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.

84 of 157 comments (clear)

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

    And stick it to the man!

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

    You are hosed, forever.

  3. 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.

  4. 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: 1

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

    4. 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!
    5. 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.

    6. 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

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.

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

      Correct

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    13. 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
    14. 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

    15. 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!
    16. 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

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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
    22. Re:Service by Livius · · Score: 1

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

    23. 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!
    24. 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.

    25. 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...

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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
    9. 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."

    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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)

  10. 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.
  11. 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 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
  12. Re:Findface / Friendface by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Stop thinking about germs! That analogy's over!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  13. And this is the free version by imcdona · · Score: 2

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

  14. 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!

  15. 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.

  16. 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...
  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

     

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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...

  24. 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.........
  25. 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.

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

    Google: Brenden Eich Proposition 8

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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
  30. 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!

  31. 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
  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.