81–90 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you reveal one of your secret, you no longer have a secret. Private data is the same, it's not private anymore when public, it lost its value.
You chose to show your face in a public place. You have no expectation of privacy. The value was already lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you reveal one of your secret, you no longer have a secret. Private data is the same, it's not private anymore when public, it lost its value.
You chose to show your face in a public place. You have no expectation of privacy. The value was already lost.
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…
Very famously the US supreme court ruled in 2010 that corporations have free speech and money is speech [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Legislati...
[2] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
People are tripping over the reductive part of your post, but ignoring what is the strongest argument: > so any liability or violation of use of someone's likeness is on the person who gave you the data. That's what I feel too. Presumably, by uploading a picture to FB you are giving your consent for it to be processed however their terms outline. And representing that you have the consent of others in the photo too.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're a little confused... > but just when they get into legal trouble, they are suddenly NOT a person, but a vague multi-layered blob, impossible to prosecute. This is exactly why corporations are legally people. We can prosecute the whole blob instead of trying to assign blame to individuals. To see how this works, take a look at People v Rochester Ry. Light co (NY 1909)[1]. A corporation killed someone th…
> I think you're a little confused... FWIW starting a conversation that way is going to put people in a defensive mindset and make them less likely to properly consider what you have to say.
Proper discussions are difficult though, but i learned that starting out with acknowledging positive things, and most certainly stick to facts, not attacking the people you’re talking with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am confused? Effectively, the last criminal prosecution of a corporate entity where actual people went to jail was Robert Mueller's team vs Enron. After that, big money learned their lessons, plugged all the holes in their ships and now it's nearly impossible to do the same again.
Yup, you're definitely confused. The people who went to jail as a result of the enron scandal (fastow) were charged as individuals. You can't charge a corporation and then have other people serve jail time on it's behalf. If jail time is the only thing that satiates you, then you need to clearly show that an individual broke the law. Failing that, we have the ability to charge the whole corporation to make sure that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you reveal one of your secret, you no longer have a secret. Private data is the same, it's not private anymore when public, it lost its value.
You chose to show your face in a public place. You have no expectation of privacy. The value was already lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"Corporations are people" is literally in US law [1]. It has nothing to do with a gaffe from Mitt Romney. Very famously the US supreme court ruled in 2010 that corporations have free speech and money is speech [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Legislati... [2] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805...
Not quite. They ruled that that corporations can spend unlimited money because money is is speech, which was an established precedent set by the much earlier Buckley v. Valeo:
>The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Opinion...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you reveal one of your secret, you no longer have a secret. Private data is the same, it's not private anymore when public, it lost its value.
You chose to show your face in a public place. You have no expectation of privacy. The value was already lost.
>Someone who also attended takes picture of party and posts in on instagram
>Instagram harvests your face from said picture
No public places involved in that scenario.
> 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?
According to documentation, Google mentiones that face groups are deleted when you turn the feature off: https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6128838?hl=en
(And if they're not, winning a lawsuit against Google should be trivial.)