6 ms·

Another critical shift in the last ~120 years is the ease with which private information can be productized. I say 120 years because I believe the Kodak Browni

Another critical shift in the last ~120 years is the ease with which private information can be productized. I say 120 years because I believe the Kodak Brownie No. 2 was the inflection point. Other film cameras existed before that point, but did not have user-replaceable film - you would return the whole camera to Kodak and they'd send you back prints and a new camera. Thus, before the Brownie No. 2, the camera's owner had never posessed the negative itself. For the first time, an indisputably real account of an event could be reproduced over and over, on demand, with a low financial barrier to entry, and in any shape or size the negative's owner could imagine. Obviously, the internet age has come with its own staggering paradigm shifts. Sure, private information may not be more sensitive than it ever was. But, it is easier than ever before to distribute it for profit.

Terr_ 2y ago
Yeah, there are important qualitative differences between the steps of: 1. Neighbor X claims they saw {embarrassing thing} 2. Neighbor X has objective proof that the event occurred 3. Here's a picture of the event 4. Here's a picture which is endlessly duplicable and broadcastable
JohnFen 2y ago
My issue is this. Or, more specifically, I think the actual privacy invasion doesn't come from the use of cameras, it comes from the use of databases. I honestly don't care even a little if I happen to appear in (or even are the subject of) a random photo taken by a regular person. I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. Yes, I know they may upload it to Facebook and such, where it is weaponized. That does bother me, but I choose to ignore that part except to make sure that my friends and family don't do it.
- judge2020 2y ago
  > I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. This is where likeness rights come into place. A commercial entity can't use your image as an endorsement of their product or in marketing materials without your consent, which is why many production companies err on the side of making sure they vet every face in every image of their marketing material. > The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. As you said in the next paragraph, this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work however they please, including by sharing on social media or uploading to a extremely value-oriented service (like Google Photos) that only provides their services for free/cheap because of the value they get from being able to "improve the product" using user content.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > This is where likeness rights come into place. I don't see how likeness rights apply. I'm not talking about my image being used in marketing materials. > this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work That's not a copyright issue. Copyright allows you to restrict how others use your works, it says nothing about how you use your works. I think you're talking about free speech rights here, and free speech rights have never been, will never be, and shouldn't be, absolute. There are many cases where those rights (like all rights) need to be balanced against other contradictory rights.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      And some countries at least pretend that privacy rights are stronger vs. the right to publish photos that are not marketing/advertising although I'm sure those rights are broken many thousands of times a day. The US does not except in very specific circumstances--including for said marketing/advertising or circumstances where you had a reasonable expectation of privacy (or misrepresentation).
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    Reminds me of this case: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/10/court_of_appeal.html https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/10/court_of_appeal.html Most of us, “of a certain age,” can remember Christoff’s smiling face, on the Taster’s Choice labels, for years.
- jorvi 2y ago
  > That does bother me, but I choose to ignore that part except to make sure that my friends and family don't do it. …which is a million times more damaging to you personally than Coca-Cola knowing you are(n’t) an attractive target to advertise to. What is more harmful to you: a half-naked photo of you going viral, or your last 100 gas tank refills logged into an image database?
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    That depends on what your concern is. A half-naked photo (which wouldn't bother me, but for the sake of argument...) might be more damaging short term, but the other, when combined with all the other data collection, is more damaging long term.
  - ta1243 2y ago
    > What is more harmful to you: a half-naked photo of you going viral, or your last 100 gas tank refills logged into an image database? The latter. Why exactly would a "half naked image" of me go viral anyway?
- ryukoposting 2y ago
  If you think of the processed film strip as a rudimentary database, a chronolgically organized record of images, you can see how it aided in productization. On the other hand, it's also clear that computers are eons ahead in that capacity.
- chii 2y ago
  > combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. what does weaponizing mean here? Because i do believe it is a hypothetical threat that most don't actually see as a real threat. The only scenario is that it acts as evidence for you being in a specific location/time, when it is inconvenient for you to admit to being there.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    > what does weaponizing mean here? It means manipulating into buying staff you don't need, i.e., targeted ads.
    - ta1243 2y ago
      It amazes me that people think of adverts as benign. They are one of the largest industries on the planet whose entire purpose is to brainwash you into buying something you wouldn't There's a reason they spend so much on things like facial recognition, they will take more money from you than they spend.
  - hilbert42 2y ago
    "Because i do believe it is a hypothetical threat that most don't actually see as a real threat." In another of today's HN stories, 'For advertising: Firefox now collects user data by default', I made almost the same point. If a majority of the citizenry is indifferent and or sees no threat then the politics will not change, no new laws or regulations will be introduced. Moreover, with no concerted opposition or action the status quo will only be reinforced—thus, by default, those who've vested interests gain additional political power to further ensure there's no change. Indifference is the enemy of democracy.
  - walterbell 2y ago
    > what does weaponizing mean here? Manipulating possible futures, including financial.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    What I mean by weaponizing is that it's used to do things like target me for advertising, adjust credit ratings, set insurance rates, and even get a job with certain companies.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
Other than targeted advertising, how has private (I think you meant personally identifiable) information been productized? The only examples I can think of is auto insurers buying your vehicle usage data, and creditors buying your borrowing data. I don’t know if cameras or the Internet has anything to do with either case.
- ryukoposting 2y ago
  Several car insurance companies in the United States (and perhaps elsewhere) have started pushing little devices that plug into your car's OBD2 port and narc on your for speeding, hard acceleration, etc. This is different from them buying vehicle data usage from third parties, because in this case they're "buying" it directly from the source, essentially for free. The entire junk debt collection industry. DeleteMe is a product that was made in response to the productization of PII, so that's an interesting footnote in this conversation as well.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  Political parties buying your browsing/buying habits to hit you up with political ads. Police buying your location data to see whether your were near a crime. Insurance companies will soon be buying data about your exercise routines so they can adjust your rates accordingly. And then there are the really creepy services. There was a service not long ago in Russia that would allow you to upload a picture of any woman you saw on the street. They would identify the face (via VK) and provide you with their contact and job information. Totally creepy. Totally abusive. But easily done with basic tech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FindFace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FindFace
  - chii 2y ago
    > Insurance companies will soon be buying data about your exercise routines so they can adjust your rates accordingly. if this results in lower insurance for those who are deemed to be healthier due to exercises, then it's a good outcome. Pricing insurance more accurately is almost always a good outcome.
darby_nine 2y ago
It's worth noting staged and altered photos are as old as photography itself, so photos have never been indisputable evidence.
- ryukoposting 2y ago
  Doctoring a photographic print is one thing. Doctoring a negative in convincing fashion is another. The only approach I can think of is a double exposure, but good luck pulling that off without it being obvious. Photographic film is remarkable in that way - you can screw with the print, but the thing that's actually captured on the film isn't easy to manipulate once it's been developed.
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    Doctoring negatives used to be a very common way photographs were doctored. Think about it: you can iterate on the process and have a reproducible product at the end. I can only imagine the trickery necessary to make this work but the historical record is clear that negatives were definitely altered.

Terr_ 2y ago

Yeah, there are important qualitative differences between the steps of: 1. Neighbor X claims they saw {embarrassing thing} 2. Neighbor X has objective proof that the event occurred 3. Here's a picture of the event 4. Here's a picture which is endlessly duplicable and broadcastable

JohnFen 2y ago

My issue is this. Or, more specifically, I think the actual privacy invasion doesn't come from the use of cameras, it comes from the use of databases. I honestly don't care even a little if I happen to appear in (or even are the subject of) a random photo taken by a regular person. I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. Yes, I know they may upload it to Facebook and such, where it is weaponized. That does bother me, but I choose to ignore that part except to make sure that my friends and family don't do it.

judge2020 2y ago
> I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. This is where likeness rights come into place. A commercial entity can't use your image as an endorsement of their product or in marketing materials without your consent, which is why many production companies err on the side of making sure they vet every face in every image of their marketing material. > The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. As you said in the next paragraph, this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work however they please, including by sharing on social media or uploading to a extremely value-oriented service (like Google Photos) that only provides their services for free/cheap because of the value they get from being able to "improve the product" using user content.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > This is where likeness rights come into place. I don't see how likeness rights apply. I'm not talking about my image being used in marketing materials. > this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work That's not a copyright issue. Copyright allows you to restrict how others use your works, it says nothing about how you use your works. I think you're talking about free speech rights here, and free speech rights have never been, will never be, and shouldn't be, absolute. There are many cases where those rights (like all rights) need to be balanced against other contradictory rights.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    And some countries at least pretend that privacy rights are stronger vs. the right to publish photos that are not marketing/advertising although I'm sure those rights are broken many thousands of times a day. The US does not except in very specific circumstances--including for said marketing/advertising or circumstances where you had a reasonable expectation of privacy (or misrepresentation).
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  Reminds me of this case: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/10/court_of_appeal.html https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/10/court_of_appeal.html Most of us, “of a certain age,” can remember Christoff’s smiling face, on the Taster’s Choice labels, for years.
jorvi 2y ago
> That does bother me, but I choose to ignore that part except to make sure that my friends and family don't do it. …which is a million times more damaging to you personally than Coca-Cola knowing you are(n’t) an attractive target to advertise to. What is more harmful to you: a half-naked photo of you going viral, or your last 100 gas tank refills logged into an image database?
- JohnFen 2y ago
  That depends on what your concern is. A half-naked photo (which wouldn't bother me, but for the sake of argument...) might be more damaging short term, but the other, when combined with all the other data collection, is more damaging long term.
- ta1243 2y ago
  > What is more harmful to you: a half-naked photo of you going viral, or your last 100 gas tank refills logged into an image database? The latter. Why exactly would a "half naked image" of me go viral anyway?
ryukoposting 2y ago
If you think of the processed film strip as a rudimentary database, a chronolgically organized record of images, you can see how it aided in productization. On the other hand, it's also clear that computers are eons ahead in that capacity.
chii 2y ago
> combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. what does weaponizing mean here? Because i do believe it is a hypothetical threat that most don't actually see as a real threat. The only scenario is that it acts as evidence for you being in a specific location/time, when it is inconvenient for you to admit to being there.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > what does weaponizing mean here? It means manipulating into buying staff you don't need, i.e., targeted ads.
  - ta1243 2y ago
    It amazes me that people think of adverts as benign. They are one of the largest industries on the planet whose entire purpose is to brainwash you into buying something you wouldn't There's a reason they spend so much on things like facial recognition, they will take more money from you than they spend.
- hilbert42 2y ago
  "Because i do believe it is a hypothetical threat that most don't actually see as a real threat." In another of today's HN stories, 'For advertising: Firefox now collects user data by default', I made almost the same point. If a majority of the citizenry is indifferent and or sees no threat then the politics will not change, no new laws or regulations will be introduced. Moreover, with no concerted opposition or action the status quo will only be reinforced—thus, by default, those who've vested interests gain additional political power to further ensure there's no change. Indifference is the enemy of democracy.
- walterbell 2y ago
  > what does weaponizing mean here? Manipulating possible futures, including financial.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  What I mean by weaponizing is that it's used to do things like target me for advertising, adjust credit ratings, set insurance rates, and even get a job with certain companies.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

Other than targeted advertising, how has private (I think you meant personally identifiable) information been productized? The only examples I can think of is auto insurers buying your vehicle usage data, and creditors buying your borrowing data. I don’t know if cameras or the Internet has anything to do with either case.

ryukoposting 2y ago
Several car insurance companies in the United States (and perhaps elsewhere) have started pushing little devices that plug into your car's OBD2 port and narc on your for speeding, hard acceleration, etc. This is different from them buying vehicle data usage from third parties, because in this case they're "buying" it directly from the source, essentially for free. The entire junk debt collection industry. DeleteMe is a product that was made in response to the productization of PII, so that's an interesting footnote in this conversation as well.
sandworm101 2y ago
Political parties buying your browsing/buying habits to hit you up with political ads. Police buying your location data to see whether your were near a crime. Insurance companies will soon be buying data about your exercise routines so they can adjust your rates accordingly. And then there are the really creepy services. There was a service not long ago in Russia that would allow you to upload a picture of any woman you saw on the street. They would identify the face (via VK) and provide you with their contact and job information. Totally creepy. Totally abusive. But easily done with basic tech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FindFace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FindFace
- chii 2y ago
  > Insurance companies will soon be buying data about your exercise routines so they can adjust your rates accordingly. if this results in lower insurance for those who are deemed to be healthier due to exercises, then it's a good outcome. Pricing insurance more accurately is almost always a good outcome.

darby_nine 2y ago

It's worth noting staged and altered photos are as old as photography itself, so photos have never been indisputable evidence.

ryukoposting 2y ago
Doctoring a photographic print is one thing. Doctoring a negative in convincing fashion is another. The only approach I can think of is a double exposure, but good luck pulling that off without it being obvious. Photographic film is remarkable in that way - you can screw with the print, but the thing that's actually captured on the film isn't easy to manipulate once it's been developed.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  Doctoring negatives used to be a very common way photographs were doctored. Think about it: you can iterate on the process and have a reproducible product at the end. I can only imagine the trickery necessary to make this work but the historical record is clear that negatives were definitely altered.