51–60 of 122 posts
I wonder what consequences it would have if I would use a cloaked photo for my passport...
As an ML outsider, I'm surprised classifiers are so hyper-sensitive to pixel level inputs that this would work.
This may stop some internet marketers, but don't expect it to be effective against large corps and governments.
Once this technique gets enough attention, a detector for it will be built. Even if the face cannot be recognized, a profile with such picture may be flagged for more scrutiny. This reminds me of using TOR that hides what you visit, and yet likely puts you into a watchlist for surveillance. I think that a simpler and more robust strategy to achieve good privacy is avoid posting personal information online and social…
Do different photos of the same person produce unique results where even a comparison between two cloaked will result in a mismatch? The article mentions that only the comparison between unaltered and cloaked images will result in a mismatch. If that is the case, what's stopping someone from using this algorithm to generate a cloaked image from the unaltered one and then using both in order to identify you?
Color me extremely skeptical. A low-pass filter will make short work of any "tiny, pixel-level" changes designed to thwart ML. After all, one of the most tell-tale identifiers (space between eyes/nose/mouth) is still plainly observable and unaltered in the "cloaked" image. If a human's neural network can correctly correlate the before/after examples, so can a computer's. They might have found an issue with some moder…
> If a human's neural network can correctly correlate the before/after examples, so can a computer's. color _me_ skeptical, but this is like saying we have functioning AGI; that artificial NNs are the same as the ones we have in our skulls. This to me, is an effect of the over-anthropomorphization of machine learning. It's a bad intuition to have. However, I do agree. This is just one step in an arms race, and one it…
Color me extremely skeptical. A low-pass filter will make short work of any "tiny, pixel-level" changes designed to thwart ML. After all, one of the most tell-tale identifiers (space between eyes/nose/mouth) is still plainly observable and unaltered in the "cloaked" image. If a human's neural network can correctly correlate the before/after examples, so can a computer's. They might have found an issue with some moder…
Or more simply, what if you just take a real life photo of the image and scan it back in and use the same classification techniques?
I can be as careful as I want to be with my own media. That doesn't stop my wife from uploading the family photo to Facebook or a public camera capturing my image.
Smart but not wise. Certainly another tool in the privacy toolkit if you absolutely must surrender your likeness to someone else’s computer, but worth bearing in mind that this does not provide (and doesn’t purport to provide) the kind of privacy that strong encryption (or better yet, absent data) can provide. Edited to add: it’s still damn cool.
Technical solutions have never solved this sort of societal problem. Expecting a few individuals to fight against massive institutions with a little clever math is not going to work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-1bR3P9RAw
It's very important that it works 'cos clearview is so creepy. It's not creepy because of its technology, it's creepy because the justifications of its existence that are given by its CEO are sooo weak. "we can do it because it's not worse than google" (ie. we entirely skip the moral argument), "we can do it because it's for law enforcement" (let's frame our stuff in a way that it's only positive) , "we can do it because we ensure that those who use our tool are strictly controlled" (yeah, we're above the states), "all images are public therefore I can do whatever I want", etc.