Face-Blurring Technology Raises Privacy Questions

[SlowHands]

Face-blurring technology raises privacy questions

by Paul Marks - New Scientist – Jan. 31, 2009

Perhaps we need to let our elected representatives know that 1984 was a work of fiction, not a planning guidebook for the future -- Ed.

SHOULD we modify our conception of privacy thanks to the seemingly unstoppable spread of CCTV surveillance networks? Jack Brassil thinks so. He's a computer scientist at Hewlett-Packard's laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey, who is testing a technology called Cloak that aims to limit the extent of privacy invasions. "Rather than prohibit surveillance, our system seeks to discourage surveillers distributing video without the authorisation of the surveilled," he says.

Cloak has two key requirements. First, CCTV users, such as municipal councils and businesses, would have to sign up to a system that electronically obscures the faces of people who do not want their pictures to be published in video footage that is passed to others. The list of such people would be akin to the national "do-not-dial" lists designed to prevent cold-calling, Brassil says.

Second, the person opting in to Cloak needs to carry a "privacy enabling device" - most conveniently a phone with GPS capability. This wirelessly beams the user's position and velocity to a central server which forwards the data to the CCTV's control centre. Image processing software then uses the subject's trajectory to identify and obscure their face in the CCTV footage if it is to be distributed. In Hewlett-Packard's simulations, the technology is workable, even in dense crowds....[Read More]

[brick]

So in order not to have your privacy invaded, you have to provide the authorities with your exact location and velocity at all times? What genius came up with that?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by brick

So in order not to have your privacy invaded, you have to provide the authorities with your exact location and velocity at all times? What genius came up with that?

Hmm... that sounds... scary?

Give us your exact location and velocity or we give video of you (that includes your location and velocity) to anyone who asks for it...

Is it time for me to start living off the grid now?

[PaleMelanesian]

Now, now. That's just a bunch of crazy conspiracy talk! You have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong.

...........

[Chuck]

They might catch zombies roaming.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

You have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong

I'm not worried about most of the surveillance that goes on. Go ahead, take my picture if I am speeding or run a stop sign (or light). Take some video for your security system. I don't care. As long as you keep it, or the law enforcement has it, I'm fine with that.

Now they are talking about distributing this. That's a different story.

My biggest thing on this is the invasion of my privacy so that my privacy isn't invaded.

[Right Lane Cruiser]

Typical programmer type response. "Oh sure, we'll just correlate everything and cancel it out. It can be done!"



No thought at all to the real problem here -- if the information is processed, it can be compromised. Simple as that. Before, it was just footage. Now it is footage with automatic identification by opt-in. Brilliant. Masterful. Does this guy have a future in politics or something? GAH!

[Xringer]

I got one of those little cell phones for my wife. I turned off the GPS tracker function.
The battery is so small, why load it down more?

And, now she won't be getting speeding tickets in the mail when the phone companies start
selling user, location & velocity to the local police.. (So they can raise funds for the city).

I guess she could always say that she had loaned her phone to a friend who was taking
flying lessons at the local air port.?.

[Shiba3420]

What privacy...we aren't granted any privacy in public areas. There is nothing illegal about me taking a picture of somebody driving/walking past. Although there are some conditions that are questionable...if its not news & I use it to make a buck, I should have a model release.

That said, I think any government survailance shouldn't be allowed to be rebroadcast without the permission of everyone (and I mean anyone that could reasonably be recognised by sound or sight) in the video. If you can't personally identify someone, but a loved one could, then you can't broadcast without getting permission first (sorry all of those of you who like "cops" and other reality shows). Even when the data is public and anyone can get it, you can't throw it on the news or on youtube without reprecusions. However thats not the way it is now. Plus, how to you do that and still allow the media access to some video. Say the police have survailance video in which x happens. The police want that broadcast so others can identify. I guess thats where blurring tech comes in....bluring out everyone but the suspect. And then a judge can give permission for the unblurred suspect to be broadcast. However that doesn't require any fancy, "giving my location to the government" GPS equipment.