3 ms·

Not really. Many of these people are being found because they're in the background of one person's photo untagged, and they're in the foreground of a friend's p

by vitd 10y ago

Not really. Many of these people are being found because they're in the background of one person's photo untagged, and they're in the foreground of a friend's photo and tagged. The person in the picture may not even know there are any pictures of them on the internet and they need not have posted any photos themselves.

0x6c6f6c 10y ago
And yet people shake their heads when RMS discloses he wants absolutely no photos uploaded of him to services like Facebook.
- drdaeman 10y ago
  To be honest, speaking solely about personal image recognition, I think Facebook isn't worse than any other public web site (which can be scrapped and are scrapped). And RMS has his photos on his own, and many others. His image is already public and well-known. (Still, if one respects the person it makes sense to respect what they ask for. But that's a separate thing.)
drdaeman 10y ago
Just having a photo on the 'net isn't enough. A photo must be tagged. Tagging usually requires a social network profile, and I think all mainstream social networks don't conceal the fact one was tagged. So, if you search for yourself and don't see any photos of you - all chances are you're somewhat "safe". For a time being. (A good thing about photo tagging is that a lot of tags go on memes and random pics just to gain the tagged person's attention. This must generate some noise.)
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > Tagging usually requires a social network profile I don't think this is true. Tagging with a reference to a social network profile requires a social network profile, but just like you can tag a bear "the bear," you can tag a photo with someone's name without them knowing, being on the site, or even being alive.
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    Well, yes. If you have a profile, it's most likely there will be a link rather than just a text note. And the value of text notes ("here's John") is generally much less than of a profile link. Still - you're correct - it's well possible that someone tags a photo with a full identity information - and that person won't know it. But I think it's quite uncommon.

by vitd 10y ago

0x6c6f6c 10y ago

And yet people shake their heads when RMS discloses he wants absolutely no photos uploaded of him to services like Facebook.

drdaeman 10y ago
To be honest, speaking solely about personal image recognition, I think Facebook isn't worse than any other public web site (which can be scrapped and are scrapped). And RMS has his photos on his own, and many others. His image is already public and well-known. (Still, if one respects the person it makes sense to respect what they ask for. But that's a separate thing.)

drdaeman 10y ago

Just having a photo on the 'net isn't enough. A photo must be tagged. Tagging usually requires a social network profile, and I think all mainstream social networks don't conceal the fact one was tagged. So, if you search for yourself and don't see any photos of you - all chances are you're somewhat "safe". For a time being. (A good thing about photo tagging is that a lot of tags go on memes and random pics just to gain the tagged person's attention. This must generate some noise.)

pessimizer 10y ago
> Tagging usually requires a social network profile I don't think this is true. Tagging with a reference to a social network profile requires a social network profile, but just like you can tag a bear "the bear," you can tag a photo with someone's name without them knowing, being on the site, or even being alive.
- drdaeman 10y ago
  Well, yes. If you have a profile, it's most likely there will be a link rather than just a text note. And the value of text notes ("here's John") is generally much less than of a profile link. Still - you're correct - it's well possible that someone tags a photo with a full identity information - and that person won't know it. But I think it's quite uncommon.