Slashdot Mirror


Face Recognition App Taking Russia By Storm May Bring End To Public Anonymity (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Anonymity in public could soon become a thing of the past. A service called FindFace allows users to photograph people in a crowd and work out their identities with 70% reliability. It works by comparing photographs to profile pictures on Vkontakte, a social network popular in Russia and the former Soviet Union, with more than 200 million accounts. In future, the designers imagine a world where people walking past you on the street could find your social network profile by sneaking a photograph of you, and shops, advertisers and the police could pick your face out of crowds and track you down via social networks. In the short time since the launch, FindFace has amassed 500,000 users and processed nearly 3m searches.The Newsweek wrote about this app last month. The publication reported on an abuse of the app in which porn stars and sex workers were targeted. Some wanted to use FindFace for the purpose of "outing" these sex workers to their families and social media contacts.

157 comments

  1. Everybody put on a Putin Mask! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And stick it to the man!

    1. Re:Everybody put on a Putin Mask! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first thought was that people could draw a picture of a face on their butt, and then tag it as Putin.

      People could get creative with this (that's NOT Putin's tongue sticking out! eew!).

    2. Re:Everybody put on a Putin Mask! by stephanruby · · Score: 0

      I don't think he'd care.

      There is already a video of him bareback riding a bear and he's rather proud of that one.

    3. Re:Everybody put on a Putin Mask! by avgapon · · Score: 0

      Just don't do it in Russia. That can get you arrested for 20 days. http://europe.newsweek.com/rus...

    4. Re:Everybody put on a Putin Mask! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > of him bareback riding a bear

      I had to reread that to realise that it was the bear that was bareback.

      Or was it?

    5. Re:Everybody put on a Putin Mask! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why ask when you could have simply clicked on the link?

      In any case, no, they were both bareback.

  2. Basically if you ever posted social media selfies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are hosed, forever.

  3. Findface / Friendface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When reading Findface I immediately thought of Friendface.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg

    1. Re:Findface / Friendface by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Stop thinking about germs! That analogy's over!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  4. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And since your friends and family keep telling you that "you're only being paranoid" and posting group photos anyway, you're screwed anyway.

    Your only chance is to always wear a mask everywhere you go, but some countries have laws against that, including Canada.

  5. Service by jdavidb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The publication reported on an abuse of the app in which porn stars and sex workers were targeted. Some wanted to use FindFace for the purpose of "outing" these sex workers to their families and social media contacts.

    It would also be helpful and possibly more equitable to out the people who frequent the sex workers. In fact, maybe leave the sex workers alone since for the most part they are just earning an honest living, and out the people using them, who typically are betraying someone they have promised to be faithful to.

    1. Re:Service by aicrules · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or just leave both of them alone if they are both consenting adults. Just because I wouldn't be one or use one doesn't mean I need to go "exposing" those that do.

    2. Re:Service by jdavidb · · Score: 1, Troll

      If one of them is married, though, there's a third, non-consenting adult involved, who deserves to know - and if there are people who feel like exposing this kind of thing, I think their efforts would be better spent in those cases rather than just exposing sex workers.

    3. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about only "exposing" people who are married and possibly not being faithful?

    4. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you would install hidden cameras inside brothels with face recognition software, and then check the positive matches for whether they are married?

      Good thinking, you sneaky, naughty naughty little devious fuck! ;-) Naughty naughty!

    5. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because it's the government and the public's duty to be involved with people's personal lives.....

    6. Re:Service by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see: Being a secessionist is OK in your book, but one adult utilizing the service being offered by another adult in exchange for monetary compensation is not OK? 'Make war not love' is your motto, then? Violent revolution is OK in your book, but casual sex isn't?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this. Stay out of others personal lives, it is none of your beeswax.

    8. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The publication reported on an abuse of the app in which porn stars and sex workers were targeted. Some wanted to use FindFace for the purpose of "outing" these sex workers to their families and social media contacts.

      It would also be helpful and possibly more equitable to out the people who frequent the sex workers. In fact, maybe leave the sex workers alone since for the most part they are just earning an honest living, and out the people using them, who typically are betraying someone they have promised to be faithful to.

      Let's not out people who do things that are legal, just because your morals aren't reflected in the law.

    9. Re:Service by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      It would also be helpful and possibly more equitable to out the people who frequent the sex workers.

      Don't worry. The 70% figure is a complete fabrication. The figure is more like 1 billion %. This is a click-bait slash-advertisement disguised as a news item.

      It's far easier to identify the Johns themselves thanks to commercial license plate scanner databases. Those are actually reliable (assuming a car is used during the interaction). And even then, they'd need to have pretty good video evidence to demonstrate that they were not just asking for directions, or that the girls didn't go up to their car unsolicited.

    10. Re:Service by jdavidb · · Score: 0
      I think you are misunderstanding something. I believe the following should all be legal:
      • sex between consenting adults
      • secession
      • letting someone know that their spouse is seeing a sex worker
      • letting the public know that public "family values" advocates like Bill Cosby and Josh Duggar are engaging in paid and/or consensual sex with persons other than their spouse

      War isn't on the list. In fact one reason I advocate secession is to help make war less possible. If everybody who didn't support the US government's wars could secede, then the US government couldn't afford to wage war.

    11. Re:Service by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      How about this. Stay out of others personal lives, it is none of your beeswax.

      Great idea. So if my wife and I want to tell the neighbor that her husband is seeing a sex worker, stay out of our business! :D

    12. Re:Service by twotacocombo · · Score: 5, Informative

      If one of them is married, though, there's a third, non-consenting adult involved, who deserves to know - and if there are people who feel like exposing this kind of thing,

      Then those people need to mind their own god damn business. Society only works when there is a certain level of anonymity and trust in your fellow strangers. If we can't leave our houses and do the things that are human nature (no matter how much you may disagree with them) without fear of someone willfully destroying your life, then we no longer live in a free society. You might as well go back in time and live in East Germany if you want your neighbors all up in your shit, having to watch everything you say or do. Only this is scarier...the people doing it willingly, without the Stasi pulling the strings? No thanks.

    13. Re:Service by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Let's not out people who do things that are legal, just because your morals aren't reflected in the law.

      Let's just all make our own decisions like grownups. If you don't want to out people, don't do it. If other people want to, leave them alone.

      If people had let the public know long ago that Bill Cosby was stepping out on his wife with such frequency, he might not have been such a tool for authoritarian "family values" tyrants.

    14. Re:Service by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Sure. We'll just have to require that all married people have their rings permanently grafted onto their fingers so that they can't be removed. Maybe tattoo their foreheads while we're at it.

    15. Re:Service by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or just leave both of them alone if they are both consenting adults. Just because I wouldn't be one or use one doesn't mean I need to go "exposing" those that do.

      Never underestimate the ability of the morally superior to take exception with your behavior and decide what is best for you; until someone decides what they are doing is wrong and then comes the hypocrisy disguised as righteous indignation.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    16. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's something that Liberals and Conservatives can agree on. Liberals won't let us shit in the river, and Conservatives want to micromanage women's lives.

    17. Re:Service by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Normally we learn to mind our own business when we live in high-population areas, so as to allow each other some privacy, but there will always be busybodies sticking their noses in other people's lives. Unfortunately that small group can now to much more damage than they once could.

    18. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, maybe leave the sex workers alone since for the most part they are just earning an honest living, and out the people using them, who typically are betraying someone they have promised to be faithful to.

      Don't be so naïve. I use hookers all the time and I'm not even married. I use their services because of the fun. Don't be a dick.

    19. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless it's Registered Coward v2 on the topic of your support of FM radio on your own phone in which case his moral superiority makes him a better judge of whether the friendly telecoms have simply predicted that you don't want to listen to FM better than the rapacious FM stations who are self interested.

      yore a idiot

    20. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really think through all this issue, you'll find that it has the potential to end marriage [as well as other types of associations] as we know it.

    21. Re:Service by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Correct

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    22. Re:Service by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. The 70% figure is a complete fabrication. The figure is more like 1 billion %.

      Wow, I've heard of making doubly sure = 200% but 1000000000% sure? What does it do, read the DNA off a skin cell and compare that?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    23. Re:Service by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. The 70% figure is a complete fabrication. The figure is more like 1 billion %. This is a click-bait slash-advertisement disguised as a news item.

      Well, in true slashdot tradition, I just ran my mouth without RTFA, so I wouldn't know! :D

    24. Re:Service by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Unless it's someone you're involved with, someone else's sexual relations are none of your business, so you should keep your nose out of it, and if you're so unhappy with your government that you feel the need to 'seceed', then I'd suggest you work within the existing system to change it (soap box, ballot box, jury box) before resorting to the 'ammo box', which is where secessionism leads; either that or I suggest you 'emigrate' to some country more to your liking.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    25. Re:Service by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      If my wife is not being honest with me, I want to know about it. If I'm not being honest with her, she wants to know about it. If you want to help increase people's ability to deceive their spouse while stepping out, that's your business. And if I want to do the opposite, that's my business. :D

    26. Re:Service by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      And even then, they'd need to have pretty good video evidence to demonstrate that they were not just asking for directions, or that the girls didn't go up to their car unsolicited.

      Very good point. So you tell the wives, and let them conclude the investigation themselves in their own way.

    27. Re:Service by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If my wife is not being honest with me, I want to know about it. If I'm not being honest with her, she wants to know about it. If you want to help increase people's ability to deceive their spouse while stepping out, that's your business. And if I want to do the opposite, that's my business. :D

      Everyone has secrets. Maybe you should just trust your wife, and she should trust you, or you both can learn to deal with the alternatives. What if I told you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, then you hauled off and killed her in a fit of rage? How is that going to make the world a better place? This sense of duty some people have to wreck other peoples lives in the pursuit of exposing the 'truth' makes me sick. Seriously people, if nobody's life is in danger, why inject yourself into the situation? And to be clear, I'm talking about strangers here. Friends and family do have more of a leg to stand on when doing things that affect others in their lives, but perfect strangers spying on others in order to expose them can go get right bent.

    28. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this. Stay out of others personal lives, it is none of your beeswax.

      Great idea. So if my wife and I want to tell the neighbor that her husband is seeing a sex worker, stay out of our business! :D

      Yeah, the world will unfortunately always be full of busybodies keen on imposing their righteous version of morality on others.

    29. Re:Service by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Wait, do or don't they have to have the yellow star, white cross or red crescent on the jacket ... we need to know what the rules of the faith are if we are to report them to the right authorities.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    30. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize you are using very flimsy logic - the same could be said during slavery: "If you don't want to own people, don't do it. If other people want to, leave them alone".

    31. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Work within the system? With such inanity, I'm shocked you don't forget to breathe.

      resorting to the 'ammo box', which is where secessionism leads

      Oh yes! The Great Czech-Slovak War of '93 was soooo bloody!

    32. Re:Service by lgw · · Score: 2

      This must be a cultural thing. Where I grew up, you kept your nose out of your neighbor's business, or you got shot. It's an easy habit to get into: "does this affect me directly? no? STFU!". Makes for far less drama in everyone's life, and better communities in general.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you also don't don't if it's a consented poly relationship or swinger couple. You could get people killed outing such relationships depending on where they live.

    34. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a creep

    35. Re:Service by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I visit prostitutes every time I am in Prague. My fiancee died years ago in a motorbike accident and I didn't want to start a new relationship after that. And nevertheless it is none of your business, you self-righteous prick.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    36. Re:Service by Livius · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you can have one without the other.

    37. Re:Service by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure thing because governments just love 'secessionists' so much, that they have pet names for them: 'dissidents', 'revolutionaries', 'terrorists', 'insurgents', 'enemy of the State', and similar. Know what a 'secessionist' without weapons is called? 'Prisoner'.

      Shove it up your ass, AC.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    38. Re:Service by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Any other things you want to out people about? Driving a bit too quick? Drinking a bit too much? Being friends with someone you don't like?

      Hell at least the driving too quick is an offence. It just seems that you have picked a particular personal issue and planted your moral flag on it. Why not leave people alone? I suggest you focus on your own immediate friends and family, there will be more than enough turmoil and heartache under the surface there without you triggering issues for others.

    39. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the people are married, you still don't know what their deal is with each other. If it isn't your business, just stay out of it.

    40. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's someone you're involved with, someone else's sexual relations are none of your business, so you should keep your nose out of it

      Hypocrisy leads to a corner case. If you're demeaning and/or working to punish others for what you're doing in private, it is entirely the business of others that you be outed.

    41. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, Cosby well illustrates the corner-case in this discussion: hypocrisy. If you're pushing to punish (moralizing, legalizing, etc.) others for what you're doing in private, then it is definitely fair game for others to out you.

    42. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when nosy busybody thinks they know the "truth", tells victimized spouse, then it turns out it was something quite different. Now if the relationship has good communication, the busybody looks like a douche, but if they don't, the accusing spouse now looks like an untrusting fool because they listened to a busybody neighbor that didn't know what they thought they did.

      But please, keep putting your nose in other peoples' personal lives. I'm sure everyone's happier because of it.

    43. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of these things is not like the other...one side's earning a living, the other's screwing over others.

    44. Re:Service by vux984 · · Score: 1

      What if I told you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, then you hauled off and killed her in a fit of rage? How is that going to make the world a better place?

      What I didn't tell you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, shortly after you get herpes and aids, because the mailman had it, then your wife had it, now you have it. Then you haul off and kill her in a fit of rage? And then live out the rest of your life with a pair of incurable STDs.

      How exactly is that world the better place?

      There really isn't a winning move.

      And to be clear, I'm talking about strangers here. Friends and family do have more of a leg to stand on when doing things that affect others in their lives, but perfect strangers spying on others in order to expose them can go get right bent.

      Ok, that's fair. I'm not sure where you draw the line; neighbors? coworkers? acquaintences? I can sort of see your point about total stranger busybodies -- but for me to know your wife is banging the mailman -- I probably know you at least casually. Enough to know who you are, who she is, your relationship, who the mailman is... otherwise maybe the mailman's her boyfriend and you and her are just brother and sister living in the same house...

    45. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately that small group can now to much more damage than they once could.

      So, let's punish them. (Why not? They are ruining people's lives with impunity for an unjustified righteousness feeling. We as a society also have no problem with handing out wild and disproportional punishments for relatively small crimes, so why not punish people for ruining the lives of others via unjustified societal out-lash?) I say let them suffer a prison sentence for as long as their victim suffers from societal out-lash. That seems fair. After all the victim is not in jail, but depending on where they live, they may as well be. Just give them a taste of their own medicine. Bonus, these people tend to be the types that would be terrified of prison, so just the threat of that punishment may be enough to prevent the victim's suffering outright.

      Oh, what? That would be a first amendment issue? What first amendment? Oh do you mean those "free speech zones" I keep hearing about? No? OK then.... That kind of punishment is unheard of? (Did you read what I said already? Society doesn't care.) The ends don't justify the means? Who cares? You don't care enough to discourage the victim's suffering, put an end to it, or prevent the suffering by holding society to a higher standard. So why do you care about the idiot causing the victim's suffering being punished for it? Oh that's right because some $holy_script said what the victim did violates it somehow, but socially condemning someone for it and destroying their lives over it is somehow justified.

      In the end, society needs to learn to stand up for itself. That's the real issue. The guy stepped out, so what? Maybe if society (or the spouse) had done a better job of imbuing it's morals and ethics that would not have happened. Or maybe if society feels strongly enough about it, they aught to prescribe a punishment that actually gets the accused to want to change their behavior rather than cause the accused to go right on doing it because they know that society would never let them live it down even if they did actually change for the better.

    46. Re:Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He definitely is. I'm worried about his wife (if he has one).

  6. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The DMV now creates a social media account for you. Soon not having a social media account equals being vagrant.

  7. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I stuck a pic of Rush Limbaugh up instead. Some trolls are probably trying to chew him out over the "creative" things I said about their mothers.

  8. A Change in Society by KermodeBear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With the ability of technology to do these kinds of things, society is going to be changing. But which direction will it go?

    Will we become a more repressed society, afraid to engage in activity that other people don't approve of? A society where we share as little as possible with others out of fear?

    Or will society become "anything goes," where people accept that everyone has a past that may not be pretty, and people may engage in activities that we may not appreciate? After all, that camera could be pointed towards us - who are we to judge?

    --
    Love sees no species.
    1. Re:A Change in Society by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Very insightful. I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    2. Re:A Change in Society by Guybrush_T · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod parent up.

      For human-vs-human, I agree you can look at others but others can look at you too. You can find the name of a pretty girl and try to harass her, but then she can also report your name to the police.

      Things change however when it is human-vs-non human, like companies, state or police. Except for the police, they could already do it for years.

    3. Re:A Change in Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the ability of technology to do these kinds of things, society is going to be changing. But which direction will it go?

      Will we become a more repressed society, afraid to engage in activity that other people don't approve of? A society where we share as little as possible with others out of fear?

      Or will society become "anything goes," where people accept that everyone has a past that may not be pretty, and people may engage in activities that we may not appreciate? After all, that camera could be pointed towards us - who are we to judge?

      I think there are going to be people in column A *and* column B. Just like now.

    4. Re:A Change in Society by geek · · Score: 1

      With the ability of technology to do these kinds of things, society is going to be changing. But which direction will it go?

      Will we become a more repressed society, afraid to engage in activity that other people don't approve of? A society where we share as little as possible with others out of fear?

      Or will society become "anything goes," where people accept that everyone has a past that may not be pretty, and people may engage in activities that we may not appreciate? After all, that camera could be pointed towards us - who are we to judge?

      If history repeats itself it will be both. It will start off more repressed until a series of "deviants" come out and start making it more mainstream. I'm speaking broadly here but if you follow historical movements the trend is surprisingly similar.

    5. Re:A Change in Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We will always have cultural and social taboos, what I find interesting are the changes that happened to the www over the last 20 years or so.

      Personal web pages are gone, replaced with Facebook profiles, twitter and other social media outlets, in that there seem to be three kinds of users:
      1. The user that is not afraid to say dumb things (and does, often)
      2. The user that coaches their online appearance, plastic shiny happy people
      3. The anonymous coward type (HEYOOO) who craves the relative freedom of 1 without the reputation damage that would spoil 2

      I think there is growing anxiety (beyond we nerdy few) that saying something stupid or exposing your fears and doubts online is going to haunt you forever, so people are clamming up. Discourse is getting less interesting and more polarized. Vast echo-chambers develop around the cultures of some sites to the point that users go there to have specific types of discourse in the safety of numbers they provide.

      People are putting themselves into bubbles, exposing themselves to less and in general fearing the dangerous world that 20 years ago was an exciting adventure.

    6. Re:A Change in Society by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the ability of technology to do these kinds of things, society is going to be changing. But which direction will it go?

      Will we become a more repressed society, afraid to engage in activity that other people don't approve of? A society where we share as little as possible with others out of fear?

      Or will society become "anything goes," where people accept that everyone has a past that may not be pretty, and people may engage in activities that we may not appreciate? After all, that camera could be pointed towards us - who are we to judge?

      I imagine it will be both.

      People who need to maintain their "reputation" will need to be even more self-censoring than they were before. This will create a world(and it is already going this way) where anything you say, or do, any way you react to something, body language, facial expression, what videos you watch, books you read, music you listen to, things you post, etc will be recorded, analyzed and codified. A Police State that couldn't have been dreamed of by Orwell.

      Then again, there will be those with the need for a "streecred" type of reputation will do the opposite, and perpetuate their badassness...

      Eventually, there will be a corporate(Facebook) way of ranking people, which will impact us all in ways we don't even fathom.

      Those who don't need to maintain their "reputation" won't need to worry about it, either because they will have absolutely no financial stake in anything(where most people will end up) or they will be so wealthy that it won't matter.

      In some aspects of how human society is going, it reminds me of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", where to hide among the "converted" humans(Social Media-ized), non-converted humans had to hide their humanness.

      We are also seeing how the politicization and polarization in the First World is creating a more "us vs them" reality, and we also see that geographically, people of the same class/race/political view are "self balkanizing", meaning different groups don't mingle as much anymore, never see each other, live in separated areas, etc;

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    7. Re:A Change in Society by grumbel · · Score: 2

      I think before we see any large social changes we will see a lot of laws and regulation put into action against such technology. Social networks for example can lock away access to peoples photos behind a login and when logins are only given out to people who have verified their identity spidering becomes much harder. That's not even far future, many services already require a mobile phone number for id and some countries don't give you a mobile phone number anonymously. Collecting the data will still happen, but it will be much more troublesome and could be made illegal on top. So whenever somebody would offer a public search service, they could be shutdown relatively fast (unless Bitcoin and Tor make it commercially viable to put in the effort).

      Given the advances in computer graphics I could also imagine that social networks will get flooded with lots of fake data. Face swap yourself into all kinds of photos and it will become much harder to find who you really are, since lots of information about you online will be fake. So maybe we end up with a general distrust about data we found online about a person.

    8. Re:A Change in Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Islam has it right: I should start wearing a Burka.

    9. Re:A Change in Society by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People who need to maintain their "reputation" will need to be even more self-censoring than they were before. This will create a world(and it is already going this way) where anything you say, or do, any way you react to something, body language, facial expression, what videos you watch, books you read, music you listen to, things you post, etc will be recorded, analyzed and codified.

      Or people will learn to self-moderate their online interactions the same way they self-moderate public face-to-face interactions. When I post something online, I think "Would I say this to a room filled with my wife, parents, friends, relatives, boss, co-workers, and (depending on the topic) my children?" If the answer is "No", I don't post it. If the answer is "yes", I go ahead and post it. Too many people will post a ten paragraph screed against their coworkers on Facebook and then act surprised when their boss finds it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re:A Change in Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it'll be anything goes, but surveillance is likely to lead to the end of religiously-motivated laws like bans on porn, gambling, prostitution, and politically incorrect drugs. Once the elites are made victim to the laws now used to persecute the poor, those laws will change.

    11. Re:A Change in Society by Kjella · · Score: 2

      After all, that camera could be pointed towards us - who are we to judge?

      Well I think it'll go both ways, the things that actually are pretty common but mostly happened in secret will be "normalized" because it turns out you're not that alone like say having an abortion after a one night stand. But if you've been in a donkey show then no, saying everybody's done something like that won't work. And there's always been the goody two shoes who really are trying for sainthood and bible thumping everyone else, not just being hypocrites. And there's what you share in what context, if I go to a BDSM swingers club that's really not something my colleagues or parents need to know. But I'm sure with this some asshat would put up a hidden camera outside the club and publish the members list.

      I'd go with way more repressed, because the things that will be normalized we already know is pretty normal, because people will admit to it in anonymous surveys and statistics just not with name and face. It's all the people that stick their heads out, even when everyone's exposed that'll get chopped down. Visiting any kind of establishment, gathering or protest becomes a way for your name to end up in a list. I bet totalitarian governments all over the world is drooling over this, just set up cameras at protests and you get lists of everyone involved. And if nobody shows, there is no protest so it's a win-win either way.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:A Change in Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are also seeing how the politicization and polarization in the First World is creating a more "us vs them" reality, and we also see that geographically, people of the same class/race/political view are "self balkanizing", meaning different groups don't mingle as much anymore, never see each other, live in separated areas, etc;

      Or maybe Nick Bostrom has finally found his Great Filter.

    13. Re:A Change in Society by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Too many people will post a ten paragraph screed against their coworkers on Facebook and then act surprised when their boss finds it.

      I'm kinda curious / worried how exactly the loss of that ability will change society. Not everyone gets along - that's a given. For all of human history, when we run across a person we have trouble working with, we've been able to rant about it to our friends or family. This isn't because we feel we shouldn't be working with the person - if that were the case we'd either bring up the problem with our supervisor or quit our job. It's because we grin and bear it, blowing off steam by ranting about the "unfairness" of it all to friends and family with a near-zero probability of our rants being found by coworkers.

      Now, suddenly robbed of that ability to relieve stress, what's going to happen? An increase in workplace violence? A increase in incidence of stomach ulcers and a decrease in average lifespan? A more open society where criticism of co-workers is more accepted and people become better at working through their differences? Higher employee churn rate as people simply quit their job and find a new one when they encounter a person they can't work with? I honestly don't know where this is all leading. But it's not as simple as "don't post stuff you don't want others outside your close circle to read."

    14. Re:A Change in Society by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I think the big problem is that some people see "online interactions" as being equivalent to "sitting with a friend in a private room and talking" when it's more analogous to "sitting in a crowded restaurant and talking." You might still talk about private things in the crowded restaurant, but you shouldn't act too surprised if the person sitting at the table next to you overhears your conversation. This is especially true if your online interaction is a Facebook post - even if you think you locked it down so that only some people can see it. All it takes is one person to send it on to someone else. You can use direct messages to communicate privately, but again these can be forwarded to a third party easily. Meanwhile, talking to a person face-to-face in a private location can result in hearsay ("So-and-so said you're a horrible co-worker and he hates you") but it's easily dismissed as gossip even if it's the truth.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    15. Re:A Change in Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you wouldn't shout it down the hall, don't post it online. -Words to live by.

    16. Re:A Change in Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the second group to wage war on the first. And win.

    17. Re:A Change in Society by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      Can you be sure that what is ok today will not be considered racist and derogatory to some group in the future and that society won't consider that your opinion on the matter has changed or become more enlightened since then? I already see this in the current political theater. Bernie Sanders wrote an article 50 years ago (I'm not going to bother looking up the exact date but I remember it being long ago) that had some content that is considered derogatory towards women, and I've heard about that several times during the election when the thrust of the article was about women rights using thoughts and language from 50 years ago. (Some of those thoughts are downright wrong but I don't believe he thinks the same way now based on the thrust of the article.) On the other side we see Trump being accused of being contrary because of his change in stance on certain views. Our society doesn't forgive. Let's say you were found guilty of a crime (whether you committed it or not doesn't matter), from this day forward everyone will believe you committed that crime and that you are just a criminal even if you try to reform and this application allows people to easily see that as your top ranked search result even if you change your name.

    18. Re:A Change in Society by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      The real issue here is how this technology will change human behavior.
      Traditional "human behavior", molded from hundreds of thousands of years, is now having to change.
      As Solandri points out, with ubiquitous monitoring and facial recognition, etc, people will have to "keep things to themselves".
      Some people are natually inclined to be like that, while others aren't.
      Some people may thrive in such an environment, while others will find it horrid.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  9. No it won't... by Matheus · · Score: 1

    Public anonymity went away a long time ago...

    That being said: When Google Glass did this it was considered enough of a violation that they banned that and such apps from the device. Social acceptability has to come a long ways here (USA) for this to catch on and certainly before it "brings and end" (fuck you click-bait title) to anything.

  10. As Seen In... by Etcetera · · Score: 2

    In future, the designers imagine a world where people walking past you on the street could find your social network profile by sneaking a photograph of you, and shops, advertisers and the police could pick your face out of crowds and track you down via social networks.

    As seen in: Watch_Dogs (2012), Eden of the East (2009), Minority Report (2002), and plenty of other science fiction of one form or another.

    1. Re:As Seen In... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Enemy of the State (1998)

    2. Re:As Seen In... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never, ever ends well, either. What minimal convenience is gained from all this is eclipsed to unimaginable levels by the abuses this opens up.

      Identity theft becomes the *least* of your worries.

  11. Sad next step by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there is to be a panopticon, the only sensible next step is to make sure everybody has access, not just government.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Sad next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      The movement de jour will try to block access by others. The current movement would be the SJW retards, who would seek to block such a thing from being accessible to people they label as "racist" or "sexist" or "fat shamers" or people with "white privilege."

  12. Time to open a mask store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or other similar things to obfuscate ones face.

  13. Mask porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like an already existing (I'm certain) genre is going to become more popular.

  14. Privacy depends on anonymity by jenningsthecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With FindFace and the similar services that are sure to follow in its footsteps, almost everybody will be able to identify almost anybody else in a few seconds. This heralds the end of privacy as we know it. Even widespread video cameras and NSA communications monitoring don't do as much damage to privacy as these services will, because the public at large doesn't have access to the video footage and the data that the NSA and other TLA's gather.

    I'm afraid privacy will soon be officially a thing of the past. At least I can take comfort in the fact that I have been diligent about not having my picture appear on the Web - identifying me using a FindFace-like service would probably be quite difficult. Until hackers break into the Ministry of Transportation and steal my driver's licence photo, that is... As for all those people who are promiscuous users of Facebook and the like, I'm sure they don't care about this any more than the lemmings a few ranks back from the edge of the cliff care about what's coming up shortly. Good luck to us all in this brave new world.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't follow you. I'm very private, keeping most of my life to myself. I have coworkers who see me all day every day and in some ways see me more than my own family. They know almost nothing about my private life though. I'm not anonymous but I am quite private.

      I've never followed this logic that you have to be anonymous to be private. It just logically fails on every level. Why bother with encryption if you're anonymous? If you're not anonymous encryption keeps you private (when done correctly). Frankly anonymity appears to be a myth. It just does not seem to exist in reality.

    2. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I've never followed this logic that you have to be anonymous to be private.

      I couldn't agree more.
      I'm the same way.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    3. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the bright side, it will be a great help to those of us who have difficulty remembering people's faces.

      Now:
      Person I Should Know: "Hi, Jason. How are you doing?"
      Me: "Fine... um... you. How are you?"

      Soon:
      Person I Should Know: "Hi, Jason. How are you doing?"
      FindFace On Google Glass: "This is John Smith. He works for XYZ Corp and last e-mailed you about the Sprockets project."
      Me: "Fine, John. How's that Sprockets project going?"

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      At least I can take comfort in the fact that I have been diligent about not having my picture appear on the Web - identifying me using a FindFace-like service would probably be quite difficult.

      Similar to web cookies, the aggregation of multiple sightings of you in public will construct an "identity" of you far more detailed than currently exists in the public record today. The sum total of where you live, where you shop, where you work, where (and who!!!) you visit will result in a profile fingerprint that's just as useful, simply lacking your name. It's enough.

    5. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never followed this logic that you have to be anonymous to be private.

      Perhaps because you don't have a network of 500,000+ cameras that can identify you and record your location with a timestamp and the identities of people standing in the same photos?

      Why bother with encryption if you're anonymous? If you're not anonymous encryption keeps you private (when done correctly).

      I believe meatspace is the larger concern. Encryption keeps communication private between agents, but does nothing about human-scale expectation of privacy (which is actually expectation of anonymity; I only expect people to yell "Norm!" at Cheers or the Hungry Heifer, not wherever some majordomo facial recognition tool whispers my name into their ear.) Just imagine the power that this company has. So far, people have only been cataloging their own locations or the locations of friends with Google or Facebook, manually entering their data. Now anyone can be placed somewhere at a given time. This is a treasure trove of information.

    6. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      By way of reply I'll quote Insightfill, (from farther down in the thread), who puts to rest my comfort in not having my picture plastered all over the web, and also addresses the privacy / anonymity question:

      Similar to web cookies, the aggregation of multiple sightings of you in public will construct an "identity" of you far more detailed than currently exists in the public record today. The sum total of where you live, where you shop, where you work, where (and who!!!) you visit will result in a profile fingerprint that's just as useful, simply lacking your name. It's enough.

      I would add that with all the friends and acquaintances I have who participate in social media, the name to go along with that profile won't be long in coming.

      So with pictures on FindFace and the like, and the inevitable geolocation data attached to them, at some point my interests, food preferences, entertainment preferences, friendships, family associations, daily habits outside my home, fashion preferences, driving style, and probably many other things, become public knowledge available at almost anyone's fingertips.

      Wkipedia defines 'privacy' as "...the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves, or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively." I'd be interested to hear your take on how the situation I described above is even remotely compatible with the concept of privacy.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    7. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by geek · · Score: 2

      Certainly. What you posted is fantasy though so I'll try to reply without sounding like a prick.

      Similar to web cookies, the aggregation of multiple sightings of you in public will construct an "identity" of you far more detailed than currently exists in the public record today. The sum total of where you live, where you shop, where you work, where (and who!!!) you visit will result in a profile fingerprint that's just as useful, simply lacking your name. It's enough.

      This is not an identity. Its meta data at best. Knowing where you went is easy to get now and has been for decades. Detectives have been doing this for a very long time to establish things like timelines. Just because you went to a library however does not mean you read a book. It is by no means or any stretch of the imagination "just as useful". That is, strictly put, fantasy.

      I would add that with all the friends and acquaintances I have who participate in social media, the name to go along with that profile won't be long in coming.

      Names are public record. Stored on birth certificates and death certificates. I've known 4 people in my lifetime with my exact same name, including middle name. One even shared the same birthday, seperated by about 3 hours (I was the elder). They know your name already. That they can correlate it with where you went at a particular time of day is irrelevent. Maybe you don't like people knowing where you went, thats fine. I'm not sure I do either. However, if where you went is a public place then you've already abandoned privacy.

      So with pictures on FindFace and the like, and the inevitable geolocation data attached to them, at some point my interests, food preferences, entertainment preferences, friendships, family associations, daily habits outside my home, fashion preferences, driving style, and probably many other things, become public knowledge available at almost anyone's fingertips.

      You'll have to provide a citation here as nothing int he article even begins to imply this. In fact anyone whos worked in big data of any kind as I do could tell you that these correlations are very hard to do. Data collection at that scale is impossible. We're back in fantasyland here with tin foil hats and an unhealthy dose of paranoid delusion. Simply put, you aren't that interesting.

      Wkipedia defines 'privacy' as "...the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves, or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively." I'd be interested to hear your take on how the situation I described above is even remotely compatible with the concept of privacy.

      Where you went is not information about you. Neither is how you drive on a public road. Information about you would be medical data, information/communication you do with others (which I would hope you would be encrypting). You've fallen into a trap that many people do. You've started off with the premise that people are looking for you. They aren't. You then proceed to list ways they "could" be looking at you, which they aren't. You then proceed to go on about how offensive this looking at you is, which it isn't because it isn't happening. You also go on to list ways in which this violates some made up idea of privacy (you have no privacy in public), which it doesn't.

      I don't say these things to be mean. This is common because you don't understand it, yet you're intelligent and struggle to understand it using filters you already possess, ignorant of the fact those filters are not adequate to this particular task. You must first understand where privacy applies (not in public), you can then decide when something is violating your privacy.

    8. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above post was brought to you by "geek" (email not shown publicly).

    9. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can collect all the data now. "Big data" techniques may not be up to the task yet, but it is a young field and much progress should be expected in the decades to come. Think long term.

    10. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Certainly. What you posted is fantasy though so I'll try to reply without sounding like a prick.

      Thanks - but I never thought you were being a prick. And because you work in Big Data I acknowledge that you're well versed in this subject and have likely given it a lot more thought than I have.

      Where you went is not information about you. Neither is how you drive on a public road.

      I suppose differentiating between information about 'what I did' and information about 'me' is useful here. But where I go on a regular basis, (and how I drive), although it's not information 'about me', can by inference be used to draw conclusions and make predictions about me, in a kind of profiling process, can it not?

      Information about you would be medical data, information/communication you do with others (which I would hope you would be encrypting).

      I have little or no say in how my medical data is handled. As for encryption, I don't use it in my communication with others because I don't want to be regarded with suspicion by whoever might be monitoring. I have no reason to believe that TLA's have any specific interest in me; but it seems that they monitor almost everything these days, and I think encrypted emails might be a red flag for them.

      You've fallen into a trap that many people do. You've started off with the premise that people are looking for you. They aren't. You then proceed to list ways they "could" be looking at you, which they aren't. You then proceed to go on about how offensive this looking at you is, which it isn't because it isn't happening.

      I don't think I'm operating under the premise that people are looking for me. But I do believe that technologies which make it much easier for people who might want to find out information about me, are dangerous. For example, say I'm applying for a job, and my prospective employer finds out that I've visited a gun shop, a head shop, a massage parlour, or any other place that would make it seem to him or her that I'm a risky hire. Now I would say that's none of the prospective employer's business. I suspect you would say that, because my activities were in public, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and that alone makes it the prospective employer's business.

      My point is that because of technology, the scope of 'in public' has grown hugely in space, in time, and in detail. Somebody across the world may be able to see me in public in real time, and because video is recorded, what I do outside of my own home may be part of a readily accessible record for a very long time. By changing the scope, technology has effectively changed the definition of 'public'. Additionally, when it comes to the IoT and to things like Samsung smart TV's, technology is arguably extending 'public space' inside private residences. So when we talk about "in public" here in 2016, that ain't the same "in public" we talked about twenty years ago, IMHO.

      I don't say these things to be mean. This is common because you don't understand it, yet you're intelligent and struggle to understand it using filters you already possess, ignorant of the fact those filters are not adequate to this particular task. You must first understand where privacy applies (not in public), you can then decide when something is violating your privacy.

      Thanks for the disclaimer, but again, I don't see you as being mean. As for the filters, you're right, and thanks for pointing it out. This dialog has been a worthwhile exercise for me, and I'm in the process of re-evaluating what privacy is and its importance to me.

      Regarding 'where privacy applies', see my argument above. I think both the definition and the common perception of 'in public' has changed, and continues to change rapidly. If privacy is something which applies 'not in public', then I'm pretty sure that privacy is shrinking, simply because 'public'

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    11. Re:Privacy depends on anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tone of your comments imply that you believe that you have a far greater understanding and perception of reality than the person to whom you are replying. You seem concerned that the devastating correctness of your opinions and reasoning might hurt that person's feelings.

      However, you seem to be unaware of what is currently possible. Perhaps you aren't working on "really-big data". Reconstructing 24/7/365 timelines for anyone is rapidly coming upon us. And your belief that people aren't looking for you seems myopic. At least several actual human beings have some interest in any given other human being. And, of course, a computer system can easily "take a personal interest" in ALL human beings on the planet -- where the main practical limit on this is negotiating data collecting and sharing agreements among parties who do such things.

      In the emerging "Internet-Of-Things" era, many networked hardware and software products have been deployed to the masses, with obvious, non-obvious, and covert data gathering ("telemetry", haha) features. Can you find a "smart TV" which doesn't watch the living room with a camera, and continuously stream audio to the cloud for speech recognition features? Maybe today you still can, but then it will be a "smart thermostat"/Nest, or always-on voice recognition on a smartphone, and eventually an always-on video feature. Is a home private? Is it still private if a guest carries a smartphone in to your home in their pocket? Are drone views which can get new visual angles in to homes and yards making more of homes and yards "public", or were all possible ray-traced paths in to a space always considered "public"? Seeing through walls with microwaves or background radiation is expensive, but deployed in vans.

      Some people regard the mind as the final frontier of privacy, but even studying outward behavior of a person, and using deep learning methods, can make predictions which would leave a person feeling very mentally transparent; in the past this ability might have been limited to experts of human behavior, but now it can be automated and scaled to analyze every single person on Earth, using almost any data stream available (yes, any "metadata" generated by a person, over a long enough time, can be used to form a behavioral model of surprising accuracy).

      You seem to be willfully denying current practices and obvious near-term developments. That by itself is unfortunate, but the fact that you are boldly "educating" others is counterproductive. Do more research, and try arguing against your current beliefs as an exercise.

  15. This will just reduce usage of online photos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These types of tech will finally start forcing regular people to stop posting fotos of themselves on their own profiles. Some people are already using other non-photo icons for their profile images.

  16. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If everyone is screwed then everyone is screwed together and its effect is if you haven't been linked to porn online you are weird.

  17. And this is the free version by imcdona · · Score: 2

    Imagine with the likes of Facebook and other government agencies have at their disposal.

  18. And wearing a mask is illegal (in Minnesota) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    609.735 CONCEALING IDENTITY.

    A person whose identity is concealed by the person in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise, unless based on religious beliefs, or incidental to amusement, entertainment, protection from weather, or medical treatment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.735

    1. Re:And wearing a mask is illegal (in Minnesota) by CimmerianX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1) found my own church.
      2) Commandment 1 - Thou shalt not expose your face in public. ....
      Now I'm legit because covering my face is my religious belief.

       

    2. Re:And wearing a mask is illegal (in Minnesota) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always just wear a burqa...

    3. Re:And wearing a mask is illegal (in Minnesota) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wear bright IR LEDs instead around your face. That should blind a lot of cameras.

  19. Non-consenting adult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If in a relationship one is a consenting adult (getting involved with the sex provider) and the other is non-consenting adult, you can bet that the partner of non-consenting adult, the "consenting" adult does have a precedent of the non-consenting adult not meeting certain type of marital obligations.

    Not meeting certain obligations does have the consequences for all parties.

    Or,... Perhaps we should stop being arbitrators in areas that are clearly none of our business. Most of the states concluded that infidelity is not a reason for "at fault" treatment in the courts of law. Basically lawyers decided that it is not a legal issue.

    As such, we should not be judging those who would be participants of such debacle.

    1. Re:Non-consenting adult? by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      The fact that courts think adultery isn't a legal issue doesn't mean it's not a personal issue. If you want to be married and step out on your wife, you have every legal right to do so, and if somebody finds out about it and wants to tell your wife, they should have every legal right to do so as well. It's not a legal issue, after all. It's just a piece of information.

    2. Re:Non-consenting adult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Most of the states concluded that infidelity is not a reason for "at fault" treatment in the courts of law. Basically lawyers decided that it is not a legal issue.

      Yeah, well the STDs make it a bit more of an issue than you make it out to be.

    3. Re:Non-consenting adult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how's Sarah? job ok too? everyone know your views ? Can we tell everyone LOL

    4. Re: Non-consenting adult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's okay to snap pictures of everybody involved and dig up their personal information just because one party 'may' be cheating on a spouse and you want to tell them?

      Man, some days humanity just disappoints me. Between cheating shitbags and people who think they have a god given right to involve themselves in everybody else's life, I really can't decide which I dislike more. I really don't like either at all so call it a draw.

  20. A Scanner Darkly by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or more likely: Middle Eastern style head coverings are about to become universal.

    1. Re:A Scanner Darkly by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Or more likely: Fake mustaches are about to become universal.

      ftfy. ;-)

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:A Scanner Darkly by santiago · · Score: 1

      Or dazzle camouflage makeup. See, 1980s cyberpunk was right when it thought we'd all soon look like extras in an early Lady Gaga video!

    3. Re:A Scanner Darkly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting pretty tired of you ducking me, man.

      Or more likely: Fake mustaches are about to become universal.

      ftfy. ;-)

  21. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're assuming that people aren't hypocrites who will look down on other people for doing the same things that they do. Just one look at the number of rabidly homophobic politicians and religious leaders who turned out to be having gay sex on the side should be more than enough to prove that assumption is wildly wrong.

  22. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Something shady like visiting a bar, going to a drunken dorm blowout, picking up some (legal) weed or (legal) porn, visiting the "wrong" political rally, and so on. It's one thing if you bump into a colleague in the dodgy rubber fetish section at the videostore, it's quite another if your current and future friends, family, employers, interested law enforcement officers can place you there until the end of time.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  23. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Soon not having a social media account equals being vagrant.

    citation needed

  24. Driver License Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the Russian government interested in social media sites?
    Doesn't Russia (or any government) have a database of driver license photos already?

  25. This is why by CimmerianX · · Score: 1

    This is why I never used a Social media site, never uploaded a single photo, Now if I can only get others to stop uploading photos with me in them.

    1. Re:This is why by neo-mkrey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stay in your mother's basement -- it's the only way to be sure.

    2. Re:This is why by qaz123 · · Score: 1

      creating an account in a social media, uploading one's own photos has always seemed kind of narcissistic to me

    3. Re:This is why by sasparillascott · · Score: 1

      Applying for nearly any corporate job in the U.S. these days requires having a "normal" Facebook and LinkedIn account page (with activity, showing you aren't a shut in) and checked by the HR people prior to phone-interviews. Guess you could go to water color on the photos, although that won't work well on LinkedIn.

  26. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by malditaenvidia · · Score: 2

    RMS has been vagrant for decades and he's doing alright. Maybe it's time to become free.

  27. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's coming. Employers think you're suspicious (or even a psychopath) if you aren't posting on Facebook every day...

  28. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Well, if this makes its way to the US (and I'm sure it will).....once again I'll say it:

    "Yet another reason NOT to be on Facebook".

    ....or any other social media, especially with pictures of yourself identified as yourself.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  29. "...May Bring an End to Public Anonymity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...May Bring an End to Public Anonymity"

    Missed a great chance to use the word "oxymoronic" in the news dept. tag.

  30. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by knightghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The biggest issue is probably longevity. Nothing gets deleted, and what's ok today is hounded tomorrow.

  31. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people, like me, have no choice. I'm famous [musician] on my neck of woods, and my face has appeared in newspapers since forever [long before the Web existed]. But I'm still not giving up my pursue of privacy.

  32. Re:Privacy depeI nds on anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was careful not to allow my picture on the internet, that being said, someone else might have done it for you. An old photo from High School or College. Or like myself, your mother loads it to fucking Facebook, with your name attached to it.
    I was diligent, but there is always some other idiot that will "help you out". Facebook=Skynet. Where the fuck is John Conner when you need him?

  33. Can't wait for them to start using it here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think off all the illegals we could deport instead of watching them vanish faceless into crowds.

  34. 70% Reliability! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alternate pronunciation: "we're wrong nearly one-third of the time".

  35. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't surprise me the least if these 'employers' have Facebook accounts themselves; they really should be looking for LinkedIn profiles instead, unless they like to be made fun of down the local pub.

  36. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Google: Brenden Eich Proposition 8

  37. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anonymity is the refuge of those of us who are otherwise powerless. Once it is gone, the Man can target anyone.

  38. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The biggest issue is probably longevity. Nothing gets deleted, and what's ok today is hounded tomorrow.

    Things get old. Faces crumble. Tatoos fade. Opinions change. At 40 you're already invisible enough not to care.

  39. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by CreatureComfort · · Score: 2

    So says the AC...

    --
    "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
    Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  40. On the Bright side by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

    Just think, they will be able to prosecute everyone in the lynch mob now, all it will take is one good photo and they are all identified! Well unless they are wearing white sheets that is! Mob violence will no longer be safe and anonymous!

  41. Soviet Union?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It works by comparing photographs to profile pictures on Vkontakte, a social network popular in Russia and the former Soviet Union"

    This makes no sense to me, didn't the USSR dissolve in 1991? Social networking wasn't really a thing back then, and even if it were Vkontakte was founded in 2006 which is well within the timeline of the Russian Federation.

    So what does the USSR have to do with this?

    1. Re:Soviet Union?! by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > "It works by comparing photographs to profile pictures on Vkontakte,
      > a social network popular in Russia and the former Soviet Union"

      > This makes no sense to me, didn't the USSR dissolve in 1991?

      You missed the comma right after the word "Vkontakte". I parse the phrase as meaning that Vkontakt is *NOW* popular in Russia, and in other countries, that were *FORMERLY* part of the Soviet Union.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  42. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically if you ever posted social media selfies
    You are hosed, forever

    Basically if you ever step out into public with your face exposed, you're hosed, forever.
    It's just as bad in the UK, where CCTV is everywhere, recording everybody all the time.

  43. Hey Putin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some terrorists said very bad things about you. They called themselves FindFace or something!

    You know what to do.

  44. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference is that everyone will be able to see that they are hypocrites, and their opinions will be rendered obsolete.

  45. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does posting a link that shows how being off-the-grid makes you a target for manipulation and extortion support the argument you are making?

  46. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How? You may have noticed that powerful people often remain in power even after being exposed as hypocrites. See: every politician ever.

  47. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solution is shamelessness. It's surprising what you can get over after a very, very religious childhood and it may, in fact, help: you think about things in historic terms, in deeper philosophical colors. When they point to you and cry "we have his internet records, he likes wet pink teens on big black bobs" the proper responses is, "what REAL man doesn't!!!?"

    Of course that doesn't mean they can't hack back/escalate, but you'd be surprised what kind of dirt you can get on those who might want to with just a *little* effort--really not a lot. And how a knowledge of modern mathematics, anonymity loopholes, and escrows insure that in the event anything happens, spectacularly powerful (possibly brutal) people are going to get black eyes (and may want to first give those who mess with you a black eye).

    Last cop who tried to falsely arrest me turned white when I had him look-up my file. ;D

  48. ha! jokes on you russia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    joke is on you, there are only pictures of my penis online, not my face!
    pwned!

  49. Make the world a better place. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such a person is a cheater. Cheaters destroy families and spread disease. When they die, the world becomes a better place.

  50. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by dwye · · Score: 1

    Which DMV? Every US state and commonwealth has its own, even if it is not called the DMV, like in PA.

  51. Re: Basically if you ever posted social media self by dwye · · Score: 1

    Well, if your job is related to social media, I can see it, but I doubt that the average auto mechanic is hired for his rad Facebook skilz.

    Don't forget, the sources of these stories wanted people to be dumping their life's stories in a forum that they can monitor programmatically.

    Also, how do they handle the multiple John Williams Problem? When I was listed in the whois database back in the 1990s, I received emails for someone else with my name at least once every few months, and my surname is not exactly common.

  52. Do what I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My aunt brings home tons of touristy pics from her vacations arounds the world, they'll never be on the internet. I find a random clear face in a crowd and then do my best impression of that face/angle/expression and take a pic. Then I morph my face with it so that it's about 70% my face and 30% the person in the background. I then upload the pics individually at random times to free galleries online and tag everyone with random names from a generator, including my various altered doppelgangers. I honestly don't know what would happen if someone tried to find my face or search for "similar images," they'd find completely random stuff.

  53. This is why photo id, SS#, etc are BAD people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but I won't use MS Windows, Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, and similar products and services. Hell, if I could avoid a photo ID, SS#, and similar I would. It's nobody else’s businesses including the government who I am. We need to shrink the government to near-zero and stop babying everybody. If there wasn't actual harm that impacted a person there isn't a real crime occurring. A competent driver should not be required to get a drivers license. An incompetent one can still easily be removed from the road and jailed should they cause injury to someone. Words, images, etc can't physically hurt people and shouldn't be crimes. 'Protecting the children' leads to undemocratic societies. That is societies where people are censored and can't get genuine information.

    If you think government should go- check out www.freestateproject.org and visit for Porcfest in June if you can. People who want freedom and liberty and don't believe the government should be using violence to get its way should come. The project is a migration effort which means the goal is to get 20,000 activists and liberty-minded people to move to one low population state where real change can then be had. We've had successes with electing liberty-leaning populations. This is not a democrat or republican thing and there are people who've moved on both sides of the pond. If you want near-zero government, to eliminate pointless regulations, eliminate laws that harm people who've done nothing to harm others (drug possession, etc), etc come join us!

  54. Re:Basically if you ever posted social media selfi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if you've never held an account Facebook is maintaining a shadow profile and has crowd-sourced positive photo identification of you.

  55. Public vs Private by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    How can you "out" a porn star? And who ever thought showing your face in public was anonymous.

    There are some strange ideas about what it means to be in public. And who ever said that making a movie for public consumption was a private affair?

    There are some real things happening where your privacy is being violated. Most of these are occurring in the areas that are firmly recognized as being private by law. Such as violations by others into your own property. I will would worry more about that.