6 ms·

Google settles lawsuit with Illinois residents for $100M over photo app concerns

66 points by jmsflknr 4y ago

herf 4y ago
So... we are to believe that photographs are not biometric identifiers (they are excluded in the text), but photographs once processed with readily-available software are biometric identifiers? On the other hand, structured-light scans (like FaceID) would make "face scans" I think. This is troubling and quite different than a lot of PII legislation. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&C... Sec. 10. Definitions. In this Act: "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry. Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific testing or screening, demographic data, tattoo descriptions, or physical descriptions such as height, weight, hair color, or eye color.
- cyral 4y ago
  I agree, here is some text from the complaint: > The Illinois Legislature has found that “[b]iometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information.” 740 ILCS 14/5(c). “For example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions.” Their reasoning kinda makes sense here... that biometrics can not be changed if they are leaked... However the "biometrics" here stem from processing a photo. This isn't Face ID where it is some proprietary model, it is just a photo. If the photo is leaked (or really, if anyone takes a picture of you), they too could use facial recognition software to "steal" your biometric data. The "experiences" of the plaintiffs are just that they at some point appeared in a photo gallery organized by face. What a waste of everyone's time. I wonder if Apple's recognition is any different? They have an identical feature, however if I recall correctly, it is done on the device itself.
- akersten 4y ago
  > we are to believe that photographs are not biometric identifiers (they are excluded in the text), but photographs once processed with readily-available software are biometric identifiers? Yeah, I mean the law itself is a money-grab by a bankrupt state, would you expect it to make sense? This is the same place with the city that taxes residents for the privilege of watching Netflix within its borders. I think as a community we need to stop assuming any kind of good faith for a lot of these laws and start looking more critically at following the money.
  - duped 4y ago
    The money goes to the citizens of Illinois, not the state. > This is the same place with the city that taxes residents for the privilege of watching Netflix within its borders That was Ohio.
    - skrtskrt 4y ago
      Just got my $400 check from the Facebook violation of Illinois biometrics laws, can confirm
    - akersten 4y ago
      The Netflix Tax of Chicago: https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicagos-netflix-tax-revenues-more-than-triple-in-five-years/ https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicagos-netflix-tax-revenues... It is disheartening to hear it's been adopted in more locations.
      - duped 4y ago
        Amusement + sales tax is not a "netflix tax."
        dehrmann 4y ago
        No, but it is oddly specific. Why is a sales tax not enough on its own? Why does entertainment need a specific tax?
- jackcosgrove 4y ago
  Moreover > "Biometric information" means any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual's biometric identifier used to identify an individual. Biometric information does not include information derived from items or procedures excluded under the definition of biometric identifiers. So a photo is not a biometric identifier, and derivations from a photo are not biometric information. The rest of the statute only applies to those two classes of data. I don't understand why the settlement was reached.
cyral 4y ago
Here's the complaint: https://www.googlebipasettlement.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Rivera-v.-Google-Class-Action-Complaint.pdf https://www.googlebipasettlement.com/wp-content/uploads/2022...
shadowgovt 4y ago
Good. As long as Google can structure their options to not take the feature away from the rest of us, 100% on-board with requiring them to comply with state privacy laws. It'd be a shame to lose the entire feature because it's the only way I have to find some family photos that isn't a long and tedious image-by-image scrub.
estebarb 4y ago
I find it ridiculous because nobody is forced to use it or tag people so the model can find others. And afaik it only works for personal usage. Is like getting Apple/Google demanded because they allow to dedup contacts.
- Karawebnetwork 4y ago
  My Pixel phone has 64 GB of internal storage. About half is filled with my local playlists, the other half is apps. This leaves little spaces for high resolutions photos and videos. Google's answer to this was to give everyone free unlimited original quality storage on Google Photos. When my phone is full, a prompt appears to warn me about it and tells me to free up space. When I do this, it uploads all photos and videos to Google Photos. Google Photos automatically sort the content. Clicking "People & Pets" displays a grid of thumbnails. All of those thumbnails are faces. For example, one of those faces is my mother. When I press on it, it shows all the photos available on my account. That's every photos/videos I have ever uploaded since having the service + every photos/videos I have uploaded to it since. What's even weirder is that is also groups face of people in the background. There are people in there that live in my neighborhood. Apparently, some appear more than other. I can press the thumbnail of some blond stranger and apparently she is in 8 of my photos and one video. From that, I can gather what beer she likes, what coffee place she attends, etc. No one is forced to use it but it is the convenient way to use the phones. Was the face-grouping technology in a legal disclaimer somewhere? Perhaps. Was I aware of this until years after I started using the service? No.
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  The people in the photographs are not the people taking the photographs nor are they the people uploading the photographs to Google. This isn't groundbreaking territory here; this is how photographs have worked for 150+ years. Google can go and ask you for permission to scan your face for its services and you can agree. But then you go and upload a photo with faces that are clearly not you. And Google goes ahead and scans them anyway. Those other people didn't get to choose; nobody asked them. So yes, they were forced into the program.
renewiltord 4y ago
What precisely did they do wrong? I like being able to select for photos of Friend 1 and stuff like that. Will that be going away in general? My friends will consent, but how do I make sure that happens? We have shared albums that are just Me, Alice, and Barbara. I share pictures of Alice and Barbara, Alice shares pictures of me and Barbara, and Barbara shares pictures of me and Alice. That way, any time we take a photo of each other it just goes into our shared album. I really like this feature and I want it to keep working.
gverrilla 4y ago
My father came to me yesterday saying he was harassed by Google: he's made the big mistake of installing google photos, but it was full capacity, google was asking him for payment, and he was not receiving his gmail emails because of it. He's over 70 so not so much used with tech, but it wasn't easy at all for me to stop google photos or to delete all photos. They make it as hard as possible, to milk people who don't know any better, such a shame. Anti-consumer scammers. People working for this company should feel ashamed, honestly. Old people deserve better, as do all costumers..

66 points by jmsflknr 4y ago

herf 4y ago

So... we are to believe that photographs are not biometric identifiers (they are excluded in the text), but photographs once processed with readily-available software are biometric identifiers? On the other hand, structured-light scans (like FaceID) would make "face scans" I think. This is troubling and quite different than a lot of PII legislation. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&C... Sec. 10. Definitions. In this Act: "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry. Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific testing or screening, demographic data, tattoo descriptions, or physical descriptions such as height, weight, hair color, or eye color.

cyral 4y ago
I agree, here is some text from the complaint: > The Illinois Legislature has found that “[b]iometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information.” 740 ILCS 14/5(c). “For example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions.” Their reasoning kinda makes sense here... that biometrics can not be changed if they are leaked... However the "biometrics" here stem from processing a photo. This isn't Face ID where it is some proprietary model, it is just a photo. If the photo is leaked (or really, if anyone takes a picture of you), they too could use facial recognition software to "steal" your biometric data. The "experiences" of the plaintiffs are just that they at some point appeared in a photo gallery organized by face. What a waste of everyone's time. I wonder if Apple's recognition is any different? They have an identical feature, however if I recall correctly, it is done on the device itself.
akersten 4y ago
> we are to believe that photographs are not biometric identifiers (they are excluded in the text), but photographs once processed with readily-available software are biometric identifiers? Yeah, I mean the law itself is a money-grab by a bankrupt state, would you expect it to make sense? This is the same place with the city that taxes residents for the privilege of watching Netflix within its borders. I think as a community we need to stop assuming any kind of good faith for a lot of these laws and start looking more critically at following the money.
- duped 4y ago
  The money goes to the citizens of Illinois, not the state. > This is the same place with the city that taxes residents for the privilege of watching Netflix within its borders That was Ohio.
  - skrtskrt 4y ago
    Just got my $400 check from the Facebook violation of Illinois biometrics laws, can confirm
  - akersten 4y ago
    The Netflix Tax of Chicago: https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicagos-netflix-tax-revenues-more-than-triple-in-five-years/ https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicagos-netflix-tax-revenues... It is disheartening to hear it's been adopted in more locations.
    - duped 4y ago
      Amusement + sales tax is not a "netflix tax."
      - dehrmann 4y ago
        No, but it is oddly specific. Why is a sales tax not enough on its own? Why does entertainment need a specific tax?
jackcosgrove 4y ago
Moreover > "Biometric information" means any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual's biometric identifier used to identify an individual. Biometric information does not include information derived from items or procedures excluded under the definition of biometric identifiers. So a photo is not a biometric identifier, and derivations from a photo are not biometric information. The rest of the statute only applies to those two classes of data. I don't understand why the settlement was reached.

cyral 4y ago

Here's the complaint: https://www.googlebipasettlement.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Rivera-v.-Google-Class-Action-Complaint.pdf https://www.googlebipasettlement.com/wp-content/uploads/2022...

shadowgovt 4y ago

Good. As long as Google can structure their options to not take the feature away from the rest of us, 100% on-board with requiring them to comply with state privacy laws. It'd be a shame to lose the entire feature because it's the only way I have to find some family photos that isn't a long and tedious image-by-image scrub.

estebarb 4y ago

I find it ridiculous because nobody is forced to use it or tag people so the model can find others. And afaik it only works for personal usage. Is like getting Apple/Google demanded because they allow to dedup contacts.

Karawebnetwork 4y ago
My Pixel phone has 64 GB of internal storage. About half is filled with my local playlists, the other half is apps. This leaves little spaces for high resolutions photos and videos. Google's answer to this was to give everyone free unlimited original quality storage on Google Photos. When my phone is full, a prompt appears to warn me about it and tells me to free up space. When I do this, it uploads all photos and videos to Google Photos. Google Photos automatically sort the content. Clicking "People & Pets" displays a grid of thumbnails. All of those thumbnails are faces. For example, one of those faces is my mother. When I press on it, it shows all the photos available on my account. That's every photos/videos I have ever uploaded since having the service + every photos/videos I have uploaded to it since. What's even weirder is that is also groups face of people in the background. There are people in there that live in my neighborhood. Apparently, some appear more than other. I can press the thumbnail of some blond stranger and apparently she is in 8 of my photos and one video. From that, I can gather what beer she likes, what coffee place she attends, etc. No one is forced to use it but it is the convenient way to use the phones. Was the face-grouping technology in a legal disclaimer somewhere? Perhaps. Was I aware of this until years after I started using the service? No.
Kon-Peki 4y ago
The people in the photographs are not the people taking the photographs nor are they the people uploading the photographs to Google. This isn't groundbreaking territory here; this is how photographs have worked for 150+ years. Google can go and ask you for permission to scan your face for its services and you can agree. But then you go and upload a photo with faces that are clearly not you. And Google goes ahead and scans them anyway. Those other people didn't get to choose; nobody asked them. So yes, they were forced into the program.

renewiltord 4y ago

What precisely did they do wrong? I like being able to select for photos of Friend 1 and stuff like that. Will that be going away in general? My friends will consent, but how do I make sure that happens? We have shared albums that are just Me, Alice, and Barbara. I share pictures of Alice and Barbara, Alice shares pictures of me and Barbara, and Barbara shares pictures of me and Alice. That way, any time we take a photo of each other it just goes into our shared album. I really like this feature and I want it to keep working.

gverrilla 4y ago

My father came to me yesterday saying he was harassed by Google: he's made the big mistake of installing google photos, but it was full capacity, google was asking him for payment, and he was not receiving his gmail emails because of it. He's over 70 so not so much used with tech, but it wasn't easy at all for me to stop google photos or to delete all photos. They make it as hard as possible, to milk people who don't know any better, such a shame. Anti-consumer scammers. People working for this company should feel ashamed, honestly. Old people deserve better, as do all costumers..