Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Privacy Social Networks Software Technology

Report Finds Some Users Can't Opt Out of Facebook's Face Recognition (dailydot.com) 83

Posted by BeauHD from the likely-widespread dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Daily Dot: A consumer advocacy group has found that not all Facebook users have been given the ability to opt out of the company's facial recognition. According to Consumer Reports, despite Facebook rolling out a new privacy setting last year allowing users to choose whether the company can use such technology to detect them in photos, some users say they have never been granted the option. After analyzing the accounts of 31 users throughout the U.S., Consumer Reports discovered that 8 accounts, or roughly 25 percent, did not have the face recognition setting. Consumer Reports set up its own test accounts to determine whether the privacy setting would be available but found that around half a dozen did not have the ability to disable face recognition.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Report Finds Some Users Can't Opt Out of Facebook's Face Recognition More

Report Finds Some Users Can't Opt Out of Facebook's Face Recognition

Comments Filter:

  • This is intentional (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quakeulf ( 2650167 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2019 @08:06AM (#58629340)
    Do what you can get away with until you get caught, then feign "technical difficulties".
    • If you're not cheatin', you're not tryin'.

    • Re:This is intentional (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2019 @08:13AM (#58629384) Homepage Journal

      We need someone in the EU who doesn't have this option, so they can file a GDPR complaint. A few billion Euros in fines should encourage Facebook to be more careful next time.

      • Fines = bribes

        What you need is to break up not Facebook as a company, but Zuckerberg himself. It's the only way to keep them from doing this.

    • Opt-Out (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2019 @08:17AM (#58629400)
      And that's why it has to be "opt-out" of course. Also, when "Some Users Can't Opt Out" . . . you can be certain that (all) non-users can't either.

      • Re:Opt-Out (Score:4, Informative)

        by anegg ( 1390659 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2019 @10:43AM (#58630276)
        I didn't realize FaceBook was government-mandated. Can't you "opt-out" by terminating your relationship with FaceBook? I realize that others may still upload photos with your image in them, but you at least can end your relationship with an abusive partner. Once you quit, ask your friends/family not to upload pictures with your image in them.

        • I didn't realize FaceBook was government-mandated.

          Derptastic reasoning. You can't squeeze blood out of a rock, therefore rocks are the government. That's as stupid as is humanly possible. That's like, 1+1=5 level of stupid.

          Can't you "opt-out" by terminating your relationship with FaceBook?

          Nope. You don't have to have an intentional, consensual relationship with them to have been included in their system. You might not even know about your relationship, but still; you have one. You can delete your "account," and yet, you haven't opted out!

        • Can't you "opt-out" by terminating your relationship with FaceBook?

          Nope. If you resign from Facebook, or even if you never sign up, you will continue to be recognized and tracked in other people's photos, and since you are not a member, you have no way to opt out.

      • I'm a non-user who has been tagged there, so I here. Not making an account ever, and I doubt that they would reveal what they've been gathering on me anyway. There is no opt-out. Any page with that "F" logo button has given them tracking info on you already.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by WCMI92 ( 592436 )

      That is their MO. Lie, Lie, Lie some more.

      As long as they keep stealing information for the Democrat party they will get away with it.

    • Easy option: Upload 250 Rorschach tests and tag yourself in the center of each. You'll confuse the AI so much that it will never actually recognize you again.

    • Doesn't matter really. This "privacy settings" is obviously a noop. Just an additional GUI widget, that controls nothing whatsoever.

      Faceboot is ALWAYS watching.

  • The more we learn about Facebook... (Score:3)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2019 @08:08AM (#58629354)
    ... the more evil Facebook looks.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yep. The only real solution is for people to close their Facebook accounts. Reminds me of the Frog and the Scorpion [wikipedia.org]:

      A scorpion asked a frog: "Will you be willing to carry me on your back and pass me through the river?" Answered the frog: "How will I know you wouldn't sting me, while on my back, and kill me?" Said the scorpion: "In doing so I will cause also my own death, why would I ever do that?" The frog got persuaded, let the scorpion mount its back and started paddling. While in the midst of the river

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Your momma's so ugly... (Score:4, Funny)

    by stevegee58 ( 1179505 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2019 @08:25AM (#58629422) Journal
    ...she can't opt out of Facebook's facial recognition.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      When I first heard about "facial recognition" I thought it was a porn search engine.

  • i just did not agree with Ted's methods of getting attention, harming innocent people was not the right way to go about it, but facebook's methods of privacy invasion and giving away and/or selling people's personal info is a good example of how technology will be used against you

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eepok ( 545733 )

      Given the concern about the use of online information to compromise one's privacy, I'd suggest you not assert that a convicted domestic terrorist was correct (for any context) when so many other quotable people have shared a similar opinion. No need to have your online identity tied to someone like that.

      • George Orwell is right too, all your data belongs to us, every idle thought spoken out loud will be used against you, just so you know your phone and tablet, and laptop and anything with a microphone and camera is spying on you and will be used against you, welcome to the new Orwellian Dystopia, makes living in a shack out in the woods away from all electronic gadgets sound like old Ted knew what the future really is

  • Simple as that. They can't use (and misuse) information you don't give them.

    If there was a law requiring truth in websites facebook's domain name would be: stealmyidentity.com

    • Re:Don't Use Facebook (Score:4, Interesting)

      by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2019 @09:45AM (#58629846) Journal

      Simple as that. They can't use (and misuse) information you don't give them.

      Here's the thing though- what about friends and family that happily upload pictures and then tag everyone in the pic?

      This is what grinds my gears. I don't have a FB account, but I know people that do and I don't doubt they're uploading stuff like this and then "helpfully" tagging the people in the picture, including me.

      I don't see any way to prevent this short of a baseball bat to the head (their heads, not mine).

    • Plant your flag, though, as Brian Krebs (of "Krebs on Security") suggests: https://krebsonsecurity.com/20... [krebsonsecurity.com]

  • I don't have a Facebook account. Never have. How do I opt out?

  • What if I don't have a Facebook account??

    Do I need to send them some pictures of me by email or can they just get them from the Walmart security cameras? I mean, I don't want to inconvenience them so I'm looking for guidance.

    • Option 1: Make a friend who owns a camera. Wait.

      Option 2: After all the restraining orders expire, attend a family function and don't tell anybody what you really think until you're sure you've photobombed somebody.

  • Opting out has never worked, that is letting the Fox count the Chickens.

    Once the Fox is allowed in the coup, it's too late.

    Once you enter data into their system, it's too late.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kazymyr ( 190114 )

      And even if you don't enter data in their system it's still too late. Thanks to all the data scraping and shadow profiles.

    • Fake news, that was always a Fox Coup, you're just trying to get a free chicken.

      You Hippie Pinko! Oh, wait, I meant, You Hippie anti-Pinko! Something something. Fnord.

  • Seriously, how much shit people go through before they realize that Facebook is nothing but crap.

  • I'd have surveyed just 2 or 3...

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • You don't seem to understand probability.

      If your sample size is "less than a hundred accounts" and you only find 1 or 2, you don't really know anything.

      But 8 out of 31, you don't know the exact percentage, the sample size is too small, but you certainly know that there is a high probability that it is very common.

      If you want to complain about the sample size, do some math and give us some numbers!

      What is the probability that the actual number is less than 10 in 100? What is the probability that it less than

  • The chances you can't opt out of photo face recognition goes to 100%.

  • maybe it is because facebook don't have faces for those names yet in their database.

  • If you can't bedazzle them with brilliance, befuddle them with bullshit.
    You can mess up the face recognition algorithm by incorrectly identify people. This is especially effective if two people look similar, e.g. family. I was first interested in doing this when I noticed that the post office forwards your mail to a new address, that information is sold to "interested parties". Well, one effective countermeasure is to forward your mail to as many addresses as possible. Also, forward it to unrelated peopl

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close