Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Satellites Could Soon See Your Face From Space

Posted by Unknown on from the google-face-view dept.

Jason Koebler (3528235) writes Two months ago, after much lobbying by the biggest satellite company in North America, DigitalGlobe, the US government relaxed restrictions to allow for commercially available satellite imagery up to 25 cm resolution—twice as detailed as the previous limit of 50 cm.
The DigitalGlobe's Worldview-3, the first commercial satellite set to capture these high-res images is set to launch this Wednesday. Six months after that, private businesses, including its regular client Google, will be able to get their hands on hyper-detailed photos and videos of the globe.

26 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. but... my face is smaller than 25 cm? by davecotter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    doesn't that mean my entire face would be 1 pixel large?

    1. Re:but... my face is smaller than 25 cm? by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shhh... You aren't supposed to bring facts into a "ZOMFG SCARY HEADLINE!" debate!

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:but... my face is smaller than 25 cm? by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Funny

      You've seen the graphics in Minecraft, haven't you? Pixels can get pretty detailed...

    3. Re:but... my face is smaller than 25 cm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah yes but you forget...

      ENHANCE!

    4. Re:but... my face is smaller than 25 cm? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      You know, some of us walk around with our heads pointing to the sky with a 800cm^2 magnifying glass over us. You insensitive clod!

      I hope you live in Seattle or Portland. And have some Joo Janta 200 sunglasses and an awfully large Aloe Vera garden.

    5. Re:but... my face is smaller than 25 cm? by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "doesn't that mean my entire face would be 1 pixel large?"

      Americans have much larger faces, even their centimeters are 2,54 larger.

    6. Re:but... my face is smaller than 25 cm? by gweilo8888 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This. Ridiculous, fearmongering flamebait from Slashdot, something this site is increasingly becoming associated with.

      You know what Slashdot's editors want us to be terrified of the privacy implications from? Something significantly lower-resolution than existing aerial photos like this image.

      Download the image, and measure the length of runway 3/21 in pixels from threshold to threshold. (Approx. 6341 pixels.) Figure out how long it should be at 25cm per pixel. (4876 pixels.) Scale the image appropriately (7500 pixels wide.) Zoom in to 1:1 resolution onscreen.

      Now, are you terrified? No? Nor am I. Want to confirm I'm right about the scaling? Find a car and measure the length: it should be about 20 pixels, or 500cm for a typical full-sized US car. (I tried one, and the first one I tried was exactly 20 pixels.)

      So no, I'm not scared. What I am is mildly amused that the myth of satellites that can read newspapers from space still exists. That, and surprised that imagery this (still relatively) low-resolution was ever off limits in the Internet age. And a bit disgusted that a supposed nerd site insults the intelligence of nerds who know far better, this readily.

      I really should stop coming back here.

    7. Re:but... my face is smaller than 25 cm? by Herve5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not specially. It depends on the satellite altitude. For low orbits, a 1-m telescope is vastly sufficient for 25-cm resolutions.
      Maybe you are confused with Geostationary orbits, where indeed enormous mirrors would be required to get hi-res (GEO stays interesting because of its permanence : only from tyere you can get a "movie"; from low orbits it's images "on the fly")

      --
      Herve S.
    8. Re:but... my face is smaller than 25 cm? by rpstrong · · Score: 2

      No, it's chins all the way down.

  2. 25 cm resolution by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Your face will occupy all of one quarter of a pixel 25cm x 25cm. Good luck seeing your face from satellite. It is high res. But not so high as to see a face.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:25 cm resolution by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

      The average human head is 14.5cm x 23cm x 20cm, so you are quite correct that it would mean that the average human head would occupy less than 1 pixel regardless of which axis it was observed across.

      The largest recorded human head was 15.9cm x 25.5cm x 23.9cm, meaning that said person could require a second pixel, if they were observed in the appropriate axis.

      It is important to note that if a person was observed laying down on the ground, they would occupy *up to* 10 pixels in the case of the world's tallest person, but the average would only require 6.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:25 cm resolution by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

      It'd be like first pass downloading interlaced porn from the BBS days...

      For those that don't know what I'm talking about...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:25 cm resolution by Kjella · · Score: 2

      The average human head is 14.5cm x 23cm x 20cm, so you are quite correct that it would mean that the average human head would occupy less than 1 pixel

      I'd argue a little differently, that pixel is primarily made up of your face/head (>50%). It's probably good enough to tell your skin or hair color, depending on angle.

      It is important to note that if a person was observed laying down on the ground, they would occupy *up to* 10 pixels in the case of the world's tallest person, but the average would only require 6.

      He'd be up to 10 pixels long. Actually 11 pixels, if you don't restrict yourself to tallest living person. But I'm guessing he's more than 10 inches wide, so I expect around twice the area except maybe the top pixel for the head. And more if you stretch out your arms, say two more to each side. So more like 1 (head) + 2*5 (body, legs) + 2*2 (arms) = 15 pixels, not 6.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. Our they could use Planes by Flyskippy1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They could get better and better satellites with higher resolutions, and continuously lobby the US government to allow higher resolutions to be released.

    Or they could use planes, and StreetView cars... Like they currently do.

    1. Re:Our they could use Planes by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      The planes imagery is what the western world gets already.

      This would be a great benefit to more remote areas however.

    2. Re:Our they could use Planes by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      Commissioning ariel photography is very expensive, is only done occasionally rather than continuously, and Putin would take a very dim view of you flying your plane over his army that he says isn't even there.

  4. Re:At this rate... by bjwest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What kind of honest lives? We probably can't rule out the possibility that they can, in the future, tape your sex act at home from all the way in space. So in that case we should stop having kids then? That would get rid of most of the human race pretty quick

    Thinking sex between consenting people is dishonest, shameful and/or immoral has led to many of the draconian laws on the books today.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  5. If you think nobody's head is that big... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...you obviously haven't been hanging around here for long.

  6. I trust them by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have complete confidence that companies will follow all laws even for things that are to be placed forever out of the reach of inspectors. Even if they could, they would never just put an artificial restriction on the equipment for when some clueless government inspector wants to do the pre-launch check.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  7. Google already has high-res imagery by Guspaz · · Score: 2

    Google and other online map-providing companies supplement satellite imagery with aerial photography, and as far as I know, there are no limits on that sort of thing.

  8. Re:Street view... by ShaunC · · Score: 4, Informative

    A lot of what shows up on Google Maps, especially in larger metro areas, has been photographed from planes. They're only up on nice VFR days, so there's no atmosphere in the way. Better resolution satellite stuff from Digital Globe will be nice to see, but aircraft will continue to dominate the commercial aerial imagery sector for quite awhile.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  9. Umbrella by johnslater · · Score: 2

    And we're done.

  10. Re:Evil doer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The company whose boss said I should not expect privacy on Internet will soon have satellites.

    That is not what he said. Here is the quote:

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,"

    This was in December 2009, as China's efforts to read dissident's emails were coming to light. There is a reasonable chance that he knew what Snowden told us. I think this was a warning.

  11. So don't look up by ignavus · · Score: 2

    I always walk around outside looking at the ground (don't like the sight of moving people).

    Google isn't going to film my face from space - at least, not until they cover the ground with mirrors.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  12. 50cm limit was on selling, not taking photos. by Moskit · · Score: 2

    AFAIK this limit was for _selling_ photos commercially, not for taking them. Those satellites could already take photos at higher resolution (25cm or better), they just had to be provided to USA government and noone else.
    50cm images sold commercially were probably upsampled from 25cm photos anyway.

    Limit was also only applicable in USA (obviously), and was changed to allow USA companies to compete with rest of the world as technologies advance.

  13. Re:What do they mean (serious question)? by shortscruffydave · · Score: 2

    That higher resolution is because you're looking at an image captured from an aircraft flying at a much lower altitude than a satellite.