Slashdot Mirror


The Google Clips Camera Puts AI Behind the Lens (theverge.com)

The Verge's Dieter Bohn reviews Google's AI camera, dubbed "Clips," which was announced alongside the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL. Here's an excerpt: You know what a digital camera is. It's a lens and a sensor, with a display to see what you're looking at, and a button to take the picture. Google Clips is a camera, but it only has some of those parts. There's no display. There's a shutter button, but it's completely optional to use. Instead, it takes pictures for you, using machine learning to recognize and learn faces and look for interesting moments to record. I don't know if parents -- Google's target market -- will want it. I don't know if Google can find a way to explain everything it is (and isn't) to a broad enough audience to sell the thing in big numbers, especially at $249. I also don't know what the release date will be, beyond that it will be "coming soon." But I do know that it's the most fascinating camera I've used in a very long time.

26 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. More ways to mine your privacy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It puts AI behind the lens, and your data in China.

    And Poland.

    And Uzbekistan.

    And Uruguay.

    1. Re:More ways to mine your privacy! by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's okay. As long as the data is kept out of reach of the American three letter agencies, I feel better. Those are the ones with an ability to harm me, and an incentive to justify their existence.

    2. Re:More ways to mine your privacy! by nasch · · Score: 2

      You didn't actually read the article, did you?

      The first is that everything on Clips happens locally. Nothing is synced with Google's cloud at all — except the photos you save into Google Photos. All the facial recognition happens on the device using its own processing power. None of it is paired up with whatever facial recognition you may have set up in Google Photos. It doesn't pair faces with names, it just recognizes faces it sees a bunch over time...

      The clips the camera takes are also stored only on the camera itself. They don't try to sync over to your phone unless you ask for them. They're also encrypted on the camera, in case you lose it.

    3. Re:More ways to mine your privacy! by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      It's a valid point.

      While I am concerned about all spying, I am much less concerned about foreign powers spying on me than domestic ones. Foreign powers are much less able to do me harm that domestic powers.

    4. Re: More ways to mine your privacy! by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Why do you think I didn't read that? I did, but there's two points to be made here:

      First, I'm not going to believe it just because they said it. That claim needs to be tested and verified.

      Second, that can change at any time.

  2. the hell!? by Blymie · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh come on! COME ON!

    It's bad enough that even on hacked phones, we don't have access to the firmwares. And that we have no idea, 100% idea if the NSA/etc can exploit vulnerabilities to take pics even on a clean phone.

    Even outside of that, on 'normal' phones, no doubt 1/2 the malware on Google Play is the CIA.

    But no. That's not enough.

    Now people are going to willingly walk around with devices that take pics of everything they do. What the hell man!

    #_$)#@+_$)@#_+$)@#+$)@+_#)$+_

    1. Re:the hell!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      we have no idea, 100% idea if the NSA/etc can exploit vulnerabilities to take pics even on a clean phone.

      With this, NSA can just stream the images from Google. Don't even need to bother to hack any of the cameras, the fools will buy the cameras and pay for the bandwidth to stream images backs to Google and thus NSA.

    2. Re:the hell!? by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      Speak for yourself. I want better lifelogging; I find the current state of lifelogging apps, like Sony's "Lifelogger", quite poor. I'd love an app that logs *everything* I do, from as many sensors as it can, constrained only by realistic storage / bandwidth constraints. If something like this could be built into my cellphone or a cheap cell accessory, that would be awesome.

      The main problem with it being simply an app on a cell phone is that cells have only front and rear cameras, but for a cell in your pocket what you really want is a side camera (which nobody has). But I can picture solutions for that problem...

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    3. Re:the hell!? by geekmux · · Score: 3

      Speak for yourself. I want better lifelogging; I find the current state of lifelogging apps, like Sony's "Lifelogger", quite poor. I'd love an app that logs *everything* I do, from as many sensors as it can, constrained only by realistic storage / bandwidth constraints. If something like this could be built into my cellphone or a cheap cell accessory, that would be awesome.

      The main problem with it being simply an app on a cell phone is that cells have only front and rear cameras, but for a cell in your pocket what you really want is a side camera (which nobody has). But I can picture solutions for that problem...

      Please understand that while you may want to record *everything* you do, the rest of us do not, nor do we want to be included.

      And to clarify, the main problem we have here is technology like this bullshit does not leave us with a fucking choice to NOT participate. I have enough cameras and invasion of privacy going on right now, paid for by my taxes. I sure as shit don't need more.

      And right now, I can't "picture" a solution to solve for the endless amount of narcissists invading society that seek to destroy the concept of privacy altogether.

    4. Re:the hell!? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      How about a full-body silver-bubblewrap suit with tinted visor? As a bonus it could have environment controls, heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. And as an added bonus, it could have front-facing camera to record your precious moments.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:the hell!? by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) I love datasets. If I decide later that I want to, say, check how long it usually takes me to drive from Point A to Point B, or see if I noticed an earthquake on a particular day or really bloody anything I think up later, I want the data.

      2) I like being able to look up things about my past. E.g., a coworker says "Oh, hey, I don't see you signed in on July 6th - do you know why?" I can go back and see "Oh yeah, I was sick then" or "I was in, but I was in a rush because of A and B and forgot to sign in" or "Oh yeah, I took a day of vacation then, did the vacation registration not go through?"

      3) Sometimes my memory isn't great. It's great to have an "artificial memory" that never forgets

      4) The inevitable "He said" / "she said" argument. You have proof right on-hand. Prove it to yourself first, and if you're right, prove it to the other person.

      5) Contextualizing the past. Why do people take pictures or videos of major events? To remember and revisit them later. Why not have as much data as you can for those past events?

      6) Rescue. If your phone logs everything to the cloud, and you have it set up so that friends or family members can access it in an emergency, it makes it a lot more likely that you'll be found.

      7) Crime. I used to be on Google Latitude, but there was a couple month period in which I was using a phone in which it wasn't enabled, and during that period I was a victim of a crime in a place I wasn't familiar with. It was extreme difficult for me to find the location where it occurred. Full logging would not only have recorded the location, but also all of the details to prove its existence.

      And on and on and on.

      What I don't understand is why so many of you are afraid of logging yourselves. What the heck are you doing that you're so terrified of governments hacking into your data and stealing it?

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    6. Re:the hell!? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      4) The inevitable "He said" / "she said" argument. You have proof right on-hand. Prove it to yourself first, and if you're right, prove it to the other person.

      Yeah, that always works well with the Mrs ...

    7. Re:the hell!? by nasch · · Score: 2

      It sounds like it can't even connect to the internet. Rather it is a wifi hotspot and you connect your phone to the camera to download photos. Presumably some security researcher will check it out and make sure it can't do anything it's not supposed to.

    8. Re:the hell!? by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      What the heck are you doing that you're so terrified of governments hacking into your data and stealing it?

      In other words, "If you have nothing to hide...". This 23-page PDF does an excellent job at succinctly describing issues regarding privacy: http://tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf. It is most definitely worth the read as it does a great job discussing the "nothing to hide" argument.

      The issue, at least for me, is the fact that the data has value. If it didn't, Google wouldn't be spending obscene amounts of time and money collecting, storing, and analyzing that data. If that data has value, then it should be treated like currency - not handed out to literally anyone, and exchanged for things I deem beneficial to me[1].

      All of the data you're discussing about having amassed: If Google (or someone else) wrote software which gave you the identical logging and streaming capacity, but let you do it on your own hardware and software, do you think there would be a privacy issue with that? Of course not! The data is kept, but is kept by the person who generated it. Why doesn't something like this exist? It would cost money, sure, but how is it that all of this software can exist on a large scale for free, but scaling it down for an individual user costs money? Yes, that's the trade for the logging, most people understand that...but it's unreasonable to expect that everyone is comfortable with Google having all of that information. In a self-hosted paradigm, a person with "nothing to hide" could absolutely send that data to Google or post it on Facebook or burn it to a CD and give it to their local precinct, but that's their choice. Google (and Apple and MS and Facebook) has designed the data collection systems to do all of this logging with virtually no ability to opt-out. This is not a trustbuilding paradigm.

      "What do YOU have to hide, voyager529?"
      I don't know. And that's the problem. I have no idea what sort of information Google has on me. As much as I wish it were "as little as possible", I know they have more than I want them to...but I don't know what. Yes, they have the dashboard in the account that gives you a few inklings of what data they possess, but we both know that they collect FAR more.

      Bottom line: An opt-in system affords you everything you express you have wanted, and I am not for a second saying that such a service shouldn't exist for people like yourself. However, whether I have "nothing to hide" or not, I should still have control over who gets what data. Since no one wants to make a self-hosted system for people like me, the only other option is to forcibly opt-out. Maybe I don't get all the features you're talking about...and maybe, I'm perfectly fine with that.

      [1] I'm not against charitable giving in this case; "helping others" does indeed constitute something "beneficial to me", but it's still up to me to decide how much money to give, and to what extent, and in what capacity.

  3. Would be good if the algorithm... by wisebabo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...could be tweaked!

    Like if you're a single guy/gal to look out for people who might pique your interest...
    Like if you're security conscious, look out for people (cars?) who are UN-familiar in your area...
    Like if you're an artist/designer/fashion person, look for certain patterns, colors, STYLES (ok, that'll be hard).

    Having a brain behind the camera that isn't yours (the brain not the camera) lends itself to all sorts of interesting possibilities. Maybe it could even be taught to look for certain patterns (like this person or this KIND of person comes by this spot under these circumstances/times). Might be useful for marketing (oops, maybe that's not a good thing) but definitely surveillance.

    It would also be good if the camera could read (in addition to having geo-tagging). That way it might be more context aware. Oh, and how about hearing? That way it could learn more about its environment (and what people are saying). How about a speaker? That way it could interrogate its subjects. Hmm... with enough work, this camera could become sentient!

    1. Re:Would be good if the algorithm... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      The second one isn't too hard. I do it with my pi and openalpr. Adding pattern recognition (we all it "AI" now), and a camera isn't new, although Google engineers think they invented everything.

    2. Re:Would be good if the algorithm... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Having a brain behind the camera that isn't yours (the brain not the camera) lends itself to all sorts of interesting possibilities.

      . . . hmmm . . . that reminds me of females comments on males who have another brain that is constantly out of control.

      It would be interesting to see what photos that brain would snap.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Would be good if the algorithm... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Dude, a Raspberry Pi is fast enough to run arcade games from the 1980's at their native frame rate. I'm pretty sure it can run your "ALPR", whatever that is.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  4. Telescreen by TuringTest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.

    The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

    Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer; though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing. A kilometre away the Ministry of Truth, his place of work, towered vast and white above the grimy landscape.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    1. Re:Telescreen by mccalli · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The future is turning out much more like Brave New World than 1984 or Shape of Things To Come. Both have their parts to add, but Brave New World is the one that's more or less nailed it. People are choosing to do this to themselves, not being forced to.

    2. Re:Telescreen by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And just like with Brave New World, some people actually see the dystopian future as utopian.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Why isn't this just an app for your phone? by HalAtWork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally I just have my camera snap 10 pics in a row when I push the button and I get pretty good shots. Not really that hard and doesn't warrant buying a special device.

    Also not sure why this isn't just a phone app.

  6. But does the AI emulate a real user? by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Funny
    For example, does the Clips take random photos at squiffy angles, upload them to a website where no-one will look at them and then delete them.

    Can it also be used in concert halls, where all it records is a whited-out stage a few pixels wide against a totally dark background and a muffled sound because the user had their hand over the microphone.

    if so, can I buy one, send it on holiday instead of going myself and then bore the bollocks off all and sundry by showing the photos to disinterested co-workers and claiming I had a wonderful time.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  7. Cat photography by trevc · · Score: 2

    Hopefully this will catch on and we will see a lot more candid photographs of cats on the internet. I know I will be placing my order ASAP now I have a cat.

  8. The Google Clips Camera Puts AI Behind the Lens by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately it needs natural intelligence in front of the lens, and that's not a given.

  9. Automatic cameras? Another sci-fi precedent... by dlleigh · · Score: 2
    From John Varley's "Demon", the third book in his Gaea trilogy:

    "A panaflex had only one urge: getting the shot. It would do anything to get the shot–take a ride on a copter, dangle from a boom, go over a waterfall in a barrel. Its unblinking eye ogled everything, and when it was ready, it shot film. Somewhere in its innards guncotton and camphor and other unlikely substances came together under considerable pressure to form a continuous strip of celluloid. That strip was coated with photoreactive chemicals to produce a full-color negative. The strip moved behind the panaflex’s eye and was exposed in discrete frames by a muscle-and-bone pull-down and shutter mechanism Edison would have recognized."

    https://varley.net/excerpt/demon-coming-attractions/