5 ms·

So... we are to believe that photographs are not biometric identifiers (they are excluded in the text), but photographs once processed with readily-available so

by 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?
        skrtskrt 4y ago
        Incompetent police forces that constantly lose multibillion dollar lawsuits over use of force and torture, that already have the budget of of a medium sized country don’t pay for themselves.
        robonerd 4y ago
        "Google shouldn't be regulated by Illinois because police are bad." Did I get that about right? I don't see what police have to do with any of this, it seems like a generic unrelated gripe being roped into the conversation because you don't like Google being regulated for other reasons that, if expressed, probably sound even even lamer than somehow using police malfeasance to justify deregulating a tech corp.
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.

by herf 4y ago

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?
      - skrtskrt 4y ago
        Incompetent police forces that constantly lose multibillion dollar lawsuits over use of force and torture, that already have the budget of of a medium sized country don’t pay for themselves.
        robonerd 4y ago
        "Google shouldn't be regulated by Illinois because police are bad." Did I get that about right? I don't see what police have to do with any of this, it seems like a generic unrelated gripe being roped into the conversation because you don't like Google being regulated for other reasons that, if expressed, probably sound even even lamer than somehow using police malfeasance to justify deregulating a tech corp.

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.