Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1. 

   thublihnk (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:24pm

   
   

   Not a terrible sound, either. Good to see that good music is being combined with inventive marketing campaigns.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   kyle clements (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:50pm

   
   

   "What do you do if you want to be seen on Google Street View, rather than blurred, and your government has taken away that ability?"
   
   I guess you can have a portrait printed on a sign, and have that sign beside you when the googlemobile comes by.
   
   Personally, I like it how in this one particular case, the government has sided on privacy being the norm, not the exception. Having your face posted publicly on a system like street view should be be opt-in, not opt-out. and in this one particular case, I think the government is mostly right.
   
   oh, and this is an absolutely brilliant idea! Good job!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   Pjerky (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:50pm

   
   

   Awesome Promo Idea

   I love the idea, this could be used for all sorts of things. Props to the guy for thinking about it.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   Jesse, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:58pm

   
   

   This is a clear violation of privacy. It must be stopped. For the children.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   scarr (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 10:00pm

   
   

   Re:

   What privacy would be violated? He's on the public street. Google lowering the resolution of the images because of these concerns has made it far less useful for finding things ... all of which are, by definition, in view of the street.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   Andrew F (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 10:58pm

   
   

   Re: Re:

   It's sarcasm scarr.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7. 

   Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 11:02pm

   
   

   You lobby the government and sue Google :)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8. 

   Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 11:08pm

   
   

   But in all seriousness, why doesn't he just ask Google to unblur the picture? They may or may not listen, perhaps they can't unblur it because they deleted the unblurred picture, but what doe he have to lose by asking.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9. 

   Tor (profile), Dec 10th, 2009 @ 12:28am

   
   

   Re: Re:

   According to that argument the extreme situation with the surveilance cameras in for example Great Britain is no problem either since all that is filmed is public anyway. I'm not sure I would agree with that.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10. 

    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 12:59am

    
    

    Re: portrait

    The face blurring technology is automatic and often confuses printed materials (advertising etc.) with people and then blurs them out.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11. 

    Mr RC (profile), Dec 10th, 2009 @ 1:31am

    
    

    heh...

    Damn clever idea!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12. 

    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 3:37am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    Is it?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13. 

    Siddharth, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 3:49am

    
    

    Haha.. funny. too bad the government had to come out with th rule...

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14. 

    R. Miles (profile), Dec 10th, 2009 @ 3:50am

    
    

    The answer is...

    what do you do if you want to be seen on Google Street View, rather than blurred, and your government has taken away that ability?
    You put the SIGN OF THE BAND NAME next to you.
    
    Too bad this guy didn't think of that.
    /sarcasm

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15. 

    senshikaze (profile), Dec 10th, 2009 @ 4:48am

    
    

    Actually, i like the look of the blurred face with the sign and guitar. would be a cool promo picture.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16. 

    Umm, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 5:12am

    
    

    Re: The answer is...

    "Too bad this guy didn't think of that."
    
    You look confused

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17. 

    Jimr (profile), Dec 10th, 2009 @ 5:15am

    
    

    See him for yourself

    He had his picture in the local paper and on the National news for all the world to see:

    via: cbc.ca

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18. 

    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 10th, 2009 @ 5:27am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    Then you must have a problem with people taking pictures of their children in the park. Since they could be taking pictures of houses and other people as well. And with things like flicker, anything can get online.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19. 

    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 5:32am

    
    

    Re:

    For the facial blurring, it's pretty obvious:
    
    Can you imagine Google maintaining a file for every man, woman, and child on the planet with their preference of "blur / not blur"? Can you imagine the streetview editors having to consult that file?
    
    "Gee, is that Fred F or his brother?"
    
    It would be absolutely insane. Mike, I cannot for the life of me understand why you wouldn't think of something like that. Sometimes for a smart man you make some of the dumbest comments.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20. 

    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 5:45am

    
    

    "What do you do if you want to be seen on Google Street View, rather than blurred, and your government has taken away that ability?"
    
    You suck it up. "You don't always get what you want."

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21. 

    PaulT (profile), Dec 10th, 2009 @ 6:20am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ah, I was wondering when some idiot would drop by with that myth...
    
    Anyway, it's the same point - any cameras that there are filming the streets are filming *public* areas. There's nothing a camera can pick up that the guy standing next to you or on the balcony above you can't see.
    
    What privacy do you really expect in the public street?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22. 

    Planetwebfoot, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 7:12am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, I agree with you, but there is a difference between being seen by the guy next to you, and having your photo plastered on the Internet. If you want to be seen on Google Street View, well...too bad, get around it with promoting yourself online via other means such as creating a web-site and socail networking.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23. 

    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 7:46am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    ...unless a person specifically states where and what image they would like unblurred, and then provide proof that they are the person in question?
    
    Why in the world would you even think that the system would be "Hey, let's find every image that matches this person"?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24. 

    scarr (profile), Dec 10th, 2009 @ 7:57am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As Chronno mentioned before, that happens all the time with people taking pictures in public places and putting them on Flickr, or any of thousands of other places on the web.
    
    Is it your claim that parents should have to blur all the faces out at their kids' sports matches, unless they can get release forms from everyone in attendance?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25. 

    Larna, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 8:26am

    
    

    google

    Google always come close but never get there.. check out the article on the music void site about Vevo another google failed venture... www.voidmusic.com
    
    http://www.themusicvoid.com/2009/12/vevo-another-failed-venture-or-a-virtual-video-goldmine/

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26. 

    onanon, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 8:30am

    
    

    Umm..

    ...no, you look retarded.
    
    ..I want a ban on people who don't understand sarcasm and also on those who feel the need to write '/sarcasm' when they are being sarcastic.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27. 

    nasch (profile), Dec 10th, 2009 @ 9:45am

    
    

    Re: google

    Google always come close but never get there.
    
    Yeah, if only Google could figure out some kind of product people want to use. Wait, what?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28. 

    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 10:40am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    Because they don't have time to handle it.
    
    I have an idea: maybe Google can charge $500 per image to unblur your face, but first you must provide a notarized document that this is in fact you, a good image of yourself, potentially dressed in the same clothes, and two forms of picture ID. Then perhaps they could consider it. Otherwise, they risk unblurring people who don't want to be unblurred.
    
    I would say it's a stupid concept from a to z.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29. 

    Mr. CD (profile), Dec 12th, 2009 @ 1:40pm

    
    

    He should hang a sign on his head that shows a blurred image of his face.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment