3 ms·

This datasets usage and creation violates Swiss law [1]. Any person in Switzerland has the right to their face in any picture taken now and any time in the futu

This datasets usage and creation violates Swiss law [1]. Any person in Switzerland has the right to their face in any picture taken now and any time in the future even if taken by someone else. Without the explicit consent of a person, their face may not be used or published in anyway or form. There are only a few exceptions like for public figures and celebrities but even then they also have a right to privacy. SRF once did a segment about face recognition and public photos from social media. Under strict supervision and journalism protection they created a data set and showed what was possible. The dataset and code was then destroyed. [2] Similar laws exist in EU states as well. [1] https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/edoeb/de/home/datenschutz/Internet_und_Computer/veroeffentlichung-von-fotos.html https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/edoeb/de/home/datenschutz/Interne... [2] https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/automatische-gesichtserkennung-so-einfach-ist-es-eine-ueberwachungsmaschine-zu-bauen https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/automatische-gesichtserkennu...

sacrosancty 4y ago
[dead]
p-e-w 4y ago
> This datasets usage and creation violates Swiss law And drinking alcohol violates Saudi Arabian law. Unless the institutions involved are subject to Swiss jurisdiction (which doesn't appear to be the case), this doesn't mean much. If anything, the blame lies with the Swiss government, which allowed a foreign company (Flickr) to operate in Switzerland without adequate guarantees that this company would protect Swiss users' data from unlawful applications. But like most other governments, they were happy to let US tech giants bait their own citizens into giving them boatloads of personal data, which ended up outside of the regulatory control of said governments. Any complaints now are just posturing. The time to act was 15 years ago.
- smaudet 4y ago
  Can't agree, if an assassin illegaly enters a country and commits a crime, the blame falls on the miscreant for their behavior not the country for failing to notice the deceptive miscreant. You would have to demonstrate the Swiss govt was made aware of Flickr before they were a thing there and then failed to ban them, for this line of reasoning to make any sense...
  - p-e-w 4y ago
    Is that supposed to be a joke? Privacy advocates around the world have been rallying against Big Tech's practices for almost two decades. There have been hundreds of well-documented incidents where technology corporations violated privacy laws, either with complete impunity or with "punishments" that can be filed away as "cost of doing business". Yet not a single government thinks that maybe, companies that repeatedly break the law shouldn't be allowed to do business in their jurisdiction at all. This is 100% on the respective governments, who have been made aware countless times but have chosen to all but ignore the problem.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I don't think that is comparable. Your example is literally happening on the countries soil. I think a better physical analogy would be handling the sale of imported foreign products that dont meet safety standards.

sacrosancty 4y ago

[dead]

p-e-w 4y ago

> This datasets usage and creation violates Swiss law And drinking alcohol violates Saudi Arabian law. Unless the institutions involved are subject to Swiss jurisdiction (which doesn't appear to be the case), this doesn't mean much. If anything, the blame lies with the Swiss government, which allowed a foreign company (Flickr) to operate in Switzerland without adequate guarantees that this company would protect Swiss users' data from unlawful applications. But like most other governments, they were happy to let US tech giants bait their own citizens into giving them boatloads of personal data, which ended up outside of the regulatory control of said governments. Any complaints now are just posturing. The time to act was 15 years ago.

smaudet 4y ago
Can't agree, if an assassin illegaly enters a country and commits a crime, the blame falls on the miscreant for their behavior not the country for failing to notice the deceptive miscreant. You would have to demonstrate the Swiss govt was made aware of Flickr before they were a thing there and then failed to ban them, for this line of reasoning to make any sense...
- p-e-w 4y ago
  Is that supposed to be a joke? Privacy advocates around the world have been rallying against Big Tech's practices for almost two decades. There have been hundreds of well-documented incidents where technology corporations violated privacy laws, either with complete impunity or with "punishments" that can be filed away as "cost of doing business". Yet not a single government thinks that maybe, companies that repeatedly break the law shouldn't be allowed to do business in their jurisdiction at all. This is 100% on the respective governments, who have been made aware countless times but have chosen to all but ignore the problem.
- bawolff 4y ago
  I don't think that is comparable. Your example is literally happening on the countries soil. I think a better physical analogy would be handling the sale of imported foreign products that dont meet safety standards.