Google Patents Software To Identify Real-World Objects In Videos

hypnosec writes "Google has been recently granted a patent that could not only improve online search, but also will possibly give the search engine giant an awful lot of information about the world. Google wants to scan and analyze the content within videos (YouTube videos, most probably) and look for objects in the real world, identify them, and make a catalogue out of those objects. The patent describes Google's technology of scanning a video, picking out landmarks, objects and context; and subsequent tagging and categorization." Adds reader MojoKid: "The privacy implications of such an automated system are enormous. Facebook's own automatic facial recognition software was highly controversial when it debuted, and what Google has now patented puts Facebook to shame. 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."

Comments

Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken).

[ccguy]

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).

[c0lo]

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).

Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken).

[Knuckles]

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.

Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken).

[Taco Cowboy]

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

Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken).

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

[horza]

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.

Re:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken).

[ccguy]

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).

[psiclops]

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.

Re:Big Brother Style Mind Reading

[siddesu]

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

Expectation of Privacy

[Angrywhiteshoes]

>> 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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[causality]

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.

privacy implication FUD

[dell623]

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

[BSAtHome]

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

[dell623]

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.

A more likely use

[robvangelder]

Is landmark identification within Google Street View

Who would be the lesser of two evils?

[pinkushun]

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:Face Recognization

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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.

All your privacy belong to us!

[CuteSteveJobs]

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

Surrender my privacy

[collet]

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.

Turns out they were wrong

[way2trivial]

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

too easy to identify the participants now....

Re:Big Brother Style Mind Reading

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:If you're worried about this...

[ultranova]

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.