounts of data that they have to perform learning on unlabeled or weakly labeled data. One of the really big problems with image recogniton is getting enough labeled data to teach your algorithm to recognize objects in the range of distances, aspects, lighting, etc, that they present themselves. See the discussion of it in Ming Zhao et al.'s paper called 'Large Scale Learning and Recogntiion of FAces in Web Videos", http://research.google.com/pubs/MachinePerception.html

Goggles by viperidaenz · 2012-09-02 08:50 · Score: 1

Sounds good for google glass version 2+ too. I'd like to be able to look at something and be shown relevant information without having to describe it in a way a search engine expects. Reminds me of Continuum.

Re:Goggles by viperidaenz · 2012-09-02 08:50 · Score: 1

... and Terminator

Is IBM's Watson prior art for claim 22? by Randym · 2012-09-02 14:20 · Score: 1

22. The system of claim 19, the actions of the analysis module further comprising: identifying a plurality of object names having the highest probabilities of having a visual representation within a first visual content item in the visual content repository; and revising a list of labels within metadata associated with the first visual content item, based at least in part on the identified plurality of object names.

Especially United States Patent 8250019 (System and method for interactive knowledge visualization) claim 9:

9. A method for interactive knowledge visualization, comprising: receiving, at a knowledge visualization server, a request for one or more visualizations; retrieving data associated with the one or more visualizations from one or more databases; converting the data associated with the one or more visualizations into visualization data,...

--
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.

It's not about YouTube by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-02 18:53 · Score: 0

It's about Google Glass.

I think it is great by peawormsworth · 2012-09-03 08:31 · Score: 1

If you post a video to youtube, then you want it to be public. If you are filmed and put onto youtube, you were in public or gave permission to be filmed in private. If this is not the case, then it will be easier for you to locate the violations and request their removal. This is a benefit to privacy. I like the idea and would like to see this service in action. I support youtube with this invovation and request that those who perfer privacy continue to stay away from youtube and public spaces.

Slashdot Mirror

Google Patents Software To Identify Real-World Objects In Videos

150 comments