3 ms·
Even if the representation isn't an image? The code seems pretty explicit on that point. The courts seem to only do interpretation where the code is ambiguous.
by asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Even if the representation isn't an image? The code seems pretty explicit on that point. The courts seem to only do interpretation where the code is ambiguous. They don't seem to guess where the law is explicit. That being said, if there is a problem they can always just change the law. Maybe the signalling effect will be enough. Companies won't want to adopt expensive technological workarounds while knowing that the city is motivated to close loopholes.
- nl 6y agoYes absolutely. Searching for text uses a TF-IDF or BM25 representation. The only way to make image search work is to use a non-pixel representation. No court will find you aren't searching for an image because of that.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoSure, you have to use a non-pixel representation to make an image search index. I understand that. However, if the end result of the search is not an image, then is it the same? For example, you could learn some very basic features from an image, like "person's skin has this hue, their eyes are this color, etc." If you wrote that down and made it searchable, with the search target being a person's unique identifier (SSN or whatever), it would surprise me if that ran afoul of this rule, even if the features were extracted from an image. You can't be searching for a reference image if there is no reference image to search for. Maybe I'm wrong though. IANAL and honestly it doesn't matter. But if I were writing this law, I would write that no one would be allowed to use any system that extracts and searches using or makes searchable information about human faces. That would seem to cover my proposed workaround, and I doubt it would hurt any other use case that they meant to protect.