4 ms·

Out of curiosity, aside from emotional distress, what harm are you afraid of?

by Joeri 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago
Why should I have to be afraid of anything? Is this a riff on the 'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' theme? I just don't think it is ok that large companies are working their way into datasets about every living body on the planet and that is my right. See also, article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_12.html#at13 http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_12.html#at13
- mod 9y ago
  I can't speak for the guy you're replying to, but I'm also curious what harm you're afraid of, mostly so that I can also be afraid of it. Definitely not the "nothing to hide" stuff as I'm very pro-privacy. I have a vague fear of some kind of dystopian situation that arises or is influenced by these huge, accurate data sets. I'm curious if you have more specific qualms with it. My vague fear hasn't kept photos of me off of social media, even though I'm okay being a "weird guy who doesn't take photos" if need be. I know your username and respect your opinion, maybe the grandparent does as well.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    I'm not afraid of anything, I just want a modicum of control over who has access to my data and Facebook is one of the companies that I would not trust with anything. Why does there have to be a scenario attached to this? They've shown time and again that they don't give a rats ass about the people whose data they collect. The default is not 'on' when it comes to sharing your data, the default is 'off', and even then it should be grounded in need. As long as I don't see the need there is no other reason that I would need to justify my behavior. On the other hand, there is a very large need for FB to explain its behavior but hardly anybody seems to care. So I'm happy to be the exception.
  - marnett 9y ago
    Facebook's literal book of faces will be used by law enforcement to establish/verify alibi, establish/verify presence at the scene of a crime, etc. These tools, no doubt, are being built out with heavy support from the State.
- jdcarter 9y ago
  As I understand US law, when you're in public you have no expectation of privacy, and you can't do anything about having your photo taken. This is tangental to your point, but does that also mean that Facebook is legally free to ID you in photos which are taken in public? I really don't know. (FWIW, I'm with you, it makes me crazy when family members post all their holiday photos on Facebook and tag me in them.)
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    I don't live in the US. And besides that there is a huge difference between just making a photograph and making a photograph with the intent of publication. That's when you get into portrait rights and such, especially if the person you are photographing is the main subject of the photo. Then it is mostly a matter of respect. For celebrities and politicians there are yet more rules and exceptions.
- kelnos 9y ago
  I don't read that as "no one can take my photo", though. Certainly that language should protect me from people invading my private space to take photos of me, but if I'm out and about in public, I should have no expectation that no photos will be taken of me, and I would feel very wrong asking someone to delete a photo of me in a public place. I would consider that to be infringing on their rights. I get that photos of people can be a lot more harmful than a casual photographer might assume, but I would never accede to a request from a random stranger to delete a photograph that they just happened to be in. If someone requested that I not take a photo of them, I personally would comply out of a sense of politeness, but I don't believe anyone has a legal or moral obligation to comply when in public. (But yes, I know, this is just my opinion and preference, just like yours is yours.)
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    It depends. Tourist taking picture of Dam Square and I'm walking by: no problem. Tourist getting up-close and personal and making a picture where I am the subject of the picture will probably find me very annoying. Friends and family already long ago gave up trying to take my picture for their Facebook pages, the last instance I remember was two years ago in a restaurant in Amsterdam and on first request the image was deleted. People in general are pretty reasonable, whether they have a legal obligation or not is usually trumped by good manners.
- Joeri 9y ago
  This is not arbitrary. There is a clear upside: the ability to quickly find all pictures of a person, either by that person themselves or by other people. The benefit provided by this feature has to be weighed against its potential for harm in order to decide whether it is a permissible use of technology or not. To be honest, facebook should have gathered consent in a GDPR-compliant way: opt-in. But IMHO the feature isn't bad in and of itself. Even recognizing people not on facebook isn't necessarily wrong, as long as facebook isn't building a profile of that person (but merely doing the equivalent of recognizing bananas in all of someone's pictures so they can do a search for banana.) But given the value provided by the feature, again I ask: what is the harm you're afraid of?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > There is a clear upside: the ability to quickly find all pictures of a person, either by that person themselves or by other people. That's not a benefit to me. > But given the value provided by the feature, again I ask: what is the harm you're afraid of? You're stuck. It's kind of annoying when you ask someone a question, they give you an answer and then you repeat the question again. Either you're going to have to live with my answer or you're going to have to live with not getting the answer that you want. BTW, I find it hilarious to be lectured by you on HN where your profile is as good as anonymous and mine is stating exactly who I am and where I live. What are you afraid of?
    - Joeri 9y ago
      I believe I understand your point of view (and please correct me if I don't): you don't want these companies to track any data about you because you think of digital privacy as an absolute right. Now try to understand my point of view: I think treating digital privacy as an absolute right is probably a mistake. First of all it's a denial of how the real world works (where you never have absolute privacy since other people will always know things about you). Secondly, the potential for social data to create value to society is quite large, and absolute privacy means we won't have any of that value. Admittedly, there is a also a big potential for harm, but that's my point: let's be deliberate about these things, not just dismiss them without consideration.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
I'm a woman, so different situation, but I took most photos of me offline at some point. Later, I began putting up new ones, but it was handled differently. There are more than two photos of me, but there aren't tons. I actually like being photographed, or did in my youth. But I don't like having photos of me all over the internet. Years ago, I joined an all female Yahoo group that was a spin off from a parenting and homeschooling list I had been active on. I put up a photo of me on my yahoo profile that was in no way intended to be sexy. My long standing friends in this small group of 20 members wanted to know what I looked like and it was for them. Within 24 hours, I was being solicited by some 19 year old total stranger who lived within an hour of my home who wanted to know if I would sleep with him. My oldest child was 16. I laughed and my reply clearly signalled that I was laughing in his face and he did not write back. But it did not stop there. Other men would write me and go into graphic detail as to how they would like to spend the next 3 day weekend in bed with me. The only thing they knew about me was what I looked like. That was it. At some point, I pulled all photos of me off the internet that I had any control over. The only remaining photos were taken by internet friends at a meet-up and were quite unflattering. I later found that a relative who was cyberstalking me while not speaking to me had those photos bookmarked. This was a creepy experience. There are photos of me out there. Some are not hideous. But I make zero effort to look conventionally attractive. One photo of me online is of me with a shaved head. I am prone to posting photos that are intended to tell people stalking me "Hey, stupid. I am old and ugly and you can stop fantasizing about me." It hasn't stopped men from hitting on me. But it has been a few years since a total stranger who knew nothing about me other than what I look like has written me to let me know what a pig he is in glorious detail. I intentionally kept a fairly low profile online for some time. Nonetheless, my super low levels of internet fame still fostered all kinds of weird interest from people who are not healthy and absolutely did not have my best interest at heart. If I had more fame, I would probably be super paranoid controlling. People do all kinds of bizarre things and photos are an excellent way to fuel the weirdness. It makes people feel like they know you, have a personal connection yadda. I have worked really hard at figuring out how to open my mouth in public and feel reasonably safe doing so. Being penurious with the pics has been an important part of that process. People are quick to objectify people based on a photo. You stop being a real person in their mind and become a symbol of something. It may be a symbol they lust after. It may be a symbol they hate. It may be any number of things. But they will forget you are a real person. They seem to be much less quick to do that based on written comments.
mpclark 9y ago
My take on this is "well, I don't really know, but I don't see any obvious upside either, so no thanks"

Out of curiosity, aside from emotional distress, what harm are you afraid of?

by Joeri 9y ago

Out of curiosity, aside from emotional distress, what harm are you afraid of?

Why should I have to be afraid of anything? Is this a riff on the 'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' theme? I just don't think it is ok that large companies are working their way into datasets about every living body on the planet and that is my right. See also, article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_12.html#at13 http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_12.html#at13

mod 9y ago
I can't speak for the guy you're replying to, but I'm also curious what harm you're afraid of, mostly so that I can also be afraid of it. Definitely not the "nothing to hide" stuff as I'm very pro-privacy. I have a vague fear of some kind of dystopian situation that arises or is influenced by these huge, accurate data sets. I'm curious if you have more specific qualms with it. My vague fear hasn't kept photos of me off of social media, even though I'm okay being a "weird guy who doesn't take photos" if need be. I know your username and respect your opinion, maybe the grandparent does as well.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  I'm not afraid of anything, I just want a modicum of control over who has access to my data and Facebook is one of the companies that I would not trust with anything. Why does there have to be a scenario attached to this? They've shown time and again that they don't give a rats ass about the people whose data they collect. The default is not 'on' when it comes to sharing your data, the default is 'off', and even then it should be grounded in need. As long as I don't see the need there is no other reason that I would need to justify my behavior. On the other hand, there is a very large need for FB to explain its behavior but hardly anybody seems to care. So I'm happy to be the exception.
- marnett 9y ago
  Facebook's literal book of faces will be used by law enforcement to establish/verify alibi, establish/verify presence at the scene of a crime, etc. These tools, no doubt, are being built out with heavy support from the State.
jdcarter 9y ago
As I understand US law, when you're in public you have no expectation of privacy, and you can't do anything about having your photo taken. This is tangental to your point, but does that also mean that Facebook is legally free to ID you in photos which are taken in public? I really don't know. (FWIW, I'm with you, it makes me crazy when family members post all their holiday photos on Facebook and tag me in them.)
- jacquesm 9y ago
  I don't live in the US. And besides that there is a huge difference between just making a photograph and making a photograph with the intent of publication. That's when you get into portrait rights and such, especially if the person you are photographing is the main subject of the photo. Then it is mostly a matter of respect. For celebrities and politicians there are yet more rules and exceptions.
kelnos 9y ago
I don't read that as "no one can take my photo", though. Certainly that language should protect me from people invading my private space to take photos of me, but if I'm out and about in public, I should have no expectation that no photos will be taken of me, and I would feel very wrong asking someone to delete a photo of me in a public place. I would consider that to be infringing on their rights. I get that photos of people can be a lot more harmful than a casual photographer might assume, but I would never accede to a request from a random stranger to delete a photograph that they just happened to be in. If someone requested that I not take a photo of them, I personally would comply out of a sense of politeness, but I don't believe anyone has a legal or moral obligation to comply when in public. (But yes, I know, this is just my opinion and preference, just like yours is yours.)
- jacquesm 9y ago
  It depends. Tourist taking picture of Dam Square and I'm walking by: no problem. Tourist getting up-close and personal and making a picture where I am the subject of the picture will probably find me very annoying. Friends and family already long ago gave up trying to take my picture for their Facebook pages, the last instance I remember was two years ago in a restaurant in Amsterdam and on first request the image was deleted. People in general are pretty reasonable, whether they have a legal obligation or not is usually trumped by good manners.
Joeri 9y ago
This is not arbitrary. There is a clear upside: the ability to quickly find all pictures of a person, either by that person themselves or by other people. The benefit provided by this feature has to be weighed against its potential for harm in order to decide whether it is a permissible use of technology or not. To be honest, facebook should have gathered consent in a GDPR-compliant way: opt-in. But IMHO the feature isn't bad in and of itself. Even recognizing people not on facebook isn't necessarily wrong, as long as facebook isn't building a profile of that person (but merely doing the equivalent of recognizing bananas in all of someone's pictures so they can do a search for banana.) But given the value provided by the feature, again I ask: what is the harm you're afraid of?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > There is a clear upside: the ability to quickly find all pictures of a person, either by that person themselves or by other people. That's not a benefit to me. > But given the value provided by the feature, again I ask: what is the harm you're afraid of? You're stuck. It's kind of annoying when you ask someone a question, they give you an answer and then you repeat the question again. Either you're going to have to live with my answer or you're going to have to live with not getting the answer that you want. BTW, I find it hilarious to be lectured by you on HN where your profile is as good as anonymous and mine is stating exactly who I am and where I live. What are you afraid of?
  - Joeri 9y ago
    I believe I understand your point of view (and please correct me if I don't): you don't want these companies to track any data about you because you think of digital privacy as an absolute right. Now try to understand my point of view: I think treating digital privacy as an absolute right is probably a mistake. First of all it's a denial of how the real world works (where you never have absolute privacy since other people will always know things about you). Secondly, the potential for social data to create value to society is quite large, and absolute privacy means we won't have any of that value. Admittedly, there is a also a big potential for harm, but that's my point: let's be deliberate about these things, not just dismiss them without consideration.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

I'm a woman, so different situation, but I took most photos of me offline at some point. Later, I began putting up new ones, but it was handled differently. There are more than two photos of me, but there aren't tons. I actually like being photographed, or did in my youth. But I don't like having photos of me all over the internet. Years ago, I joined an all female Yahoo group that was a spin off from a parenting and homeschooling list I had been active on. I put up a photo of me on my yahoo profile that was in no way intended to be sexy. My long standing friends in this small group of 20 members wanted to know what I looked like and it was for them. Within 24 hours, I was being solicited by some 19 year old total stranger who lived within an hour of my home who wanted to know if I would sleep with him. My oldest child was 16. I laughed and my reply clearly signalled that I was laughing in his face and he did not write back. But it did not stop there. Other men would write me and go into graphic detail as to how they would like to spend the next 3 day weekend in bed with me. The only thing they knew about me was what I looked like. That was it. At some point, I pulled all photos of me off the internet that I had any control over. The only remaining photos were taken by internet friends at a meet-up and were quite unflattering. I later found that a relative who was cyberstalking me while not speaking to me had those photos bookmarked. This was a creepy experience. There are photos of me out there. Some are not hideous. But I make zero effort to look conventionally attractive. One photo of me online is of me with a shaved head. I am prone to posting photos that are intended to tell people stalking me "Hey, stupid. I am old and ugly and you can stop fantasizing about me." It hasn't stopped men from hitting on me. But it has been a few years since a total stranger who knew nothing about me other than what I look like has written me to let me know what a pig he is in glorious detail. I intentionally kept a fairly low profile online for some time. Nonetheless, my super low levels of internet fame still fostered all kinds of weird interest from people who are not healthy and absolutely did not have my best interest at heart. If I had more fame, I would probably be super paranoid controlling. People do all kinds of bizarre things and photos are an excellent way to fuel the weirdness. It makes people feel like they know you, have a personal connection yadda. I have worked really hard at figuring out how to open my mouth in public and feel reasonably safe doing so. Being penurious with the pics has been an important part of that process. People are quick to objectify people based on a photo. You stop being a real person in their mind and become a symbol of something. It may be a symbol they lust after. It may be a symbol they hate. It may be any number of things. But they will forget you are a real person. They seem to be much less quick to do that based on written comments.

mpclark 9y ago

My take on this is "well, I don't really know, but I don't see any obvious upside either, so no thanks"