5 ms·

The question I want to ask is: how did Roomba-recorded photos end up in a major publication on the Internet? And the sequence seems to be: 1. iRobot hires peo

The question I want to ask is: how did Roomba-recorded photos end up in a major publication on the Internet? And the sequence seems to be: 1. iRobot hires people to use special development versions of the Roomba in their homes to collect training data. These are clearly labeled, and the participants are informed that the images are being sent to iRobot for training. This seems fine - if you want to exchange some degree of privacy for money, that should be your right as long as you're clearly informed about it. 2. A contractor posts some of these photos to a private Facebook group used by other contractors on the project. This is obviously bad, but at the same time, it's limited in scope to people who would have had access to these photos or similar ones. 3. The MIT Technology Review gets a hold of these images and decides to publish them on the Internet for everyone to see, just to get more clicks on their article. This feels like the most egregious privacy violation in the sequence.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> A contractor posts some of these photos to a private Facebook group used by other contractors on the project. That's where it went wrong. Everything else seems reasonable for a visual AI training project, well signalled to the participating users and the data securely communicated. Thereafter, the data was mismanaged. There is clearly no such things as a "private" Facebook group. So called "contractors" [1] using a disservice like Facebook to communicate beggars belief. [1] people with the unremarkable skill of being able to spot ordinary household objects and label them - so someone probably had the bright idea of creating a CAPTCHA "Find all the women on toilets".
- autoexec 4y ago
  > Thereafter, the data was mismanaged. And this is the problem with most of the technology spying on us. Once the data is in someone else's hands, there is nothing you can do to prevent it from being "mismanaged". It can exist forever and you aren't allowed to know who has it or what they're doing with it. Bugging your own home with any device designed to spy on you is just a terrible idea and I'm amazed at how many people are oblivious to the harm they risk bringing on themselves and everyone else around them.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Private Facebook group, free tier Slack, a Zoom meeting, free Google Drive. I fail to see the difference. All of these are reputable, popular SaaS applications, widely used to collaborate at work. All of these are equally trustworthy (read: not that much), and give you the same privacy guarantees. Using either in a company setting without a contract in hand is unwise, IMO, but that ship has sailed long ago. GP is correct. #2 is bad, but not significant. #3 is the bigger violation here.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > Private Facebook group, free tier Slack, a Zoom meeting, free Google Drive. I fail to see the difference. You didn't fail. Because there isn't one. > All of these are reputable, popular SaaS applications, widely used to collaborate at work. As you admit yourself; "these are equally trustworthy (read: not that much)" If you fail, it is to believe that careful reputation management and widespread use of substandard tools makes them acceptable.
quantified 4y ago
- operator-name 4y ago
  Can you elaborate? I disagree with OP that 3 was the the most egregious event, I agree that it's questionable for the article to use the two specific images containing people so plainly and without further censorship, perpetuating the invasion of privacy for the sake of a more captivating article. 3. The MIT Technology Review gets a hold of these images and decides to publish them on the Internet for everyone to see, just to get more clicks on their article. This feels like the most egregious privacy violation in the sequence.
  - quantified 4y ago
    The two pictures that include people have their faces removed. Yes they contain people, they don't contain a useful way to connect the photo to any real person. I suppose if you are that person you could recognize yourself. Appears to be in Asia from the TV set contents. "Just to get more clicks on their article" reads to me as a flame on media, I don't detect that motivation. If that was me on the toilet I'd be pissed at Roomba and their trust in bogus contractors, but since you can't tell it's me I don't really care. Maybe that's just me.
anshumankmr 4y ago
>1. iRobot hires people to use special development versions of the Roomba in their homes to collect training data. These are clearly labeled, and the participants are informed that the images are being sent to iRobot for training. This seems fine - if you want to exchange some degree of privacy for money, that should be your right as long as you're clearly informed about it. No one would ever sign up for their pictures being taken in a bathroom.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> A contractor posts some of these photos to a private Facebook group used by other contractors on the project. That's where it went wrong. Everything else seems reasonable for a visual AI training project, well signalled to the participating users and the data securely communicated. Thereafter, the data was mismanaged. There is clearly no such things as a "private" Facebook group. So called "contractors" [1] using a disservice like Facebook to communicate beggars belief. [1] people with the unremarkable skill of being able to spot ordinary household objects and label them - so someone probably had the bright idea of creating a CAPTCHA "Find all the women on toilets".

autoexec 4y ago
> Thereafter, the data was mismanaged. And this is the problem with most of the technology spying on us. Once the data is in someone else's hands, there is nothing you can do to prevent it from being "mismanaged". It can exist forever and you aren't allowed to know who has it or what they're doing with it. Bugging your own home with any device designed to spy on you is just a terrible idea and I'm amazed at how many people are oblivious to the harm they risk bringing on themselves and everyone else around them.
TeMPOraL 4y ago
Private Facebook group, free tier Slack, a Zoom meeting, free Google Drive. I fail to see the difference. All of these are reputable, popular SaaS applications, widely used to collaborate at work. All of these are equally trustworthy (read: not that much), and give you the same privacy guarantees. Using either in a company setting without a contract in hand is unwise, IMO, but that ship has sailed long ago. GP is correct. #2 is bad, but not significant. #3 is the bigger violation here.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > Private Facebook group, free tier Slack, a Zoom meeting, free Google Drive. I fail to see the difference. You didn't fail. Because there isn't one. > All of these are reputable, popular SaaS applications, widely used to collaborate at work. As you admit yourself; "these are equally trustworthy (read: not that much)" If you fail, it is to believe that careful reputation management and widespread use of substandard tools makes them acceptable.

quantified 4y ago

operator-name 4y ago
Can you elaborate? I disagree with OP that 3 was the the most egregious event, I agree that it's questionable for the article to use the two specific images containing people so plainly and without further censorship, perpetuating the invasion of privacy for the sake of a more captivating article. 3. The MIT Technology Review gets a hold of these images and decides to publish them on the Internet for everyone to see, just to get more clicks on their article. This feels like the most egregious privacy violation in the sequence.
- quantified 4y ago
  The two pictures that include people have their faces removed. Yes they contain people, they don't contain a useful way to connect the photo to any real person. I suppose if you are that person you could recognize yourself. Appears to be in Asia from the TV set contents. "Just to get more clicks on their article" reads to me as a flame on media, I don't detect that motivation. If that was me on the toilet I'd be pissed at Roomba and their trust in bogus contractors, but since you can't tell it's me I don't really care. Maybe that's just me.

anshumankmr 4y ago

>1. iRobot hires people to use special development versions of the Roomba in their homes to collect training data. These are clearly labeled, and the participants are informed that the images are being sent to iRobot for training. This seems fine - if you want to exchange some degree of privacy for money, that should be your right as long as you're clearly informed about it. No one would ever sign up for their pictures being taken in a bathroom.