Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition • Hacker News Board

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#151

Post by JohnFen » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 3:11 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #146

JohnFen wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

You are aware that just because you think something, doesn't mean it can't be any other way and that your view is obvious to everyone, right?

This comment confuses me. Why would you think I wouldn't be aware of that? If I thought that, I wouldn't have felt the need to express my opinion.

EDIT: I guess you're reacting to my "it can't be" comment. That was an expression of personal outrage at the idea of being placed in a powerless position, not an assertion of fact. All kinds of really terribly things are possible, obviously.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#152

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #150

kapuasuite wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it simply can be. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy walking down a public street. I can walk down the street taking high definition photos and video of everyone I encounter and they would have no recourse to stop me, nor should they in a free society.

But, in the US anyway, the notion that you have no privacy at all in public isn't actually true. People can take your picture, but there are longstanding legal privacy protections in place for how that picture can be used (for instance, commercial use is restricted). What I'm arguing is that those existing protections are no longer sufficient, and restrictions for use should include requiring having permission to inc…

> People can take your picture, but there are longstanding legal privacy protections in place for how that picture can be used

Right of publicity isn't a privacy right; it's more closely related to copyright or trademark than privacy rights.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#153

Post by JohnFen » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 3:16 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #145

JohnFen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple of solid independent studies would go a long way.

Okay ... half of experimental psychology papers are about giving people some small amount of money, or even just some token or just a chance to tell their story for filling out a questionnaire, sometimes extra credit is involved, or incarceration is involved (in psychiatric care) which is where I start having serious ethical problems with it. Questionnaires where they reveal things, often associated with at least a w…

I never claimed people weren't willing to trade privacy for some benefit. I think most people (including myself, if the cost/benefit is favorable to me) are.

But the fact that that's true doesn't mean that people don't care about privacy.

You could even argue that it's indicative that people do care about privacy, as they attach a material value to it. This isn't an argument that I'm really making, but it isn't an unreasonable one.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#154

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 3:21 PM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #138

_jal wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#155

Post by JohnFen » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #152

JohnFen wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, in the US anyway, the notion that you have no privacy at all in public isn't actually true. People can take your picture, but there are longstanding legal privacy protections in place for how that picture can be used (for instance, commercial use is restricted). What I'm arguing is that those existing protections are no longer sufficient, and restrictions for use should include requiring having permission to inc…

> People can take your picture, but there are longstanding legal privacy protections in place for how that picture can be used Right of publicity isn't a privacy right; it's more closely related to copyright or trademark than privacy rights.

Whatever its legal classification, it's still protective of privacy, and it's still an example of how the idea that you have no legal protection when you're in public isn't accurate.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#156

Post by JohnFen » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

aantix wrote: post #149

JohnFen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people actually care quite a lot. That people live their lives accepting that their faces are on display is not evidence otherwise, since there is literally no other option. Participating Facebook is also not evidence otherwise -- at most, it's evidence that people are willing to trade privacy in some circumstances (and I think even that's a bit of a stretch), but I'll bet that most Facebook users would…

>since there is literally no other option Living remotely in the mountains/desert/jungle? I say this with seriousness. When considering this alternative, the option of living alone, without human interaction, public identity shows it positive attributes.

Living in a remote location doesn't take away from the fact that you still must spend at least some time in a public space.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#157

Post by candiodari » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #153

candiodari wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay ... half of experimental psychology papers are about giving people some small amount of money, or even just some token or just a chance to tell their story for filling out a questionnaire, sometimes extra credit is involved, or incarceration is involved (in psychiatric care) which is where I start having serious ethical problems with it. Questionnaires where they reveal things, often associated with at least a w…

I never claimed people weren't willing to trade privacy for some benefit. I think most people (including myself, if the cost/benefit is favorable to me) are. But the fact that that's true doesn't mean that people don't care about privacy. You could even argue that it's indicative that people do care about privacy, as they attach a material value to it. This isn't an argument that I'm really making, but it isn't an un…

What is claimed here is not that nobody values privacy. The only claim is that large amounts of people, some from "vulnerable" groups, would trade privacy for a small reward. The article alleges this only happened because they were lied to.

Re: Google contractors reportedly targeted homeless people for facial recognition

#158

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #155

dragonwriter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People can take your picture, but there are longstanding legal privacy protections in place for how that picture can be used Right of publicity isn't a privacy right; it's more closely related to copyright or trademark than privacy rights.

Whatever its legal classification, it's still protective of privacy, and it's still an example of how the idea that you have no legal protection when you're in public isn't accurate.

It's not a matter of classification, but effect: it doesn't stop people from revealing things you don't want revealed, but from reading on your identity as, essentially, a commercial brand.

Depending on the state, even if the state recognizes the right (it's not a federal right, and not all states, IIRC, have any version of it), it also may not protect you at all, since some states only recognize right of publicity for celebrities. (In effect, your identity needs to be a valuable brand before it's protected in some jurisdictions.)