3 ms·
I'm pretty sure it's because Facebook started suggesting that Alice should be tagged in Bob's photos without Alice's consent. They're Bob's photos but it's usi
by AdamTReineke 6y ago
I'm pretty sure it's because Facebook started suggesting that Alice should be tagged in Bob's photos without Alice's consent. They're Bob's photos but it's using Alice's likeness to suggest tagging her without her consent.
Edit: And the law in Illinois is (to quote the article): 'The statute requires any entity that gathers biometric data—including fingerprints, voice prints, "hand or face geometry," and retinal or iris scans—to get informed consent from those individuals whose data it collects'
- blackoil 6y agoIf I have a 4/8k video where I recorded voice and face of a person, do I need to get a consent or only when I extract it and use it as biometric data?
- opnitro 6y agodepends on the state and the context, but yes: audio/video recordings without consent of both parties can be illegal.
- stickfigure 6y agoSo in Illinois it's illegal to run face detection against my own photo library, the way iPhoto did 5 years ago?
- eganist 6y agoSounds like there's a difference between gathering prints (faceprints, fingerprints, voiceprints) that can be used to identify people v. simply identifying that something is a face, a fingertip, or a voice, which is what iPhoto did.
- gputhrowaway630 6y agoFrom my understanding the distinction is whether or not personal data is being saved, so as long as iOS isn't saving/classifying specific 'faces' it's not illegal.
- thedingwing 6y agoI think the difference is: iPhoto says "This is a face. Would you like to type in who it is?" And Alice would type in "Bob". Whereas Facebook uses Bob's profile information to say "Is this a photo of Bob?", leaking Bob's identity to Alice.