3 ms·

hun? They aren't an intermediary. The pictures are posted on Facebook. They are the primary. It doesn't matter who uploaded them to Facebook.

kube-system 6y ago
They're neither an intermediary nor a primary party to the dispute. Facebook is not an arbitrator. The case, as mentioned in the article, was between a woman and her mother. You'd have to ask them or their lawyer why they pursued action this way. I suspect from the context in the article that it was a recurring issue, and the article mentions that it wasn't just posts on Facebook, either.
andrewxdiamond 6y ago
Facebook is not in a position (and shouldn't need to be) to determine who has what rights to what images. They deferred to the governing bodies on this issue, and the courts decided that the parents had the right to demand the photo(s) are taken down. The parents could presumably now go to FB with this ruling and have them take the photos down. If FB did not defer to another party, they would have to determine if the accusing party has the legal grounds to demand the pictures are removed. How would FB know that those are the parent's kids? Or that the parents have custody? Or any other nuanced edge case? It's best for everyone if FB defers to the bodies that defined these laws for judgement. Otherwise, you'll end up in a system like YouTube where copyright protections are easily abused against small organizations that can't fight back.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  In the US, Facebook legally has to remove a picture of a child under thirteen if requested by a legal guardian. The sole proof required seems to be a check box confirming under threat of perjury that you are their legal guardian. And until your eighteen they have to take down any photos of yourself. The only abuse case I can imagine would be online bullying, there's little financial incentive like in your YouTube example. And for Facebook, refusing a legitimate act could carry fines while deleting a pic involves little risk.
  - andrewxdiamond 6y ago
    There is a big difference between "refusing a legal act" and refusing to act on unverified information. If it was a GDPR complaint, it should go through the GDPR courts. That's how the system is designed. Deleting a user's picture incorrectly is absolutely a problem. You now have an avenue for malicious actors to effectively DDOS users by removing all of their photographs with these GDPR requests
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >You now have an avenue for malicious actors to effectively DDOS users by removing all of their photographs with these GDPR requests My entire post was just detailing the US system already in place, where they have the powers you described. These malicious actors could only target people under the age of thirteen, there would be little incentive to do such except bullying, and the culprit would like face punishment. I would hate to see it happen to any child personally, but from Facebook's position there is no risk to them taking it down while leaving the picture up could carry a $40,000 fine.
      - andrewxdiamond 6y ago
        How does Facebook know how old people are in pictures? I mean they invest a lot of time and money into AI, but I don't think they're there yet
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        By their Facebook account, it's the persons current age that matters. I don't know what they do if they don't have one, but I doubt many people without accounts would be targeted for an attack.
        andrewxdiamond 6y ago
        Ah yes. The most accurate and impossible to forge form of identification, the Facebook page

kube-system 6y ago

They're neither an intermediary nor a primary party to the dispute. Facebook is not an arbitrator. The case, as mentioned in the article, was between a woman and her mother. You'd have to ask them or their lawyer why they pursued action this way. I suspect from the context in the article that it was a recurring issue, and the article mentions that it wasn't just posts on Facebook, either.

andrewxdiamond 6y ago

Facebook is not in a position (and shouldn't need to be) to determine who has what rights to what images. They deferred to the governing bodies on this issue, and the courts decided that the parents had the right to demand the photo(s) are taken down. The parents could presumably now go to FB with this ruling and have them take the photos down. If FB did not defer to another party, they would have to determine if the accusing party has the legal grounds to demand the pictures are removed. How would FB know that those are the parent's kids? Or that the parents have custody? Or any other nuanced edge case? It's best for everyone if FB defers to the bodies that defined these laws for judgement. Otherwise, you'll end up in a system like YouTube where copyright protections are easily abused against small organizations that can't fight back.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
In the US, Facebook legally has to remove a picture of a child under thirteen if requested by a legal guardian. The sole proof required seems to be a check box confirming under threat of perjury that you are their legal guardian. And until your eighteen they have to take down any photos of yourself. The only abuse case I can imagine would be online bullying, there's little financial incentive like in your YouTube example. And for Facebook, refusing a legitimate act could carry fines while deleting a pic involves little risk.
- andrewxdiamond 6y ago
  There is a big difference between "refusing a legal act" and refusing to act on unverified information. If it was a GDPR complaint, it should go through the GDPR courts. That's how the system is designed. Deleting a user's picture incorrectly is absolutely a problem. You now have an avenue for malicious actors to effectively DDOS users by removing all of their photographs with these GDPR requests
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >You now have an avenue for malicious actors to effectively DDOS users by removing all of their photographs with these GDPR requests My entire post was just detailing the US system already in place, where they have the powers you described. These malicious actors could only target people under the age of thirteen, there would be little incentive to do such except bullying, and the culprit would like face punishment. I would hate to see it happen to any child personally, but from Facebook's position there is no risk to them taking it down while leaving the picture up could carry a $40,000 fine.
    - andrewxdiamond 6y ago
      How does Facebook know how old people are in pictures? I mean they invest a lot of time and money into AI, but I don't think they're there yet
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        By their Facebook account, it's the persons current age that matters. I don't know what they do if they don't have one, but I doubt many people without accounts would be targeted for an attack.
        andrewxdiamond 6y ago
        Ah yes. The most accurate and impossible to forge form of identification, the Facebook page