

Google Street View blurs Colonel Sanders everywhere. - olefoo
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/google/5356031/Google-Street-View-blurs-face-of-Colonel-Sanders-at-every-KFC.html

======
jcl
However, he is still visible from space, via Google Maps:

[http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&...](http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=37.646192,+-115.750711&sll=44.824229,-93.374165&sspn=0.059416,0.172691&ie=UTF8&geocode=FXBvPgIdycgZ-Q&split=0&ll=37.647318,-115.750709&spn=0.006473,0.010793&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A)

------
SamAtt
Ironically Colonel Sanders was ashamed of the franchise (last paragraph:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harland_Sanders#Death_and_legac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harland_Sanders#Death_and_legacy))
so I think he'd approve of this :)

~~~
iigs
Wow. That man did not hold back words. He'd have done great on 4chan.

I tried some of their "Grilled" chicken yesterday and I suspect he'd also not
approve of that. It was not very good.

------
ieatpaste
The algorithm probably only categorizes faces opposed to identifies faces - to
recognize a logo vs human is a waste of time.

------
Maciek416
I'm suddenly reminded of the uncanny valley (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley> ). Google's algorithm would
appear to still be in stuffed animal territory. I wonder if Google will
gradually tweak their algorithm to become better at identifying real faces
with these logos will gradually reappear in Street View...

Or perhaps we'll see them gradually recognizing logos and other things and
indexing them?

------
mattj
I don't know if anyone else has ever noticed this, but lots of street view
pictures will have random face shaped blurs on walls and such. My guess is
google has set a very low false-negative threshold for face identification,
and are thus willing to tolerate blurring lots of non-face objects (which
isn't really much of a loss, anyways, and definitely tolerable if it means the
difference between every real face being blurred and missing 1 out of 100).

------
pert
The article didn't need to be more than the title and the picture, but that's
modern "journalism" for you...

