3 ms·

Google won against Illinois in a recent case: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-oks-google-facial-recognition-software/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-

Google won against Illinois in a recent case: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-oks-google-facial-recognition-software/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-oks-google-facial-recog...

JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
Heads they win tails you lose. So the IL law supposedly prevents the collection and retention of data but the judge dismissed the case because collecting and storing the data isn't enough to sue them on its own without farther proof of damages...
- gowld 7y ago
  Apparently the IL Supreme Court issued a ruling contradictory to the District Court's Google Photos ruling, a month later: https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2019/01/illinois-supreme-court https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2019/01/illino... There are legal technicalities about if the Google case is appealable on that basis, and what the result of the next similar lawsuit will be.
autoexec 7y ago
> "But a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang on Saturday found that the law cannot be used to protect users from the non-consensual collection of information about what many consider to be private" If the law can't be used to protect us what measures remain available? Storming Google's data centers by force? The legal system is supposed to be the acceptable option so mobs and violence aren't all we have. Eliminate legal recourse and what's left?
- Cederfjard 7y ago
  Well, you pass better laws.
  - autoexec 7y ago
    How should the law have been written to resolve the problems with Article III standing?
    - gowld 7y ago
      The law apparently says that hoarding biometric data is not protected -- only abusing it for harm is. Until a harm is artiulated, no foul. The law could be changed to overturn the longstanding precedent that facial data is not private. The simple fact is that the digital world is a new world, and we need new law. Old law simply doesn't extrapolate.
      - autoexec 7y ago
        read the law: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm It's short and pretty clear. the words harm, injury, abuse etc are nowhere to be found. Google violated the law as written but the judge didn't even address that because he decided they had no right to complain in the first place. It reminds me of the case journalists made against the US government after it came to light that they were illegally wiretapping them. The fact that the government's mass surveillance program was exposed wasn't enough for the courts who decided that because the journalists who took it to court couldn't prove that specific instances of wiretapping occurred (information they couldn't possibly have because it's secret) they had no right to sue and the fact that wiretaps were put in place without a warrant wasn't even addressed.
    - Cederfjard 7y ago
      The constitution can also be amended. I’m not saying it would be easy, but legal recourse is not ”eliminated”, nor are mobs and violence the only alternatives left.
- jefftk 7y ago
  This is "the law" as in "this specific law" not "the legal system".
- zorpner 7y ago
  > If the law can't be used to protect us what measures remain available? "Google" is not an entity -- it's composed of people, who make decisions and enable the things that Google does. Don't hire them. Don't associate with them. They're working for a company that, at this point, is obviously doing harm to the world. That's a choice they have the freedom to make. We have the freedom not to associate with people who make that choice. Note that this advice is specific to non-visa-limited people in high-demand occupations, like other software engineers. They have a choice.
  - autoexec 7y ago
    > "Google" is not an entity It is. It's a legal entity called a corporation > Don't hire them. Don't associate with them. You no longer have a choice to opt out of google invading your privacy. The websites you visit everyday are letting google track you. The websites I use for my work are tracking me via google. My employer also requires chrome for some tasks which allows google to track what I do. I've even seen government websites using google trackers. You just can't escape google on the internet. Google is so pervasive even ARIN is allowing google to track people who go to their site. Google is quickly intruding on offline public spaces as well. When a user-hostile company becomes impossible to escape the only option left is to regulate it to limit the damage, but Illinois made a solid effort to do just that and it made zero difference
    - wolco 7y ago
      You do have a choice. You are allowing them to track you. Use protection.
- disjhshava 7y ago
  Strong evidence of how amazing the human condition is these days: we're talking about mobs and violence because some somebody knows what your face looks like.
  - autoexec 7y ago
    The CEO of Google can keep a photo of me on his bedside table for all I care, but if the laws passed by our elected officials will be ignored any time they threaten the growing surveillance state we're living under it would certainly say a lot about the human condition these days
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Google won against Illinois in a recent case: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-oks-google-facial-recognition-software/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-oks-google-facial-recog...

JackRabbitSlim 7y ago

Heads they win tails you lose. So the IL law supposedly prevents the collection and retention of data but the judge dismissed the case because collecting and storing the data isn't enough to sue them on its own without farther proof of damages...

gowld 7y ago
Apparently the IL Supreme Court issued a ruling contradictory to the District Court's Google Photos ruling, a month later: https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2019/01/illinois-supreme-court https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2019/01/illino... There are legal technicalities about if the Google case is appealable on that basis, and what the result of the next similar lawsuit will be.

autoexec 7y ago

> "But a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang on Saturday found that the law cannot be used to protect users from the non-consensual collection of information about what many consider to be private" If the law can't be used to protect us what measures remain available? Storming Google's data centers by force? The legal system is supposed to be the acceptable option so mobs and violence aren't all we have. Eliminate legal recourse and what's left?

Cederfjard 7y ago
Well, you pass better laws.
- autoexec 7y ago
  How should the law have been written to resolve the problems with Article III standing?
  - gowld 7y ago
    The law apparently says that hoarding biometric data is not protected -- only abusing it for harm is. Until a harm is artiulated, no foul. The law could be changed to overturn the longstanding precedent that facial data is not private. The simple fact is that the digital world is a new world, and we need new law. Old law simply doesn't extrapolate.
    - autoexec 7y ago
      read the law: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm It's short and pretty clear. the words harm, injury, abuse etc are nowhere to be found. Google violated the law as written but the judge didn't even address that because he decided they had no right to complain in the first place. It reminds me of the case journalists made against the US government after it came to light that they were illegally wiretapping them. The fact that the government's mass surveillance program was exposed wasn't enough for the courts who decided that because the journalists who took it to court couldn't prove that specific instances of wiretapping occurred (information they couldn't possibly have because it's secret) they had no right to sue and the fact that wiretaps were put in place without a warrant wasn't even addressed.
  - Cederfjard 7y ago
    The constitution can also be amended. I’m not saying it would be easy, but legal recourse is not ”eliminated”, nor are mobs and violence the only alternatives left.
jefftk 7y ago
This is "the law" as in "this specific law" not "the legal system".
zorpner 7y ago
> If the law can't be used to protect us what measures remain available? "Google" is not an entity -- it's composed of people, who make decisions and enable the things that Google does. Don't hire them. Don't associate with them. They're working for a company that, at this point, is obviously doing harm to the world. That's a choice they have the freedom to make. We have the freedom not to associate with people who make that choice. Note that this advice is specific to non-visa-limited people in high-demand occupations, like other software engineers. They have a choice.
- autoexec 7y ago
  > "Google" is not an entity It is. It's a legal entity called a corporation > Don't hire them. Don't associate with them. You no longer have a choice to opt out of google invading your privacy. The websites you visit everyday are letting google track you. The websites I use for my work are tracking me via google. My employer also requires chrome for some tasks which allows google to track what I do. I've even seen government websites using google trackers. You just can't escape google on the internet. Google is so pervasive even ARIN is allowing google to track people who go to their site. Google is quickly intruding on offline public spaces as well. When a user-hostile company becomes impossible to escape the only option left is to regulate it to limit the damage, but Illinois made a solid effort to do just that and it made zero difference
  - wolco 7y ago
    You do have a choice. You are allowing them to track you. Use protection.
disjhshava 7y ago
Strong evidence of how amazing the human condition is these days: we're talking about mobs and violence because some somebody knows what your face looks like.
- autoexec 7y ago
  The CEO of Google can keep a photo of me on his bedside table for all I care, but if the laws passed by our elected officials will be ignored any time they threaten the growing surveillance state we're living under it would certainly say a lot about the human condition these days

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]