Google Pledges To Hold Off On Selling Facial Recognition Technology (engadget.com) 46
In a blog post today, Google detailed how its facial recognition technology will and won't be used. Citing a number of risks associated with the technology, the company vowed to refrain from selling facial recognition products until it can come up with policies that prevent abuse. Engadget reports: "Like many technologies with multiple uses, facial recognition merits careful consideration to ensure its use is aligned with our principles and values, and avoids abuse and harmful outcomes," Google said. "We continue to work with many organizations to identify and address these challenges, and unlike some other companies, Google Cloud has chosen not to offer general-purpose facial recognition APIs before working through important technology and policy questions." "This is a strong first step," the ACLU's Nicole Ozer said in a statement about Google's announcement. "Google today demonstrated that, unlike other companies doubling down on efforts to put dangerous face surveillance technology into the hands of law enforcement and ICE, it has a moral compass and is willing to take action to protect its customers and communities. Google also made clear that all companies must stop ignoring the grave harms these surveillance technologies pose to immigrants and people of color, and to our freedom to live our lives, visit a church, or participate in a protest without being tracked by the government."
Sweet Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Where did they say that? I don't see such words anywhere in this announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda ironic that people think Google doesn't care about privacy.
They care a lot about keeping your personal data private, because (with your permission to use it, at least in the EU) their advertising business's value is largely based on it.
More over, most of the evil shit that people assume Google is doing is nonsense and actually illegal in many places. Presumably they also think there is a giant criminal conspiracy that has so far gone undetected (but somehow they are certain it exists).
Oh, GOOGLE PLEDGES eh? Well then. (Score:1)
Why didn't you SAY SO! Oh, if I'd known GOOGLE was going to PLEDGE something... I'd have Gmailed myself an invitation to a Hangout to Wave-chat about it!
Hi Google, I assume you're looking at my face right now through my fucking video doorbell system you tentacled twat creatures! Damn you all, quit now OR BURN WITH THE HOST.
Google MUST BE BROKEN UP (Score:1)
They are 100x worse than Microsoft ever was. They have to go.
Re: (Score:2)
So fucking corporations are coming up with policy, what the fuck happened to the people coming up with policy and getting the government representatives to implement and forcing corporations to adhere to it under penalty of law. Now it's corporations coming up with policy and turning citizens into nonpersons when they do not comply and government meekly conforms.
Wait for the internal memos (Score:4, Insightful)
Verify. Then trust.
Re: (Score:1)
Verify. Trust no one. Continue to periodically verify.
sure. they won't "sell" it. (Score:1)
that would be extremely foolish for a profit-minded public corporation to do. it will be 'rented' instead, for insane profits.
They give it away for free (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
An NSL gag order wouldn't let them say anything either way.
Make no evil (Score:3)
No doubt that's commendable, however the current leader [findface.pro] in the face recognition competition/arms race sells their product to pretty much anyone, including the government of Russia. I've seen how it works and it gives you the shivers.
You may find youtube videos [google.com] about their tech quite fascinating and scary.
Re: (Score:2)
You may find youtube videos [google.com] about their tech quite fascinating and scary.
That's cool. I guess. YT Link [youtube.com]
Also, they can soon figure out who you are AND what you're stealing. [youtube.com] Notice that last one is free code (One [pjreddie.com], Two [github.com]) and even runs on a PHONE. (7:00)
And LOOK -- it's written in C, so it'll even be halfway understandable!
If anyone wants me, I'll be hiding under the covers.
Good for the gander (Score:2)
The cat is out of the bag. The only safe thing for the future of humanity is to let the people have access to panopticon technology so they can track their politicians with it, too. Otherwise just some secret cabal inside a billion dollar NSA building will have it, with "emergency" access that doesn't require logging, you know, for emergencies.
Assuming it really bothers to automatically log anything uncorruptibly for later review by security clearence'd elected members of Congress, that is.
They pledge to... (Score:3)
Doesn't matter. It will be stolen, (Score:2)
A technology only has to exist. Then it's just a matter of time before those who want it get their hands on it.
Same with encryption and encryption backdoors. If a backdoor is implemented, even if only for governement and law enforcement use, the backdoor will be cracked and used by criminals. If governement admits this and demands an uncrackable encryption without backdoor just for itself, again criminals and terrorists will get their hands on it and use it for themselves, making the backdoor useless to law
Re: (Score:1)
Do you know how to read ? Do you completely lack even basic understanding of the english language ?
Please point out to me where I said that I don't want the governement to have unbreakable encryption.
The governement will have unbreakable encryption. It is their duty, if only for national security reasons. But if the governement has it, then criminals and terrorists will also have it, because technologies never remain secret. Therefore, all the laws and regulations governements around the world are trying to
Trust Google? (Score:3, Insightful)
Google are essentially an advertising agency and so their "values" are flexible for the right price. Public statements like this are designed as leverage to increase the asking price for abusive practices and to keep their abusive clients quiet.
Temporarily (Score:3)
You know, until they can get it working [theguardian.com] in a way that doesn't cause them to make the news.
Principles and values (Score:2)
to ensure its use is aligned with our principles and values
Which are those?
Unbelievably naive PR, is anyone buying it? (Score:1)
So, face recognition technology, with a number of alternatives in the wilds and, even though rather a complex subject by no means something exclusively google or something that any [insert major evils here] could not develop on its own.
But the most bizarre part is that not only [evil regimes] are to be avoided, but even own law enforcement agencies of the own country.
My gut feeling is that this lunacy bodes well with some mainstream theory (the kind of theory that wins, because any opposition to it is label
Interesting interpretation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it was reported on /. that Google had a functioning prototype on Glass and decided not to release it because it was too creepy.