I still think the best to hope for is that only the individuals with the actual devices are able to look at the data. Can you imagine future potential employees being able to type your name into a web page, getting an image of you, and then through the magic of facial recognition, seeing a long list of geo tagged photos of you going about your normal daily life? Who you associate with, where you go, etc.
We shouldn't support this project or projects like this unless we get full assurances that the privacy issues have been tackled appropriately. At the moment, we don't know how the encryption is done, so as far as we should be concerned, there is none. No encryption.
As far as I'm concerned, with the knowledge we currently have of the project, if this project becomes big, this is worse than for example: The government installing CCTV on every street corner, which automatically uploads data to a central database that they can peruse at will. These cameras will be in and on private property as well.
>Can you imagine future potential employees being able to type your name into a web page, getting an image of you, and then through the magic of facial recognition, seeing a long list of geo tagged photos of you going about your normal daily life? Who you associate with, where you go, etc.
Easily, but what do you propose to do about it?
Creating such a database will become easy and cheap; the technology is inevitable, and there will always be a large userbase who don't care much about privacy concerns; in the "worst" case a large company could hire a bunch of people to walk around taking pictures of everywhere.
You could make taking the pictures illegal, but I don't like the implications of that one bit. Making aggregating them illegal would be very difficult to police and wouldn't stop governments. It probably wouldn't stop large corporations either (they'd do the processing offshore or find some other way around it).
The way I see it there's no way to stop the big corporations getting this ability, so the best thing we can do is level the playing field.
You don't have to be on your camera, if you're on half a dozen strangers cameras who are all publishing their video, and I have an image mosaic algorithm and face recognition.
Yes. I was describing the best case scenario. Which is that only the people who take images have access to them. They will still publish a small number of them of course, like people already do with normal cameras.
This is opposed to the worse case scenario where all images are automatically uploaded to a central database. If this is going to happen, that central database really needs to be encrypted such that only the user can access the images, not even the company that controls the database.
Yeah, but the point I was making, and that you missed, was that some fraction of people will voluntarily publish. They will set their photo album, or video feed, publicly readable. Because they want to.
If that's a large percentage of people, it's going to be hard to avoid being on somebody else's camera, even if you don't have your own.
We shouldn't support this project or projects like this unless we get full assurances that the privacy issues have been tackled appropriately. At the moment, we don't know how the encryption is done, so as far as we should be concerned, there is none. No encryption.
As far as I'm concerned, with the knowledge we currently have of the project, if this project becomes big, this is worse than for example: The government installing CCTV on every street corner, which automatically uploads data to a central database that they can peruse at will. These cameras will be in and on private property as well.