4 ms·

The article seems to imply that the Swiss authorities want Google to use a manual blurring technique instead of automating the process (rather than in addition

The article seems to imply that the Swiss authorities want Google to use a manual blurring technique instead of automating the process (rather than in addition to). If that's the case, I'd be hard-pressed to explain how the Swiss privacy watchdog would think that human-operated blurring would lead to a better than 99% success rate.

bluedanieru 15y ago
You don't have to explain it, because they don't.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  I don't get the downvotes, but whatever. Is it really hard to believe that the watchdog group in question really hasn't considered that there is a difference between "blurring 100% of faces" and "blurring is performed manually?" It's likely they think that, if you force Google to perform manual blurring, then every face they photograph will be blurred. It's even more likely we've already thought about this issue far more than they have.
ugh 15y ago
Whenever you read something that’s obviously stupid about legal matters you should assume that the messenger is to blame, especially when said messenger is unable to link to the publicly available and easily findable text of the opinion. (http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009 http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009, German) There are many places in this opinion where it is made very clear that the automatic process is not good enough and that additional diligence is necessary to protect the right of publicity of the photographed in a satisfactory way. Here is one example: „Vielmehr wären allfällige Persönlichkeitsverletzungen vermeidbar, würden aber einen finanziellen Mehraufwand für die Beklagten nach sich ziehen, weil sie die Bilder teilweise manuell unkenntlich machen müssten.“ (Violations of the right of publicity are avoidable but would lead to additional costs for the defendant because the photos would have to be manually blurred to some extent. This is in section 10.4.6. which considers the violations of the right of publicity and Google’s economic interests.) By the way, this is not the Swiss authorities talking, this is a Swiss court.

bluedanieru 15y ago

You don't have to explain it, because they don't.

bluedanieru 15y ago
I don't get the downvotes, but whatever. Is it really hard to believe that the watchdog group in question really hasn't considered that there is a difference between "blurring 100% of faces" and "blurring is performed manually?" It's likely they think that, if you force Google to perform manual blurring, then every face they photograph will be blurred. It's even more likely we've already thought about this issue far more than they have.

ugh 15y ago

Whenever you read something that’s obviously stupid about legal matters you should assume that the messenger is to blame, especially when said messenger is unable to link to the publicly available and easily findable text of the opinion. (http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009 http://links.weblaw.ch/BVGer-A-7040/2009, German) There are many places in this opinion where it is made very clear that the automatic process is not good enough and that additional diligence is necessary to protect the right of publicity of the photographed in a satisfactory way. Here is one example: „Vielmehr wären allfällige Persönlichkeitsverletzungen vermeidbar, würden aber einen finanziellen Mehraufwand für die Beklagten nach sich ziehen, weil sie die Bilder teilweise manuell unkenntlich machen müssten.“ (Violations of the right of publicity are avoidable but would lead to additional costs for the defendant because the photos would have to be manually blurred to some extent. This is in section 10.4.6. which considers the violations of the right of publicity and Google’s economic interests.) By the way, this is not the Swiss authorities talking, this is a Swiss court.