Google Patents Software To Identify Real-World Objects In Videos 150
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."
Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Expectation of Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
privacy implication FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). (Score:5, Insightful)
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:privacy implication FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Yes (and law on questions at summaries broken). (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Who would be the lesser of two evils? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
All your privacy belong to us! (Score:5, Insightful)
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/ [flickr.com] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1047772/virgin-mobile-sued-virgin [theinquirer.net]
Surrender my privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Expectation of Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.