Face Recognition Tech Pushes Legal Boundaries

An anonymous reader writes: As face recognition software becomes more capable, companies and governments are coming up with new ways to use it. Microsoft has already patented a Minority Report-style personalized billboard, and loss prevention departments in big stores are rolling out systems to "pre-identify" shoplifters. But this rush to implement the technology runs afoul of privacy laws in at least two U.S. states: Illinois and Texas forbid the use of face recognition software without "informed consent" from the target. Facebook is the target of a recent lawsuit in Illinois over this exact issue; it's likely to test the strength of such a law. "Facebook and Google use facial recognition to detect when a user appears in a photograph and to suggest that he or she be tagged. Facebook calls this "Tag Suggestions" ... With the boom in personalized advertising technology, a facial recognition database of its users is likely very, very valuable to Facebook. ... Eager to extract that value, Facebook signed users up by default when it introduced Tag Suggestions in 2011. This meant that Facebook calculated faceprints for every user who didn't take the steps to opt out." If Facebook loses and citizens start pushing for similar laws in other states, it could keep our activities in public relatively anonymous for a bit longer.

Comments

Sad.

[Weaselmancer]

...it could keep our activities in public relatively anonymous for a bit longer.

A bit longer, the best you can hope for. Acknowledging the fact that we will eventually lose this one.

Problem is other people

[gurps_npc]

As in, when your friends tag you, even without Facebook "suggesting" it.

We need some digital privacy laws for the internet. Perhaps - the right not to be named in a public photo/video on the internet - or even have your face shown without express, written permission.

This rule would only apply to the internet, not TV or print.

In addition, real financial penalties of $1,000 could apply.

This would among other things, stop things like people posting embarrassing youtube videos of other people.

Re:Problem is other people

[mysidia]

This would among other things, stop things like people posting embarrassing youtube videos of other people.

It sounds to me like you are essentially saying you don't like free speech. Posting a video for the purpose of embarrassing someone would be a shitty reason, But any video or pic also might have an important message or information to communicate the poster feels is important, and it will always be embarrassing to the person whose bad or ridiculous behavior is being exposed.

For example: Hidden camera showing mechanic sabotaging customer's vehicle, showing hypocrisy by a political figure, or showing abusive/cruel behavior by someone against other people, who will be embarrassed when exposed.

Video footage showing that person who claims X against the entity releasing the video is doing Y that is even worse.

Re:Problem is other people

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned at some point, Facebook knows my face even without me ever using it. Apparently friends uploaded group pictures and tagged me in it. It seems odd to expect me to opt out of a feature of a tool that I never used. Facebook, send me $100 every time you show my face. Your lack response to this post indicates consent. If Facebook claims to not read Slashdot, that is no excuse.

I, Robot, C U

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Everyone's gonna have it in their vr goggles used to augment and overlay reality in 10 years anyway. You're all living in a fantasy world. Government will limit it to itself, or try to, and they're the ones with serious abuse potential as their panopticon keeps a live track database of all citizens out in public.

Again, I am less concerned if Facebook wants to know if I'm more interested in Pampers or Depends than of government tracking...which history shows will be abused by those in power to maintain their power.

Re:I, Robot, C U

[blue9steel]

I am less concerned if Facebook wants to know if I'm more interested in Pampers or Depends than of government tracking...

Which just goes to show that you've totally underestimated the ability of private organizations to abuse power. There are many forms of power, not all of them come from the barrel of a gun.

Re:The solution seems so simple

[jklovanc]

If you don't like Walmart's consent policy then go to a different company who does not have those consent policies. Not all companies do facial recognition. Coose one that does not .

Re:The tech _exists_, and that's that.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Even so, laws can mitigate some of the effects. Being tagged in photos and having a search engine easily bring up embarrassing pictures of you at a drunken dorm blowout is the future, and laws can do little about that. A shopkeeper being informed by his CCTV cam that you walk by his store every day, so he can throw some specific ads your way, can probably not be prevented either. But at least we can stop such sensitive data to be shared and processed en masse by both corporations and governments alike, by outlawing the practise. And of course that won't stop it completely, but at least we'll have something of a stick to hit transgressors with.

Well, a man can dream... But the fact that such undesirable practises are easy to do and hard to police doesn't mean that we shouldn't still have those laws in place.

Re:Follow The Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Now tell me the name of a single product you saw the ads for. If you don't watch TV, take the billboards on your way to work.

We get so flooded with ads that we don't recognize them anymore.

I can't name a single product. Now if you don't mind I need to run down to Burger King and get a Whopper made my way. Then I need to call Geico to see if 15 minutes will save me 15% or more. For some strange reason I also have an itch to look at a new car today.