The end of public anonymity

[Donut417]

17 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Anyone surprised lives in denial.

SHIT. Im nearly convinced we are not far off of a system like in the TV show Person of Interest.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

There was a story a year or so ago from NYT about how all those "anonymous" analytics that MS, Google, Amazon, etc collect can be tied together and used to track and identify you, even if no individual piece of data has identifying information. All they need is enough data points and they can track where you live and work, where you shop and what you buy, what you like to do and what times you like to do that. 

 

You tie facial recognition into that and unleash it on every public photo on Facebook or Instagram and suddenly you can get a whole flood of new data points to track you by.

Absolutely, it has been established for quite  while now that anonymized data is not truly anonymous, especially if you can gain access to other sources for cross referencing.    This is why it is important to understand motive and process when considering what each company is doing.  If their end motive is similar to this start ups,  then said data collection is not helpful, if like in the case of apple and MS however, where measures are taken to anonymize data to the point it can still be used but not to identify anyone (successful or not), then a different approach is required.

 

We can do these things is not the same as actually doing these things.  Too often people want laws in place to prevent a technology on the grounds it can be abused rather than laws that prevent a company from abusing others with said technology.

 

 

[Unixsystem]

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Absolutely, it has been established for quite  while now that anonymized data is not truly anonymous, especially if you can gain access to other sources for cross referencing.    This is why it is important to understand motive and process when considering what each company is doing.  If their end motive is similar to this start ups,  then said data collection is not helpful, if like in the case of apple and MS however, where measures are taken to anonymize data to the point it can still be used but not to identify anyone (successful or not), then a different approach is required.

 

We can do these things is not the same as actually doing these things.  Too often people want laws in place to prevent a technology on the grounds it can be abused rather than laws that prevent a company from abusing others with said technology.

The problem to me is less that that it can be abused in and of itself, but more that I don't see any reasonable way that it could be used for good. I absolutely do not trust law enforcement with this technology and even if I did I don't see how it would be useful in the vast majority of cases. We've survived this long using traditional surveillance cameras and investigations, I don't see any reason that we need to sacrifice a huge degree of privacy in order to make the jobs of police detectives marginally easier. 

 

And in the private sector, it's pretty much just targeted advertising. Even in the cases that you mention of Apple and MS (and I would disagree that the data they can collect is properly anonymized) realistically what is the benefit to the end user? Windows is still pushing out buggy updates and doing little to improve the core experience, and Apple continues to be a black box that pushes forward whatever new tech or trend they want. Does all the data make their jobs easier? Probably, but I don't care. The end product isn't meaningfully better on average than it was before mass data collection. 

 

Are there instances where data collection and surveillance do actually benefit both the individual and society? Probably, but in the decade(s) since this started I haven't seen any great arguments for it and even if you could present them I don't think it's worth the sacrifice. 

[mr moose]

48 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

The problem to me is less that that it can be abused in and of itself, but more that I don't see any reasonable way that it could be used for good. I absolutely do not trust law enforcement with this technology and even if I did I don't see how it would be useful in the vast majority of cases. We've survived this long using traditional surveillance cameras and investigations, I don't see any reason that we need to sacrifice a huge degree of privacy in order to make the jobs of police detectives marginally easier. 

 

And in the private sector, it's pretty much just targeted advertising. Even in the cases that you mention of Apple and MS (and I would disagree that the data they can collect is properly anonymized) realistically what is the benefit to the end user? Windows is still pushing out buggy updates and doing little to improve the core experience, and Apple continues to be a black box that pushes forward whatever new tech or trend they want. Does all the data make their jobs easier? Probably, but I don't care. The end product isn't meaningfully better on average than it was before mass data collection. 

 

Are there instances where data collection and surveillance do actually benefit both the individual and society? Probably, but in the decade(s) since this started I haven't seen any great arguments for it and even if you could present them I don't think it's worth the sacrifice. 

In general I am just not in favor of banning the advancement of technology based on what it can be used for but more in favor of banning it for that use.  I.E If using it in Marketing is an abuse of privacy, then ban Face ID in marketing.

 

 

48 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

(and I would disagree that the data they can collect is properly anonymized)

I never said it was properly anonymized, I said they take measures to anonymize it (successfully or not).  Meaning that they do attempt to remove the ability to identify people form the data as thoroughly as they can while maintaining the integrity of the data for it's intended purpose.  In the case of MS,   MS use automation to remove email addresses and other standardized identifying markers, however if someone uses a non standard format the automation process can sometimes miss it, so it isn't redacted in  the Data repository.  Again pointing back to this being an issue with process/mistake rather than motive or intent.  

 

[Touch My Hamm]

Those darn Danish and their troll trace program. 

[JZStudios]

On 1/20/2020 at 8:10 PM, Caroline said:

They'd never say that

This is bad, regardless of who's doing it.

[melete]

Luckily, there's an easy solution to defeat facial recognition software, even if someone else happens to photograph you in public.

 

Just become a Juggalo.

 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Or join a black metal band?

That's why I said "wear makeup" earlier in this thread 

Quote

4. Apply makeup and removable piercings when you do have to show your face.

 

 

But I think the thread kinda is waffling on the topic.

 

1. AI is good when used for good, however given business interests, it's much akin to war is good. It can not be left in private hands.

2. Facial recognition can be used for good, identifying victims and suspects, however given business interests it can not be left in private hands.

 

Compiling a dossier on someone based on who they know, where they shop, how they shop, is a gold mine for insurance companies.

 

And that was uploaded to youtube in 2006, The ACLU made this. https://www.aclu.org/ordering-pizza and didn't put it on youtube themselves until 2009.

 

This image is from https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/computer-privacy-annoyances/0596007752/ch07.html

 

[melete]

13 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Or join a black metal band?

Only with the right makeup. Juggalo makeup works because it redefines your jawline and messes with the way software recognizes your face shape. The makeup in the bottom left corner did not do that. 

[Beerzerker]

Minority Report made reality.
Don't even be suprised if they start going after folks one day because there is a possibility they would do something wrong instead of actually having done it.

 

[Intrafinesse]

On 1/20/2020 at 8:53 PM, Arika S said:

bold of them to assume there are pictures of me on the internet

What if a friend of yours posts a picture that you happen to be in on facebook or some other website that gets scraped?

 

[Jito463]

On 1/20/2020 at 9:29 PM, mr moose said:

Technology will either bury us or or make our society a utopian shangri-la.

You mispelled dystopian.

On 1/23/2020 at 6:06 PM, Waffles13 said:

Kids love taking photos for whatever reason. 

Even when I was younger, I was just never into taking photos or having my picture taken.  I think I've just always been a grumpy old man. 

On 1/24/2020 at 12:25 PM, Beerzerker said:

Minority Report made reality.
Don't even be suprised if they start going after folks one day because there is a possibility they would do something wrong instead of actually having done it.

They already are, they're called "red flag" laws (yeah, I know we're not supposed to get political, but it's still true).

[TechyBen]

Court cases on their way: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/26/ai_roundup_240120/

 

[GOTSpectrum]

On 1/24/2020 at 2:12 AM, Waffles13 said:

We've survived this long using traditional surveillance cameras and investigations

The met police in London have a special division that hires people with photographic memories, they used to be called 'super identifiers' and they do basically this same thing. They memorise thousands upon thousands of people's faces and watch CCTV pointing out anyone of interest for stop and searches.

 

So this is basically just automating the process. I don't agree with it myself, maybe if it was legally limited to only using police arrest photos then I could maybe feel slightly better about it. But still... It's a huge breach of personal privacy. 

 

But at what point does it infringe on our right to privacy under article 8 of the ECoHR?

[Kisai]

On 1/27/2020 at 7:45 AM, GOTSpectrum said:

The met police in London have a special division that hires people with photographic memories, they used to be called 'super identifiers' and they do basically this same thing. They memorise thousands upon thousands of people's faces and watch CCTV pointing out anyone of interest for stop and searches.

 

So this is basically just automating the process. I don't agree with it myself, maybe if it was legally limited to only using police arrest photos then I could maybe feel slightly better about it. But still... It's a huge breach of personal privacy. 

 

But at what point does it infringe on our right to privacy under article 8 of the ECoHR?

 

There is no expectation of privacy except inside your own home, and public toilets/change-rooms. This has never changed. What has changed is the ability to mass-identify people who VOLUNTEERED that info. If you've EVER used facebook, even once, even if you never uploaded a photo, chances are someone has tagged you. For example, When I worked for one employer, someone I worked with there tagged me in a photo. Look at how many companies including amazon, google and facebook who jumped on the "speaker" and "security camera" bandwagon.

 

Companies outside your own countries borders have no business tracking foreigners. If Facebook and Google want to maintain servers inside every country in order to be legally compliant with tracking, the other option is discarding that information.

[Donut417]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

There is no expectation of privacy except inside your own home, and public toilets/change-rooms. This has never changed. What has changed is the ability to mass-identify people who VOLUNTEERED that info. If you've EVER used facebook, even once, even if you never uploaded a photo, chances are someone has tagged you. For example, When I worked for one employer, someone I worked with there tagged me in a photo. Look at how many companies including amazon, google and facebook who jumped on the "speaker" and "security camera" bandwagon.

 

Companies outside your own countries borders have no business tracking foreigners. If Facebook and Google want to maintain servers inside every country in order to be legally compliant with tracking, the other option is discarding that information.

I disagree the only expectation of privacy is inside your own head. 

[GOTSpectrum]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

-snip-

 

When I'm asking at what point does it infringe I'm not just talking about the use of this technology in public spaces. But, IoT devices like Ring, how long without regulation is it untill we see this technology being used to track friendship circles, family, employment ect using such tech as this? 

I posed the question of at what point.. so the point is when it enters your own home or some other place where you reasonably expect to be safe from recording devices is what point. 

[mr moose]

38 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

What has changed is the ability to mass-identify people who VOLUNTEERED that info. If you've EVER used facebook, even once, even if you never uploaded a photo, chances are someone has tagged you. For example, When I worked for one employer, someone I worked with there tagged me in a photo. Look at how many companies including amazon, google and facebook who jumped on the "speaker" and "security camera" bandwagon.

 

 

I would not call being tagged in a facebook photo as "volunteering" my data to this type of activity.  In fact I don;t even consider uploading a photo to facebook willingly to be the same thing.  there is no mention nor reason to assume that would be where the data goes to. 

[ARikozuM]

I guess I'm alone in thinking that privacy should be ensured regardless of where you are or what you're doing. The only person profiting off of someone's information is the person in question. Do think otherwise places us in a phase of interaction akin to NEET or shut-in culture. Just because I'm in public does not mean that I have volunteered my data to every in view of me. Same on the internet, same on roads, same if someone else took a picture that I was in. Businesses must get release forms made for anyone whose photo is published to the web, same should apply for Facebook, Twitter, and the local mall. Any profits made from that data should go to the signer, not the business. 

[mr moose]

59 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I guess I'm alone in thinking that privacy should be ensured regardless of where you are or what you're doing.

 

You're not alone in thinking that,   the problem with this type of thing is it goes past the general expectations and laws on privacy in public places.    In my mind it moves into the realm of stalking.

[ARikozuM]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You're not alone in thinking that,   the problem with this type of thing is it goes past the general expectations and laws on privacy in public places.    In my mind it moves into the realm of stalking.

That is why we need to start getting laws in place instead of settling on "well, you agreed to the EULA". 

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

That is why we need to start getting laws in place instead of settling on "well, you agreed to the EULA". 

Laws are such complicated things, and the number of people in the legal system with sway is concerning for me.

[Donut417]

26 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

That is why we need to start getting laws in place instead of settling on "well, you agreed to the EULA". 

So you trust the ones who probably break your privacy more,  with the job of  creating laws to protect your privacy? https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/nsa-using-att-data-center-in-hells-kitchen-for-spy-program/. Yeah thats really going to show those companies. 

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

So you trust the ones who probably break your privacy more,  with the job of  creating laws to protect your privacy? https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/nsa-using-att-data-center-in-hells-kitchen-for-spy-program/. Yeah thats really going to show those companies. 

You think I'm not against the Patriot Act, NSA, and other gov't agencies? A bunch of sheep decided for everyone else that privacy is less important than security when those arguments were based on lies. Here, the lie is that you, the user, are benefiting from this profiling. You aren't. You're the product, but you're also the worker. I'm not doing whataboutisms on this one. The whole privacy thing has to be upheld in totality. 

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

You think I'm not against the Patriot Act, NSA, and other gov't agencies? A bunch of sheep decided for everyone else that privacy is less important than security when those arguments were based on lies. Here, the lie is that you, the user, are benefiting from this profiling. You aren't. You're the product, but you're also the worker. I'm not doing whataboutisms on this one. The whole privacy thing has to be upheld in totality. 

But your asking the Government. Mind you the ones that have been proven to be spying on you to make laws that protect privacy? Techincally the law exists its called the 4th admendment, but its not like any one cares. The NSA and CIA will still continue to spy on us. Congress cant do shit about it because they are as or more corupt than these agencies. The Supream court wont do anything eaither because National Security matters are left to the FISA courts who rubber stamp everything. 

 

So companies are using our data for advertising. The CIA was testing drugs on people in the 60's to see how they would work for interrogations. I consider that a bit more worring than Facebook using my data for advertising puproses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra So you expect that same government to protect your privacy? Why would they do that? Its easy for them to just harvest the data from Facebook, they are not going to tie their hands that easily.