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

131–140 of 158 posts

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#131

Post by autoexec »

gerash wrote: post #102

This seems like a fake outrage to me. If I were a homeless I'd be more than happy for someone to take a photo of me for $5. In fact, I'd find it pretty hypocritical if someone was spending their energy fighting against possible infringement of my rights in such scenario instead of actually providing me with money or food.

> If I were a homeless I'd be more than happy for someone to take a photo of me for $5.

The problem isn't that they were offering money in exchange for photos of homeless people it's that they were tricking homeless people into giving up their biometric data by telling them they'll pay them $5 just to play with a phone for a few minutes.

If they were honest about what they were taking and why I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#132

Post by dang »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #63
o_p wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, if $0 + not giving face instead of $5 was a superior choice, the homeless would have chosen it, but they didnt.

Homeless are that way for a reason. Logical thinking isn’t it.

Please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN. We've had to warn you about this multiple times already.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#133

Post by lonelappde »

ehsankia wrote: post #120
cwkoss wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems pretty clear. Verge title is kind of clickbait by using `Google Contractors` rather than `Randstad` though. The "and/or" in "it sounds like Google and/or its contractor may have been taking some extreme and unsavory shortcuts to cash in." is clearly use of weasel words, the journalist was unable to substantiate the allegation that Google was aware of this unethical practice. Sloppy reporting demonstrating…

That's still much better than the original source (NY Daily Times) which literally just says "Google".

Outsourcing work is not a justification for outsource responsibility. Google has a choice.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#134

Post by lonelappde »

jeromebaek wrote: post #94
username90 wrote: post #36

I remember the outrage when people discovered that Google's AI wasn't properly trained on black faces. It makes sense that they try hard to avoid that happening again by paying black people to let Google scan their faces. It is not unethical to try to diversify your training data. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11710136/Googl... Anyway, this part sounds directly illegal, seems like it was just Randstad…

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…

That's wrong. The assumption would be that homeless people tend to be dark faced.

It's so unsupported, of course. Far more likely that homeless people tend to be a available and amenable to the project.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#135

Post by JohnFen »

kapuasuite wrote: post #127
JohnFen wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?”

This isn't about being in a public setting, this is about taking photos of people with the intention of including them in a database for later use. It can't be that simply being in public means that you give up all such rights, since it's impossible to avoid being in public.

That informed consent should be obtained seems obvious -- perhaps some of those people wouldn't want their faces to be used in that way. Are their desires without meaning? From the report, it also sounds like the images were being obtains in a plainly deceptive manner.

Whether or not there is "harm" is beside the point. The point is whether or not people are being deceived, and whether or not we as a society value meaningful autonomy.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#136

Post by lonelappde »

tobib wrote: post #27
kauffj wrote: post #11

Kudos to Google's contractor for offering this opportunity to the people who need it most. I would happily sell anyone a picture or scan of my face for $5. But I would even more happily have that chance go to someone who needs it more than myself. This article also mentions that the contractor may have lied to or misled the homeless, which is deplorable. But the behavior described by the title itself is nothing objec…

> 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…

It is constantly empirically shown that most people don't care. Most people have already given their face to Google or Facebook via Photos, either directly or by being friends with Photos users.

And what are the negative effects of giving away biometrics? Is someone with no assets and no stable residence in danger of harm from someone getting a loan in their name? Of being rounded up by the government for their biometrics and not for the much more immediate threat of being criminalized directly to just for being homeless?

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#137

Post by ehsankia »

aeturnum wrote: post #126
ehsankia wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lo…

I see, I misunderstood your point. I agree that the misleading, if true, is the most problematic part here. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I don't think targeting certain demographic is necessarily bad, but lying about what the collection is for definitely is, if true.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#138

Post by lonelappde »

_jal wrote: post #51
aantix wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think most people care about privacy all that much. Most live publicly with their faces on display for all to see and others taking it a step further, participating in Facebook alongside billions of others. It doesn’t scream facial identity being a major concern.

I don't think most people care much about carcinogens. Most people have them in their homes, breathe them, eat them, and others take it a step further, participating in the creation of them. It doesn't scream fear of cancer being a major concern.

Your sarcasm fails because it's truth. Aside from a few direct intense carcinogens like asbestos, carcinogens are not a big deal.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#139

Post by lonelappde »

pliny wrote: post #93
tengbretson wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument applies equally well to buying kidneys from homeless people for $20. I hope we agree that that's bad.

If you allowed people to sell their kidneys the market price would definitely be a lot higher and the trade in kidneys between homeless people and sick people would leave both groups a lot better off. Today you have one group dying in the street and the other dying waiting for a transplant.

And if a few homeless people die from transplant complications, hey they volunteered! And now we can stop investing in social welfare because a steady supply of homeless bodies improves the health of the middle class!

The world is not linear, it has feedback effects.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#140

Post by cwkoss »

lonelappde wrote: post #133
ehsankia wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still much better than the original source (NY Daily Times) which literally just says "Google".

Outsourcing work is not a justification for outsource responsibility. Google has a choice.

That's why it would have been great if the Verge did some journalism so we actually had some clarity on the situation.
Post reply on HN