6 ms·

Accurate, automatic descriptions of snapshots of peoples lives?? This is surely sending shock waves down the data mining community. Additionally Facebook are sa

Accurate, automatic descriptions of snapshots of peoples lives?? This is surely sending shock waves down the data mining community. Additionally Facebook are saying this was built as an aid for blind people, but this is surely just a cover for being able to take targeted ads to the next level.

hanspeter 11y ago
If that was the case wouldn't they choose to simply not announce anything? I'm not ruling out that they might use it for targeting eventually, but if this was solely done as a cover it would be the equivalent of a terrorist entering an airport shouting out "My suitcase is just really heavy, I do not have a bomb in it at all!"
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The goal is to normalize people to yet another type of surveillance and data mining.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > If that was the case wouldn't they choose to simply not announce anything? People would find out within a few days and out would come the pitchforks. Here facebook preempts the conversation and sets the tone, now worriers will be met with "Do you not want blind people to enjoy the web? Why do you hate them so?"
  - Etheryte 11y ago
    Do elaborate how people would find out if Facebook simply used this data internally.
    - masklinn 11y ago
      Might take a big longer, but I expect people running and testing ads would discover correlations with image posts.
  - zeven7 11y ago
    Facebook was already using this data internally. You just didn't know they could do it until now.
zappo2938 11y ago
Could be worse. Google has me training AI to do the same thing every time I choose all the pictures with train locomotives in a reCaptcha.
- mkorfmann 11y ago
  For a captcha to function properly, they already need to have this data I guess.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    reCAPTCHA is famous for having 2 tasks. This lets them use 1 for training. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReCAPTCHA#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReCAPTCHA#Criticism
    - eterm 11y ago
      Not only this, but given how much google tracks you, google has a good enough idea about whether you are a bot already, hence the "captcha" where you just press a button. There are times they could give you that button but already knowing you are human they use you to train their AI. I wouldn't be surprised if they also score you against how well you train AI, and give better trainers more captchas. Google has so much data, any time you think "I wish we could do X, but we'd never get enough data", it's an opportunity that Google can move on but the rest of the world can't. That's another argument for breaking up monopolies.
      - estel 11y ago
        > it's an opportunity that Google can move on but the rest of the world can't. That's another argument for breaking up monopolies. Wouldn't this mean that it would be an opportunity that /nobody/ could move on?
- taneq 11y ago
  I always wondered how many captchas were passthroughs to other captcha systems, using me as a mechanical turk component.
leoalves 11y ago
Google, Facebook, twitter .... Are all doing this in their backend. If you are worried about it. Don't use their services. The problem I see here is that now they are giving this data to spammers.
- dingaling 11y ago
  > If you are worried about it. Don't use their services. I don't use their services but apparently I'm still tagged in Facebook photos. I never accepted ToS permitting that.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    If there's a picture of you floating around in public it's not illegal or immoral for them to say who's in it.
    - Majestic121 11y ago
      It is immoral for them to collect enough infos about me to be able to tell who I am from a picture, and then use it, while I do not use their service.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        Why's that? Assuming all the info is public, they've done what any person could reasonably do. Put another way, with absolutely no snark or malice intended: Information about you is not necessarily owned by you.
        cortesoft 11y ago
        While I kind of agree with you, I don't think it is fair to automatically assume that just because an automatic computer system is doing the same thing that a human could do, it can't fundamentally change what that thing means. Things change when something can be done automatically and at great scale. Take, for instance, license plate scanning. Of course, anyone can see your license plate when you are driving around town, it is public information. So clearly it is fine if machines scan license plates and keep records of every license plate that crosses a bridge. A team of people could sit on the bridge and do the same thing, so no big deal. So clearly it is fine if we install the license plate scanners on every street corner in the city, and scan every plate they see. And it should be totally fine to put that data on a publicly searchable real-time database, so that I can input any license plate number and see immediately where that car is. These different scenarios might seem like merely matters of degree on the same bit of info, but what it means for us changes immensely as it becomes easier and faster to do it.
ma2rten 11y ago
This is surely sending shock waves down the data mining community. Not really. From a technical point of view there is nothing impressive about this, except that they spend the time and money to collect all the training data. Also that it says "this image may contain:" tells you something about how accurate this actually is.
- hacker_9 11y ago
  Not my point. What isn't available to everyone is the sheer amount of real life images that Facebook has access to, which people are uploading of their lives as we speak. You could get an unprecedented view of almost anyone's life from that, seeing as users have past the 1 billion mark, and it's all in the hands of a company who sells your data for profit.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    Your basic demographics and "likes" are already enough to do all the targeting necessary. If this is about the general privacy issue then it's back to the same old thing: don't share things that you want to keep private. Of course people's actions prove that they get more value out of sharing this content then is worth the privacy of not doing so.
    - hacker_9 11y ago
      Again, not my point. Social network sites are built off image sharing, that before computers did not understand. Now that they do, we are entered an unprecedented age of surveillance. Private is only private to humans, the Facebook machine can look at any photos it wants, and build up a profile for anyone, their friends, make predictions of behavior and so on. It's not the tech that is bad, it is the fact it is in the hands of for-profit companies, who are willing to sell your data just to make their bottom line.
      - mynameisvlad 11y ago
        Then what is your point? manigandham literally adressed your concern; basic demographics, likes, and other sources for content are far better for targeting than what a picture could potentially contain, and that can be done with closer to 100% accuracy since a computer doesn't have to "guess" what the content of an image is, it already knows this content from the text in a status, or the location metadata associated with a post, or the people you're tagged with. This is incredibly inaccurate when compared with all those sources.
DonHopkins 11y ago
Well if 98% of your images are pictures of cats, you don't really have to solve the hard general problem.
- placeybordeaux 11y ago
  You do if you want high accuracy on stuff other than cats.
iaw 11y ago
This has been possible for, at a minimum, three years. There's an effort gap between building an ad targeting version and building a blind enabling version. The only new thing here is that Facebook released it to the public.
coroutines 11y ago
I kind of want to take this at face-value and say how great it is that they're making visually-impaired viewers a priority.

hanspeter 11y ago

If that was the case wouldn't they choose to simply not announce anything? I'm not ruling out that they might use it for targeting eventually, but if this was solely done as a cover it would be the equivalent of a terrorist entering an airport shouting out "My suitcase is just really heavy, I do not have a bomb in it at all!"

pdkl95 11y ago
The goal is to normalize people to yet another type of surveillance and data mining.
masklinn 11y ago
> If that was the case wouldn't they choose to simply not announce anything? People would find out within a few days and out would come the pitchforks. Here facebook preempts the conversation and sets the tone, now worriers will be met with "Do you not want blind people to enjoy the web? Why do you hate them so?"
- Etheryte 11y ago
  Do elaborate how people would find out if Facebook simply used this data internally.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    Might take a big longer, but I expect people running and testing ads would discover correlations with image posts.
- zeven7 11y ago
  Facebook was already using this data internally. You just didn't know they could do it until now.

zappo2938 11y ago

Could be worse. Google has me training AI to do the same thing every time I choose all the pictures with train locomotives in a reCaptcha.

mkorfmann 11y ago
For a captcha to function properly, they already need to have this data I guess.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  reCAPTCHA is famous for having 2 tasks. This lets them use 1 for training. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReCAPTCHA#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReCAPTCHA#Criticism
  - eterm 11y ago
    Not only this, but given how much google tracks you, google has a good enough idea about whether you are a bot already, hence the "captcha" where you just press a button. There are times they could give you that button but already knowing you are human they use you to train their AI. I wouldn't be surprised if they also score you against how well you train AI, and give better trainers more captchas. Google has so much data, any time you think "I wish we could do X, but we'd never get enough data", it's an opportunity that Google can move on but the rest of the world can't. That's another argument for breaking up monopolies.
    - estel 11y ago
      > it's an opportunity that Google can move on but the rest of the world can't. That's another argument for breaking up monopolies. Wouldn't this mean that it would be an opportunity that /nobody/ could move on?
taneq 11y ago
I always wondered how many captchas were passthroughs to other captcha systems, using me as a mechanical turk component.

leoalves 11y ago

Google, Facebook, twitter .... Are all doing this in their backend. If you are worried about it. Don't use their services. The problem I see here is that now they are giving this data to spammers.

dingaling 11y ago
> If you are worried about it. Don't use their services. I don't use their services but apparently I'm still tagged in Facebook photos. I never accepted ToS permitting that.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  If there's a picture of you floating around in public it's not illegal or immoral for them to say who's in it.
  - Majestic121 11y ago
    It is immoral for them to collect enough infos about me to be able to tell who I am from a picture, and then use it, while I do not use their service.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Why's that? Assuming all the info is public, they've done what any person could reasonably do. Put another way, with absolutely no snark or malice intended: Information about you is not necessarily owned by you.
      - cortesoft 11y ago
        While I kind of agree with you, I don't think it is fair to automatically assume that just because an automatic computer system is doing the same thing that a human could do, it can't fundamentally change what that thing means. Things change when something can be done automatically and at great scale. Take, for instance, license plate scanning. Of course, anyone can see your license plate when you are driving around town, it is public information. So clearly it is fine if machines scan license plates and keep records of every license plate that crosses a bridge. A team of people could sit on the bridge and do the same thing, so no big deal. So clearly it is fine if we install the license plate scanners on every street corner in the city, and scan every plate they see. And it should be totally fine to put that data on a publicly searchable real-time database, so that I can input any license plate number and see immediately where that car is. These different scenarios might seem like merely matters of degree on the same bit of info, but what it means for us changes immensely as it becomes easier and faster to do it.

ma2rten 11y ago

This is surely sending shock waves down the data mining community. Not really. From a technical point of view there is nothing impressive about this, except that they spend the time and money to collect all the training data. Also that it says "this image may contain:" tells you something about how accurate this actually is.

hacker_9 11y ago
Not my point. What isn't available to everyone is the sheer amount of real life images that Facebook has access to, which people are uploading of their lives as we speak. You could get an unprecedented view of almost anyone's life from that, seeing as users have past the 1 billion mark, and it's all in the hands of a company who sells your data for profit.
- manigandham 11y ago
  Your basic demographics and "likes" are already enough to do all the targeting necessary. If this is about the general privacy issue then it's back to the same old thing: don't share things that you want to keep private. Of course people's actions prove that they get more value out of sharing this content then is worth the privacy of not doing so.
  - hacker_9 11y ago
    Again, not my point. Social network sites are built off image sharing, that before computers did not understand. Now that they do, we are entered an unprecedented age of surveillance. Private is only private to humans, the Facebook machine can look at any photos it wants, and build up a profile for anyone, their friends, make predictions of behavior and so on. It's not the tech that is bad, it is the fact it is in the hands of for-profit companies, who are willing to sell your data just to make their bottom line.
    - mynameisvlad 11y ago
      Then what is your point? manigandham literally adressed your concern; basic demographics, likes, and other sources for content are far better for targeting than what a picture could potentially contain, and that can be done with closer to 100% accuracy since a computer doesn't have to "guess" what the content of an image is, it already knows this content from the text in a status, or the location metadata associated with a post, or the people you're tagged with. This is incredibly inaccurate when compared with all those sources.

DonHopkins 11y ago

Well if 98% of your images are pictures of cats, you don't really have to solve the hard general problem.

placeybordeaux 11y ago
You do if you want high accuracy on stuff other than cats.

iaw 11y ago

This has been possible for, at a minimum, three years. There's an effort gap between building an ad targeting version and building a blind enabling version. The only new thing here is that Facebook released it to the public.

coroutines 11y ago

I kind of want to take this at face-value and say how great it is that they're making visually-impaired viewers a priority.