The guy who made a tool to track women in porn videos is sorry

When you leave your home, your privacy is gone.

When you make anything public your privacy is gone. Not sure anything is ethically wrong with the software existence, the problem seems to be data usage, just as if somebody found out his neighbors wife is in porn and went to twitter and said it publicly with few pictures as a proof, and people do that.

It's naive to think that this thing can/will go away, if anything, because of this news alone who knows how many more random programmers are retrying this (or even make business plans) at this very moment.

There are good logical and moral reasons, IMO, why the doctrine is unsound. For example: individual photos are qualitatively different to movies, even though movies are made up of individual photos; the fixed interval conveys speed, which individual photos are quite poor at. Similarly, pervasive photography is different to individual photography: instead of an incident at a single location, someone's whole day may be mapped out, and who they're talking to, etc.

In other words, reasoning about privacy is not transitive or scale invariant. You can't say that the end result is ok or moral based on its component parts. Composition changes the thing qualitatively.

2ch (4chan ancestor) users identified girls from porn and harassed them, outing them to their families and friends using this service.

Later company discontinued this service and now sells technology to the Russian government to monitor CCTV footage from Moscow subway.

VK kind of fixed data scraping issue (not sure if they actually changed much).

Usually Russia copies everything from the west, interesting to see western news follow Russian lead after a few years. Not saying I am proud of mother Russia in this case, just an observation.

GDPR states that the lawful basis for processing of data depends, among other things, on:

* the individual's explicit consent to the processing of his or her personal data.

* protecting the vital interests of a data subject or another individual

This violates both criteria, thus is indirect violation of the GDPR.

>If I simply sit in the cafe watching someone continuously near me, I am collecting data, and nobody can do anything about it.

But the tool is doing more than that as it's also using data gathered from crawling social media profiles and then matching people, you cannot do this without specific consent under the GDPR.

>When you leave your home, your privacy is gone.

>When you make anything public your privacy is gone.

GDPR provides controls on privacy, it does not say you are guaranteed privacy in every situation but that if somebody misuses your data in a way that violates your privacy you have rights to correct this misuse, e.g., the right to opt out and the right to erasure of data among others.