111–120 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a "Face Recognition" tab that's new to the settings page since the last time I went through disabling things. For me, it shows up on the left side right under "Language".
Okay, I don't see it. Maybe its a USA-only thing? (Europe here.)
I got nearly the same notification, except mine defaulted to off, it said "This setting is off, but you can turn it on any time". My guess is that they based the setting on another setting. For example there was some photo tagging thing added years ago, and I disabled that. Most of my timeline and tagging settings are set to Custom or require review.
Countries laws? Are you in Europe perhaps?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should I have to be afraid of anything? Is this a riff on the 'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' theme? I just don't think it is ok that large companies are working their way into datasets about every living body on the planet and that is my right. See also, article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upo…
As I understand US law, when you're in public you have no expectation of privacy, and you can't do anything about having your photo taken. This is tangental to your point, but does that also mean that Facebook is legally free to ID you in photos which are taken in public? I really don't know. (FWIW, I'm with you, it makes me crazy when family members post all their holiday photos on Facebook and tag me in them.)
For celebrities and politicians there are yet more rules and exceptions.
On a related note, FB seems to use the microphone, with permissions disabled, when the app isn’t even open, to listen in on our conversations and later advertise things it hears us talking about. I don’t have 100% proof of this but we’ve mentioned things we never googled or even put in our phones or computers and they are pretty specific (purple dress, tactile diaper bags, beer) and they come up the next day or two i…
I've seen very odd events as well that have convinced me this is happening. Went to a friends house and ending up discussing the most random, very specific topics. 2 of the 3 topics popped up in ads on the way home an hour later. Never searched anything related on my phone prior to then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should I have to be afraid of anything? Is this a riff on the 'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' theme? I just don't think it is ok that large companies are working their way into datasets about every living body on the planet and that is my right. See also, article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upo…
I don't read that as "no one can take my photo", though. Certainly that language should protect me from people invading my private space to take photos of me, but if I'm out and about in public, I should have no expectation that no photos will be taken of me, and I would feel very wrong asking someone to delete a photo of me in a public place. I would consider that to be infringing on their rights. I get that photos…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why I do not want anybody to make any pictures of me, especially not if they are active on social media. There are exactly two pictures of me online, the one is 30 years old, the other about 10. The quickest way to get me pissed off is to point a camera at me.
I'm with you. But I'd also be worried about coming off as the angriest (or most paranoid) guy on earth. I probably already hold the title in my family. What would be neat is a polite discreet social signal that politely discreetly signaled this to people with a camera. If you did it right, you might also get rich in a Pet Rock sort of way.
So, here's the weird catch-22. Or perhaps, the illusion of choice. There are two people who are in a photo. One wishes Facebook to use face recognition, the other does not. Facebook will run face recognition on the photo regardless, but how will they know who wants to be recognized, and who doesn't? Simply, they have a model of your face already trained. And they recognize you in photos--you have no say whether or no…
Which is why I do not want anybody to make any pictures of me, especially not if they are active on social media. There are exactly two pictures of me online, the one is 30 years old, the other about 10. The quickest way to get me pissed off is to point a camera at me.
I get that rampant data collection is unacceptable, and companies are terribly poor stewards of our personal data, but at the end of the day I have precious little in a visual sense with which to remember my parents.
I think it's entirely reasonable to request that your friends not post pictures of you on social media, though, and get pissed at them when they ignore your wishes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is simply insisting on something that is listed in the universal declaration of human rights something that should warrant a tinfoil hat? In my experience stuff like this is abused sooner or later, most likely sooner. I see absolutely no reason why I should willingly consent to such abuse. Privacy is important, guard it because if you don't there is no way back.
Looks like you are active on social media (Twitter, anyways) which seems at odds with your extreme privacy stance regarding pictures. Why the distinction? (not trying to attack, just curious)
Which parts of my life go online and which don't is mine to decide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw it in the app. So this is not accurate.
Was it a push notification? Or did you have to open the app to see it? It's silent unless there was a proactive message to you from Facebook that your face will start to be recognized. This facial recognition happens even when you're not using the app. So Facebook is waiting for you to take action before telling you anything. That is not proactive, it is silent. What if you don't go on Facebook any more but have an a…