61–70 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instagram does do facial recognition, they are just not doing it for your benefit, or showing you the results.
> Instagram does do facial recognition I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's true, but still...do you have a source for that claim?
The most depressing part about this is: to me, as an individual who probably has my biometric data harvested, I see nothing of this money and my data is still gone. It’s almost as if there was a hidden price tag: "Do crime X and pay Y to make money Z." As long as Y<Z and the business can continue to operate with a new crime, it’s just like there was no law. Just costs.
How exactly is your data "gone"?
> the tool automatically scans the faces of people pictured in other users' posts, even if they don't use Instagram and didn't agree to the terms of service. This suggests to me that the number of people affected is much more than the 100 million Instagram users, and the potential fine much higher.
Why is this wrong? You're just scanning a bunch of pixels, and the data was given to you, so any liability or violation of use of someone's likeness is on the person who gave you the data.
Autonomous cars scan the poses and faces of people even if they didn't agree to any ToS, to try to determine what those people are about to do based on their physical expression. Autonomous cars track the movements of strangers over a short time as well by re-identifying a person that moved behind an obstacle and emerged on the other side. It would be silly and unsafe to say they are not allowed to do that, because human drivers do exactly that.
> the tool automatically scans the faces of people pictured in other users' posts, even if they don't use Instagram and didn't agree to the terms of service. This suggests to me that the number of people affected is much more than the 100 million Instagram users, and the potential fine much higher.
Sort of related. I always wondered how people in my photos would react knowing Google Photo was essentially scanning their face without their approval. I am sure this is covered by Google Photos T&Cs somehow, nevertheless, it's a real problem. Should I disclose anyone I snap about this? Even someone walking in the background?
Somewhat similar to what you describe, the "Access Contacts" permission usually present in mobile operating systems essentially leaks the contact information of everyone stored in ones contact, if permitted.
The names and associated phone number can be used to build advertising/tracking profiles by apps.
The problem is that even if someone does not use those apps and instead chooses privacy-respecting alternatives, it only takes another person who does use these apps to have their information saved in their contacts.
I would imagine it to be quite similar with these photos and also with the facebook case.
It seems unethical to put other people who might not be on facebook and have not read the terms of service or privacy policy through these algorithms.
I think the contacts example illustrates how hard of a problem this is, I definitely don't have a viable solution. Even if you ask someone for permission, they might change their mind or not fully understand.
Today I learned: the idea that a corporation can commit a crime is a very new one. [1] People commit crimes, not companies. [1] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 464 (1765) (“A corporation cannot commit treason or felony or other crime in its corporate capacity though it’s members may in their distinct individual capacities.”)
> People commit crimes, not companies. I thought corporations are people, my friend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1wSWtm_BI
Romney's point was that corporations are made up of people and that corporate taxes are, in the end, taxes on people.
The fact that this was treated as some kind of gaffe at the time, and is still being repeated almost a decade later is just terribly disappointing.
The most depressing part about this is: to me, as an individual who probably has my biometric data harvested, I see nothing of this money and my data is still gone. It’s almost as if there was a hidden price tag: "Do crime X and pay Y to make money Z." As long as Y<Z and the business can continue to operate with a new crime, it’s just like there was no law. Just costs.
> my data is still gone How exactly is your data "gone"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People commit crimes, not companies. I thought corporations are people, my friend.
I really wish people would stop repeating this line thinking they are making some kind of interesting point. Go watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1wSWtm_BI Romney's point was that corporations are made up of people and that corporate taxes are, in the end, taxes on people. The fact that this was treated as some kind of gaffe at the time, and is still being repeated almost a decade later is just terri…
Anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American politics since approximately the 60s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No FB user here. Is it possible to get myself labeled on FB-posted photos with my full name by some FB user?
Yes, though it would be equivalent to a label or sticker on an item in a store (note: not a barcode). It wouldn't carry meaning from a technological perspective (though I guess Facebook could try to mine that). The problem with Facebook's facial recognition features is that it has to recognize all faces, even faces that don't want to be recognized, to know which faces to legally not recognize. It's an all-or-nothing…
That’s not at all how Facebook chose to implement their face detection and pretending it’s a hard problem does a disservice to anyone interested in their privacy.
Parsing the image and seeing faces is one thing. Persisting and correlating that data is another.
The most depressing part about this is: to me, as an individual who probably has my biometric data harvested, I see nothing of this money and my data is still gone. It’s almost as if there was a hidden price tag: "Do crime X and pay Y to make money Z." As long as Y<Z and the business can continue to operate with a new crime, it’s just like there was no law. Just costs.
> my data is still gone How exactly is your data "gone"?
> the tool automatically scans the faces of people pictured in other users' posts, even if they don't use Instagram and didn't agree to the terms of service. This suggests to me that the number of people affected is much more than the 100 million Instagram users, and the potential fine much higher.
> scans the faces of people pictured in other users' posts Why is this wrong? You're just scanning a bunch of pixels, and the data was given to you, so any liability or violation of use of someone's likeness is on the person who gave you the data. Autonomous cars scan the poses and faces of people even if they didn't agree to any ToS, to try to determine what those people are about to do based on their physical expre…