Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 158 posts

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#121

Post by ehsankia »

fiter wrote: post #111
jeromebaek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a premise in this deduction, which Randstad made: 1. We need darker faces in our training data. 2. Therefore, gather training data from homeless people. How do you go from 1 to 2? With the premise "darker-faced people tend to be homeless". This is not necessarily a false premise -- statistically, it is true, and it is a reflection of systemic injustice -- but the outrage is not whether it's true or false; th…

In the article it said Randstad targeted homeless people because they were less likely to talk to the media.

Also I'm assuming homeless people would be much happier about a 5$ gift card on average.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#122

Post by ehsankia »

kortilla wrote: post #79
tobib wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would happily sell anyone a picture or scan of my face for $5. But I even more happily have that chance go to someone who needs it more than myself. Would you really? My gut feeling tells me that's not the case for most people for privacy or ethical reasons. Just because those people are poor, we expect them to have lower privacy or ethical standards. The link you posted has the following example, I think you're…

>gut feeling tells me that's not the case for most people for privacy or ethical reasons Your gut is sadly wrong. The majority of people still do not actually care about privacy when there is more than a few cents of value being offered.

They must spend way too much time on HN or reddit, because out there, most people don't care whatsoever about these sort of issues. It's only on these boards that privacy is a hot button issue.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#123

Post by DoreenMichele »

microtherion wrote: post #105
DoreenMichele wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as what? Some bizarre and unfounded idea that poverty and skin color have some correlation?

Such a correlation may or may not exist, but surely it's evident that no conclusion either way could be drawn from a dataset constructed using Google's method. And yet imbalanced datasets are used all over the place, e.g. to identify "criminals" in China ( https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114900-concerns-as-fac... ) and the US ( https://www.engadget.com/2019/08/14/aclu-facial-recognition-... )

I spent time homeless. I was frequently mistaken for a tourist based on how I looked, because of my casual clothing (usually a t-shirt and sweatpants). People typically figured out I was homeless based on my habits, not my appearance.

I'm off the street. I still look and dress the same, in part because I currently do freelance work from home. I don't have to meet a dress code.

While homeless and in downtown San Diego, I fairly often gave away food I had been given but couldn't eat, either because of dietary restrictions or time limits (in that a large amount of stuff that should be refrigerated would spoil before I could eat it). I tried to offer it to other homeless people mostly.

One woman who panhandled regularly was reluctant to accept too much food from me, explaining "I'm not homeless." She panhandled because she was a retiree in high-priced downtown San Diego living on a fixed income. I told her to take it home, stick it in the fridge and eat some tomorrow. I assured her it was fine, I didn't have a fridge.

Another woman got mad at me for offering and told me to feed it to my dog. She was sitting on a curb in a neighborhood near a lot of homeless services where sitting on the curb outside was often a sign of homelessness.

She was also black and I'm white. She likely lived in the apartment building she was in front of and probably thought I was being a racist bitch. She was insulted at my sincere offer of charity and attempt to give away most of the fresh fruit I had been given so it wouldn't go to waste.

There are a lot of stereotypes about what homeless people look like. The reality is that there are a lot of homeless people with jobs and/or attending college and/or living in their car who successfully manage to pass for "normal" much of the time.

I have no idea what criteria was used to target homeless people by Google, but I'm skeptical that the dataset:

A. Is representative of homeless people generally.

B. Was chosen based on people looking homeless, rather than people behaving homeless.

C. Actually is a 100% correlation that people believed to be homeless were actually homeless.

The examples you give are blatant misuses of data sets. How you source the data has little bearing on the dumb ideas people come up with for how to use it.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#124

Post by ehsankia »

aeturnum wrote: post #17
SamBam wrote: post #10

It sounds like there were three issues: 1. The contractor targeted homeless people 2. They targeted people with darker skin 3. They may not have been forthright or truthful about what they were doing. Number 3 is clearly wrong. But I think so long as the contractors were upfront and truthful about what they were doing, I don't know if 1 or 2 are problematic. The only argument I can see for why they shouldn't pay home…

If this report is correct it seems like they were targeting a vulnerable population based on the logic that their vulnerability made them less likely to insist on being treated better than google wanted to treat them. That seems really bad to me. If you're asking folks on the street and happen to get a lot of unhoused folks because they're around, that's fine. Writing memos telling people to target vulnerable populat…

> being treated better than google wanted to treat them

They're asking for 5m of their time and a scan of their face, in exchange for 5$. It's a simple transaction, and unlike what the HN-crowd would like to think, the majority of people in the street would quickly make that deal.

The article is putting a lot of their own feelings and opinions on the situation. Just because you have a fear of Google doesn't mean the whole world does, and no one was forced to do anything they didn't want to.

Also, the article mentions homeless people not going to the media (avoiding leaks), not being vulnerable.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#125

Post by aeturnum »

kapuasuite wrote: post #98
aeturnum wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this report is correct it seems like they were targeting a vulnerable population based on the logic that their vulnerability made them less likely to insist on being treated better than google wanted to treat them. That seems really bad to me. If you're asking folks on the street and happen to get a lot of unhoused folks because they're around, that's fine. Writing memos telling people to target vulnerable populat…

You’re using words like “targeted” and “vulnerable” to imply there’s some kind of harm being done here, which is laughably false. Just because something strikes you as wrong (for whatever ridiculous reason) doesn’t mean it’s actually wrong, let alone “gross and deeply unethical.” Are osteoporosis researchers unethical for “targeting” women?

The word "targeted" appears in the document quoted in the article. I think describing the homeless as a vulnerable population is a pretty uncontroversial thing to say, but if you'd like I can only use language from the article.

It's gross and deeply unethical to "target" homeless because they "didn’t know what was going on at all." Giving your subjects or customers incomplete information, such as "characterizing the scan as a 'selfie game'," is also clearly unethical.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#126

Post by aeturnum »

ehsankia wrote: post #124
aeturnum wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this report is correct it seems like they were targeting a vulnerable population based on the logic that their vulnerability made them less likely to insist on being treated better than google wanted to treat them. That seems really bad to me. If you're asking folks on the street and happen to get a lot of unhoused folks because they're around, that's fine. Writing memos telling people to target vulnerable populat…

> being treated better than google wanted to treat them They're asking for 5m of their time and a scan of their face, in exchange for 5$. It's a simple transaction, and unlike what the HN-crowd would like to think, the majority of people in the street would quickly make that deal. The article is putting a lot of their own feelings and opinions on the situation. Just because you have a fear of Google doesn't mean the…

>the article mentions homeless people not going to the media (avoiding leaks), not being vulnerable.

I guess...I didn't think calling the homeless a vulnerable population was controversial? The text in article specifically mentions that the people working with them described them as ignorant and purposely mis-informing them about the nature of the trial. Are you saying you're ok with companies misleading people as long as those people are unlikely to realize they are mislead?

>Just because you have a fear of Google doesn't mean the whole world does

As I said in my post, I don't think there would be anything wrong with collecting that data on the street and happening to get homeless folks because they're around. It's the misleading and targeting that bothered me. Are you sure I'm the one who's letting my feelings get the best of me?

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#127

Post by kapuasuite »

JohnFen wrote: post #119
kapuasuite wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would make it “not objectionable?”

Obtaining actual informed consent.

There’s not even an expectation of privacy in a public setting, realistically what harm is being prevented by obtaining “informed consent?”

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#128

Post by kapuasuite »

aeturnum wrote: post #125
kapuasuite wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re using words like “targeted” and “vulnerable” to imply there’s some kind of harm being done here, which is laughably false. Just because something strikes you as wrong (for whatever ridiculous reason) doesn’t mean it’s actually wrong, let alone “gross and deeply unethical.” Are osteoporosis researchers unethical for “targeting” women?

The word "targeted" appears in the document quoted in the article. I think describing the homeless as a vulnerable population is a pretty uncontroversial thing to say, but if you'd like I can only use language from the article. It's gross and deeply unethical to "target" homeless because they "didn’t know what was going on at all." Giving your subjects or customers incomplete information, such as "characterizing the…

Feel free to point to literally any harm to these people - there isn’t any. We’re talking about capturing faces in a public place where there’s no expectation of privacy. What does “gross” even mean beyond “it offends my sensibilities?”

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#129

Post by autoexec »

domador wrote: post #7
ehsankia wrote: post #2

At least the Verge has the less clickbait headline, mentioning that it was contractors. The original source mentions Google in the headline but the rest of articles only refers to Randstad. One part that is a bit confusing to me is, the original source makes no references whatsoever to any consent form. Usually you can't collect this sort of data without signed consent, and previous reports [0] do mention such a form…

I'm on the fence regarding whether it's unfair for the a news source to attribute this sin directly to Google via its headline. "Actually, it was our contractors who did it" seems like too common and easy an excuse for companies and governments who want to outsource the blame and the fallout for their questionable projects.

I agree. I don't care if a company does something directly or outsources the work to someone else, ultimately the company is still responsible for making sure the work is done correctly and ethically.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#130

Post by autoexec »

kapuasuite wrote: post #112
kevingadd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For starters, telling the people what you're actually doing and maybe paying them more than 5 bucks.

You can argue that lying would be objectionable, but we’re talking about something with essentially no consequences here. As for the fee, how much are their faces worth beyond a fee they were obviously already willing to accept?

> but we’re talking about something with essentially no consequences here.

Just because it's difficult to identify the harms caused by someone stealing your biometric data that doesn't mean there are no harms. Gaining access to someone's biometric data clearly opens them up to certain types of risks ranging from identify theft to surveillance. Fraudulently gaining access to someone's biometric data is wrong even if the data is never abused or exploited.

Post reply on HN