7 ms·
This somehow doesn't violate any ethics concerning experimentation on humans?
by cardiffspaceman 6y ago
This somehow doesn't violate any ethics concerning experimentation on humans?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gruez 6y agoEthics =/= law. You can experiment all you want on humans without consent for your A/B tests, for instance.
- jeffbee 6y agoCan you make an ethical argument against it? What ethical principle is violated by photographing people in public? By classifying those photographs?
- kick 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
- jeffbee 6y agoIn the United States, a right to privacy has not ever been used by courts to restrict photography of people in public places. Not even once.
- ganstyles 6y agoThat sounds like a legal argument, but you were asking about an ethical argument, right?
- jeffbee 6y agoI am asking for an ethical argument, and I haven't heard one yet. All I see is bluster and exaggeration.
- ganstyles 6y agoAh, yeah, sure thing. I guess I was just questioning your reply consisting solely of a comment on what courts of law do when you're asking for an ethical argument. "In the United States, a right to privacy has not ever been used by courts to restrict photography of people in public places. Not even once."
- appleflaxen 6y agoThe golden rule is a solid ethical foundation. "I would not want my photograph being surrepticiously collected and used by an entity/organization for an indefinite period of time, stored in an indeterminate number of locations, and with unknown goals that may be related to mass surveillance; therefore, I will not perform that same action against others" And based on others HN comments, even if it's not the majority opinion, it is not an exceptional opinion.
- jonas21 6y agoAre you saying that if the team who did this is okay with having their own photographs collected, analyzed, and stored by a third party, then they have a solid ethical foundation to do it? I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
- freeone3000 6y agoSo what if it does? There's no penalty for behaving unethically.
- PeterisP 6y agoVarious research institutions have internal rules concerning ethics of experimentation on humans (e.g. process of institutional review boards), and various research grants have stipulations that research funded by those grants must follow such ethics rules, and various research publication venues have rules that they will only publish research that followed the rules. That being said, that's essentially a "voluntary initiative" by these organizations implemented because they choose to follow these ethics guidelines. These ethics rules aren't universal or legally mandated for everyone so if a private company wants to do some unethical research with its own funds, if they don't want to publish the research but just use and sell it, then that company is not legally required or forced to follow any ethical restrictions. Within the limits of law, they can be as unethical as their owners are. The solution to lack of ethics is legal restrictions and enforcement of them. A few USA states have limitations on facial recognition. In EU, GDPR would apply for a situation like this.