<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Face-blurring fail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sampablokuper.com/2009/04/21/face-blurring-fail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sampablokuper.com/2009/04/21/face-blurring-fail/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:32:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: sampablokuper</title>
		<link>http://www.sampablokuper.com/2009/04/21/face-blurring-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-2309</link>
		<dc:creator>sampablokuper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 00:45:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sampablokuper.com/?p=586#comment-2309</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;To my mind, one of the most interesting aspects of Google&#039;s approach is the assumption that face-blurring provides acceptable anonymity. I think many people are identifiable by dress, posture, body type, skin and hair colour, and so on - even if their faces are not visible.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I wonder what the basis for Google&#039;s assumption is. Has Google carried out an analysis that shows the vast majority of people cannot identify other people without seeing their faces, for instance? It would behoove Google to publish this research, if indeed it has carried it out - and otherwise to explain why it drew its own line in the sand at face-blurring.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To my mind, one of the most interesting aspects of Google&#8217;s approach is the assumption that face-blurring provides acceptable anonymity. I think many people are identifiable by dress, posture, body type, skin and hair colour, and so on &#8211; even if their faces are not visible.</p>

<p>I wonder what the basis for Google&#8217;s assumption is. Has Google carried out an analysis that shows the vast majority of people cannot identify other people without seeing their faces, for instance? It would behoove Google to publish this research, if indeed it has carried it out &#8211; and otherwise to explain why it drew its own line in the sand at face-blurring.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sampablokuper</title>
		<link>http://www.sampablokuper.com/2009/04/21/face-blurring-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-2307</link>
		<dc:creator>sampablokuper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 00:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sampablokuper.com/?p=586#comment-2307</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Google has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/12/google-street-view-banned-greece&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;banned&lt;/a&gt; from expanding Street View to Greece, over privacy concerns, despite the fact that it is legal to take photographs in public places.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The justification for the ban appears to focus on the fact that Street View is comprehensive and systematic. This would suggest that while people putting the odd holiday snap online would be unproblematic for the Greek legislature, systematic aggregations of photos into comprehensive coverage - the sort of thing that Microsoft&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://livelabs.com/photosynth/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Photosynth&lt;/a&gt; is attempting, for instance - might not be allowed. What&#039;s interesting about this is that the Greek legislature doesn&#039;t seem to be clearly stating just where it considers the line in the sand to be: it seems to want to assess, on a case-by-case basis, which side of the line a given initiative lies.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This is, I think, in the long run not likely to be successful, simply because it is not scalable. There are only so many legislators, and besides, having too many individuals arbitrating without clear guidelines would surely lead to inconsistent judgements.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google has been <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/12/google-street-view-banned-greece" rel="nofollow">banned</a> from expanding Street View to Greece, over privacy concerns, despite the fact that it is legal to take photographs in public places.</p>

<p>The justification for the ban appears to focus on the fact that Street View is comprehensive and systematic. This would suggest that while people putting the odd holiday snap online would be unproblematic for the Greek legislature, systematic aggregations of photos into comprehensive coverage &#8211; the sort of thing that Microsoft&#8217;s <a href="http://livelabs.com/photosynth/" rel="nofollow">Photosynth</a> is attempting, for instance &#8211; might not be allowed. What&#8217;s interesting about this is that the Greek legislature doesn&#8217;t seem to be clearly stating just where it considers the line in the sand to be: it seems to want to assess, on a case-by-case basis, which side of the line a given initiative lies.</p>

<p>This is, I think, in the long run not likely to be successful, simply because it is not scalable. There are only so many legislators, and besides, having too many individuals arbitrating without clear guidelines would surely lead to inconsistent judgements.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sampablokuper</title>
		<link>http://www.sampablokuper.com/2009/04/21/face-blurring-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1527</link>
		<dc:creator>sampablokuper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:14:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sampablokuper.com/?p=586#comment-1527</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=51.501557,-0.178651&amp;panoid=tUIZaUMO8vxh8d2phQtZpA&amp;cbp=12,133.41445480451515,,3,-3.9473868897783064&amp;ll=51.501563,-0.178807&amp;spn=0,359.990344&amp;z=17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Another face-blurring fail&lt;/a&gt;, just around the corner from the last one. Presumably, since this is the first time I&#039;ve looked for such fails, the fact that I&#039;ve found two in such close proximity suggests that there are vast numbers of them. Not that I&#039;m convinced it matters :)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=51.501557,-0.178651&amp;panoid=tUIZaUMO8vxh8d2phQtZpA&amp;cbp=12,133.41445480451515,,3,-3.9473868897783064&amp;ll=51.501563,-0.178807&amp;spn=0,359.990344&amp;z=17" rel="nofollow">Another face-blurring fail</a>, just around the corner from the last one. Presumably, since this is the first time I&#8217;ve looked for such fails, the fact that I&#8217;ve found two in such close proximity suggests that there are vast numbers of them. Not that I&#8217;m convinced it matters <img src='http://www.sampablokuper.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
