Live data from Hacker News

Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

businessinsider.com

91–100 of 112 posts

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#91
post #58
post #52

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…

In a working system, yes. In the America that we have today, I can crime all I want, behind a wall of indirection, lawyers, and preferential treatment of the Church of Business. It requires prosecutors with a special set of skills, perseverance, and resources, which we simply don't have.

Mountains of corporate money is flowing into the government, thanks to stuff like Citizens United (a nuclear bomb under American politics), and absolutely out of control lobbying, creating a castrated government that simply cannot or wants to do anything.

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#92
post #63

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.…

The problem with this argument is that it would be self-servingly naive for the recipient of the images to assume that the source of the data had obtained the appropriate permissions. Of course, the people creating this policy are not that naive; they are simply adopting the attitude cynically, as cover for what they know to be unethical.

To be clear, this does not absolve the supplier of the data for their responsibility, but the supplier’s culpability does not absolve the recipient.

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#93
post #63

> 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…

> Autonomous cars

Let me stop you right there, because that's the difference.

An autonomous car, one would presume, or its builder would find themselves here too, is not permanently scanning every object it finds, tagging it, coalescing it into a giant database, and cross referencing that with an enormous amount of individually identifying information.

The autonomous car doesn't know you're "Jonaldo Stevensmith of Braunschweiger, Texas, 28 years old, working for Brogrammer Inc" nor what you've been doing for the last ten years. Its capability goes only as far as knowing you're one of ten living (human) things it must not run over.

Instgram/Facebook do know who you are. Fb/I have shown time and time again that they aren't capable of securely managing user data. Nor do they make it explicit what they will do with your data long-term, because they themselves do not know.

Let me illustrate the problem further, if I understand things correctly Instgram works primarily on phones. Mobile phones for the last five years by and large have amazing cameras, with sensors ranging from 8 megapixels all the way up to "100 megapixels" in some current flagship models. Instagram, if I understand things correctly, allows you to upload any resolution of photo and stores the original in perpetuity BUT it will only show you very low resolution versions (even of your own photos).

Meaning, Instagram will not show users their original upload and only offers scaled down versions; all the while, performing biometric analysis on the originals. I don't think most people would upload photos if they knew, that their faces were being scanned at in extremely high resolutions and permanently attached to an already unfathomably deep profile. Even if they were okay with a few I don't think most folks would be okay once they realize the scale and true size. It's very likely every photo anyone has taken of you (and uploaded), whether you've been tagged or not (or as someone just in the background) Fb/I will know you're in it. I'm sure that wasn't clearly stated by their terms of service.

Truly, what's happening here could only end even worse for everyone, with an even larger lawsuit(s) than this... I'd wager a even a near company shattering fine of $150bn now would be a deal. Why?

An unfettered quest for growth would leave them blind to what they're creating. By Identifying people using biometric and superficial data and then attempting to predict human behavior combining them-- they will end up creating a fucking racist machine. The machine won't be based on science as a result of its dataset; it's going to be based on "AI" trained from incomplete bullshit data. It will be asked to predict things it is unable to, but the researchers will not be able to discern fact from fiction because there's too much noise. "It fits the curve, it must be right."

The more opaque the machine stays, the longer it will remain hidden, and the more racist it will be become feeding off of itself.

The lawsuit to stop that devil would be end-game for Facebook. I suspect, there would be no recovery, because the dual passage of antitrust and discrimination laws preventing, dismembering, and disemboweling such a wretch would leave only an unrecognizable corpse.

Do I think it's Facebook's intention to create a giant racist fucking machine? Fuck no. I do think it's entirely possible to repeat history, stupidly, and accidentally. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#94
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm guessing the easiest way to fix this would be to just disable the feature? 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.)

I wonder if they are deleted from generated machine learning models?

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#95
> In a statement to Business Insider, Facebook spokesperson Stephanie Otway said Instagram does not use facial recognition in the way the Facebook app does. "This suit is baseless. Instagram doesn't use Face Recognition technology," Otway said.

Later on in the article:

> Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

So, which one is it?

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#96
post #78
post #35

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.

That's why I like HN comment threads. So many good examples on how to make progress in discussions and conversations, and even analysis of why certain behavior is counter-productive

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#97
post #83
post #65

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...

1) The "my friend" at the end of OPs comment is the connection to Mitt Romney. It's a relatively famous quote, much to my dismay.

2) No corporations are not people. That is, quite obviously, a non-sequitur. They do, however, have some (but not all!) of the rights that people do because of the fact that they are made up of people.

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#98

It's pretty obvious that the fine won't be $500B since it was likely set that high specifically so when it's knocked down it doesn't go to something absurd like $1,000. However, I do hope this sees some traction, especially as Facebook is now fully moving forward with its plan to merge Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook.

How is that "pretty obvious"?

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#99

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.”)

A company is a legal person [1], just as you and me (but we're also natural persons). Otherwise it wouldn't have the ability to sign contracts, borrow money, sue... Or get sued for crimes it committed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

Re: Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data

#100

They need to make people responsible, not the corporate entity.

Why? The company profited from the crime. That would create some interesting incentives.

And people profited frim the crime too. Both should be held responsible.
Post reply on HN