(no title)
a785236 | 6 years ago
> ... this algorithm replaces the data with a random value that has no relation to the original.
Based on that sentence, I assume that when you write "the data" you mean "the part of a picture corresponding to a person's face." But removing the face from a picture doesn't necessarily make it particularly difficult to identify the subject if the subject is very familiar to you. It doesn't matter if you've never seen that specific picture, or if you have no additional context like place and time.
Just look at the examples on the GitHub page for proof! The picture of Obama and Trump is clearly recognizable, and at least one of the other Obama photos is easy to recognize. The soccer players are identifiable from their jersies (Messi is #10 on Barcelona). Jennifer Lawrence was also easy for me to spot.
lucb1e|6 years ago
Fair enough, if you know what someone wears, their exact skin color, build, and perhaps even the place they are in, then sure, blacking out the face (or changing it for that matter) won't help. I guess I agree that this is more common than the authors make it sound (it's indeed not 100% guaranteed absolutely anonymous always ever, as they put it). But I do have to say, this is about as good as blacking out the face completely and a lot less obnoxious.
> The picture of Obama and Trump is clearly recognizable
You sure? If I show this picture in isolation to someone https://snipboard.io/VjwEc1.jpg I'm not sure that they will say it's Obama. Not sure there is a politically correct way of saying this, but there aren't that many people that are well-known by billions with that skin tone and in a suit, so of course if you ask them "the face was changed, who is this?" they can do a lucky guess for Obama because that's the only guessable possibility.