Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
#2Court rules that the case may proceed. It is not making a judgement whether they actually violated the rules.
Re: Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
#3It's funny, because on the one hand we have privacy advocates demanding simpler and plain language TOS's that aren't so draconian. On the other hand, if you don't have a draconian TOS's, you're going to get sued by a privacy advocate.
Re: Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
#4It's funny, because on the one hand we have privacy advocates demanding simpler and plain language TOS's that aren't so draconian. On the other hand, if you don't have a draconian TOS's, you're going to get sued by a privacy advocate.
According to the article, the law in question explicitly says a TOS is not sufficient to grant permission.
Which is really the whole point. There's no room to negotiate the language of TOS, so it naturally is written to only benefit Facebook or Shutterfly.
Re: Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
#5It's funny, because on the one hand we have privacy advocates demanding simpler and plain language TOS's that aren't so draconian. On the other hand, if you don't have a draconian TOS's, you're going to get sued by a privacy advocate.
Or better, how about simple and honest business models? "Shutterfly is a photo printer, so they make money by charging people to print photos." No biometric database is needed.
Re: Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
#6Court rules that the case may proceed. It is not making a judgement whether they actually violated the rules.
That's what the headline says?
Re: Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
#7It's funny, because on the one hand we have privacy advocates demanding simpler and plain language TOS's that aren't so draconian. On the other hand, if you don't have a draconian TOS's, you're going to get sued by a privacy advocate.
Or better, how about simple and honest business models? "Shutterfly is a photo printer, so they make money by charging people to print photos." No biometric database is needed.
But that is a low-margin business.
So I have tons of images associated with accounts. So, why can't I do a 'google' and image mine too? Aaaand, I can sell the results to whatever data company?
Suddenly, higher margins and fulfills corporate charter.
Re: Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
#8It's funny, because on the one hand we have privacy advocates demanding simpler and plain language TOS's that aren't so draconian. On the other hand, if you don't have a draconian TOS's, you're going to get sued by a privacy advocate.
Your comment seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
Privacy advocates aren't looking to let companies invade everyone's privacy as long as they do it right, the advocates want to stop it in the first place.
Have you considered that a company could use unintrusive technology, operate on private data only to the extent fundamental to delivering the product the customer has purchased and removing the surveillance clauses from their contracts of adhesion? I suspect privacy advocates might possibly leave them alone if they did that.
Re: Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
#9> In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Norgle rejected Shutterfly's argument that only in-person scans of people's faces are covered under the statute.
That can't be the law, right? Because "scan your face" vs "take a photo and scan that" are identical.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&Ch...
> "Biometric information" means any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual's biometric identifier used to identify an individual.
Did shutterfly misread this...
> Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific testing or screening,
as this...?
> Biometric identifiers do not include [...] photographs.
Re: Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or better, how about simple and honest business models? "Shutterfly is a photo printer, so they make money by charging people to print photos." No biometric database is needed.
But that is a low-margin business. So I have tons of images associated with accounts. So, why can't I do a 'google' and image mine too? Aaaand, I can sell the results to whatever data company? Suddenly, higher margins and fulfills corporate charter.
A business making high margins is always suspicious – because they need to get the money from /somewhere/, and if you’re a customer, then the company will only get those margins by charging you more than it is worth.
(By the way, too high margins are even illegal in some countries)