Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by underwater » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 12:45 AM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #35

papito wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are "people" when it comes to their thirst for massive political influence, but just when they get into legal trouble, they are suddenly NOT a person, but a vague multi-layered blob, impossible to prosecute.

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…

If an individual kills someone they will be arrested and imprisoned. If a corporation kills someone they may be fined a token amount or have a pay restitution. Hardly equivalent.

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

#102

Post by meowface » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #32

> 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.

A 4 billion-plaintiff class action lawsuit would be pretty interesting to watch.

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

#103

Post by jml7c5 » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 2:02 AM UTC

scott31 wrote: post #60

Should be $500T instead

You want Facebook to be fined 5 years of world GDP?

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

#104

Post by stevesearer » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 2:06 AM UTC

clement_b wrote: post #43

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #32

> 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?

I was thinking about this on a visit to a major tourist spot I had visited years previously. Because I had been before I decided to go with no camera or phone to just look around.

As I was walking around I realized that so many other people were taking photos where I was in the background that it felt like Facebook or Google knew I was there even though no one else did.

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

#105

Post by perl4ever » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:52 AM UTC

akersten wrote: post #77

stephen82 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Under the Illinois law, Facebook could be forced to pay $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, meaning the full damages could reach $500 billion if Facebook is found responsible."

$500B is pretty nuts. Does anyone else here feel that this whole thing is nuts? Facebook's market cap is $700B. Making them pay $500B in damages would put them out of business. So, to be clear with what we're talking about here, we're considering the corporate death penalty. The alleged crime? Processing photo data to find objects that look like people that look similar to other objects that look like people. Yes, by…

Hmm, I question whether it really would put them out of business. FB made about $18B net income last year. Shouldn't that be more than enough to pay the interest on issuing $500B of long term bonds? It almost seems like a sweet spot of a massive fine that wouldn't kill them.

Also, it would just be satisfying to demonstrate they aren't above the law. Ordinary people don't get to say "but that law is obviously unreasonable" when, you know, it's very debatable, and get exempted.

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

#106

Post by 3763282827 » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:16 AM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #32

> 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.

It'd be nice if the article explained how either itself or Illinois were arriving at that 100 million number considering that the population of Illinois is only 12.67m according to a cursory google search.

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

#107

Post by 3763282827 » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:30 AM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #92

akersten wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 responsib…

Why should the recipient/platform be culpable if the supplier is already acknowledged as being both culpable and dishonest as far as the ToS? It might be sexier in a David vs. Goliath sense to go after Facebook but Facebook isn't the party creating and uploading all of this content. If the risks of supplying a platform without consent aren't sufficiently high then suppliers will never have an incentive to verify consent. And if the suppliers were already verifying for consent then this would be a non-issue because consent would be implied as far as the platform was concerned.

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

#108

Post by bryan_w » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 8:41 AM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #71

jfk13 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

How do you think the "tag so-and-so in this picture" feature works?

What feature are you talking about? Can you link to any official documentation or post a screenshot?

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

#109

Post by bryan_w » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 8:41 AM UTC

anaganisk wrote: post #61

jfk13 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Im pretty sure i get tag suggestions for an image, isn't that source enuf?

Are you sure that is a thing?

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

#110

Post by labawi » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 1:07 PM UTC

3763282827 wrote: post #107

mannykannot wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 responsib…

Why should the recipient/platform be culpable if the supplier is already acknowledged as being both culpable and dishonest as far as the ToS? It might be sexier in a David vs. Goliath sense to go after Facebook but Facebook isn't the party creating and uploading all of this content. If the risks of supplying a platform without consent aren't sufficiently high then suppliers will never have an incentive to verify cons…

The ToS might as well force people to promise away their firstborn and people would still upload photos.

Platforms have ToS that are non-negotiable and almost nobody reads them. The plaform knows this and that users upload photos without proper permissions and instead of warning users, they make it very convenient to agree (or even preselect it), otherwise it couldn't use the data in an almost-cover-your-ass way.

Note: I don't use these services, please correct me if I'm wrong.