12 ms·
Instagram faces $500B in fines alleging it harvested biometric data
- markholmes 6y agoWhere do those fines go?
- catacombs 6y agoFacebook has the lawyers to fight this. I wouldn't believe the 100 billion figure. It'll likely get reduced to a couple million.
- OldHand2018 6y ago> Where do those fines go? They aren't fines. They are damages and go to the people affected. In the case of the $650 million proposed settlement for Facebook proper (The judge in the case already rejected a $550 million settlement agreement as "far too little"), all Illinois Facebook users would get a check for $1000+ By the way, this article is really poorly written. The $5000 * 100 million users is not the way it works. The Illinois law says it is $1000-$5000 per violation, so the few million Illinois Instagram users (I have absolutely no idea how many there are) would be entitled to $1000-$5000 every time Instagram did a facial recognition lookup on them, which could easily cause a total liability to be in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Facebook fought against their lawsuit for years until it was finally ruled that they would have to go to trial. And now they are settling. That's likely what is going to happen here too. If they can keep it out of the courtroom, they'll pay nothing. If they can't, they'll offer up a few hundred million to make it go away.
- manquer 6y agoGiven it is class action suit, I would say the lawyers make most of the money and the people who have the standing to sue will get nowhere close to $1,000 .
- justapassenger 6y agoLawyers
- beisner 6y agoThere are 100 million Instagram users in Illinois’ jurisdiction?
- cozzyd 6y agoIf you count everyone who goes through O'Hare and checks Instagram there, then maybe?
- reaperducer 6y agoThere are 100 million Instagram users in Illinois’ jurisdiction? At this moment, no. During the time that this law was in effect, easily. Though I no longer live in Illinois, I am probably one of the people covered by this lawsuit. 50 million tourists visit Chicago each year. They're probably covered. 104 million people travel through ORD and MDW airports each year. They're probably covered. Probably another dozen or two million people travel to or through Illinois each year on business. They're probably covered. It adds up.
- 0x0 6y agoMaybe it's per image?
- CyberDildonics 6y agoThey should be fined trillions for having videos with no volume control.
- BelleOfTheBall 6y agoIt's pretty obvious that the fine won't be $500B since it was likely set that high specifically so when it's knocked down it doesn't go to something absurd like $1,000. However, I do hope this sees some traction, especially as Facebook is now fully moving forward with its plan to merge Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook.
- mdoms 6y agoHow is that "pretty obvious"?
- AnonHP 6y agoThis sounds almost like the previous lawsuit (mentioned in the article) that was settled by Facebook for $650 million, which was concerning Facebook’s use of facial recognition, wasn’t noticed by the lawyers of this case. The best they can hope for would be one more settlement that will be a tiny fraction of a percentage of the $500 billion ask. Hopefully they have strong evidence against Facebook’s statement that Instagram doesn’t do facial recognition.
- OldHand2018 6y agoThe judge hasn't allowed the settlement yet, and it is not clear that he will allow it. He rejected the original $550 million https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-wont-sign-off-on-550m-facebook-facial-data-settlement/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-wont-sign-off-on-550m-f... > “The Illinois Legislature said this is meant to be an expensive violation,” U.S. District Judge James Donato said during a preliminary settlement approval hearing held via video Thursday. > The Illinois statute carries civil penalties of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each knowing violation. With a class of millions of Facebook users who had photos of themselves uploaded in Illinois, damages could have reached tens of billions of dollars. > Donato demanded lawyers for Facebook and the plaintiff class explain why the higher damages amount of $5,000 per violation was taken off the table. > Last year, Facebook paid a $5 billion fine to the Federal Trade Commission to settle claims that it violated a 2012 FTC order by allegedly deceiving users about their ability to control private information. Donato said that settlement could provide adequate evidence to support a push for higher damages. > “It looks to me that what Facebook did to violate the BIPA may also have been a violation of that prior FTC consent decree, in which case you have a pretty good argument that this is an intentional or reckless violation of BIPA that would warrant $5,000,” Donato said.
- codecamper 6y agoB or M?
- stephen82 6y ago> "Under the Illinois law, Facebook could be forced to pay $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, meaning the full damages could reach $500 billion if Facebook is found responsible."
- akersten 6y ago$500B is pretty nuts. Does anyone else here feel that this whole thing is nuts? Facebook's market cap is $700B. Making them pay $500B in damages would put them out of business. So, to be clear with what we're talking about here, we're considering the corporate death penalty. The alleged crime? Processing photo data to find objects that look like people that look similar to other objects that look like people. Yes, by the letter of the law, that's against BIPA (which is a problematic law motivated by a historically anti-tech cash-grabby legislature (see: Netflix Tax)), but what are the actual damages to the injured party? It is a tall order to convince me that having your name pop up as a recommended tag in your friend's photo caused you any material harm, let alone $1000+ per incident. I get that there's a privacy angle, I get that PII is toxic, I get that we care about data protection and all now. But this? This is a dumb law, and a dumb lawsuit.
- perl4ever 6y agoHmm, I question whether it really would put them out of business. FB made about $18B net income last year. Shouldn't that be more than enough to pay the interest on issuing $500B of long term bonds? It almost seems like a sweet spot of a massive fine that wouldn't kill them. Also, it would just be satisfying to demonstrate they aren't above the law. Ordinary people don't get to say "but that law is obviously unreasonable" when, you know, it's very debatable, and get exempted.
- rmrfstar 6y agoToday I learned: the idea that a corporation can commit a crime is a very new one. [1] People commit crimes, not companies. [1] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 464 (1765) (“A corporation cannot commit treason or felony or other crime in its corporate capacity though it’s members may in their distinct individual capacities.”)
- Hamuko 6y ago>People commit crimes, not companies. I thought corporations are people, my friend.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoSomeone needs to eat the cake
- papito 6y agoCorporations are "people" when it comes to their thirst for massive political influence, but just when they get into legal trouble, they are suddenly NOT a person, but a vague multi-layered blob, impossible to prosecute.
- dahfizz 6y agoI think you're a little confused... > but just when they get into legal trouble, they are suddenly NOT a person, but a vague multi-layered blob, impossible to prosecute. This is exactly why corporations are legally people. We can prosecute the whole blob instead of trying to assign blame to individuals. To see how this works, take a look at People v Rochester Ry. Light co (NY 1909)[1]. A corporation killed someone through negligence, but nobody was ever punished because a corporation was not considered a legal person and it was impossible to reach into the vague blob and charge individuals. [1]https://cite.case.law/nys/114/755/ https://cite.case.law/nys/114/755/
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sergiotapia 6y agoThey need to make people responsible, not the corporate entity.
- solarkraft 6y agoWhy? The company profited from the crime. That would create some interesting incentives.
- Nextgrid 6y agoBecause people will think twice before breaking the law if they can be personally held responsible and potentially even go to jail.
- cwhiz 6y agoYou can’t effectively punish a company, especially not a company the size of Facebook. But if individuals go to prison for their actions, people will be more careful how they act.
- scroogeydop 6y agoCorporate death penalty.
- hanniabu 6y agoNot sure why this is downvoted as it brings up an interesting position. Why can't there be violations so severe that they force the corporation to be dissolved?
- arrosenberg 6y agoIt happens, just less often than is probably healthy. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/us/ny-nra-lawsuit-letitia-james.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/us/ny-nra-lawsuit-letitia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen
- higginsc 6y agoInstagram doesn't do facial recognition though, so this seems pretty baseless.
- esperent 6y agoInstagram does do facial recognition, they are just not doing it for your benefit, or showing you the results.
- jfk13 6y ago> Instagram does do facial recognition I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's true, but still...do you have a source for that claim?
- anaganisk 6y agoIm pretty sure i get tag suggestions for an image, isn't that source enuf?
- bryan_w 6y agoAre you sure that is a thing?
- nemothekid 6y agoHow do you think the "tag so-and-so in this picture" feature works?
- bryan_w 6y agoWhat feature are you talking about? Can you link to any official documentation or post a screenshot?
- jquery 6y ago$500 billion? Reminds me of this: Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota...
- youareostriches 6y agoIt's about time. Facebook has been violating this law for years.
- imhoguy 6y agoNo FB user here. Is it possible to get myself labeled on FB-posted photos with my full name by some FB user?
- lostlogin 6y agoI’m not a user and never have been. People have tagged me many tines.
- jacquesm 6y agoI'm not a user, have been a user for about 5 minutes. People have never tagged me on FB as far as I'm aware of. If someone did I'd be quite pissed off. To the best of my knowledge there are only two pictures of me online and both are well over a decade old.
- wolco 6y agoYou would be surprised with the amount of group class photos that get uploaded. If you have attended public school where they sold class pictures you are probably already classified.
- alpha_squared 6y agoYes, though it would be equivalent to a label or sticker on an item in a store (note: not a barcode). It wouldn't carry meaning from a technological perspective (though I guess Facebook could try to mine that). The problem with Facebook's facial recognition features is that it has to recognize all faces, even faces that don't want to be recognized, to know which faces to legally not recognize. It's an all-or-nothing feature across its entire user base. It can't even be geofenced because users travel and upload from all sorts of parts of the world and wind up in the background of several photos. Facial recognition is a "logical feature" in that it mimics how people recognize people, but is problematic when applied at scale.
- helsinkiandrew 6y ago> the tool automatically scans the faces of people pictured in other users' posts, even if they don't use Instagram and didn't agree to the terms of service. This suggests to me that the number of people affected is much more than the 100 million Instagram users, and the potential fine much higher.
- clement_b 6y agoSort of related. I always wondered how people in my photos would react knowing Google Photo was essentially scanning their face without their approval. I am sure this is covered by Google Photos T&Cs somehow, nevertheless, it's a real problem. Should I disclose anyone I snap about this? Even someone walking in the background?
- djeiasbsbo 6y agoNot sure what you "should" do but I suppose it would be more ethical to use an alternative service than google photos. Somewhat similar to what you describe, the "Access Contacts" permission usually present in mobile operating systems essentially leaks the contact information of everyone stored in ones contact, if permitted. The names and associated phone number can be used to build advertising/tracking profiles by apps. The problem is that even if someone does not use those apps and instead chooses privacy-respecting alternatives, it only takes another person who does use these apps to have their information saved in their contacts. I would imagine it to be quite similar with these photos and also with the facebook case. It seems unethical to put other people who might not be on facebook and have not read the terms of service or privacy policy through these algorithms. I think the contacts example illustrates how hard of a problem this is, I definitely don't have a viable solution. Even if you ask someone for permission, they might change their mind or not fully understand.
- izacus 6y agoI'm guessing the easiest way to fix this would be to just disable the feature? According to documentation, Google mentiones that face groups are deleted when you turn the feature off: https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6128838?hl=en https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6128838?hl=en (And if they're not, winning a lawsuit against Google should be trivial.)
- WA 6y agoThe most depressing part about this is: to me, as an individual who probably has my biometric data harvested, I see nothing of this money and my data is still gone. It’s almost as if there was a hidden price tag: "Do crime X and pay Y to make money Z." As long as Y<Z and the business can continue to operate with a new crime, it’s just like there was no law. Just costs.
- creato 6y ago> my data is still gone How exactly is your data "gone"?
- mulmen 6y agoIn the sense that WA no longer has exclusive control of it.
- Kuinox 6y agoIf you reveal one of your secret, you no longer have a secret. Private data is the same, it's not private anymore when public, it lost its value.
- wolco 6y agoYou chose to show your face in a public place. You have no expectation of privacy. The value was already lost.
- Kuinox 6y agoYou cannot record and post publicly someone without their consent where I live.
- cutemonster 6y agoSeems you think people should stay indoors, or in the forest
- stingraycharles 6y ago
- jariel 6y agoArguably, merely storing a photo of someone is 'harvesting biometric data'. Comparing photos to one another to see if they match is hardly nefarious. Paradoxically, it's probably irrelevant: it doesn't help them make money in ads, it probably has no otherwise material effect on the service. I'm glad someone is suing FB but I'm not sure this is the right angle.
- tonyztan 6y agoArticle about the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) fails to mention BIPA's name even once.
- scott31 6y agoShould be $500T instead
- jml7c5 6y agoYou want Facebook to be fined 5 years of world GDP?
- ipsum2 6y ago> In a statement to Business Insider, Facebook spokesperson Stephanie Otway said Instagram does not use facial recognition in the way the Facebook app does. "This suit is baseless. Instagram doesn't use Face Recognition technology," Otway said. Later on in the article: > Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment. So, which one is it?