16 ms·

If I look at you and recognize you I don't feel that I have violated your rights, whether I use cybernetic augmentation or not.

thatguy0900 4y ago
What if I pay someone who knows you to find and list every picture you've ever been in together with the location it was taken in, and I started tracking who and where you hang out with the most? Maybe every once in a while send you lists of things your friends have bought (I'm also doing this to them) just in case you might want to buy it as well. Genuinely curious if that feels violating to you
- pc86 4y ago
  No, that doesn't sound like genuine curiosity.
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    How so? Where is the line drawn? He's comfortable recognizing people's faces, we all are. That's not really what Googles doing though, mine is closer. I would draw the comfort line at amortizing what they know about my pictures with data they've only gained through other people's uploads, I think.
petilon 4y ago
You may not have, but the company that provided you cybernetic augmentation probably did, if they collected info without consent and rented it to you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
boplicity 4y ago
Yes, but you don't have literally millions of vision inputs that are constantly scanning for me.
AlexandrB 4y ago
When did it become OK to treat each other like shit? Not violating someone's rights is a pretty low bar. I don't understand why people feel justified in turning the surveillance capabilities of the world's largest companies on their fellow humans.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  The jury's out on whether that counts as "treating each other like shit." Most of human civilization has been a pattern of small communities where everyone knew everyone. The privacy granted implicitly by anonymity is relatively new (and, I'd argue, whether it's a net benefit for society is a largely open question... A lot of harm is done by people who quietly go off the rails because nobody knows who they are).
  - dadoomer 4y ago
    > Most of human civilization has been a pattern of small communities where everyone knew everyone. The privacy granted implicitly by anonymity is relatively new I find that hard to believe. Teotihuacan (first example that came to mind) already had 100,000+ inhabitants around 1 to 500 CE, and according to Wikipedia it was only the sixth largest city. Regardless, I don't see why it's particularly important what cities were like during "most of human civilization" when discussing electronic suirveilance.
- esprehn 4y ago
  What part of this is surveillance though? Within a particular Google Photos account the faces of humans (and pets) are identified and then labeled by the account owner. Google doesn't match faces across accounts, doesn't use the data for ads, and is doing effectively what a human could do by scrolling through the photos and manually circling faces with a pen.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    It's ultimately irrelevant to the Texas code whether Google is correlating the data across sources, because what the Texas code banned was collecting the data in the first place, not the way it's collated and used. There's some sense to that approach; people don't want to trust that the only thing keeping Google from doing the cross-correlation is their own corporate ethics. I ultimately think trying to ban the intake in that way is bailing the Titanic, but I think I see where they're coming from.
bakugo 4y ago
I'm so tired of this "well a real human can do it so it's okay for a machine under the control of a megacorporation to do something vaguely similar at a 1000000x larger scale!" non-argument.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  "If I hired two million private investigators to follow around the citizens of Dallas and record everything they do, would that be illegal?" (No; if anything, it'd be a job-creation program at that point. ;) )
- googlryas 4y ago
  Well then people should stop putting forward moralistic/absolutist arguments and provide more nuance. Anyways, where's the limit? Is it just megacorps at 1000000x the scale that can't do it? Can a tiny company do it at 10x the scale? Can I personally do it at 1x the scale?
  - mindslight 4y ago
    The GDPR lays out a straightforward threshold: 2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: ... (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity Once something is done commercially, it inevitably scales in frequency and continuity.
    - 988747 4y ago
      Now the question is: if I write a web scraper that collects data from LinkedIn, and I do it on weekend as a hobby project, but I end up with personal data of 1M people is it still a "personal or household activity"?

thatguy0900 4y ago

What if I pay someone who knows you to find and list every picture you've ever been in together with the location it was taken in, and I started tracking who and where you hang out with the most? Maybe every once in a while send you lists of things your friends have bought (I'm also doing this to them) just in case you might want to buy it as well. Genuinely curious if that feels violating to you

pc86 4y ago
No, that doesn't sound like genuine curiosity.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  How so? Where is the line drawn? He's comfortable recognizing people's faces, we all are. That's not really what Googles doing though, mine is closer. I would draw the comfort line at amortizing what they know about my pictures with data they've only gained through other people's uploads, I think.

petilon 4y ago

You may not have, but the company that provided you cybernetic augmentation probably did, if they collected info without consent and rented it to you.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

boplicity 4y ago

Yes, but you don't have literally millions of vision inputs that are constantly scanning for me.

AlexandrB 4y ago

When did it become OK to treat each other like shit? Not violating someone's rights is a pretty low bar. I don't understand why people feel justified in turning the surveillance capabilities of the world's largest companies on their fellow humans.

shadowgovt 4y ago
The jury's out on whether that counts as "treating each other like shit." Most of human civilization has been a pattern of small communities where everyone knew everyone. The privacy granted implicitly by anonymity is relatively new (and, I'd argue, whether it's a net benefit for society is a largely open question... A lot of harm is done by people who quietly go off the rails because nobody knows who they are).
- dadoomer 4y ago
  > Most of human civilization has been a pattern of small communities where everyone knew everyone. The privacy granted implicitly by anonymity is relatively new I find that hard to believe. Teotihuacan (first example that came to mind) already had 100,000+ inhabitants around 1 to 500 CE, and according to Wikipedia it was only the sixth largest city. Regardless, I don't see why it's particularly important what cities were like during "most of human civilization" when discussing electronic suirveilance.
esprehn 4y ago
What part of this is surveillance though? Within a particular Google Photos account the faces of humans (and pets) are identified and then labeled by the account owner. Google doesn't match faces across accounts, doesn't use the data for ads, and is doing effectively what a human could do by scrolling through the photos and manually circling faces with a pen.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It's ultimately irrelevant to the Texas code whether Google is correlating the data across sources, because what the Texas code banned was collecting the data in the first place, not the way it's collated and used. There's some sense to that approach; people don't want to trust that the only thing keeping Google from doing the cross-correlation is their own corporate ethics. I ultimately think trying to ban the intake in that way is bailing the Titanic, but I think I see where they're coming from.

bakugo 4y ago

I'm so tired of this "well a real human can do it so it's okay for a machine under the control of a megacorporation to do something vaguely similar at a 1000000x larger scale!" non-argument.

shadowgovt 4y ago
"If I hired two million private investigators to follow around the citizens of Dallas and record everything they do, would that be illegal?" (No; if anything, it'd be a job-creation program at that point. ;) )
googlryas 4y ago
Well then people should stop putting forward moralistic/absolutist arguments and provide more nuance. Anyways, where's the limit? Is it just megacorps at 1000000x the scale that can't do it? Can a tiny company do it at 10x the scale? Can I personally do it at 1x the scale?
- mindslight 4y ago
  The GDPR lays out a straightforward threshold: 2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: ... (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity Once something is done commercially, it inevitably scales in frequency and continuity.
  - 988747 4y ago
    Now the question is: if I write a web scraper that collects data from LinkedIn, and I do it on weekend as a hobby project, but I end up with personal data of 1M people is it still a "personal or household activity"?