12 ms·

Your move, Clearview AI. They’ve been sued in IL as well under the same auspices, and Clearview’s defense that they aren’t a private entity because they "only"

Your move, Clearview AI. They’ve been sued in IL as well under the same auspices, and Clearview’s defense that they aren’t a private entity because they "only" do business with public entities (e.g., law enforcement) is definitely not going to fly here. This settlement establishes how seriously the state of Illinois is taking non-consensual biometric information gathering, especially facial recognition.

oh_sigh 7y ago
If I put information about myself out there on a public site, I still have a right to say that people can't download and use that information?
- vanadium 7y ago
  Well, they're certainly feeling empowered against not only Clearview AI, but IBM as well: https://www.biometricupdate.com/202001/biometric-privacy-suits-leveled-against-ibm-and-clearview-ai-in-illinois https://www.biometricupdate.com/202001/biometric-privacy-sui...
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Wow, I'm glad that the rest of the country isn't following the Illinois example. I remember when the Google art institute released the "what classic painting do you look like", it was banned from use in Illinois, I guess this law is why.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      That's the price you set for your personal privacy? What painting you look like?
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
        No, because I don't see my face as a private thing. Nor is the exact distance between my pupils, or the profile of my nose, or any other information that can be cleaned from a photograph of my face.
        kbenson 7y ago
        It's not that it's a private thing, it's that it's yours to control. There aren't technical limitations to the use (just as there aren't technical limitations to copying and freely distributing all digital media), so we either institute legal limitations or accept that it's allowed. There are many negative aspects of allowing it, so we should probably make sure we take the time to look at the repercussions of both stances carefully (that is, more carefully than "I don't have a problem therefore allow it").
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Of course my face is mine to control. I can wear makeup, grow out or shave my hair, tattoo the whole thing if I care to. Images of my face created by other people may be a different story entirely. Does Donald Trump or Boris Johnson own every photo of them on the AP newswire?
        travisporter 7y ago
        These arguments are way more nuanced with new tech. What about your fingerprint? your signature? Cadence of every syllable you say when you call the tech support or takeout? Any one can do any of these things over a single weekend. Tomorrow, Google could enable some feature on Android to recognize your face or voice on any phone in the world.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        This is an interesting opinion in the time of deepfakes.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        We'll need a better answer to deepfakes than "You cannot do anything with an image of another person's face." Unless we want to be governed by faceless legislators or entertained by faceless celebrities. There should be some way to divide responsibility for person's images that isn't totalitarian in either direction (either "You cannot use a person's face without their consent," which kills visual news as a practice, or "every face is fair game for anyone to use at any time," which feels invasive to the individual).
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Yes. That user and lots of other users. People even took the photos and showed them on social media. https://www.cnet.com/news/google-arts-and-cuture-photo-matching-app-how-does-it-work/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-arts-and-cuture-photo-match... People's opinion of what constitutes "private" varies wildly.
        beerandt 7y ago
        I get that people don't think twice about giving it away. But it's another thing for that to be the moral justification for defending the merits of facial recognition. Pardon my take, but: A large uprising is starting to swell in the name of privacy, but the swing voter is concerned about what is essentially the visual equivalent of the "Which Disney Princess are you?" quiz.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        The moral framework that concludes that people need to be coddled against making the wrong decision about sharing their face data for stuff like this is a bit condescending. Why do we assume people haven't considered the risks and decided they think either the odds of worst case scenarios are low or they aren't bothered by them? It feels a little bit like the gun control debate. Taking away people's freedoms because of the possible worst case outcome can result in a worse overall situation. If people aren't bothered by how facial recognition is used, stepping in and asserting we know better and they need a legal protection seems premature and overreaching.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        kmlx 7y ago
        > A large uprising is starting to swell in the name of privacy i think it's more of a tide that comes and goes. wait till there's another pokemon go.
- mortenjorck 7y ago
  This is a reductive argument and does not hold up to both social and legal norms. Making data publicly accessible does not grant users of it carte blanche to use it however they wish. The data may be copyrighted: Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to republish it or claim it as their own work. An image may contain a likeness: Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to claim endorsement by that individual, or to use their likeness in ways of which the individual does not approve. Beyond copyright and likeness rights, a likeness contains biometric information. Having access to that likeness, at least by the laws of the State of Illinois, does not grant the user rights to biometrics derived from that image.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    > Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to republish it or claim it as their own work. But that's not the question here, right? The question is whether I can use my high school yearbook pictures to look for information about my classmates.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      To be fair here, it kind of is the question right? I mean, say you and I are at a neighborhood kid's birthday party with our own kids. Suppose further that you take some pictures, and then post them publicly. Maybe to your FB? Well, I never really gave you permission to use my image on your FB. Let alone publicly. I know that I certainly would never consent to publishing images of my children publicly. Further, I suspect the birthday party's host wouldn't give you permission to post his/her family's images on FB either. So here we are, with all of these people on your public FB. None having signed or even given verbal authorization for any sort of release. And now FB starts running FaceRec on all the information you just gave them. To top it all off, my family and I don't even use FB. Never have. So it really can't even be claimed that we consented to facial recognition via the terms and conditions of service. I only outlined all of that to outline this, just because a person's image is in public doesn't mean that the person consented to the image being public. Especially images taken from private spaces, (like bday parties at some kid's house).
- petre 7y ago
  Yes, they're called personal rights and are protected in sone jurisdictions. A Frenchman who was taking a leak in his own front yard when the Google Streetview car passed and photographed him sued G to erase his image.
- dontbenebby 7y ago
  > If I put information about myself out there on a public site, I still have a right to say that people can't download and use that information? It's my understanding scraping is legal, but as the OP states, you could be fined over a half a billion dollars if you use that information. What part of the law/article was unclear?
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Technically it's only illegal to use the data because the subjects of the data never gave you express written permission to do so, and you have to get that in Illinois before doing any kind of facial recognition. You don't need that in most other states.
    - dontbenebby 7y ago
      >Technically it's only illegal to use the data because the subjects of the data never gave you express written permission Yes, many laws require consent. I'd caution against treating people's permission as a problem to be routed around.
      - anticensor 7y ago
        > I'd caution against treating people's permission as a problem to be routed around. This has been Facebook's general stance since it was established.
        dontbenebby 7y ago
        And like many users, I deleted mine.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  in many jurisdictions yes. In most European countries people are allowed to download publicly available information of others but they can only use it for private use, not for commercial use without consent and they cannot distribute it without consent. I find this notion slightly strange that the internet as a public space is some sort of voyeuristic free for all where one forfeits every right. If this was not stopped it would render the entire public internet hostile and borderline unusable which would be a shame for a medium with so much potential.
- caconym_ 7y ago
  If I go out for a walk in the park, I still have a right to say that people can’t murder me and sell my organs? ??? As a (supposedly democratic) society we (supposedly) decide what is acceptable and what is not. These decisions are, in the eyes of the universe, quite arbitrary. You may be discovering that now, but some of us have known it for a while.
- allovernow 7y ago
  My view is that while it shouldn't matter, collecting a database of such information is potentially dangerous enough to society to require regulation - particularly when it is most dangerous in the hands of the very same government you would ask to regulate itself. Some powers need to be checked.
- djannzjkzxn 7y ago
  I’m not worried about photos of myself that I upload, but am somewhat worried about photos of me that other people took. For example, there exist photos of me hanging out with my friends who are wearing kink gear, and some of those photos have been posted online. Everyone involved is having a good time and everything’s legal. Some of my coworkers might find the photos offensive, but those people aren’t browsing through kink photo galleries, so they aren’t going to see them. But I don’t want these photos to come up if you search for my name online. I also don’t want to engage in some censorship war trying to get them taken down. Facial recognition tech, used in this way, seems to throw a bomb into a fragile peace where people can coexist with each other despite having incompatible values.
- throwaway100773 7y ago
  How about if someone else puts you out there against your wishes? What then?

oh_sigh 7y ago

If I put information about myself out there on a public site, I still have a right to say that people can't download and use that information?

vanadium 7y ago
Well, they're certainly feeling empowered against not only Clearview AI, but IBM as well: https://www.biometricupdate.com/202001/biometric-privacy-suits-leveled-against-ibm-and-clearview-ai-in-illinois https://www.biometricupdate.com/202001/biometric-privacy-sui...
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Wow, I'm glad that the rest of the country isn't following the Illinois example. I remember when the Google art institute released the "what classic painting do you look like", it was banned from use in Illinois, I guess this law is why.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    That's the price you set for your personal privacy? What painting you look like?
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      No, because I don't see my face as a private thing. Nor is the exact distance between my pupils, or the profile of my nose, or any other information that can be cleaned from a photograph of my face.
      - kbenson 7y ago
        It's not that it's a private thing, it's that it's yours to control. There aren't technical limitations to the use (just as there aren't technical limitations to copying and freely distributing all digital media), so we either institute legal limitations or accept that it's allowed. There are many negative aspects of allowing it, so we should probably make sure we take the time to look at the repercussions of both stances carefully (that is, more carefully than "I don't have a problem therefore allow it").
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Of course my face is mine to control. I can wear makeup, grow out or shave my hair, tattoo the whole thing if I care to. Images of my face created by other people may be a different story entirely. Does Donald Trump or Boris Johnson own every photo of them on the AP newswire?
      - travisporter 7y ago
        These arguments are way more nuanced with new tech. What about your fingerprint? your signature? Cadence of every syllable you say when you call the tech support or takeout? Any one can do any of these things over a single weekend. Tomorrow, Google could enable some feature on Android to recognize your face or voice on any phone in the world.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        This is an interesting opinion in the time of deepfakes.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        We'll need a better answer to deepfakes than "You cannot do anything with an image of another person's face." Unless we want to be governed by faceless legislators or entertained by faceless celebrities. There should be some way to divide responsibility for person's images that isn't totalitarian in either direction (either "You cannot use a person's face without their consent," which kills visual news as a practice, or "every face is fair game for anyone to use at any time," which feels invasive to the individual).
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Yes. That user and lots of other users. People even took the photos and showed them on social media. https://www.cnet.com/news/google-arts-and-cuture-photo-matching-app-how-does-it-work/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-arts-and-cuture-photo-match... People's opinion of what constitutes "private" varies wildly.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        I get that people don't think twice about giving it away. But it's another thing for that to be the moral justification for defending the merits of facial recognition. Pardon my take, but: A large uprising is starting to swell in the name of privacy, but the swing voter is concerned about what is essentially the visual equivalent of the "Which Disney Princess are you?" quiz.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        The moral framework that concludes that people need to be coddled against making the wrong decision about sharing their face data for stuff like this is a bit condescending. Why do we assume people haven't considered the risks and decided they think either the odds of worst case scenarios are low or they aren't bothered by them? It feels a little bit like the gun control debate. Taking away people's freedoms because of the possible worst case outcome can result in a worse overall situation. If people aren't bothered by how facial recognition is used, stepping in and asserting we know better and they need a legal protection seems premature and overreaching.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        kmlx 7y ago
        > A large uprising is starting to swell in the name of privacy i think it's more of a tide that comes and goes. wait till there's another pokemon go.
mortenjorck 7y ago
This is a reductive argument and does not hold up to both social and legal norms. Making data publicly accessible does not grant users of it carte blanche to use it however they wish. The data may be copyrighted: Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to republish it or claim it as their own work. An image may contain a likeness: Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to claim endorsement by that individual, or to use their likeness in ways of which the individual does not approve. Beyond copyright and likeness rights, a likeness contains biometric information. Having access to that likeness, at least by the laws of the State of Illinois, does not grant the user rights to biometrics derived from that image.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to republish it or claim it as their own work. But that's not the question here, right? The question is whether I can use my high school yearbook pictures to look for information about my classmates.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    To be fair here, it kind of is the question right? I mean, say you and I are at a neighborhood kid's birthday party with our own kids. Suppose further that you take some pictures, and then post them publicly. Maybe to your FB? Well, I never really gave you permission to use my image on your FB. Let alone publicly. I know that I certainly would never consent to publishing images of my children publicly. Further, I suspect the birthday party's host wouldn't give you permission to post his/her family's images on FB either. So here we are, with all of these people on your public FB. None having signed or even given verbal authorization for any sort of release. And now FB starts running FaceRec on all the information you just gave them. To top it all off, my family and I don't even use FB. Never have. So it really can't even be claimed that we consented to facial recognition via the terms and conditions of service. I only outlined all of that to outline this, just because a person's image is in public doesn't mean that the person consented to the image being public. Especially images taken from private spaces, (like bday parties at some kid's house).
petre 7y ago
Yes, they're called personal rights and are protected in sone jurisdictions. A Frenchman who was taking a leak in his own front yard when the Google Streetview car passed and photographed him sued G to erase his image.
dontbenebby 7y ago
> If I put information about myself out there on a public site, I still have a right to say that people can't download and use that information? It's my understanding scraping is legal, but as the OP states, you could be fined over a half a billion dollars if you use that information. What part of the law/article was unclear?
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Technically it's only illegal to use the data because the subjects of the data never gave you express written permission to do so, and you have to get that in Illinois before doing any kind of facial recognition. You don't need that in most other states.
  - dontbenebby 7y ago
    >Technically it's only illegal to use the data because the subjects of the data never gave you express written permission Yes, many laws require consent. I'd caution against treating people's permission as a problem to be routed around.
    - anticensor 7y ago
      > I'd caution against treating people's permission as a problem to be routed around. This has been Facebook's general stance since it was established.
      - dontbenebby 7y ago
        And like many users, I deleted mine.
Barrin92 7y ago
in many jurisdictions yes. In most European countries people are allowed to download publicly available information of others but they can only use it for private use, not for commercial use without consent and they cannot distribute it without consent. I find this notion slightly strange that the internet as a public space is some sort of voyeuristic free for all where one forfeits every right. If this was not stopped it would render the entire public internet hostile and borderline unusable which would be a shame for a medium with so much potential.
caconym_ 7y ago
If I go out for a walk in the park, I still have a right to say that people can’t murder me and sell my organs? ??? As a (supposedly democratic) society we (supposedly) decide what is acceptable and what is not. These decisions are, in the eyes of the universe, quite arbitrary. You may be discovering that now, but some of us have known it for a while.
allovernow 7y ago
My view is that while it shouldn't matter, collecting a database of such information is potentially dangerous enough to society to require regulation - particularly when it is most dangerous in the hands of the very same government you would ask to regulate itself. Some powers need to be checked.
djannzjkzxn 7y ago
I’m not worried about photos of myself that I upload, but am somewhat worried about photos of me that other people took. For example, there exist photos of me hanging out with my friends who are wearing kink gear, and some of those photos have been posted online. Everyone involved is having a good time and everything’s legal. Some of my coworkers might find the photos offensive, but those people aren’t browsing through kink photo galleries, so they aren’t going to see them. But I don’t want these photos to come up if you search for my name online. I also don’t want to engage in some censorship war trying to get them taken down. Facial recognition tech, used in this way, seems to throw a bomb into a fragile peace where people can coexist with each other despite having incompatible values.
throwaway100773 7y ago
How about if someone else puts you out there against your wishes? What then?