A clerk must anonymize faces in a public meeting still before posting it online. Which image-editing approach should they use?

A clerk that must anonymize faces in a public meeting still before posting it online should apply prompt-driven image edits that anonymize faces before publishing. Public meeting transparency does not require identifiable faces in every still. Prompt-driven edits (blur, crop-safe anonymization, or face redaction guided by edit instructions) reduce re-identification risk while still allowing a usable civic photo. That privacy-preserving edit is the approach the stem requires. Applying prompt-driven background blur that anonymizes faces before publishing fails by tool: it softens the background rather than editing the facial regions themselves, so faces stay reasonably identifiable and the anonymization requirement is unmet. Applying prompt-driven face detection that anonymizes faces before publishing fails because detection only locates faces without altering pixels, so identities remain visible until a separate redacting edit is applied. Applying prompt-driven image tags that anonymize faces before publishing fails because tagging only adds labels or metadata without obscuring facial features, so everyone remains recognizable and identifiable. Exam caveat: before publishing public-meeting stills, anonymize faces with image edits—do not rely on background blur, face detection alone, or image tags. Operational check: run face-anonymizing prompt-driven edits on the meeting still, verify faces are not reasonably identifiable, retain an internal original if policy allows, and post only the anonymized version to the public channel.