Replacing Humans With CGI Animations To Protect Anonymity In Video Footage (thestack.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Replacing Humans With CGI Animations To Protect Anonymity In Video Footage (thestack.com)

Posted by samzenpus on Monday October 19, 2015 @07:03PM from the privacy-please dept.

An anonymous reader writes: New research (PDF) from the University of Zagreb proposes the de-identification of innocent individuals in closed circuit footage by replacing them with CGI animations which either guess their skeletal motion or impose the animation via Kinect-style movement sensors. In order to preserve the raw footage, the original frames are then re-encoded via steganographic techniques into the final amended output.

44 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Movement patterns by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-19 19:06 · Score: 0

From my understanding, it's relatively easy to identify a person by it's movements. Will this obfuscation prevent this?
1. Re:Movement patterns by Kkloe · 2015-10-20 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  if anything this will add just add a new database to help identify people
2. Re:Movement patterns by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-20 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  No. I know this much: my eyesight isn't the greatest. But I can recognize my son walking toward me from a hundred yards based solely on his gait.
3. Re:Movement patterns by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-20 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  From my understanding, it's relatively easy to identify a person by it's movements. Will this obfuscation prevent this?
  [citation needed]
4. Re:Movement patterns by Pseudonymous+Powers · 2015-10-20 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  From my understanding, it's relatively easy to identify a person by it's movements. Will this obfuscation prevent this?
  [citation needed]
  Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Ahhhhhhhhhh! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-19 19:16 · Score: 1

Now THAT explains Hillary...
blur by alzoron · 2015-10-19 19:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

How is this different than simply blurring out other than being more complicated?
1. Re:blur by jellomizer · 2015-10-19 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  I can see this as less of trying to protect the identity of the person, but more to being about to make a 3d model of a crime scene.
  If we can see where people are and their actions then put 3d models of them. Then we can take a look at the video at different angles and perspective.
  When a video show a cop shooting an unarmed person. If we look at the events from the eyes of the cop, it may show the action from his point of view was more threatening, or we can look at it from the eyes of the person who got shot, where he may have seen the cop threatening him more than he should, or about to have physical contact.
  The issue is Truth is in the eyes of the beholder. We we think is true, isn't always so, What we state as truth is based on our field of senses, and our emotional state at the time. We humans do a lot or predictive reasoning and filling in many gaps, and filtering out a lot of information. Being able to see the incident at different angles is far more important than anonymizing the person, which can be done by blurring the face very easily.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:blur by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-19 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  Are you trying to say that it would be better if the justice system took the subjective feelings of the people involved into consideration.
  Isn't it a bit problematic to make murder legal for people who feel more threatened?
3. Re:blur by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-20 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  "self-defense" in a nutshell.
4. Re:blur by Triklyn · 2015-10-20 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  they already.
  with all those test, would a "normal" person reasonably feel threatened in this situation?
5. Re:blur by mrchaotica · 2015-10-20 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about whether the person involved felt threatened; it's about whether an impartial observer agrees that it was reasonable for the person to have felt threatened.
  At least, that's how it's supposed to be. When the person claiming self-defense is a police officer, all bets are off...
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Thus by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2015-10-19 19:55 · Score: 1

makeing the word safe for phototbombers everywhere.
1. Re:Thus by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-20 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  bird is the word
just in time for halloween! by Escogido · 2015-10-19 19:58 · Score: 1

I can see a few novel ways to trick (as in trick-or-treat) people with this...
Product placement! by HeadSoft · 2015-10-19 19:58 · Score: 1

In other words, if you don't pay, all the signs and ads in our movie will say "Food" and "Beverage" and "Generic Service".
Protect? Preserve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-19 19:59 · Score: 1

That means that only the select few "in control" have access to the original.
Sometimes I have the impression that "protection of my personal data" means quite different (opposite?) things to me and e.g. to Google (Facebook/Microsoft/whoever).
Given with whom politicians are in bed (e.g. EU's "European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society" spends eighty per cent of his time with industry lobby), I guess whose standpoint our "elected" hold.
Pitchforks? Guillotines?
1. Re:Protect? Preserve? by DNS-and-BIND · 2015-10-19 20:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Congratulations, you win this thread's award for "most obtuse way of twisting the topic everyone else is talking about back to the out-of-left-field subject that is currently obsessing your brain."
  Are you interested in social justice? I have a newsletter you might be interested to subscribe to.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
2. Re:Protect? Preserve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-19 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  And worse, what the Republicans are doing to us all. Doing to us all.
You know fine well that an article would appear on by pancakegeels · 2015-10-19 20:00 · Score: 1

"Identifying anonymised testimony participants from facial muscle reconstruction derived from CGI reconstruction"
What's in it for the various CCTV operators? by Coisiche · 2015-10-19 20:42 · Score: 2

Nice idea from academia but it seems like it's something that current operators of CCTV wouldn't use unless they were legally forced to.
1. Re:What's in it for the various CCTV operators? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-19 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  This.
  As a camera owner I want to have everyone filmed and identified. Why not? If they don't like this, stay out of my cameras'.
  Since this is what all camera owners want, why would the manufacturers pay to deliver a less desirable product.
2. Re: What's in it for the various CCTV operators? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-19 21:07 · Score: 0
  
  It is intended to be used for FOIA requests of bulk video footage.
3. Re:What's in it for the various CCTV operators? by Sique · 2015-10-19 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  As I have no choice where you point your camera at, it's not my turn to stay out of your camera's view. It's up to you to get my expressive permission to take any footage of me.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
4. Re:What's in it for the various CCTV operators? by Triklyn · 2015-10-20 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  nah, if it's his property, or public property, he can take as many pictures of your business as he wants.
  you only have an expectation of privacy on your own property.
Other research includes by thegarbz · 2015-10-19 20:46 · Score: 2

The effect of medicinal marijuana on the quality of research at the University of Zagreb's department of WTF.
Huh? by Hognoxious · 2015-10-19 22:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

In order to preserve the raw footage, the original frames are then re-encoded via steganographic techniques into the final amended output.

I'm confused. If you want to keep the original, why not just keep it somewhere else rather than jumping through hoops and potentially bringing its authenticity into question?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Who Decides? by dcw3 · 2015-10-19 22:34 · Score: 1

Who decides if the animation is a cute, innocent looking being, or a deformed troll? Appearances matter in the court of public opinion.

--
Just another day in Paradise
1. Re:Who Decides? by Mal-2 · 2015-10-19 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ralph pls go.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
2. Re:Who Decides? by ultranova · 2015-10-20 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Who decides if the animation is a cute, innocent looking being, or a deformed troll?
  
  Your advertisers, of course. Just imagine the propaganda possibilities, not just by framing a single incident but by showing which classes of people exist, and how do they associate, at the background of every video.
  The Youtube of tomorrow will sell advertising space not just before and between videos, but also in the censor bars.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
3. Re:Who Decides? by dcw3 · 2015-10-20 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ralph pls go.
  You've totally lost me.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
4. Re:Who Decides? by Mal-2 · 2015-10-20 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  You've totally lost me.
  Deformed troll.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Fraud? by MagickalMyst · 2015-10-19 23:05 · Score: 1

This looks like it could be another avenue for fraudulent activity.

--
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
"...the de-identification of innocent individuals" by tlambert · 2015-10-19 23:05 · Score: 2

"...the de-identification of innocent individuals"
So whoever is left is guilty, right? That'd be a convenient way for juries to decide things...
Protecting anonimity is one use for it. by mark_reh · 2015-10-19 23:18 · Score: 1

Creating a false record of someone's presence is another way to use it.
Hmmmm.
Simpsons 3D by Ostracus · 2015-10-20 00:30 · Score: 1

Somehow I was thinking of that episode of the Simpsons when Homer comes into our world.

--
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
1. Re:Simpsons 3D by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-20 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  That would be awesome!
  Either that or turn the whole crowd into Minions.
What I thought I'd do was, pretend I was one... by RyanFenton · 2015-10-20 00:45 · Score: 2

Reminds me a lot of Ghost in the Shell, Standalone Complex..
Ryan Fenton
Walking with the Dead by Crowd+Computing · 2015-10-20 00:53 · Score: 2

Yes, replace all the non-essential characters with zombie avatars!
1. Re:Walking with the Dead by JazzLad · 2015-10-20 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, they did that starting with the first episode :)
  
  --
  "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
2. Re:Walking with the Dead by jewens · 2015-10-20 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  That is one of the ways they use a game engine to gamify/monetize stuff like airport security in Neal Stephenson's REAMDE. Except I think they used orcs.
  
  --
  That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
Re:"...the de-identification of innocent individua by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-20 01:20 · Score: 0

Nobody would believe a that a painting was an accurate, unerring representation of a crime. Video will soon hold the same weight.
Why are you so intent on filming... by denzacar · 2015-10-20 11:23 · Score: 1

...all those underage boys on the beach?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens