Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, May 21, 2010
Books Google Wants Your Face
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:43 PM
This Download Squad story is terrifying. It says that Google is trying to figure out whether they should flip a switch on a facial recognition search engine.
Here's the terrifying part:
We're at the point where you could snap a person's face with Google Goggles and find out their entire life story: their employment, their friends, what they looked like before they dyed their hair. I don't know where the societal breaking point for pervasive, omnipresent technology is... but I think we're getting close.
The heartening part is that Google didn't just flip the switch; it sounds like they're considering the implications. But, still: Jesus fucking Christ.
2
To be fair, the only way someone could snap a picture of your face and find out your life story would be if you publicly put your life story on the Internet along with a clear picture of your face. Though it obviously becomes a problem when you put information out there that you don't expect to be public (i.e. sites like Facebook making once private info public), or on small sites you don't expect anyone to visit. The breaking point is only there because we're finally realizing that what we put on the Internet isn't as private as we once thought, and I think once everyone realizes that new technologies like this won't be as scary.
3
"you could snap a person's face with Google Goggles and find out their entire life story: their employment, their friends, what they looked like before they dyed their hair"
Assuming all of that is tied to the person's photo somewhere online, which it usually isn't.
Yawn.
Assuming all of that is tied to the person's photo somewhere online, which it usually isn't.
Yawn.
4
The horrifying part is that it's people like that Facebook asshole, who's only 26 years old, that are making decisions about tools like this.
5
I imagine it will soon be much harder to get ladies to pose for Girls Gone Wild now, ...or maybe not.
8
The "nothing to see here" attitude is system justification bias. There's nothing wrong with wanting greater controls over access to your online profile. I'd encourage anyone to adopt a healthy distrust of who can access what you elect to put online.
Microprocessors outnumber humans about 4 to one right now. You're making the mistake of assuming every single product you own within the next decade won't be intuitive. We're not going to have the option of low-tech in the very near future. It will be all-tech or no-tech.
We're all inevitably going to the firing squad that is technocracy but you don't have to be so eager to hand the executioner the bullets. A humanistic and democratic information age is still possible but not with attitudes like the ones expressed in posts #2 & #3.
The same way you have to spend alot of tiny moments each day attending to the way corporations behave and the way your elected official behave you now have to monitor online information resources. Or don't. Trust them wholeheartedly. See where that leads.
Info databases assuring you they're to be trusted are like the man putting ice cream in the freezer and promising you he'll never touch it.
Microprocessors outnumber humans about 4 to one right now. You're making the mistake of assuming every single product you own within the next decade won't be intuitive. We're not going to have the option of low-tech in the very near future. It will be all-tech or no-tech.
We're all inevitably going to the firing squad that is technocracy but you don't have to be so eager to hand the executioner the bullets. A humanistic and democratic information age is still possible but not with attitudes like the ones expressed in posts #2 & #3.
The same way you have to spend alot of tiny moments each day attending to the way corporations behave and the way your elected official behave you now have to monitor online information resources. Or don't. Trust them wholeheartedly. See where that leads.
Info databases assuring you they're to be trusted are like the man putting ice cream in the freezer and promising you he'll never touch it.
9
If we live in a Global Village, we should have Global Biddies.
These are the crones who know all, and see all and keep the town safe.
11
When I first some a friend using that app where you point your phone at a storefront and it brings up the store's information, my first thought was "oh God, how long until they tie this into facebook?"
Besides Google Googles, Flickr has been licensing facial recognition technology as well. The only question is: when this does become common, will not having a social networking account a persons smart phone app recognizes make you look like someone that has no use for that in their life, or a serial killer?
Besides Google Googles, Flickr has been licensing facial recognition technology as well. The only question is: when this does become common, will not having a social networking account a persons smart phone app recognizes make you look like someone that has no use for that in their life, or a serial killer?
12
So, maybe Google doesn't do it. Someone will. You can't stop this kind of thing anymore than you can stop digital piracy.
14
So, maybe Google doesn't do it. Someone will. You can't stop this kind of thing anymore than you can stop digital piracy.
15
Oh shut up Sloggers, a bunch of you are fine with cameras on every street corner and in every park so what's wrong with Google doing this?
17
If you think it's not dangerous just imagine how most people experienced cars before the mid 80s and after. Contrast it with how your life long Linux user experiences the internet versus the guy who just bought an iPad and has no knowledge of the internet before 1997.
Before the mid 80s cars were still very easy to understand and work on for anyone who had the curiousity and need to own the things they purchased. The closer you get on the car's timeline to the mid 80s the more the ratio of owner-users of cars to owner-dependents of cars tilted grossly towards owner-dependents. Then a shift inn products occurred. As soon as the majority of car owners were people who mystified by and disinterested in how a car works and how to do anything other than operate them car ownership (in the sense of, if you can't open it upp and work on it, you don't own it) vanished. After the mid 80s most cars included computers and required specialized tools to be worked on Suddenly buying a car made you a user who depended on the manufacturer for everything.
The same is happening right now with computers and information technology. We're tilting toward being dependent on technology that the majority of people experience with credulous trust. Most people don't know the difference between their address bar and a search engine.
We're one generation away from no turning back. I don't look forward to a time when a person who understands the inner workings of a computer is regarded as a mmagician and the person who doesn't own one is regarded as a luddite.
It's worth being engaged in the dialog but we all know it's Dutchboy-and-Dam at this point.
Before the mid 80s cars were still very easy to understand and work on for anyone who had the curiousity and need to own the things they purchased. The closer you get on the car's timeline to the mid 80s the more the ratio of owner-users of cars to owner-dependents of cars tilted grossly towards owner-dependents. Then a shift inn products occurred. As soon as the majority of car owners were people who mystified by and disinterested in how a car works and how to do anything other than operate them car ownership (in the sense of, if you can't open it upp and work on it, you don't own it) vanished. After the mid 80s most cars included computers and required specialized tools to be worked on Suddenly buying a car made you a user who depended on the manufacturer for everything.
The same is happening right now with computers and information technology. We're tilting toward being dependent on technology that the majority of people experience with credulous trust. Most people don't know the difference between their address bar and a search engine.
We're one generation away from no turning back. I don't look forward to a time when a person who understands the inner workings of a computer is regarded as a mmagician and the person who doesn't own one is regarded as a luddite.
It's worth being engaged in the dialog but we all know it's Dutchboy-and-Dam at this point.
18
Google Goggles are like the exact opposite of beer goggles, wherein a person's life story becomes invisible, as well as where they work, who their friends are, and what they look like.
21
Count me as not terrified or chilled or whatever. I don't care if anyone knows what I looked like before I dyed my hair. And what's with everything being "chilling" these days?
22
Yep, toss old-fashioned online anonymity right out the window, kids.
Of course, speaking as someone who's been decidedly onymous all these years, I can't say I'm super worried at this point.
Call me when you've got my bank balances...
Of course, speaking as someone who's been decidedly onymous all these years, I can't say I'm super worried at this point.
Call me when you've got my bank balances...
25
Tech blog echo chamber.
Slog Post "GOOGLE WANTS TO WEAR YOUR FACE" > Blog post warning of implications > Blog post about Google internally reviewing new services after Buzz debacle > Quote: (on facial recognition) "anything we did in that area would be highly, highly planned, discussed and reviewed. When you go through these things, you review your management procedures."
Not to say we shouldn't worry about the implications of possible future technologies. It's extremely healthy to have these debates before our imaginations catch up with our reality--that's why science fiction is so important.
I've played with facial recognition in Google's Picasa software. It's good, fairly accurate, but slow. It does not scale well to searching millions of faces. According to my CS friends, the viability of this kind of search is still quite a ways out.
Slog Post "GOOGLE WANTS TO WEAR YOUR FACE" > Blog post warning of implications > Blog post about Google internally reviewing new services after Buzz debacle > Quote: (on facial recognition) "anything we did in that area would be highly, highly planned, discussed and reviewed. When you go through these things, you review your management procedures."
Not to say we shouldn't worry about the implications of possible future technologies. It's extremely healthy to have these debates before our imaginations catch up with our reality--that's why science fiction is so important.
I've played with facial recognition in Google's Picasa software. It's good, fairly accurate, but slow. It does not scale well to searching millions of faces. According to my CS friends, the viability of this kind of search is still quite a ways out.
26
@ 24,
Presumably they would have to do some sketchy stuff to get their info if they promise to deliver a person's entire life story. I'm pretty sure employment history is tracked through a person's social security number. And while it's probably out there on the internet somewhere already, I'm not too crazy about total strangers having easier access to my ID.
Presumably they would have to do some sketchy stuff to get their info if they promise to deliver a person's entire life story. I'm pretty sure employment history is tracked through a person's social security number. And while it's probably out there on the internet somewhere already, I'm not too crazy about total strangers having easier access to my ID.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (27) RSS