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

Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial

#71

Post by Keverw »

stablemap wrote: post #70
Keverw wrote: post #68

I like the face feature personally. Kinda just neat and makes tagging super easy. However I'm curious, How does Illinois even have jurisdiction to sue Facebook? As far as I know they don't have any land or employees there being a California based company. Even many terms of services say you agree which court to dispute. Seems like Illinois is over reaching to me. https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms > You will resolv…

They have an office in downtown Chicago. Sales and marketing, I think.

Yep - just did a Google search and landed on this. https://www.facebook.com/careers/search/?q=&location=chicago

So I guess that's how they can get them... I really hope Facebook wins though. Last time I checked Face recognition creates 3 floats from a face. I'm not sure Facebook's specifics but in general that how it works.

So in a way I'm amazed a face can be turned into 3 numbers, and also think it's silly to sue over 3 numbers in the grand scheme of things.

Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial

#72

Post by crumpled »

Suppose facebook has the ability to look at a photo and determine who is in the photo, and the court determines that amounts to storing biometric data (despite the explicit exclusion of photos from the definition of biometric data). Now facebook would have to get explicit permission from users and non-users to collect biometric data. How could they possibly not collect data from non-users? If they have the ability to turn the feature on at any moment, any photo of a person would amount to biometric data, whether the person was a user or not. There doesn't seem to be a good way to comply. They could not host photos (no way). They could stop pursuing facial recognition (yeah right). My favorite solution is to have them alter any new upload by blurring out the faces of any person who hasn't consented to them storing biometrics.

Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial

#73

Post by nerdponx »

confounded wrote: post #45
cookiecaper wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Currently it has to be, "if you don't want any service collecting any of your data, don't use their service, and don't interact with other people or companies who use their service." Not sure you have any other option. Most of the time, you can't restrain what other people choose to do with images they've taken that contain your likeness, and you can't stop them from posting content that mentions their spouses. That…

> ...changing the way we approach online services, but I don't see how that could be pushed through I'm a little bit more optimistic than you. As noted in the article, there are important differences under the hood between FB in the US and The EU, and these were "pushed through" by courts, and cultural norms (e.g. not a violent/benevolent 'privacy junta' as you suggest). I can imagine a world where the US gov banned…

How do you know there's zero user benefit? I can think of several legitimate/non-evil uses of "shadow profiles" in product research.

Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial

#74

Post by confounded »

nerdponx wrote: post #73
confounded wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...changing the way we approach online services, but I don't see how that could be pushed through I'm a little bit more optimistic than you. As noted in the article, there are important differences under the hood between FB in the US and The EU, and these were "pushed through" by courts, and cultural norms (e.g. not a violent/benevolent 'privacy junta' as you suggest). I can imagine a world where the US gov banned…

How do you know there's zero user benefit? I can think of several legitimate/non-evil uses of "shadow profiles" in product research.

Well, if you came home and I was wearing your partner's dressing-gown and smoking your pipe, I'm sure I could offer a few non-evil research reasons too.

What's the user benefit you have in mind?

Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial

#75

Post by nerdponx »

confounded wrote: post #74
nerdponx wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know there's zero user benefit? I can think of several legitimate/non-evil uses of "shadow profiles" in product research.

Well, if you came home and I was wearing your partner's dressing-gown and smoking your pipe, I'm sure I could offer a few non-evil research reasons too. What's the user benefit you have in mind?

Non-users represent an "unexposed" control group for experiments.

Re: Facebook’s Face Recognition Tech Goes on Trial

#76

Post by confounded »

nerdponx wrote: post #75
confounded wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you came home and I was wearing your partner's dressing-gown and smoking your pipe, I'm sure I could offer a few non-evil research reasons too. What's the user benefit you have in mind?

Non-users represent an "unexposed" control group for experiments.

Not a user benefit (or methodologically sound).
Post reply on HN