4 ms·

> The complaint targets the Google Photos app, which allows people to search for photos they took of a particular person; Google’s Nest camera, which can send a

> The complaint targets the Google Photos app, which allows people to search for photos they took of a particular person; Google’s Nest camera, which can send alerts when it recognizes (or fails to recognize) a visitor at the door; and the voice-activated Google Assistant, which can learn to recognize up to six users’ voices to give them personalized answers to their questions. Mr. Paxton said the products violated the rights of both users and nonusers, whose faces and voices were scanned or processed without their understanding or consent. It would be great if they could actually stop Google and everyone else from doing face recognition on random people in photos without them knowing or having any way to stop it.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Just keep in mind that the "they" in question is definitely not going to stop themselves from using it to comb crowd images for perpetrators of potential crimes and other wanted individuals.
- VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
  We can care about more than one thing at once. This article is about attempts to stop Google from doing it. That's what we're talking about.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    It's about attempts by the people who will do the other thing to stop Google from doing it. I'm sure Texas law enforcement wouldn't mind if cops could operate in neighborhoods with less worry about what people's Ring cameras will show them doing.
    - VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
      you're trying to derail this conversation with some whataboutism
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        It's not a whataboutism to look one step forward to the consequences if Texas bans Google from offering these tools to consumers (which is: an arrangement where the tools are in the hands of only the government, not the government and private individuals). Texas's ban is in the business and commerce code; it's a ban for the commoners but not the government. We should be looking at attempts to exercise it with suspicion and concern.
Mikeb85 4y ago
> face recognition on random people in photos Except they're not. They just match faces to itself and the user has to tell Google photos who it is. Google Photos isn't running faces against a database to ID people, it only matches like faces within your own albums.
- 8ytecoder 4y ago
  I avoid Google products. But even to me it’s obvious that they’re not doing a global match. All facial recognition - if you could even call it that - is simply within the users photos. Kinda like a categorisation algorithm. Now, if they took this data and used it elsewhere Texas might have a case. Otherwise it should be thrown out.
- monksy 4y ago
  They are doing face recognition but not detection. It's always amusing when I go through google photos and it shows me complete strangers that I have in my photographs.
theptip 4y ago
It's really simple (not easy): pass a US equivalent of GDPR, and make sure biometrics count as "personal data" as they do in the EU. CCPA gets you a lot of the way there (indeed I suspect you can request to have Google delete all your biometric data under the "right to be forgotten" clause), but I think CCPA doesn't prevent collection/processing of data without an agreement in place as the GDPR does. (Basically, GDPR requires you to have an agreement in place before storing any of my Personal Data, since it's that agreement that then binds who you can share it with, and how. If I don't use Google, then Google can't process my biometric data. I wonder if they get around this by approximately everyone using Google in some capacity, and having a "I also agree that you can process my biometric data" term in the ToS?) Interested in any lawyers' opinions on the above; my read of e.g. https://www.bakerlaw.com/webfiles/Privacy/2018/Articles/CCPA-GDPR-Chart.pdf https://www.bakerlaw.com/webfiles/Privacy/2018/Articles/CCPA... is that Google cannot (i.e. would be forbidden to) do biometric recognition on people that have requested for their data to be deleted. Where I'd like to see CCPA go further is that it doesn't strongly restrict transfers of data; under GDPR you explicitly approve a set of Processors and Sub-Processors, and must be informed when that changes. CCPA does seem to restrict sales of data, but doesn't tightly control where it is shared without sale.
- mindslight 4y ago
  A direct analog of the GDPR is exactly what the US needs, especially with its framing of consent that doesn't allow the standard dance of nullification-via-nonconsentual-contract. I fear that all of these half-baked state privacy laws are going to force a move for overriding federal legislation, at which time the surveillance companies will lobby hard for all sorts of loopholes that effectively neuter the protections, and the totalitarian status quo will be set in stone. It's unfortunate the Internet surveillance industry wasn't nipped in the bud 15 years ago, now Surveillance Valley is held up as a bastion of "innovation" and most of the people who should know better are happily on the take.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    On the other hand, given that the GDPR is the source of the now-near-ubiquitous cookie-consent noise, perhaps it's better if the US not mirror that law. There are probably good parts of it that can be lifted, but it may tilt too hard in the direction of personal ownership of other people's perception of you. In any case, we can be confident that nothing will pass at the Federal level that would make credit scores illegal.
amf12 4y ago
The complaint is a farce. > Google Photos app, which allows people to search for photos they took of a particular person; All Google Photos does is group pictures by matching faces in pics to allow you to click on a face and lookup all pictures which have that face. It does not "recognize" who the picture belongs to. > Google’s Nest camera, which can send alerts when it recognizes (or fails to recognize) a visitor at the door; All the processing happens on the device locally. It will only "recognize" by name if you name a face. This is a premium feature and the tagged names are wiped when you stop the premium subscription. > voice-activated Google Assistant, which can learn to recognize up to six users’ voices to give them personalized answers to their questions. Users have to enroll their voice to access this feature.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It might not be the case the complaint is a farce as per the law. On the other hand, it might be the case Texas passed an ill-thought-out "Don't collect biometric data" law that makes it illegal to do anything interesting with privately-taken photographs for personal use without the express consent of every individual in every photograph.

shadowgovt 4y ago

Just keep in mind that the "they" in question is definitely not going to stop themselves from using it to comb crowd images for perpetrators of potential crimes and other wanted individuals.

VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
We can care about more than one thing at once. This article is about attempts to stop Google from doing it. That's what we're talking about.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It's about attempts by the people who will do the other thing to stop Google from doing it. I'm sure Texas law enforcement wouldn't mind if cops could operate in neighborhoods with less worry about what people's Ring cameras will show them doing.
  - VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
    you're trying to derail this conversation with some whataboutism
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      It's not a whataboutism to look one step forward to the consequences if Texas bans Google from offering these tools to consumers (which is: an arrangement where the tools are in the hands of only the government, not the government and private individuals). Texas's ban is in the business and commerce code; it's a ban for the commoners but not the government. We should be looking at attempts to exercise it with suspicion and concern.

Mikeb85 4y ago

> face recognition on random people in photos Except they're not. They just match faces to itself and the user has to tell Google photos who it is. Google Photos isn't running faces against a database to ID people, it only matches like faces within your own albums.

8ytecoder 4y ago
I avoid Google products. But even to me it’s obvious that they’re not doing a global match. All facial recognition - if you could even call it that - is simply within the users photos. Kinda like a categorisation algorithm. Now, if they took this data and used it elsewhere Texas might have a case. Otherwise it should be thrown out.
monksy 4y ago
They are doing face recognition but not detection. It's always amusing when I go through google photos and it shows me complete strangers that I have in my photographs.

theptip 4y ago

It's really simple (not easy): pass a US equivalent of GDPR, and make sure biometrics count as "personal data" as they do in the EU. CCPA gets you a lot of the way there (indeed I suspect you can request to have Google delete all your biometric data under the "right to be forgotten" clause), but I think CCPA doesn't prevent collection/processing of data without an agreement in place as the GDPR does. (Basically, GDPR requires you to have an agreement in place before storing any of my Personal Data, since it's that agreement that then binds who you can share it with, and how. If I don't use Google, then Google can't process my biometric data. I wonder if they get around this by approximately everyone using Google in some capacity, and having a "I also agree that you can process my biometric data" term in the ToS?) Interested in any lawyers' opinions on the above; my read of e.g. https://www.bakerlaw.com/webfiles/Privacy/2018/Articles/CCPA-GDPR-Chart.pdf https://www.bakerlaw.com/webfiles/Privacy/2018/Articles/CCPA... is that Google cannot (i.e. would be forbidden to) do biometric recognition on people that have requested for their data to be deleted. Where I'd like to see CCPA go further is that it doesn't strongly restrict transfers of data; under GDPR you explicitly approve a set of Processors and Sub-Processors, and must be informed when that changes. CCPA does seem to restrict sales of data, but doesn't tightly control where it is shared without sale.

mindslight 4y ago
A direct analog of the GDPR is exactly what the US needs, especially with its framing of consent that doesn't allow the standard dance of nullification-via-nonconsentual-contract. I fear that all of these half-baked state privacy laws are going to force a move for overriding federal legislation, at which time the surveillance companies will lobby hard for all sorts of loopholes that effectively neuter the protections, and the totalitarian status quo will be set in stone. It's unfortunate the Internet surveillance industry wasn't nipped in the bud 15 years ago, now Surveillance Valley is held up as a bastion of "innovation" and most of the people who should know better are happily on the take.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  On the other hand, given that the GDPR is the source of the now-near-ubiquitous cookie-consent noise, perhaps it's better if the US not mirror that law. There are probably good parts of it that can be lifted, but it may tilt too hard in the direction of personal ownership of other people's perception of you. In any case, we can be confident that nothing will pass at the Federal level that would make credit scores illegal.

amf12 4y ago

The complaint is a farce. > Google Photos app, which allows people to search for photos they took of a particular person; All Google Photos does is group pictures by matching faces in pics to allow you to click on a face and lookup all pictures which have that face. It does not "recognize" who the picture belongs to. > Google’s Nest camera, which can send alerts when it recognizes (or fails to recognize) a visitor at the door; All the processing happens on the device locally. It will only "recognize" by name if you name a face. This is a premium feature and the tagged names are wiped when you stop the premium subscription. > voice-activated Google Assistant, which can learn to recognize up to six users’ voices to give them personalized answers to their questions. Users have to enroll their voice to access this feature.

shadowgovt 4y ago
It might not be the case the complaint is a farce as per the law. On the other hand, it might be the case Texas passed an ill-thought-out "Don't collect biometric data" law that makes it illegal to do anything interesting with privately-taken photographs for personal use without the express consent of every individual in every photograph.