Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They see your photos

theyseeyourphotos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 240 posts

Re: They see your photos

#211

Post by causality0 »

rsync wrote: post #148

magick convert IMG_1111.HEIC -strip -quality 87 -shave 10x10 -resize 91% -attenuate 1.1 +noise Uniform out.jpg This will strip ALL exif metadata, change the quality, shave 10 pixels off each edge just because , resize to xx%, attenuate, and adds noise of type "Uniform". Some additional notes: - attenuate needs to come before the +noise switch in the command line - the worse the jpeg quality figure, the harder it is t…

I don't really understand the target audience for this. If I don't want my personal media to be in the internet I just don't put it on the internet.

Re: They see your photos

#212

Post by [deleted] »

Retr0id wrote: post #190

This would be pretty great for generating descriptions for the vision-impaired, but it doesn't provide any profound insight beyond what you can tell from a glance. It has a lot of "trying to sound smart" waffle, for example, it had this to say about some tree branches: > A careful observer will also note the subtle variations in the thickness and texture of the branches, implying a natural, organic growth pattern. Ge…

[deleted]

Re: They see your photos

#213

Post by alwa »

panarky wrote: post #113
alwa wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That phrasing raises my weasel-word hackles… first of all, it’s unclear what it would mean to “use your photos and videos for advertising.” That sounds to me like reprinting your photos to advertise something—which nobody accused them of doing. Perhaps more importantly, it only mentions the photos and videos themselves in relation to the advertising. Analyzing the photos (as per the demo in TFA) isn’t “advertising,”…

Cleverly lawyered weasel words are usually complex, highly specific and don't cover all possible uses. This statement is so simple and so general that it covers everything.

It feels just as weaselly to me when, by use of confidence-inspiring “plain language,” firms manage to pass off the impression that they’re making Solemn Categorical Pledges foreswearing the bad behavior that made users nervous—while preserving almost entirely the substance of the bad behavior.

Google seems especially invested in that kind of stunt. Remember their “ad privacy” consent screens for Chrome—which, ridiculously, framed consent to additional tracking as a “privacy” measure? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227; Aug 2023 / 974 points / 557 comments)

Re: They see your photos

#214

Post by xg15 »

Retr0id wrote: post #190

This would be pretty great for generating descriptions for the vision-impaired, but it doesn't provide any profound insight beyond what you can tell from a glance. It has a lot of "trying to sound smart" waffle, for example, it had this to say about some tree branches: > A careful observer will also note the subtle variations in the thickness and texture of the branches, implying a natural, organic growth pattern. Ge…

My guess they had "Elaborate some subtle details of the photo" or "What conclusions can you draw from the situation?" or something as some instruction in the prompt, because it seems to try this with any photo, regardless if there are any noteworthy details or implications in it or not.

I get the idea - demonstrating some "Sherlock Holmes style" inference of hidden facts from the photo - but it gets ridiculous if there is nothing for the model to find.

Re: They see your photos

#215

Post by Jaxan »

I like how the last paragraph completely oversells my photographing skills. The picture was not meant to be unique. It seems to always end with such a paragraph, even for dumb photos of nothing really.

“The photo's perspective is unique; it is taken from a very low angle, creating an unusual, almost childlike point of view. Another detail is that the photographer seems to have excellent timing as they captured the hand gesture at this precise moment. The lighting in the photo indicates it was taken during daytime, with the sun illuminating the scene beautifully. The contrast between the modern architecture of the building and the traditional costumes adds a rich cultural element to the photograph.”

Re: They see your photos

#217

Post by GeekyBear »

panarky wrote: post #76
GeekyBear wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you opt out of Google updating your user/advertising profile based on information they glean from your photos?

"Google Photos doesn't sell your photos, videos, or personal information to anyone and we don't use your photos and videos for advertising." https://safety.google/photos/

Neither of those statements would prevent them from updating your advertising profile with information their AI gleans from your photos.

The question of how you opt out of that remains.

Re: They see your photos

#218

Post by divanvisagie »

lolc wrote: post #169
divanvisagie wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had it trying to guess the economic status of a snow leopard. > The image centers on a single snow leopard; there are no humans present. The leopard's expression is alert and slightly wary but not aggressive. It's difficult to definitively determine the leopard's age or exact health from the image, but it appears to be an adult in relatively good physical condition. There are no clear indications of its economic st…

Hilarious! The text generator is primed to remark on the subject's economic status. Because that sounds greasy when it analyzes your children. A snow leopard must have a rad lifestyle too.

Yeah that revealed a lot about what the base prompt might be. Fun fact it wasn't just any snow leopard, its the wallpaper from the OSX version of the same name... absolutely zero comment from the model about that fact

Re: They see your photos

#219

Post by GeekyBear »

noprocrasted wrote: post #104
panarky wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google Photos doesn't sell your photos, videos, or personal information to anyone and we don't use your photos and videos for advertising." https://safety.google/photos/

Twitter also said they would not use 2FA phone numbers for advertising purposes... and yet ended up doing it.

More to the point, when Google sought approval to buy DoubleClick, they testified before congress that they would not merge information gleaned from your use of Google services with your advertising profile.

If their CEO's congressional testimony on this point isn't considered binding at Google, verbiage on their website certainly isn't.

> To assuage concerns, Google told Congress and the FTC that it would not combine the user data it got from assets in search, e-mail, or GPS maps with information from DoubleClick about which consumers visited which publications. And so, the acquisition was greenlighted. Ten years later, though, Google did not hesitate to break its promise.

https://www.techpolicy.press/how-us-history-and-googles-own-...

Re: They see your photos

#220

Post by notfed »

pornel wrote: post #197
rsync wrote: post #148

magick convert IMG_1111.HEIC -strip -quality 87 -shave 10x10 -resize 91% -attenuate 1.1 +noise Uniform out.jpg This will strip ALL exif metadata, change the quality, shave 10 pixels off each edge just because , resize to xx%, attenuate, and adds noise of type "Uniform". Some additional notes: - attenuate needs to come before the +noise switch in the command line - the worse the jpeg quality figure, the harder it is t…

It the image is watermarked, you can't remove it that way. Watermarks easily survive uniform noise higher than humans can tolerate. Watermark data is typically stored redundantly in multiple locations and channels, so uniform noise mostly averages itself out, and cropping won't do much. Watermarks often add signal in a different color model than RGB and in a heavily transformed domain of the image, so you're not addi…

Which common photo apps are implanting watermarks of this kind?
Post reply on HN