Video anonymization
Video anonymization (UK: video anonymisation) is the word labs, hospitals, and ethics boards use when they need footage that can be shown, archived, or published without re-identifying people. Redaction is the legal-office synonym. The difference is not a second product — it is the audience. This page is for the research and clinical wording; counsel looking for disclosure workflows should use FOIA or GDPR.
What ethics review actually asks for
- Processing under the institution’s control, not a consumer cloud account
- An export that cannot be “unmuted” by turning off a subtitle-like overlay
- A repeatable method: faces, and often badges, charts, and corridor signs
Video Blackout addresses those controls on Windows: models and encode run locally; mosaic/blur/solid are burned into H.264. See offline video redaction for residency.
Anonymization vs sharing raw CCTV
Sharing raw ward or lab video “internally on Drive” is still a distribution of identifiers. Anonymized exports are a new file. Keep the original in the system of record; circulate only the anonymized derivative. Face workflow: face redaction (auto-detect plus manual boxes). Plates: license plate blur (same two modes). Spoken identifiers: manual audio ranges — there is no automatic speech detection. Broader on-screen identifiers: PII video redaction.
If your tender says “redaction software,” the procurement page is video redaction software.
FAQ
- Is video anonymisation just another word for redaction?
- In product terms the export is the same burned-in file. In research ethics, anonymization is the claimed outcome: identities are not recoverable from the shared clip. We use the research word on this page on purpose.
- Can we use this under an IRB or ethics board protocol?
- You still write the protocol. Local processing and irreversible export are the technical controls boards usually ask vendors to document.