Facebook Re-enables Tag Suggestions Face-Recognition Feature In the US 98
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook has brought back its photo Tag Suggestions feature to the U.S. after temporarily suspending it last year to make some technical improvements. Facebook says it has re-enabled it so that its users can use facial recognition 'to help them easily identify a friend in a photo and share that content with them.' Facebook first rolled out the face recognition feature across the U.S. in late 2010. The company eventually pushed photo Tag Suggestions to other countries in June 2011, but in the US there was quite a backlash. Yet Facebook doesn't appear to have made any privacy changes to the feature: it's still on by default."
I guess all those natives were right (Score:5, Interesting)
A camera really can steal your soul.
Facebook is a good idea taken way too far and a userbase that refuses to acknowledge that fact. If we've learned anything from history, people are more than willing to go along with anything that even includes physical assault for the sake of recognition. A little violation of privacy is no sweat.
Re:I guess all those natives were right (Score:4, Insightful)
facebook has said they endorse apple's "complete control" model. So anyone who trusts facebook after that, is making a big mistake - not one they weren't already warned of.
Just like viruses, it's going to get a lot worse before people start figuring out what to do about it and what not to do. It's still in the "only the technical people who get it are saying stop using it" category.
Re:I guess all those natives were right (Score:5, Insightful)
having your face recognized in a photo that you already appear in, to people who already know you
Such naivety! One has to marvel!
Within a couple years every face will be identifiable on line in every picture you take whether or not you know the person or not, even if that person does not have a facebook account.
Face recognition plus Graph Search means nobody is safe from they prying eyes of facebook.
If the FBI/CIA/NSA/Scotland Yard tried to set this up, world plus dog would be howling in protest.
(Oh, and before you spout any privacy protections, let me offer a loud scoff of derision in your general direction: HA!)
Re: (Score:3)
Face recognition plus Graph Search means nobody is safe from they prying eyes of facebook.
If the FBI/CIA/NSA/Scotland Yard tried to set this up, world plus dog would be howling in protest.
The difference is that Facebook is "opt-in". You know, "don't like it, don't use it". That sort of thing.
Re:I guess all those natives were right (Score:5, Informative)
Except that it's not. People can, and will, tag you in a photo without your general awareness. I believe you can even tag people without an account.
Re:I guess all those natives were right (Score:5, Informative)
But Facebook has already admitted to creating "shadow accounts" for people who have not opted in. They still track their behavior through like buttons around the internet unless you surf with noscript, etc.They still try to learn faces, habits, etc. and they also sell the information.
Re:I guess all those natives were right (Score:4, Interesting)
From Summary:
..."opt-in"...
You keep using that phrase, but I do not think it means what you think it means...
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I try to avoid pointless rhetorical attacks, I feel this one is appropriate:
You are an idiot. Learn how to read, idiot.
Re:I guess all those natives were right (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the problem. The problem is when it becomes searchable. Your potential new employer does a search and comes up with that picture from a high school party you didn't know was taken. You know, that party where you knew exactly one person out of the 50 or so there? The one that, as you are about to find out, was also attended by the person who later went on to become a notorious drug dealer (who you never even noticed). Sorry sir, BozoBank international doesn't hire people who party with known felons.
Wouldn't you have preferred to remain just that anonymous guy sitting in the background looking like he's about to bail on the lamest party ever?
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty easy to defeat this. Tag yourself as other people in all of your friend's photographs. The multiple sources will break the facial recognition database.
Re:I guess all those natives were right (Score:4, Insightful)
That would actually be a great opensource project.. Hmmmm.. the "break my recognition project". "How come this Gerald Whazzisname" looks like a baseball? Well commander, that's what all our searches return.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many goatze images would need to be uploaded and tagged as zuckerberg before it becomes the definitive photo of him?
Re: (Score:1)
What I wouldn't give for a Laughing Man virus right about now...
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty easy to defeat this. Tag yourself as other people in all of your friend's photographs.
Unfortunately that would require me to create a Facebook account.
Rock vs hard place: accept that I will be tagged without consent, or submit to the machine and try to fight it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have a facebook account, then they can't swear that the tag is you. Could be somebody else of the same name. Only works if the tag *ties to your facebook account*.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is a good idea taken way too far and a userbase that refuses to acknowledge that fact. If we've learned anything from history, people are more than willing to go along with anything that even includes physical assault for the sake of recognition. A little violation of privacy is no sweat.
Sorry dude, but this is not physical assault unless the person is taking the photo of you in a private place (e.g. dressing room, shower) or from a place where he doesn't have the right to be (e.g. trespassing). At least in the States, it is well within photographers' First Amendment rights to take and disseminate photos, including by attaching meta-data such as face-tagging and publishing them online.
See, e.g. Lambert v. Polk County (1989) [google.com]
Re:I guess all those natives were right (Score:5, Informative)
It goes far, far beyond even what you're thinking:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2187801/Were-watching-The-camera-recognise-Facebook-picture-time-walk-shop.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Facebook is putting their own cameras in public with built in facial recognition software. They will track everywhere you go, what you do while you're there, what you buy, what you eat, what you look at and don't buy. Every single thing you do will be logged in their databases, and then sold to... well... pretty much everyone. How much do you want to bet their biggest customer will be the federal government?
It appears that Orwell was off by about 30 years when he wrote 1984.
Re: (Score:1)
It goes far, far beyond even what you're thinking: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2187801/Were-watching-The-camera-recognise-Facebook-picture-time-walk-shop.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Facebook is putting their own cameras in public with built in facial recognition software. They will track everywhere you go, what you do while you're there, what you buy, what you eat, what you look at and don't buy. Every single thing you do will be logged in their databases, and then sold to... well... pretty much everyone. How much do you want to bet their biggest customer will be the federal government?
It appears that Orwell was off by about 30 years when he wrote 1984.
The article explicitly says that Facebook did not develop the system and that it is simply an app that uses Facebook's APIs. There's no need for you to mislead people by saying that Facebook is installing their own cameras.
Re: (Score:1)
Just like google didn't mean to install hardware and software that stored everyone's mac address as they drove through town across the mfing globe.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is irrelevant and naive. Facebook most likely owns this company either directly or indirectly. Even if they do not, the effect is the same. "No no no, the guy shot you with a Remington pistol but the BULLETS were Winchester!!" I'm still shot, and you're still a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, don't you mean Google Glass? After all, everyone's all revved up about these little goggles
Re: (Score:2)
I agree... Google is a problem as well. But Google has shown a surprising amount of insight into privacy issues. They're not letting next quarters revenue rule their decisions 100% of the time like Facebook and Apple do. All of Googles hardware so-far usually has the least intrusive prepackaged apps compared to other software platforms. Rooting their phones is very simple. I suspect Glass will be the same. If there is some sort of "Record everything" feature, it will be easy to turn off if it's like Googles
Re: (Score:2)
It's for your own good, too. Lookit, the press release says so.
Is it 1984, or am I a conspiracy theorist? (Score:4, Interesting)
Perception causes me to believe that this "feature" is a double-edged sword. On the one side, it adds to the whole "social networking" thing. Find friends, recognize friends, connect with friends.
On the other hand, it is a massive crowdsourced facial recognition system that is incredibly difficult to stay away from, even if you refuse to be a part of Facebook (IIRC people can tag you in a picture by typing in your name). It's a f*cking privacy nightmare.
But what do you have to hide, huh? *grin....sigh*
Re:Is it 1984, or am I a conspiracy theorist? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Anytime my name is tagged, i get a email that asked me if i want the info published to my friends or not. BEFORE my name is added.
This. It's in your Facebook Privacy Settings, the ones that everyone who complains ignores.
How much of a false sense of security that is, is debatable. People have been posting pictures of themselves and friends publicly on the web since the days of Geocities and Angelfire (and before that, on small private and .edu hosts) with nary a .htaccess in sight. The lack of good searc
Re: (Score:2)
It's like you didn't read the second paragraph or anything after that.
What Suckerberg might do is probably irrelevant in the larger picture.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
You are pining away for the time before search engines.
That time has passed and gone, forever.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it 1984, or am I a conspiracy theorist? (Score:4, Interesting)
While you can tag people who don't have accounts, they won't be auto-tagged (obviously) and there's no way to search for them unless it's your own album -- so the stuff you're talking about has been unchanged since photo tagging first came out years ago.
Such nonsense. That YOU can't search for some unknown face, doesn't mean some privileged few (perhaps with warrant in hand) can't search.
Re: (Score:3)
Such nonsense. That YOU can't search for some unknown face, doesn't mean some privileged few (perhaps with a National Security Letter in hand) can't search.
FTFY.
Warrants are sooo 2002.
Re: (Score:3)
That YOU can't search for some unknown face, doesn't mean some privileged few (perhaps with warrant in hand) can't search.
This fact is important. This "opting out" on facebook is just like all the other web tracking "opt outs" - you don't opt out of being tracked and cataloged, you opt out of being reminded that you are being tracked and cataloged.
Re: (Score:2)
If I never gave permission for my photo be used for commercial purposes?
If I don't want my name plastered all over the Internet?
If I no longer use facebook and wish to have nothing to do with it anymore?
I do not get why you think you should have the right to share photos of me without my permission. Especially with Facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
If a person does something it may be an innocent mistake, and it is likely that that person actually knows me. The software does not know me, so it might not recognize subtle difference in between me and say a twin brother,or cousin, or doppleganger.
Why don't you log in and start sharing your screen
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy may be incorrect but reputation certainly isn't given that potential employers are increasingly using the damned thing for evaluation purposes. And you can only remove the tags IF you have an account and are awa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You do not have my permission to use it as such. Show the photo to your friends, to your family, donate it for a good purpose. I do not want my photo being used by Facebook. I am vehemently opposed to their business model, and I do not like the fact that they would "own" my image at that point. Placing my name on it, especially automatically and potentially incorrectly just makes it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sorry but legally you are wrong. If I take a photo of you, i am allowed to do whatever I want with it, including posting it on FB, 4chan etc. I can give it to a newspaper for free, I can even post it on a billboard for free. I may not agree with it however it is the law, how do you think paparazi get to do what they do? do you really think britney spears gave her ok to gawker or whoever to post up photos of her vagina? I doubt it.
That's not universally true - pictures taken in a public space, like a park or on a street, yes, you can "do what you want" like the paparazzi do - that's how they get away with vag shots on celebrities, by taking the picture from a public street or sidewalk.
However, if the photo is taken candidly, i.e. on private land, or any setting in which there is an expectation of privacy, then no, you do not have the right to "do whatever you want with it." If you want to test this, feel free to walk into the dressin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are at a party hitting a bong and I take a photo of you I can post that photo without issues, ask Micheal Phelps.
...
I think I'm just going to sit back and let this one sink in on its own...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also I am not using a photo for payment, Did I have to post the photo to use FB? no , i didnt, therefore it is not payment
Read the EULA - by agreeing to it, you are saying that you want a facebook account, and in exchange (i.e., payment), you will let them have universal rights to all media you post therein.
Granted, IANAL, but I don't think you have to be one to understand how slimeball capitalists operate.
Re: (Score:1)
In sum, if someone looking at a photograph would think that the person in it is promoting or endorsing a commercial product affiliated with the photograph, then the use is commercial. But since it sometimes is difficult to know if the use will be considered commercial or editorial, it's always a safer to get the model release.
I do not wish to endorse or promote the idea that I use or approve of the use of facebook. http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/02/commercial-vs-editorial-use-of.html [photoattorney.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is your privacy "invaded" by having a photo of you tagged as you automatically instead of manually?
You mean, aside from the fact that:
- I never gave permission for my image to be placed online,
- I was never asked by either facebook or the person posting the image if I was OK with it,
- The photos that other people put up of you may show you in an unflattering light, or doing something illegal, or supporting/protesting a policy/organization that your employer would take issue with, and thus impact your personal and/or professional life (just ask Micheal Phelps about that one)
- the possibility that the algo
What is the problem (Score:2)
So, what's wrong with face recognition on Facebook? How does this violate my privacy?
Re: (Score:2)
Take a creepshot of some girl at the mall, upload it to facebook, and see if you get a hit.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe today but Facebook's already monetized sending messages to non-friends. How long until they charge $5 to do a "photo tag search" of non-friends?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Countless other examples of how this can be used to severely harm people by parties who don't even know them..
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a matter of time before the technology evolves so that it doesn't require the limitation of a set of "Friends" o
Re: (Score:2)
Because being outed as gay is a negative? I find being a straight and a parent still married to my first wife to make me stranger than any homosexual.
Re: (Score:3)
Because being outed as gay is a negative?
Depends.
Live in northern CA? Probably no big deal. However, here in the Bible Belt, being outed can, will, and has in the past, cause a person to lose everything.
And, of course, there's seemingly no end to the stories of gay teens being outed at school, then killing themselves due to the subsequent abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Which I still find strange, because here in Oregon, it's WAY worse to be a heterosexual parent fouling up the environment with more human beings.
Or at least, that's the message I get from the environmentalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Man walks out of a gay bar. Has picture taken by anti-gay vigilanties. Facial recognition allows them to find him on Facebook and show the picture to his family, forcing him to be "outed" and ending in a Tyler Clementi situation.
Any facial recognition software could do this. Maybe the government already does this. I have pictures of myself on my Facebook page. The CIA could already have crawled over Facebook building a DB of everyone's name and photo.
Also, people being accused of things they didn't do (as another poster suggested) is hardly anything new. I sympathize with American posters not having faith in their justice system to sort out the facts though, as it seems that whoever can hire the most expensive lawyers wins over
Re: (Score:2)
Wait for the knock at the door when something approaching your face appears in a photo at a street brawl, and the police find that someone tagged it because they thought it looked like you. All of a sudden you have to prove your innocence instead of them proving your guilt.
Re: (Score:1)
Old Wolf,
Your privacy is important when its absence delivers total power over a population to the state that rules you. Give away power on Monday, and the over-reaching oppressive laws will follow on Tuesday. Turn on the news any day of the week in any part of the world to see this happening incrementally right now.
It's a personal concern because my wife grew up in East Germany before the wall fell and I get to hear all the stories. Tales about:
-- Where it was illegal to listen to the radio or watch TV
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for ignoring my question.. I understand the issues of privacy. I don't see how this Facebook move invades my privacy. This has nothing to do with the bullet points you listed.
Activists should be most concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
If the FBI had access to Facebook's database during the days of COINTELPRO, it is doubtful the American Civil Rights movement would have ever occurred.
Facial recognition is an amazingly powerful tool for law enforcement when it comes to political adversaries -- imagine a scenario where local police and the FBI could just pop a photo into the special "Law Enforcement" console on Facebook, and find out who the person is, who their friends are, what their likes/dislikes are, what they order online (what kind of ads are targeted), etc.
It's also sad that most young activists these days are all over Facebook and have been giving it all their information since they turned 13 (or earlier if they just ignored that 13+ stuff), so by the time they become involved, the government has an easy way to find out literally everything about their personal lives. Just upload a picture of them snapped at some political rally, and voila!
The problem is Facebook is so addictive, I see such compulsive behavior clicking photos, and when you block facebook on networks, users downright have panic attacks.
Sounds like George Orwell may have been right: We love big brother.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't want to dismiss all privacy concerns here, you're vastly overrating the effectiveness of current face recognition technology. If you compare a given face to a database of millions, much less hundreds of millions, you're not going to get a single match, you're going to get thousands of matches. And, frankly, this isn't just a technology problem. If you then go on to apply the very best (if not most efficient) face-matching technology we have -- people -- you'll find that you still have tens, if
Re: (Score:2)
It appears the road forward is a minefield of caveats.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not forgetting that at all... I am one of the people who have a hard time recognizing faces. I'm not face blind, but I have to be around someone quite a bit before I can reliably recognize them.
The realization that we can barely recognize people we hang out with every day if they change their haircut or buy a new shirt, and there's software out there that can recognize us everywhere we go is completely terrifying.
The whole point of my post that the existence of software that can recognize you everywhere you go is fiction. Assuming you believed me, you should have found my comments comforting.
Re: (Score:2)
I never used the account, added a single friend, but it is still active an undeletable.
I can also guarantee that not a single photo exists of me tagged with the correct name. This is a benefit towards using a middle name or made up name as an alias amongst friends.
I knew to do this because as a teenager, I had a hacking background. But those who did not, have now w
FB on /. (Score:2)
FB doesn't matter ("stuff that matters", and all that, ya know). Just sayin'. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!111
How to Fight This (Score:2)
We've got about zero chance of changing facebook policies. Nearly zero chance of legislatively stopping it either (and then there will be plenty of exceptions for "law enforcement" that will just make it so that only the very powerful can abuse these tools).
But what you can do is to pollute their database. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Tag people with the wrong names. Each photo of the same person, tag it with a different name. Or, if you have a lot of photos, use the same (wrong) name a couple of times, bef