Face Search Engine Raises Privacy Concerns 158
holy_calamity writes "Startup Polar Rose is in the news today after announcing it will soon launch a service that uses facial recognition software, along with collaborative input, to identify and find people in photos online. But such technology has serious implications for privacy, according to two UK civil liberties groups. Will people be so keen to put their lives on Flickr once anyone from ID thieves to governments can find out their name, and who they associate with?"
You don't have to put it up (Score:3, Interesting)
Witness Protection (Score:5, Interesting)
Setting aside the fact that, at least right now, sunglasses fool these systems... if someone, lets say, a member of the Talini Crime family wants to find a rat. By giving a picture of him to this company, they could then search for pictures on the internet he appears in.
Considering how many pictures people take with random people in the background, it seems inevitable that said rat would turn up.
Re:Lesson #1 -- Don't Expect Privacy Online (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a big deal, unless you happen to work for a conservative company and maintain an anti-government blog or some such thing.
Re:Lesson #1 -- Don't Expect Privacy Online (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You don't have to put it up (Score:2, Interesting)
I am being sued in federal court for publishing a man's photo (along with his name). See:
www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html [cgstock.com]
He's a mortgage originator, and he forged a sales agreement, and I'm warning others about him on my website (e.g. consumer speech). He dropped an earlier claim of defamation (what I wrote about his is true), but he's raising the same objection as you -- I can't publish his photo without permission. I disagree.
Who gets to decide what I publish? For the most part, me, and it is a difficult decision. How could someone else make that decision for me better than me?
I would agree it's morally wrong (not legally wrong) to publish someone's photo (with their name) without permission WHEN you have no reason (it's not newsworthy) AND you suspect they object. Many people, myself included, have no objection, and society can't suspend the freedom of the press to avoid offending those who want to keep their faces and names off the web. Keeping names off the web runs contrary to information wanting to be free. It sounds like a giant high-school yearbook, or a giant phone book that has photos...in other words, there may be some problems, but it doesn't sound overly troublesome.
Re:Lesson #1 -- Don't Expect Privacy Online (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. I submitted a story to
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15994151/site/newswee
From that story, a good example:
Cheap video technology (esp. video-capable cellphones) and social sites make it all possible.
Simply being in public can get you on these social sites, whether you actually use them (or have even HEARD of them) or not. In the end, the only way to ensure your privacy is to not become a part of society. If you venture into public, you too could end up on some social web site.
And remember--this is the PUBLIC engaging in a type of surveillance on the PUBLIC. For the tinfoil hats out there, it's not just the government's watchful eye you have to be careful around; it's that video-capable cellphone in the hands of the seemingly innocent rider sitting across from you on the train, too.
Re:You don't have to put it up (Score:3, Interesting)
People go way overboard with road rage, so that scenerio isn't entirely paranoid. With a simple photo they get access to the who and where of all of my friends and family, by way of this software. It's a great tool for stalkers and exploitation, with little use to the average person.
The end of protest? (Score:3, Interesting)
Parent makes an interesting point. Who would risk going to any public protest for anything (war, whatever) knowing that you will probably turn up in a Google image search for doing so?
Steve
Current Technology Scary Enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What IS OK? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok well to start, you cant fight a philosophy. What you are perhaps asking is that the government do more to fight Criminals. I would say that we have enough laws already to fight criminals. Some would say that this is a brave new world we live in and they need better tools to keep up with the crimes. I disagree that the world has magically changed and that we need to become a police state to fight for security. You will never be secure, because security is a concept of the mind (thats why gun enthusiasts think that they can buy security, they are somewhat right). Even your american founding fathers knew this in what was argueably a more savage and brutal world than the one we live in. They say clearly, dont sacrifice liberty for security, and I think whatever country you live in that thats a good idea. I would suggest that you instead look at the root causes and motivations of these particular criminals. Bin laden has said specifically what he wanted, most notably the USA out of the middle east. Why not start with that?
There should be an opt out... (Score:2, Interesting)