YouTube blurs faces to protect the innocent
YouTube has launched a feature that blurs faces in videos uploaded to the site. In a blog post introducing the feature, the Google unit offers two use cases for the tool: "Whether you want to share sensitive protest footage without exposing the faces of the activists involved, or share the winning point in your 8-year-old’s …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Do they
Keep a clean copy for the cops? It would be too bad if the idiots who post videos of themselves doing something illegal can't get themselves arrested.
Blurred videos? That about accounts for over 80% of the content.
What's next ?
Will they also blur the faces of ugly, stupid people, short people , red heads, hairy armed people, people that wear green shirts. The list could go on forever.
Society is becoming pathetic with its "lets protect the innocent" campaign. There is a point in time when the protection actually becomes a constraint for everyone else.
I regret that there are no political parties that want to stand up and fight for a society without all this nanny state false protectionist shit.
Politicians and law makers are becoming pathetic.........
/rant
Re: What's next ?
Obviously the down vote was from some liberal left wing tree hugging bunny lover whom does nothing but "think of the children".
You hit the nail on the head mate....Churchill would be turning in his grave right about now.
Consider the balance redressed.
Re: What's next ?
Is this the same Churchill that sent the army in and is widely believed to have wanted to machine gun protesters? If video cameras were around then I'm sure the strikers would love to have filmed the army leaping off their trucks, baton charging and shown the results all over the world, without the risk of their identities being shown. Ahhh history and victors and all that.
Now forward this almost a 100 years, we have the technology, and people in the likes of Syria want to get the news out to the world without risk of further retribution, but won't have the technology to blur faces.
Still sit on you lardy arses and complain and whine pathetically about nanny states, whilst actually doing fuck all about it.
It's like reading the Daily mail around here these days.
Next week, how bi-weekly bin collections will bring the country to it's knees.
Re: What's next ?
>Obviously the down vote was from some liberal left wing tree hugging bunny lover whom does nothing but "think of the children".
What a stupid comment. So you're saying that if someone witnesses an atrocity in somewhere like Damascus and has their smartphone handy then they should be banned from protecting their own identity or the identities of other witnesses?
Such people are often vital in ensuring justice at international war tribunals. If they've been murdered then they can't exactly do this.
P.S. "liberal left wing tree hugging bunny lover" - quite a few stupd cliches in that phrase. Along with the OP's "nanny state". You If you hadn't resorted to that crap you might have had some credibility in your argument.
Anonymous - just to annoy you.
Re: What's next ?
"Obviously the down vote was from some liberal left wing tree hugging bunny lover whom does nothing but "think of the children"."
Idiot comment.
And what does being liberal or green have to do with 'thinking of the children'? Nothing.
Stupid over-protective parents who think that by pathetically wailing at any perceived infinitesimal threat to child safety loudly enough everyone else will think that they are excellent, caring parents and hence validate them in life are the ones who say "Think of the children".
Liberals - pretty much by definition - think it should be a parent's *choice* to film or not film their kids.
Re: What's next ?
"P.S. "liberal left wing tree hugging bunny lover" - quite a few stupd cliches in that phrase. Along with the OP's "nanny state"."
I think someone moved around the letters on his keyboard from DAILYMAIL to REGISTER*
*Erm... and like added one...erm... somehow.
Re: What's next ?
"Will they also blur the faces of ugly, stupid people, short people , red heads, hairy armed people, people that wear green shirts"...iOS users
Re: What's next ?
I downvoted you for not knowing how 'whom' works but using it anyway.
Re: What's next ?
Doesn't annoy me, just highlights the fact you have no balls......OR tits, don't want to appear to be sexist...
If I were up to something naughty...
...I doubt I'd rely on Google's technology (Or anyone else's) to blur my face.
I would how easy it would be to undo the blur effect (as that child molester found a couple of years ago - ok he used a twirl effect rather than a blur but there you go).
Re: If I were up to something naughty...
Why blur when you can just blank it out completely?
Re: If I were up to something naughty...
Twirl's easier to reverse, though; it throws away less information than blurring does. Play with 'em in Photoshop, you'll see what I mean.
Awesome News!
No I can stop smearing my face with Vaseline when my mates film me interfering with cat litter trays (or summink)
Re: Awesome News!
No, you just have to shake your head from side to side really quickly.
Its a proven anti-surveilance technique.
Pedants' Corner
Top marks to YouTube for putting that apostrophe in exactly the right place. Perhaps they should follow this face-blur thing by creating a tool that automatically corrects the apostrophes and grammar in YouTube comments?
Re: Pedants' Corner
Its proven that missing apostrophes are 80% less annoying than surplus apostrophe's.
Re: Pedants' Corner
> Top marks to YouTube for putting that apostrophe in exactly the right place. Perhaps they should follow this face-blur thing by creating a tool that automatically corrects the apostrophes and grammar in YouTube comments?
They could start by disabling that feature that automatically adds 'lol' to the end of all YouTube comments.
Re: Pedants' Corner
"Perhaps they should follow this face-blur thing by creating a tool that automatically corrects the apostrophes and grammar in YouTube comments?"
There is not enough computing power in the world to keep up with the morons on YouTube.
Re: Pedants' Corner
"They could start by disabling that feature that automatically adds 'lol' to the end of all YouTube comments."
lol!
Re: "corrects the apostrophes and grammar "
Doubt it. Processing 100 hours of Nyan Cat is one thing, but I reckon we're at least a decade of moores law from that sort of power...
Re: "corrects the apostrophes and grammar "
> ... but I reckon we're at least a decade of moores law ...
Clearly El Reg haven't seen fit to deploy those resources on their own forums at any rate!!
Re: "corrects the apostrophes and grammar "
> > ... but I reckon we're at least a decade of moores law ...
> Clearly El Reg haven't seen fit to deploy those resources on their own forums at any rate!!
lol
Re: "corrects the apostrophes and grammar "
Moors' Lore <-- sorted!
Err...
It's the whole point of going to a public protest that you're publicly standing up for what you believe in?
What would be the point of publicly protesting anonymously?
Re: Err... public protest
well AC - Atrocities, warcrimes and police brutality are not exclusively perpetrated at public protests
Witness intimidation occurs at many many situations and at all levels from getting a kicking from the local thug in the pub fro 'grassing' to mass graves ordered from the very top.
Re: What would be the point of publicly protesting anonymously?
I don't know. Perhaps you could ask those who protested in the former Soviet Union or China or Syria or...
Necessity in the modern world?
I really don't agree with that. How is it a necessity exactly?
Re: Necessity in the modern world?
It's because paedophiles didn't exist before the invention of the Internet, so in earlier times you were completely safe :P
Tech to blur the face untill the court orders the source without the tech being applied.
Pointless!
"(parents have also been banned from photographing junior surf lifesaving events after horridly deranged individuals thought it would be fun to snap kids in their swimming costumes)."
If anyone thinks that this is wrong, your mind is sick and twisted!
What? Should our olymiads be blurred out becuase they are wearing tight fitting sports wear?
It's totally innocence and if you disagree its clearly because your mind is thinking that its more than just swim wear!
SAD, OH SO SAD!
"never letting your kids be photographed in a uniform of any sort"
I confess I fail to understand this one. Swimming costume I can see, but, e.g., a soccer uniform like I used to wear when I was small? I mean, I don't like the idea of pedos taking "candid" snaps of kids in any case, but I'm not sure I see the motivation behind this specific warning. Someone with better insight want to clue me in?
Re: "never letting your kids be photographed in a uniform of any sort"
Even better, I never let my kids leave the house without wearing masks, that way their faces never get seen or recorded by anyone. It's simply the next logical step.
Re: "never letting your kids be photographed in a uniform of any sort"
Don't mistake me; I'm not saying I disagree with it -- I don't understand it well enough to do either that or the converse, yet.
Re: "never letting your kids be photographed in a uniform of any sort"
The whole reason for the stringent guidelines around photographing kids isn't just to stop some paedo from getting his jollies off by viewing it on the Internet - as the Daily Mail-esque "world's gone mad" crowd here doubtlessly think - it's actually a sensible precaution to prevent giving out information that could potentially assist a predatory paedophile from contacting your child (online or off). If a potential predator knows your child's appearance and what school they go to (through identifying the uniform) it's one step closer to them being able to contact them via Facebook or whatever, possibly with some newly aquired knowledge on their interests or achievements (depending on the content of the video/photo).
Re: "never letting your kids be photographed in a uniform of any sort"
I thought it was a Buckingham Palace guideline to keep the royal youth from showing up in embarrassing armbands.
Re: "never letting your kids be photographed in a uniform of any sort"
This, and especially the argument downthread about protecting children who've been removed from abusive homes, makes good sense to me. Thanks for explaining!
(For the curious: Among my other clients is a sport organization who publish event registration lists on their website; a couple years back, for much the same reasons, we had to modify that code so that it wouldn't display any info on anyone under 14. We don't deal with event photos directly, though, so it hadn't occurred to me to think about them in the same sort of context.)
Re: "never letting your kids be photographed in a uniform of any sort"
Wouldn't it be better to simply not post the pics on the various social media sites?
Re: "never letting your kids be photographed in a uniform of any sort"
Sure, if you're the one who took the picture. If someone else did, it may not be up to you.
Child Protection
When I attended the child protection session of the Level 1 Football Coaching course, the question about child photographs obviously came up. One of the main reasons photos of children are not published, particularly with accompanying names, is to protect children who have been removed from abusive families and relocated to safer places.
Re: Child Protection
Yes, and as a kicker to that: Anyone who thinks paedophiles' photo collections are a bunch of kids in sports wear as seriously deluded.
Re: Child Protection
Well, judging by the "child model" websites I've heard about, I was guessing that was part of it -- although I'm sure that, just as you say, photos of kids in no wear probably form the majority.
Re: Child Protection
And I guess my previous post got three down votes for the use of the word 'football'? :-P
Re: Child Protection
Actually, given the frequent predilections of Anonymous and /b/tards in general, I strongly suspect the downvotes came about because there are some people around here who don't fancy the idea of children being removed from abusive homes. After all, somebody's got to keep up the flow of illicit imagery that 4chan loves so dearly...
Re: Child Protection
"One of the main reasons photos of children are not published, particularly with accompanying names, is to protect children who have been removed from abusive families and relocated to safer places."
No, that's just the *excuse* that's given to justify a stupid and over-bearing "cover your arse" policy brought in by people frightened of being sued by No Win, No Fee lawyers.
Really, Marsden?
You don't even realize you're a Christian. How come you know so much?
This topic is closed for new posts.
