91–100 of 300 posts
[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/14/illegal-immi... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-vows-crackdown-on-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a newer interview with Zuckerberg where he expresses his views at length? Given how big Facebook is now as a company, it's possible that that "policy" was supplanted by a later more reasonable policy. What is their current view, have they explained it in any detail?
I'd suggest a better question to ask would be: could you ever trust Zuckerberg to honestly tell you what his real policies will be -- as opposed to what he might say they are, in statements to the public -- when the government comes by to twist his arm?
Also, yes, you can generally trust people to tell you what their real policies are. They might not be good policies, or well thought-through, etc., but there are very few people in the world who make it their business to lie and cheat every day.
Anyone know this technology well enough to know if sunglasses and a scarf of some sort would prevent my being recognized if not making me look somewhat silly or suspicious.
Facial recognition works primarily on mapping the distances between key features, kind of like a bitmask. The more features you have the longer the bitmask and the fewer matches.
It's not about being "un-matchable" it's about having so few data points you match with enough people that whoever's deciding what "good enough" is for the application has set the bar above how ever good your match is.
For something like sending advertising the bar is super low, who cares if you send out some extra spam the cost of doing so is low. The advertisers don't care if they can't precisely target the mystery man because gaining or losing one lead isn't important when you have thousands. They'll either just not send anything or send something to every possible match.
For something like insurance and credit the bar is higher because if you get the risk wrong then you lose profit margin or the ability to price competitively. This is the one area where the mystery man can win. The people selling data to the creditors can't just set the "hangs out with poor people" bool to true for each big group of people that is a partial match with a mystery person. That approach doesn't scale.
For something like IDing the guy who got a good look at the guy who placed the suitcase that had the bomb the bar is low because while the cost of interviewing a bunch of people is high the available resources are high.
If you want to stay under the radar of the analytics companies then license plate scanning should worry you a lot more than facial recognition (in the US at least).
What is the proposed recourse? Ban Facebook from analyzing data that users give it? I use Facebook's automatic tagging because I find it useful. Should it be illegal for me to use this feature because someone might unintentionally be identified in a photo that I took? Is the argument that Facebook--or any other company--should never be allowed to develop software that could process data that could identify folks, eve…
The alternative is that when you share something with your friends, it goes from you to your friends without being decrypted by anyone in the middle. > If I can legally take a photo, should I not have the right to have a company analyze that photo on my behalf? They have algorithms analyzing your photo. The solution is to run the algorithms on your computer.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose? The whole reason Facebook is able to do what they do is that they have existing tagged photos that I may not have access to. I don't need to train Facebook to know what my friends look like. If I have to do extra work to tag my photos, I'd might as well be manually tagging them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, I would wish Facebook to contract with and take over identity management systems (ie. social security, drivers license) away from local and federal government - not to dictate policy but just to dictate infrastructure. Is it "fear-mongering" to bring up this episode again? Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Reda…
Is there a newer interview with Zuckerberg where he expresses his views at length? Given how big Facebook is now as a company, it's possible that that "policy" was supplanted by a later more reasonable policy. What is their current view, have they explained it in any detail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, I would wish Facebook to contract with and take over identity management systems (ie. social security, drivers license) away from local and federal government - not to dictate policy but just to dictate infrastructure. Is it "fear-mongering" to bring up this episode again? Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Reda…
Is there a newer interview with Zuckerberg where he expresses his views at length? Given how big Facebook is now as a company, it's possible that that "policy" was supplanted by a later more reasonable policy. What is their current view, have they explained it in any detail?
In a just world filled with righteous people, that chat log would have doomed Facebook to oblivion long ago.
What is the proposed recourse? Ban Facebook from analyzing data that users give it? I use Facebook's automatic tagging because I find it useful. Should it be illegal for me to use this feature because someone might unintentionally be identified in a photo that I took? Is the argument that Facebook--or any other company--should never be allowed to develop software that could process data that could identify folks, eve…
I will never disagree with advancing software, because at the end of the day if we don't, someone else will. But I do disagree with companies taking advantage of the laws. There is no privacy law at the moment that bans Facebook from seeing you in someone else's picture and locating where you were, and targeting ads at you based on that information. But it is common decency to have some respect, and discard that info…
Even if there were laws, it would be impossible to show whether or not they are (or aren't) complying.
I guess my point is, how would such a law be crafted to be a) reasonably enforceable and b) not impede on the rights of users who want such services
The neural network is all confused and now it tries to tag the wrong people.
Its not just faces .. me and a friend had a little jam session recently and posted a picture of our cool little setup, consisting of a few pocket-sized machines (synthesizers and controllers) on our table in front of us. Just an innocent little picture of our jam setup. Within seconds of posting this picture of the machines, my friend was getting targeted ads from the manufacturers of those devices - within seconds!…
I had a similar moment (and ironically I'm a musician too). I went to a bar, where a band was playing on stage... After a while I realized I know the drummer. I played with him before, in another band, years ago. We had a beer, chatted a bit and went home. Now, we hadn't posted any pictures, nor statuses, we have no mutual friends on facebook, no connection at all... Heck, Facebook DIDN'T EVEN EXIST when I last saw h…