Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
spectrum.ieee.org
Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
1–10 of 76 posts
Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
#2It's good to see that privacy concerns are being voiced publicly. I'm not certain that class-action lawsuits are the most productive approach to take, though.
On the technical side, I was intrigued that the "black box" of multilayer neural networks could provide a legal defense for Facebook in this case.
Often, the fact that neural networks are harder to analyze compared to other AI techniques is cited as a detriment, but in this legal case it could prove useful.
Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
#3It's good to see that privacy concerns are being voiced publicly. I'm not certain that class-action lawsuits are the most productive approach to take, though. On the technical side, I was intrigued that the "black box" of multilayer neural networks could provide a legal defense for Facebook in this case. Often, the fact that neural networks are harder to analyze compared to other AI techniques is cited as a detriment…
I think because the state law was written about recording the distance between facial features the implementation comes into play.
I swear that whole "letter of the law" concept in the US as opposed to the actual intent is frustrating.
Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
#4It's good to see that privacy concerns are being voiced publicly. I'm not certain that class-action lawsuits are the most productive approach to take, though. On the technical side, I was intrigued that the "black box" of multilayer neural networks could provide a legal defense for Facebook in this case. Often, the fact that neural networks are harder to analyze compared to other AI techniques is cited as a detriment…
I think because the state law was written about recording the distance between facial features the implementation comes into play. I swear that whole "letter of the law" concept in the US as opposed to the actual intent is frustrating.
There's also the concept of the spirit of the law.
Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think because the state law was written about recording the distance between facial features the implementation comes into play. I swear that whole "letter of the law" concept in the US as opposed to the actual intent is frustrating.
There's also the concept of the spirit of the law.
That's what I meant, I'll leave the comment as it stands though.
Edit: I guess you could say, that was the spirit of my post :D
Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
#6> “We could soon have security cameras in stores that identify people as they shop,”
I stopped using Facebook 5 years ago because I noticed using it made me unhappy. I continue to not go back because of privacy concerns like this.
Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
#7This means I'll be recognized even if I appear in photographs taken by others in public places and I dont even use FB. This is unsettling.
Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
#8> “We could soon have security cameras in stores that identify people as they shop,” I stopped using Facebook 5 years ago because I noticed using it made me unhappy. I continue to not go back because of privacy concerns like this.
Oh, don't worry, just because you are not interested in Facebook, doesn't meant it's not interested in you.
Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
#9It's good to see that privacy concerns are being voiced publicly. I'm not certain that class-action lawsuits are the most productive approach to take, though. On the technical side, I was intrigued that the "black box" of multilayer neural networks could provide a legal defense for Facebook in this case. Often, the fact that neural networks are harder to analyze compared to other AI techniques is cited as a detriment…
>> I'm not certain that class-action lawsuits are the most productive approach to take, though.
1. I don't understand the hand-wringing. If FB turns off the feature for Europe, why are they allowed to continue in the US? [1]
2. It would be better to simply send the decision makers at these tech megacorps "to the guillotine" (figuratively, of course) [2] without over analyzing this issue until they announce a moratorium on these features unless...
3. ... they explicitly ask for permission for each new data point they collect and infer. Sure, opt-in seems high friction in the short run, until these companies finally realize that they are going to be clubbed together with the Enrons and the Arthur Andersons of the world. Character is generally judged at its worst, and having a billion dollars in your back pocket and all the lobbying power in the world, believe it or not, only reinforces suspicion.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/technology/facebook-backs-..., also mentioned in the article.
[2] Yes, the guillotine was a knee jerk reaction too. The problem is - these preachy founders seem to strongly believe they are entitled to apply rules differently to themselves. E.g. Mark Z buying off all the four houses surrounding his house, Eric Schmidt getting angry when Google was used to obtain his personal stuff..
Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial
#10> “We could soon have security cameras in stores that identify people as they shop,” I stopped using Facebook 5 years ago because I noticed using it made me unhappy. I continue to not go back because of privacy concerns like this.
Facebook has what they call "shadow profiles" that still track you even if you've never signed up (or deleted your account). Not using Facebook doesn't mean they don't have information on you.