35 ms·
Facebook has auto-enrolled users into a facial recognition test in Europe
- mirko22 9y agoWhy is it ok to be filmed and face recognized by surveillance cameras on train station but it is wrong when Facebook does it? In my opinion I don’t need to use facebook and give them my data voluntarily but I kinda need to use the train and nobody is asking me for right to do face recognition.
- ethanwillis 9y agoWhataboutism. Both are wrong.
- mirko22 9y agowhataboutism? sorry, what? i thought taking precedents was standard practice in law...
- lhopki01 9y agoThis isn't about law. It's about what people consider acceptable. Also precedence is really only a thing in common law countries (mostly the english speaking world) and not most countries in the world.
- mirko22 9y agoI was not talking about the law, but about similar cases where face recouia used without consent...
- foepys 9y agoOther people (aka your friends and family) are uploading your data to Facebook regardless. You don't have a choice both times and both are bad.
- mirko22 9y agouploading my images, specially taken on public ground, is not in any way illegal. And i am unable to influence if someone will put them on facebook or upload them to porn sites or use them as meme on 9gag... if my picture ends up on random site and gets picked up by robot that does face recognition what can i do about it?
- slenk 9y agoWho said it was OK to be face-recognized at train-stations? I don't think that is/should be right either
- mirko22 9y agoGermany did yet you don’t see people making a fuss about it. As much as I hate Facebook I think a lot of people just complain about it cos it so high profile. But if you don’t care about privacy everywhere, what does make Facebook special case?
- gmueckl 9y agoPeople certainly made a fuss about the face recognition trial in the train station. But we Germans seem to be irrationally against data collection by companies compared to government data collection. Google street view was another case that made this apparent.
- mirko22 9y agoExactly my point, personally i am much more worried about government surveillance, my point was that facebook is an optional thing and very little people really need it (places where facebook is internet) as compared to real environment around you in which you live. And to me that is really surprising, GDPR allow government almost free hands when it comes to data collection, which for me is the scary part. i might be going around this the long way but english is not my strong side.
- gmueckl 9y agoThe requirement to use facebook is not a legal one, but a social one defined by friends and family members who insist on using it (a.k.a. the networking effect). In theory, governments can define and implement draconian checks on how collected data is processed by itself. People seem to trust that theoretical ability more than companies claiming to implement rigorous standards, but can do so without direct outside oversight or control. This is independent of whether it is actually true.
- portaljacker 9y agoIn Europe after all the stuff they just went through implementing the new privacy stuff for them? Someone must have missed the memo.
- TwoNineA 9y agoYou assume someone missed a memo and it wasn't intentional.
- bronson 9y agoFacebook is very good at missing memos. It makes them quite a bit of money.
- DesiLurker 9y agoam I the only one who is cynical enough to think that they might be doing the face recognition already for a while. its that with GDPR they may have to disclose it so they are making a pretext that we just enabled it please feel free to opt out now that we have trained our models anyways.
- thotaway 9y agoCultural rot, combined with an unrepentant leader, means the company can’t be saved.
- rinze 9y agoTo save time, they can already put out the PR release saying that they're sorry, that they didn't expect this, that anyway everything is very clear in paragraph 2.4.5.C.& of the Terms & Conditions, and that it won't happen again.
- rdiddly 9y agoRight... And don't forget the part about how your privacy is important to them and they think about it a lot.
- verelo 9y agoThe tech industries proverbial "thoughts and prayers"
- TAForObvReasons 9y agoMost of the HN community despises regulations against tech companies, but it seems like nothing short of strong regulations and severe financial penalties will rein in the bad actors. We can't expect the companies and their CEOs to act out of the goodness of anything save for their pocketbooks. We've lost the presumption of good faith
- tudorconstantin 9y agoI think bad PR and vicious backlash from the consumers against foul play is a stronger deterrent than some one time fines.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoIt's arguable whether bad PR and vicious backlash are working, or happening. As evidence I present... well, here we are. Edit: added a word
- 9y ago
- 908087 9y agoI sincerely hope Facebook continues making stupid moves like this, because they've spent over a decade earning the right to be the first company to be "made an example of" via the GDPR. It would be a shame to see their years of effort go to waste.
- binarymax 9y agoIt would not surprise me in the least if Facebook was the primary example used by GDPR creators while crafting the regulation.
- Semirhage 9y agoNot only is the tech turned on, but users who click through to the settings to try and turn it off will also find Facebook attempting to dissuade them from doing that — with manipulative examples of how the tech can “protect” them. Facebook is such a bad actor, I hope that politicians figure out that they could make a name for themselves kicking them in the teeth. Hopefully GDPR can come in and hurt them too. I realize that the default attitude of many in tech is that most people don’t know or care about this, but I think they’re wrong. People do care, but it takes time and repetition to make the point stick. Helpfully Facebook only has two speeds: scumbag, and turbo-scumbag. All around the world, we need to start electing politicians who understand technology, know what dark patterns are, and can intelligently fight for us.
- sli 9y ago> I realize that the default attitude of many in tech is that most people don’t know or care about this, but I think they’re wrong. I agree, and I think the actual problem is that a majority of people don't know why they should care, or even know that they should in the first place. "I have nothing to hide" is something I hear far too common, after all.
- fixermark 9y agoIt's actually a bit worse than just that, and something akin to tragedy of the commons. The people who actually do have nothing to hide (by which we mean, "the dirt on the individual is so pedestrian that even if it takes zero effort to find it, nobody wants it") stand to benefit from the features and interactions these tools enable. Those who do have something to hide become second-class citizens, forced to do things the slow, manual way that other people can automate away by trading out their privacy. We head into a techno-underclass dystopia if we let individuals decide to adopt privacy-compromising technologies, because those with worthless privacy can gain the benefits and will not refrain from doing so to the relative detriment of those who cannot. Personal opinion: "It's not my problem you can't participate fully in our society because X" is a very American opinion, which is why I think there is such culture clash between Silicon Valley corps and the EU.
- nisdec 9y agoThere are way too many emotions and little facts provided in this article, it's a really hard read tbh.
- kennydude 9y agoThe GDPR states you can only offer opt in and NOT opt out. This is not an opt in method, no matter how Facebook spins it. I hope the EU pulls them on this :) Going by http://techblog.bozho.net/gdpr-practical-guide-developers/ http://techblog.bozho.net/gdpr-practical-guide-developers/ anyway
- Navarr 9y agoI'm confused, didn't you opt in when you clicked the checkbox to agree to Facebook's T&C?
- smueller1234 9y agoA big thing in GDPR is that consent must be sufficiently specific and explicit. Long and generic T&C might no longer pass. Ultimately, I imagine the regulation will make a lot of lawyers richer as this kind of stuff gets hammered out in practice.
- brylie 9y agoWith GDPR, blanket "opt-ins", I.e. clickwrap, won't suffice. People need to give informed consent, meaning key uses of personal data must be explained in plain language. Hopefully this will lead to a lot less abuse of I Agree to Everything and any Future Changes type of TOS.
- downandout 9y agoYes, you did. This is just another clickbait headline. GDPR - when it becomes active - will outlaw the opt-out strategy. But there is nothing legally wrong with it today.
- PeterisP 9y agoNo, the existing privacy legislation already requires opt-in for processing of biometric data; GDPR makes many things stricter, but much of it is already a legal requirement.
- 9y ago
- jelly 9y agoThis cascade of privacy scandals seems quite well timed on Facebook's part; if all the blatant issues get publicized then "resolved" just before GDPR's May 25th start then they can extract the maximum value while facing no penalties. How annoying!
- jacquesm 9y agoFacebook is categorically in-capable of cleaning up their mess. There is no way they will get all their blatant issues out of the way in the next 35 days.
- Lionsion 9y agoI still have a Facebook account (which I'm slowly backing away from), here's how I (hopefully) poisoned their facial recognition data. My profile photos have always been untagged group photos or me in a Halloween costume, etc. Upload stock photos: 1. Go to https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=person+model&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&image_type=photo&measurement=px&safe=true https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=person+model&... Play with the search terms to get people sort of like you. 2. Download a few dozen images (or more). The site gives you the options of finding other photos of the same model. I figure it's probably good to have the poison data be somewhat self-consistent. 3. Upload them to Facebook and tag yourself and your friends in them. I kept them in a non-public album, so I wouldn't spam my feed with this stuff. I suppose I could make them public later, once they're a little old. 4. I've also done this on my girlfriend's account, as well as a couple close friends. Reverse tag: When I used to upload and tag real group photos, I'd swap the tagging (e.g. tag a friend as myself and myself as my friend). I also try to keep the volume of poison photos far larger than real ones. I don't personally upload and tag any photos of myself anymore. I've always kept the facial recognition stuff like this turned off, but I don't trust Facebook to not to reverse the setting just because it wants to. Eventually I want to delete my account, but I can't just yet due to event invites.
- Waterluvian 9y agoYou're likely just putting a lot of effort into helping them test an edge case where tagged photos really don't match. You're probably doing them more of a service than all the normal account users.
- sshagent 9y agoI'm in Europe (England) and when i fired up facebook on my phone this morning, i got the option to opt out of this. The accept it button was the default and obvious button to click on though.
- Letmesleep69 9y agoTo be fair it wasn't default. It was just blue while the other was grey. I found the process to be quite easy however at the end the had "see my other options" in grey writing and I accidentally clicked away before I saw it so they certainly abuse dark patterns.
- sshagent 9y agoYeah thats what i meant. The coloured in button to catch your eye if you're in a hurry. I was quite surprised to see being asked for such things. Whether that actually makes a difference or not i guess we'll never know.
- StavrosK 9y agoThe "see my other options" link at the end leads to a page that explains that there's no way to use Facebook without consenting to the requests on the last page, gives you a button to download all your data and one to delete your account. Overall, I found the UI pretty good, the buttons for the alternatives (non-consent) were clearly labeled, and they explained well what they were going to do with the data.
- simooooo 9y agoIreland here - I can't remember what I clicked as I was just trying to get past it. There goes ever finding that setting again.
- JetSpiegel 9y agoDoes GDPR apply in the UK post-Brexit?
- ThisIs_MyName 9y ago
- rb808 9y agoFindFace in Russia had a feature where you could take a photo of anyone and it would look up their VKontakte profile. Would be nice if Facebook did this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3595026/The-end-anonymity-know-App-allows-people-S-social-media-profile-just-taking-photo.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3595026/The-e... https://findface.ru https://findface.ru
- mtrn 9y agoI am glad, I do not need to worry that much about these things, thanks to my /etc/hosts file[1]. [1] One of many versions: https://gist.github.com/thomasbilk/1506210/2d20f47bbcca75b2f78d6909c1637501000d846f https://gist.github.com/thomasbilk/1506210/2d20f47bbcca75b2f...
- llccbb 9y agoI had tried to implement similar blocks through uBlock Origin and similar browser addons, but this seems to be the most robust method as I use multiple different browsers on my primary computer. Also, editing a hosts file does nothing on FB's end (which is what this article/discussion covers).
- mrighele 9y agoYou can use also a local DNS server for your whole home network. If you think it is too much work you can use something ready-made like pi-hole [1]. The nice part is that it will work also for your phone while you're on wifi. [1] https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net
- reaperducer 9y agoIf the bits going through your router were the only way Facebook gathered data about you, that would make sense. But it's only one way. You don't even need to have a Facebook account to have a Facebook profile.
- TomMarius 9y agoSo how is Facebook filling up my profile with no input data? They might create a profile based on data my friends publish, but they won't be able to connect it with my IP or my identity.
- reaperducer 9y agoThere's a whole Google full of information on this.
- return1 9y agoHave we reached peak facebook yet? Is there a name for these serial outrages that pop up every 2 months? I get it, it's good clickbait but does it need to follow us here in HN?
- KasianFranks 9y agofacebook is the next AOL, geocities, friendster, myspace etc. You never hear anyone saying I'm going to cancel my 'Search' account. The kinds of things you are seeing now happen with 'social media', not algorithmic search companies.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago> You never hear anyone saying I'm going to cancel my 'Search' account. Today I saw a fellow DuckDuckGoer in the wild. That's effectively someone who, like me, cancelled their Search account. To be clear, I agree with the sentiment that search and "social networks" are fundamentally different. I just don't agree that search is immune from blowback from hightened privacy awareness.
- return1 9y agoi m referring to outrages. before facebook it was net neutrality, before that, something i dont remember. it has become a media pattern.
- pdkl95 9y agoGood. That's generally the only way the general public can counteract the abusive behavior of entrenched and powerful organizations. A common tactic used by large businesses is to stay silent and ignore public outrage, because the public usually doesn't have the time, money, or energy to maintain the pressure of the public voice against a single target. By ignoring the outrage most of the time the public moves on to the next scandal and the original abusive behavior can continue unchallenged as the "new normal". If you're seeing a pattern of outrage, that's a sign that people are very angry and might - if luck is on their side - actually force one change in the public interest. For a longer explanation of this topic, I recommend Jim Sterling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6lvDL4cNdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6lvDL4cNdM (strong language)
- downandout 9y agoOpt-in doesn’t take effect until May 25, so there’s nothing legally wrong here. It’s also not disingenuous for Facebook to explain the benefits of the service to the user so that they understand the impact before they disable it. TechCrunch has been one of the leaders of the anti-Facebook bandwagon recently, so it must be serving them well. I’d imagine they are getting lots of clicks to these articles, and, ironically, are making substantial amounts of money from showing lots of highly targeted ads on them. They are also undoubtedly using just as many if not more third party tracking tools than the sites they like to skewer for this practice. One would be wise to read their anti-Facebook articles with the understanding that they have an economic incentive to play to their audience by placing a negative spin on everything the company does.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> there’s nothing legally wrong here This attitude is mirrored at Facebook, in Zuckerberg and throughout its culture: Abuse the user to (and past) the limits of the law. It is why nothing will change until the EU or the DoJ break Facebook up.
- downandout 9y agoHas there been a proven (in court) accusation that Facebook has “abused users” “past” the limits of the law?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> Has there been a proven (in court) accusation that Facebook has “abused users” “past” the limits of the law? Many times. The FTC consent decree [1], the violations of Belgian law [2] and the violations of German law [3] come to mind. (In each case, a court ruled or supervised a settlement. In each case, Facebook continued breaking the law.) There are many more. Facebook's culture is broken. The precedence for such lawless cultures is they get broken up or they go Enron. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/faceb... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-belgium/facebook-loses-belgian-privacy-case-faces-fine-of-up-to-125-million-idUSKCN1G01LG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-belgium/facebook... [3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-facebook-court-case-privacy-settings-terms-of-use-brought-vzbz/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-facebook-court-case-pri...
- siimtalvik 9y agoLogging in today, from europe, I received a modal about some updates. It stated that there are some updates i'll need to review: One of them, the facial recognition feature. """ Here's what we'll ask you to review: An option for turning on face recognition """ Full modal can be seen here: https://img1.picload.org/image/dogcpgci/selection_122.jpg https://img1.picload.org/image/dogcpgci/selection_122.jpg Clicking Get Started I received some information on GDPR and their data usage: https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprra/selection_123.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprra/selection_123.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprrl/selection_124.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprrl/selection_124.jpg Clicking "Manage Data Settings" I was given some examples on data usage: https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprri/selection_126.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprri/selection_126.jpg Clicking "Continue" I received this modal, with 3 datapoints that are used. https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprrw/selection_127.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprrw/selection_127.jpg Obviously, Facebook processes more data than these three. It has never really been a dating app and that is definitely not one of their main focuses. Anyway, I went on to remove my "Interested in" datapoint. Prompting an "are you sure" modal: https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprdr/selection_128.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprdr/selection_128.jpg After clicking remove this single datapoint was removed: https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprda/selection_129.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprda/selection_129.jpg I expected this flow to continue, but looks like that was it. I decided to stop here and not "Accept with changes". There was NO chance to opt-out of the facial recognition program: https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprdl/selection_130.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprdl/selection_130.jpg They're obviously trying to go with "these three groups of data are protected and need opt-in". The rest, yeah - we need that to provide the service. I also have another tab open, that works, so I'm not really blocked from using the site. At-least for now. Edit: opening Facebook in new tabs, no longer starts this modal, even though I haven't accepted the new changes. --------------------------------------------------------- Edit 2: Went looking, and googling, trying to opt-out of the facial recognition program. Here are the options I have under Privacy: https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapr/selection_131.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapr/selection_131.jpg Here are the options I have under "Your Facebook information": https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapa/selection_132.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapa/selection_132.jpg Clicking "view" under Managing your information I get this very (un)helpful help page: https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapl/selection_133.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapl/selection_133.jpg Choosing Facebook I get these options: https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapi/selection_134.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapi/selection_134.jpg Choosing "Change my face recognition settings", the send button is still disabled, but I get this very helpful link to "also edit your face recognition settings", the link points to "https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=facerec" https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=facerec", but actually takes me back to my "General Account Settings": https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcporl/selection_136.jpg https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcporl/selection_136.jpg As far as I can understand, there is no way to change face recognition settings in the flow I received from the A/B testing gods. Might have something to do with me not agreeing to the changes in the first modal.
- doubtfuluser 9y agoOk, so I now have the following question: what if I’m evil (that kind of evil person none can imagine would exist on Facebook), and I impersonate for example someone else - like my ex for example. Will I get notified about every photo they upload of „me“? Isn’t this decision going to be a total privacy clusterf* even beyond what is currently imagined? Or won’t they show me pictures of „me“ that were uploaded privately by others at all - then this feature doesn’t make sense. Please help me understand
- jnordwick 9y agoWhat's with the clickbait title? The title from the article is: "Facebook starts its facial recognition push to Europeans" Did it change? Please change. @dang @sctb
- fairpx 9y ago“In general” this would be something Zuck’s team can look at.
- cJ0th 9y agolol what a bunch of dumbfucks at FB. Yeah, that's obviously a low quality remark. But in all seriousness, they screwed up too often when it comes to ethics. I am lost for words and just hope they'll have to pay for it eventually.
- larkeith 9y agoThis was originally misreported, and has now been updated. It appears users have not been auto-enrolled. Article title is now "Facebook starts its facial recognition push to Europeans". From the correction: "This article was updated with a series of corrections after Facebook confirmed the notifications are in fact the rollout of its new consent flow, not part of the earlier tests. It has also told us categorically that no users were auto-enrolled in facial recognition tech in Europe — even in the test. So we’ve updated this article accordingly."
- Bizarro 9y agoIs this a joke? Is Facebook becoming a parody of itself? Are the inmates running the asylum? Irrespective of the legality, it's bizarre that they would roll out some creepy, facial recognition right now...especially in Europe.
- textmode 9y ago"Art. 7 GDPR Conditions for consent 4. When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract." A question to ask of Facebook is whether collection of such personal data as facial recognition is necessary to provide the service the user wants. For example, if the user wants to keep in contact with a friend through Facebook, is facial recognition necessary for Facebook to provide that service? If it is not necessary, and Facebook asks for consent anyway, then should the user be able withhold consent and still receive the service she wants. If not, under Art 7(4) is there an argument that consent was not freely given. Facebook could try to argue that facial recognition is "required" to provide the service, but what if the existing user only wants the service she enjoyed in the past (without ever having to consent to facial recognition). In sum, is it possible for users to reject new "features" and still receive the service they want, if those "features" are not necessary in order to provide the service. Are facial recognition "necessary" to provide the service to users that users want or is it necessary to provide service to advertisers that advertisers want. Who wants facial recognition? Is it the users choice. Do you want to turn on facial recognition? [ ] Yes [ ] No
- toephu2 9y agoWho will be auditing Facebook to ensure they actually comply with GDPR? E.g., I live in the EU and send over a delete request. How do I ensure my account's data was actually deleted? Am I supposed to just trust Facebook?
- PunchTornado 9y agoyes. how would you enforce that? fb can keep your data in a server in hawaii that nobody knows about.
- MistahKoala 9y agoThis doesn't sound substantially representative of my experience of being presented with this earlier today. As far as I can recall, I was presented with two options: enable facial recognition; and reviewing my other options (which I clicked), which were something like confirming my decision to decline, and downloading my data and closing my account. It was a fairly brief process, so my memory isn't precise. I do recall that I wasn't automatically enrolled into facial recognition, though - I had to make a conscious choice either way, and although it was obvious that Facebook were encouraging me to opt in, it didn't feel like I was being tricked or coerced (perhaps save for the example of safeguarding my identity). The process I went through in my desktop browser was not the same as the one I've seen for screenshots of the mobile process.
- nightsd01 9y agoAm I the only person who is getting annoyed at these increasingly hysterical articles shrieking about Facebook’s supposedly deceptive practices? Because for christs’ sake, Facebook is one of the most OPEN and transparent tech companies around when it comes to data privacy. Many companies out there are far shadier when it comes to this stuff. Let’s face it, no one wants to pay for Facebook. Personal data for advertising is pretty much the only way Facebook can exist.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rickycook 9y agoi’d pay for a facebook that didn’t track me everywhere for advertising, reorder friends’ posts in order to “maximise engagement”, and generally had a user experience that was driven by... yknow... user experience taken another way, why would you pay for email when you have gmail? well there are plenty of people that do! i’m one of them, because it provides a far superior experience, and you know exactly where they get their funds from
- proxygeek 9y agoThe news media has a way of using the "wave". The barrage of articles with FB caught with it's hands in the "cookie jar" will contiue piling up. And a lot of them are just trying to get on in the action but some - like this one here - are genuinely upsetting and need to be reported. The issue here is not the business model of FB but the sneaky ways it tries to make it seem something completely else. While the audience here at HN and similar forums are more than aware of the business model, I'm pretty sure if I asked my mum about it, she'd draw a blank or would not be completely informed. It's to a population like this who are most likely to fall for dark UX patterns and other shady ways FB uses for getting an uninformed consent. And that's not right. I think, the outrage is not about the business model as much as it is about (un)informed consent. Sometimes - like in this story - almost while cocking a snook in the face of regulatory authorities.
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago>> Am I the only person who is getting annoyed at these increasingly hysterical articles shrieking about Facebook’s supposedly deceptive practices? I don't know about that, but a few years back, when joining Facebook was all the rage, I, personally, was getting very annoyed at every other article in the press reporting what happened on Facebook and having everyone I met asking me, first for my facebook, then why I don't have one, then looking at me as if I was an alien when I explained I didn't want to hand over my personal data to some internet company. From my point of view, this is not hysteria, it's a backlash brought on by the adoption of a fad by people who never considered the consequences of their actions and who only now start to wake up to them. And I fervently hope that the current fad, of dissing facebook, will keep for at least as long as the fad of joining it has kept on.
- wodenokoto 9y agoI had a huge in-you-face, fixed notification in messenger telling me about new terms, and it asked me about face recognition and I had to answer if they were allowed to look for my face, with no default answer chosen. This did not feel like they were trying to trick me into anything.