131–140 of 144 posts
No, thank you. But I suspect people would still accept and use that tech just like they have accepted always-online/always-listening digital assistants. Just imagine the possibilities of large-scale manipulations, tho!
Do you use history in your shell?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to elaborate on something that's not developed yet. Here are the principles we are using when developing these products: https://about.facebook.com/realitylabs/responsible-innovatio... In practice, it will mean that some things you will know about, but don't necessarily give consent (i.e., someone taking a picture or a video of you), while other will likely require consent (i.e., recognizing you in these pi…
> In practice, it will mean that some things you will know about, but don't necessarily give consent (i.e., someone taking a picture or a video of you) This would be outright illegal in the EU. Even someone is taking photos / videos of me this person is not allowed to share those with third parties without my consent. If this content is going straight to FB this wouldn't be legal in the first place. Of course FB is f…
I suggest everyone to carefully read the replies of the Facebook employees in this thread. These data are being released in hopes of furthering the developments of these techniques - which ultimately benefits a future use by Facebook. In turn, people like "presenti" have pointed out several times that the data were collected in Facebook offices or other places where all participants consent. The implication is clear:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think that most people believe Facebook privacy guarantees are worth the bits they're written in?
No but they should: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-i...
Nobody should believe Facebook's privacy promises when the largest penalty it has ever received for profiting from user privacy violations over many years equates to one month's revenue. The incentives are simply not strong enough for Facebook to be a good actor in this area.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20692524/facebook-five-bi...
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/21/facebook-paid-billi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like this pattern in calls to action. The pattern starts with an implicit hopelessness of affecting any external change and results in all responsibility being assumed by the individual. This is an antipattern of change. It does not need to be perpetuated because it reproduces the permanence of the constructs we want to dismantle. Even more importantly, these entities are fully aware of this and craftily guid…
Change isn't caused by strength of belief; it's magic that only works based on how hard you believe in it. Collective action doesn't do itself, and the words "collective action" don't constitute a plan. Individual evasions at least make things more expensive to do. Also, individual action doesn't crowd out collective action. Not protecting yourself doesn't create collective action. A concrete plan with concrete indiv…
My point is that "If you can't stop Facebook snooping" is a self-limiting assumption. Of course we can stop Facebook from snooping. Facebook's ability to snoop relies on the social, political, legal, and economic assumptions all of which are constructed by people and therefore aren't immutable constants. Our progress toward changing that is realizing that all of these things are things we made and therefore can change.
I suggest everyone to carefully read the replies of the Facebook employees in this thread. These data are being released in hopes of furthering the developments of these techniques - which ultimately benefits a future use by Facebook. In turn, people like "presenti" have pointed out several times that the data were collected in Facebook offices or other places where all participants consent. The implication is clear:…
No, thank you. But I suspect people would still accept and use that tech just like they have accepted always-online/always-listening digital assistants. Just imagine the possibilities of large-scale manipulations, tho!
Do you use history in your shell?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. FB openly ignores the GDPR and will be happy to pay a fine if the EU manages to ever show enough courage to levy one of significance. Facebook trains its models on your data, in particular your pictures and (in the future) your video - your behavior, voice, face, etc. But feat not, your name will not flow directly in the algorithms (until you sign up an account - and the rest of your data is already there!…
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding in the United States is that a person in a public place has no legal expectation of privacy. If you are in public and someone takes a picture in which your face is visible and then upload that to Facebook, I wouldn't expect that to be a violation of my privacy nor would I expect Facebook to allow an unknown person to request the picture's removal.
In several countries of the EU, if not all, you have the right to decide whether anyone takes picture material of you, and how it is used. This, of course, includes video.
As I wrote elsewhere, there is no way for such glasses (that are uploading to facebook) to ever be used legally in these countries. Even if they merely feed an anonymous algorithm, they are still based on illegal actions. And what facebook likes about it, is that it's the people wearing the glasses who break the law. And the small details about uploading and processing the data... well who's gonna sue (successfully)?
So, the replies in this thread indicate that facebook will develop this technology, knowing full well it will profit from people breaking the law with it. They slightly cloud the issue here (open, data, yada yada) in hopes countries do not disallow such tech from the get go ... but only slightly. No, they are cocksure about this scheme working out.
In the US, of course, there's no issue in the first place.
It just seems like the people at FB have watched Black Mirror and decided they want to do all the things they saw.
I suggest everyone to carefully read the replies of the Facebook employees in this thread. These data are being released in hopes of furthering the developments of these techniques - which ultimately benefits a future use by Facebook. In turn, people like "presenti" have pointed out several times that the data were collected in Facebook offices or other places where all participants consent. The implication is clear:…
It's pretty simple to see, but a lot of people don't want to see it.