How, exactly?
“Maybe it’s just me, but if you are putting things on the internet that demand the scrambling of people’s faces, maybe the problem is lack of judgment.”
You don’t say.
How, exactly?
“Maybe it’s just me, but if you are putting things on the internet that demand the scrambling of people’s faces, maybe the problem is lack of judgment.”
You don’t say.
Anyone actually care the pervert was outed???
The way I see it this case is no different from that of any other alleged criminal with a warrant for his arrest who attempts any sort of disguise in the name of escape and is successfully recognized and apprehended by Inspector E-Plod. Let the prosecution and the defense argue their briefs, and if the accused is then found guilty, I have no mercy for him, for there is no worse crime than what he is alleged to have done. If he is found not guilty, he walks a free man. If anyone has designed a better system, let him present it now, otherwise, in this context at this time, privacy doesn’t enter into it.
The writer makes a good point, although also an asinine one that his commentator provides the solution to.
Yes, companies like Google (Earth) who publish photos of people they are required to obscure (Canada’s federal privacy commissioner is demanding it, so to pretend there isn’t a privacy issue at stake is simply wrong) have to use a different method in order to properly do so. That’s true.
But the fact that a person using a filter to obscure an image can have the image reconstructed should the filter be run in reverse is something I could have told you ahead of time and is not a big deal.
If you post private details in an online forum using a code, but you choose a dead-simple code with the key contained within then yes, there are “privacy implications” to your stupidity.
Personally I’m not concerned with the pervert’s privacy and shared a link of his image to my girlfriend, lambasting him for not just being a sicko, but being a really dumb sicko at that. I mentioned running the algorithm in reverse long before I read this post.
So, Kate, that’s how… Google Earth has to choose effective methods to obscure images as demanded by Canada’s privacy commissioner. Reconstructing images of pedophiles is not the problem.
Ace of Spades had a good post on this… one unfortunate thing is now these pedophiles no we can recreate their images obscured thus… but I guess the authorities felt like releasing the image anyway because this individual is so dangerous.
I would love to live in a world where such people didn’t exist. I’d settle living in one where they are punished appropriately.
Vitruvius: the only moderately good argument I’ve heard surrounding this case is that posting the man’s picture may hinder the ability of police to catch future pedophiles, because they will then hide their faces completely.
so will this lead to a (revised) definition of privacy that handles descrambling algorithms such as what interpol used?
e.g. a photo complies with the privacy rules if there is no way to discern “private” details from the photo using any programatic means.
the line is indeed blurry.
Mama always said “If you say it on the Telephone, you might as well shout it to the World.”
She also said ‘Suspected Pedophiles should be treated with great deference. Convicted ones, great imagination”.
sumone else posts your photo there is a privacy consideration
you post it yourselves you have no privacy to consider
this fool (pervert) wuz dumb enough to post it himselves, hope sumone accidently shoots him during “arrest”
Christoph, if you are thinking that Google is worried about Canada and it’s Privy Commissioner then I have a bridge I want to sell you. Google is a business and one with no moral ethics at all. The only reason they do the Chinese shuffle is because of money and the same goes for the detailed satellite imagry of Israeli military sites being so readily available. money talks.
I guess if anything the world should be to blame for not realizing the vast strides in technology that makes this stuff possible. Just look at the CRTC, FCC, British authorities and how they are trying to cope with issues that twenty years ago nobody would believe, except in Star Trek. Heck, the CRTC still thinks it can dictate like when all there was were land line telephones and two TV stations. Their unwillingness to see that the future is now is readily apparent by seeing how they are handling satellite radio. Heck, Britian still licenses their tellies.
I hope they get the right guy and not some little geek by mistake. There are a lot of trigger happy people out there who might knock him off. We all have a double.
sad but true Texas, if Google happens to take a pic of my street while I’m standing there pickin my nose…then all the world sees me diggin fer gold and there’s SFA I can do to rectify the situation. thankfully most of ’em won’t know who they’re lookin at
No, kelly, if Google avoided the Privacy Commissioner’s ruling you could sue for damages and you would prevail. You’d be able to get an injuction, but by that time “snot girl” (or boy) would be all over the net.
On the plus side, this would magnify your damages.