Re:Please stop live tweeting people’s private conversations
by danso on Sunday December 01, 2013 @01:38PM
(#6828526)
This actually bolsters my point. Google blurs out faces because a) its product is to show streets, not faces and b) because Google realizes not blurring out faces will make the public hostile to them.
The key to this is technology. Obviously, good technology is what allows Google to map images to places and to do so at a scale that captures most of the industrialized world. This makes many people uncomfortable as it gives the impression that Google is all-seeing all the time, when the reality is that such images are so time-delayed as to have no surveillance benefit. Yet, there's no need for Google to fight this since their product is images of the street, not of random passersby.
The less-obvious facet of technology here is that Google has the tech to blur faces en masse. If Google had to blur images out by hand, do you think they'd do so without specific requests first?
Similarly, if there was a technology that existed that insta-blurred everyone's faces in a random photo via a master database of opt-ins and advanced facial recognition, it's feasible that photographers would be required to use it , in some nations. But as that tech is a long ways off (it's not the tech that's hard, it's that database), the U.S. courts have found it better to let people take photos unhindered rather than chill free speech by leaving open the possibility that you could be sued for taking photos of public activity.
To go back to the original topic...you're right, I am being fatalistic. But I'm also being realistic and I'm also considering the greater framework of laws here. So I throw the question back to you: what is your proposed solution to the problem other than hoping that everyone obeys on the honor system? In my opinion, there is no legislation that could be passed that would not infringe on free speech at large.
The key to this is technology. Obviously, good technology is what allows Google to map images to places and to do so at a scale that captures most of the industrialized world. This makes many people uncomfortable as it gives the impression that Google is all-seeing all the time, when the reality is that such images are so time-delayed as to have no surveillance benefit. Yet, there's no need for Google to fight this since their product is images of the street, not of random passersby.
The less-obvious facet of technology here is that Google has the tech to blur faces en masse. If Google had to blur images out by hand, do you think they'd do so without specific requests first?
Similarly, if there was a technology that existed that insta-blurred everyone's faces in a random photo via a master database of opt-ins and advanced facial recognition, it's feasible that photographers would be required to use it , in some nations. But as that tech is a long ways off (it's not the tech that's hard, it's that database), the U.S. courts have found it better to let people take photos unhindered rather than chill free speech by leaving open the possibility that you could be sued for taking photos of public activity.
To go back to the original topic...you're right, I am being fatalistic. But I'm also being realistic and I'm also considering the greater framework of laws here. So I throw the question back to you: what is your proposed solution to the problem other than hoping that everyone obeys on the honor system? In my opinion, there is no legislation that could be passed that would not infringe on free speech at large.