Slashdot Mirror


Facebook's New Captcha Test: 'Upload A Clear Photo of Your Face' (wired.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Facebook may soon ask you to "upload a photo of yourself that clearly shows your face," to prove you're not a bot. The company is using a new kind of captcha to verify whether a user is a real person. According to a screenshot of the identity test shared on Twitter on Tuesday and verified by Facebook, the prompt says: "Please upload a photo of yourself that clearly shows your face. We'll check it and then permanently delete it from our servers." The process is automated, including identifying suspicious activity and checking the photo. To determine if the account is authentic, Facebook looks at whether the photo is unique.

302 comments

  1. WHY? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do Facebook, Apple, and others thing public information (like what your face looks like) is more secure than a private key that exists only in your mind?

    1. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because they want to build a comprehensive and, more importantly, up to date image of what you look like for their facial recognition software.

      I'm sure there's some guy out there who gets a massive boner when he thinks about with one hi-res crowd shot of people they can pull sophisticated buying demographics to sell to advertisers.

    2. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they do think it is more secure, just that it is more convenient.

      And in this case, FB isn't interested in adding security to your account, they just want a new way to prove that it is a person behind the account instead of a robot. Nothing to do with security.

      Now all the bot companies will simply be trolling instagram and every other public source of photos (newspapers?) and upload those every chance they get. So pretty soon FB will have a database of every picture with a person in it uploaded to the web.

    3. Re:WHY? by cmaurand · · Score: 1

      Worse, you can beat the face recognition with a photo, because face recognition does not work in 3 dimensions.

    4. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your biometrics form a key to your profile, and any encryption can be decrypted if they have that key. Your biodata can't be changed.

      in other words, they will always have the ability to decrypt anything.

    5. Re:WHY? by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And in this case, FB isn't interested in adding security to your account, they just want a new way to prove that it is a person behind the account instead of a robot. Nothing to do with security.

      We're already at the point where a computer can generate unlimited artificial faces that are good enough to fool such a system:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      I guess it has nothing to do with security, but rather with building a database of people, or analyzing your facial features and linking them to your preferences.

    6. Re:WHY? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I suggest everyone to use the same image of Jesus, just for kicks.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    7. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your biodata can't be changed.

      Bullshit.

      Injuries can severely alter one's face. Plastic surgery can, too. As can masks, makeup, and beards/moustaches.

      It's not just about one's face, either. Circumcision changes the appearance of one's penis. Acid burns can remove or distort one's fingerprints. Radiation can even alter one's DNA.

      Biodata can be changed.

    8. Re: WHY? by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      He belongs to neither political party. He's a paid astro-turfer and his only goal is to hilariously cause the exact divisiveness he's pretending to rail against.

    9. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also they want your location data from photo so they can match you to nearby people.

      I wish there was an option to remove exif when uploading photos from album...

    10. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't the right wing that came up with the LGBTQI2SGMARHN+ concept. They aren't the ones pushing 87 different genders. They aren't the ones spending decades in college obsessing over race, and gender, and sexual preference, and other ways to classify people. The right wing is far less divisive than the left wing.

    11. Re:WHY? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      utilities do exist. The real issue is that you should not have to strip out private info that you did not ask to insert into EVERY picture.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    12. Re:WHY? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Nobody is claiming it is more secure. It is more convenient to use your fingerprint/face to unlock your phone, while being reasonably secure.

      And this article seems to be just about facebook checking that a person is using the device, vs a bot, not that a specific person is using the device.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    13. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they want to build a comprehensive and, more importantly, up to date image of what you look like for their facial recognition software.

      Yep, this is Facebook we're talking about. Right now they can be pretty good at inferring what you look like from what you or others uploaded in pictures, but now they can take away all doubt about the identity.

      Will this mean you'll have to supply a fresh photo every time you log in? Funny, replay attacks should now be awfully easy, even if they get a fresh picture every time. Pictures aren't hard to manipulate, after all.

    14. Re: WHY? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The DNA from my blood is different than the DNA in my saliva.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      appearance of one's penis.

      Ahem. Not everybody uses Anthony Weiner's approach for taking snapshots of themselves.

    16. Re:WHY? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Why do Facebook, Apple, and others thing public information (like what your face looks like) is more secure than a private key that exists only in your mind?

      They're not making any such claim. They're proposing using an image of your face as a captcha, not as a login credential.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    17. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      There can be only one correct image of Jesus. (SFW, unless you work in a bowling alley)

    18. Re:WHY? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The only captcha that I remember on Facebook is when you are creating a new account or recovering your password.

    19. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do want location data into every picture for my private album. I just don't want it there when I upload it from web browser or app (like in this case).

      In iOS case it would be nice to have an extra option such that when app requests permission to your photo storage, Allow, but strip exif data. It would solve this problem for me.

    20. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      the right just needs 2 groups. Rich White People and Everybody else

    21. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nah, it's just the right wing constantly screaming about false flag operations, then getting caught staging them, whining about free speech while working hard to silence critics, posturing about family values while screwing their male prostitutes, railing against gays while ... oh, that one's already covered..., and on, and on, and on.

      The people who are obsessing over gender and a thousand separate pronouns? They're actually on the fringes of the left, and the rest of the left are kinda embarrassed by them. The nut cases on the right? THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FREAKING COUNTRY.

    22. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What said anything about USER security. Its about LEOs having a face to a name.

    23. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do want location data into every picture for my private album. I just don't want it there when I upload it from web browser or app (like in this case).

      In iOS case it would be nice to have an extra option such that when app requests permission to your photo storage, Allow, but strip exif data. It would solve this problem for me.

      Apple would provide that option and then lie having actually done anything.

    24. Re:WHY? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I suggest everyone to use the same image of Jesus, just for kicks.

      If Facebook were telling the truth, everyone (and all bots) could indeed use the same image, as long as nobody uploaded it anywhere where it could be scanned by Facebook. Because if they immediately delete the image as they claim, they won't know whether it has been used by others.
      However, in reality...

    25. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they do think it is more secure, just that it is more convenient.

      And in this case, FB isn't interested in adding security to your account, they just want a new way to prove that it is a person behind the account instead of a robot. Nothing to do with security.

      Now all the bot companies will simply be trolling instagram and every other public source of photos (newspapers?) and upload those every chance they get. So pretty soon FB will have a database of every picture with a person in it uploaded to the web.

      I had an FB account years ago, and after the 3rd or 4th change in the terms of service and functioning of the security settings, I said enough and
      deleted the whole account.

    26. Re:WHY? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Will this mean you'll have to supply a fresh photo every time you log in? Funny, replay attacks should now be awfully easy, even if they get a fresh picture every time. Pictures aren't hard to manipulate, after all.

      I assume this is for people creating new accounts, i.e. not for authentication, but rather for drastically reducing the number of fake accounts that use the same two or three pictures of half-naked girls and send out friend requests to random people.

      So now, the scammers will at least have to use bots to scour the web for pictures of people's faces before creating accounts....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    27. Re:WHY? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1, Interesting

      >Because they want to build a comprehensive and, more importantly, up to date image of what you look like for their facial recognition software.

      With "they" being US intelligence agencies.

    28. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because lumping hundreds of millions of people under one label and then assigning specific traits to that group is a great idea, right? You dumb fucks on "either side" can't seem to understand basic goddamn fucking logic. All you dumb shits do is farm red herrings and manufacture straw men. Feminazis and religitards are both shitheads; you're just swimming in different flavored pools of mental feces while claiming your pool doesn't smell like rank sulfur-swirling ass gravy. The world would be a better place if all of you intellectually bankrupt ideologically blinded retards died in a very large yet very specific fire.

      Fuck you, fuck them, fuck it all.

      And just because Slashdot doesn't like it, I'm going to use the word nîggers. I loves my black people, but I hates my nìggas.

    29. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. AC content seems to contradict your assertion. Just sayin'....

    30. Re:WHY? by torkus · · Score: 2

      They will delete the image and keep a one-way hash of it.

      They can then log those hashes and, if they see one repeat then they know something fishy is going on. The data level of the hashing determines if they reject after a single match or if they're looking for multiple matches before they consider it a duplicate login attempt.

      It's actually a pretty inventive way to prevent bots if you have the data processing capability ... and FB/Google/Amazon types DO have it. If you add in some facial recognition you can even help ensure the person logging in belongs on the account (this is good and bad and likely would be optional if they had a brain).

      With that said, fuck no I'm not helping their other AI algos they are likely planning to use this data for and an even bigger fuck no to giving them that level of invasive, pervasive view into my life. You aren't going to data mine the background for more reasons to sell targeted adds on my screen.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    31. Re: WHY? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 0

      >Nah, it's just the right wing constantly screaming about false flag operations, then getting caught staging them

      Funny, almost all of the supposed recent racist attacks have been false flags set up by the supposed victims. For example, Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria excoriated the Air Force Academy class because of some racist graffiti that was written by...the person that "found it"...a black male.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com... That's just the most recent version.

      >The people who are obsessing over gender and a thousand separate pronouns? They're actually on the fringes of the left, and the rest of the left are kinda embarrassed by them.

      Funny how that embarrassment doesn't seem to translate into any sort of action of slowing down the million different gender identity juggernaut. It's ridiculous in the extreme that pretty soon all "women's" athletic world records are going to be held by XY transgender "women". This is a direct output of actions by the left. Not the fringe folks you are embarrassed by, because fringes don't get comprehensive legislation and rules changes pushed through.

    32. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, your DNA is the same in both, but the saliva is also contaminated with bacterial DNA

    33. Re:WHY? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      So you just apply a filter to the photo that adds a little random visual noise to the data, and everybody can still use the same photo.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    34. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me neither. I've got a couple of video games that let you customize your character's face, if I hit this ID system I'll just try using some screenshots.

    35. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Meg Lanker-Simons from Wyoming (now in Washington, runs a Tumblr shithole called "cognitive dissonance" and is somehow managing to attend law school after the hoax) who hoaxed a "hate-fuck" message against herself: "I want to hatefuck Meg Lanker Simons so hard. That chick runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn't care who knows it. I think its so hot and makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican bitch."

      Most of the right-wing hate is left-wingers hoaxing right-wing hate so they can claim right-wing hate exists. I have yet to see evidence that the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally was a "white nationalist" event at all; it seems some white nationalists chose independently to attend it and that's all it took. I saw photos of the KKK rally a week prior touted on social media as photos from "Unite the Right" and as "proof" that it was a white nationalist event. Same shit with the recent flood of sexual harassment accusations: innocent until proven guilty, end of story...plus several of them have highly suspicious timing and the Roy Moore stuff in particular is not only during a special election but also originated from a woman who is actively working for the campaign that's running against him. What a goddamn surprise.

      When a skeptical mind capable of critical thought is applied to most of these modern events, one quickly realizes that most of what is going on is total bullshit. We must assume everything told to us is false without strong evidence to support the accusations being leveled.

    36. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because a bot can't scrape images and upload them.

    37. Re:WHY? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Of course.

    38. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So don't upload from your "album." Start some image editing program. Load image. Depending on the program, you might be as close to being done as "save as" though maybe you'll have to have it forget this extra metadata. Then save as. Upload that one.

    39. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, der. Just go to Settings and turn off the Camera app's access to Location Services. Any new photos will not include GPS coordinates in their EXIF metadata. (Any existing photos you'll have to process via EXIF tools.)

    40. Re:WHY? by sheramil · · Score: 1

      I would suggest rotating it by 0.414 degrees each time, until the algorithm says "You appear to be upside down. Please try again."

    41. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a chimera.

    42. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dude, it's not like I don't know how to remove fucking exif data from photo with 3rd party application. I want this functionality to be integrated in mobile OS app permissions logic.

    43. Re:WHY? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Because they want to build a comprehensive and, more importantly, up to date image of what you look like for their facial recognition software."

      +1

      This has NOTHING to do with security and EVERYTHING to do with gathering yet more information about their users. Hopefully people will take a clue and revolt against such crap.

    44. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jason, shouldn't you be practicing so you stop sucking at hockey?

    45. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, systemic discr..err I mean affirmative action is big on the left, not the right. It's not some secret underground thing either. It's right there as a matter of policy and law.

      Which group spends most of it's time talking about attributes they say supposedly don't matter? Not the right

    46. Re: WHY? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      They don't, well Facebook doesn't.

      They think it'll be harder for a bot to scrape photos and make fake profiles if they run the profile pic against their database of profile pics.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    47. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah because people on the left never pretend to be what they're not.. They've been masters of the false flag since the time of Marx.

      The people who are obsessing over gender and a thousand separate pronouns? They're actually on the fringes of the left, and the rest of the left are kinda embarrassed by them. The nut cases on the right? THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FREAKING COUNTRY.

      This 'gender neutral' and 'they singular' pronoun garbage is being taught in public schools now.

    48. Re:WHY? by infolation · · Score: 2

      A dusting of andom noise does not fool facial recognition. Features extraction for hashing uses wavelet image processing (among other processes). Splitting the data into different frequency ranges allows the algorithm to isolate the frequency components (introduced by factors like expression or illumination) into sub-bands. Wavelet-based methods strip out these variables and focus on the sub-bands that contain the most relevant information.

    49. Re:WHY? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      It does if it's hashing the binary photo data, which is what GP was talking about. For that matter, cropping the photo would do it.

      The facial recognition is just to recognize whether it *is* a face, not match it against others it's seen. If by "hashes" they literally meant a hash like MD5 or SHA-1.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    50. Re:WHY? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Blarg, replied before really reading the whole post. Disregard :P

      I mean, you'd just need to work out which precise areas you had to munge. Make the eyes a slightly different shade of blue or whatever. If the algorithm accepts a certain amount of fudge factor that's kind of stretching the definition of "hash."

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    51. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can anyone say a photo of a photo

    52. Re:WHY? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Why do Facebook, Apple, and others thing public information (like what your face looks like) is more secure than a private key that exists only in your mind?

      Why do you think that they think that?

    53. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now they know your race/ethenicity that you didn't give them before. This is just another information slurp. At least they don't want nude selfies like they requested recently =P

    54. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been introduced to my friend GAN? It is very good at faces.

    55. Re:WHY? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Think about what you are saying for a minute. Why would Facebook insist on a unique FACE every time you log into Facebook?

    56. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right ;) "advertisers"... I wonder what other entity out there has an endless budget for fucking with people's private life...hmmmm....

    57. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "exiftool -all= [/path/to/file.jpeg]" will clear it right out. Oh wait...most of you guys are using Windblows. Ha!

    58. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple stores it's exif data separately from the file. I know. I've looked. It's not embedded. If you are getting exif data to upload as well, then Facefarm is more devious than I thought or Apple is just an asshole. It's the same way with Photos app on MacBooks. All separate.

    59. Re: WHY? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "It wasn't the right wing that came up with the LGBTQI2SGMARHN+ concept......The right wing is far less divisive than the left wing"
      It's more useful to classify them according to ancestry, skin color & apply the One Drop rule.
      Hey fucknuts, while I find some of the gendering amusing, it does give those who feel out of place a way to be more comfortable in their own skin. How is that divisive?
      If you want the world to be less divisive, then acting, eating & speaking Chinese would be the way to go.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    60. Re: WHY? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "Most of the right-wing hate is left-wingers hoaxing"
      Is James Fields, the asshole who drove the car through the counter-protest crowd & murdered Heather Heyer,
      left-wing?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    61. Re: WHY? by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      Because of "everyone is special and unique" bullshit TV pedaled onto children grew up and evolved to a logical fallacy unquestionably bought by highly payed, moronic, business majored CEOs because of technical terms such as "DNA" and "phenotype." These guys don't exactly have to take many science classes in college if you catch my drift. So, an entire generation took that psychology with them into maturity and now, but not quite so literally, many think that because your DNA is different than mine, our smart phones can see those differences in our "We of the world, handholding, blah blah blah," faces. Large corporations make their money on the subconscious allusions of these type of idiots everyday. And where money fails, there's always some powerful, political, fear-mongering, asshole saying we need biometrics to prevent crime.

    62. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.

      Come on DUDE!!!!!

      Great movie.

    63. Re: WHY? by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      highly payed, moronic, business majored CEOs...

      I always love it when someone goes on a rant about how stupid and moronic some group is, but fails to use a simple English verb correctly. I usually stop reading such rants when I spot it.

      "Paid" is a financial or transactional term, while "payed" is a nautical term (e.g.; "the rope was fully payed out").

      The More You Know! :)

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    64. Re:WHY? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Thinking while on slashdot has gone from optional to rare.

    65. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the guy who organized that rally voted for Obama twice, he may very well be.

    66. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You watch too many movies

    67. Re:WHY? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Unless you are logging in thru a VPN, they already know where you are.

      I have an anonymous account with 1 interest I follow. No pictures. No other personal data.

      I've had several friends recommended to me (a fairly high percentage of the random recommendations too- like 20%) as possible friends.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    68. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's separate is it really EXIF or just metadata? A hamburger with no bun isn't a hamburger , it's just a grilled meat patty...

    69. Re:WHY? by axettone · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with (your) security. They have 2 purposes: collect your body data on behalf of NSA/CIA and test facial recognition technologies for next generation advertising. They'll track your reactions, your eyeballs motions (etc) so when you'll look to ads (in the apps) they'll know more about your feelings. This is horrible and disgusting. Delete the more you can on FB now, and stop feeding those companies with YOUR data for THEIR profits.

    70. Re:WHY? by thereitis · · Score: 1

      Yep, I did the same. It's clear as day what their game is and I'm not playing.

    71. Re:WHY? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Sure, the US intelligence services really give a shit about you compared to advertisers who want to bleed you dry.

      Besides, the US government already knows what you look like from photo IDs. (gathered from whichever government issues yours.) And they're straight on ideal for biometric identification

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    72. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a different resolution should defeat a hash. Say 999x999 instead of 1000x1000.

    73. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell 'em, Agent Smith! How's the weather in Fort Meade today?

    74. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now their ageing algo's will be extremely accurate in determining a number of things about the life of any person that gives them a photo in photo, or doesn't "give" them.

    75. Re: WHY? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      You should probably look up the definition of "most" vs the definition of "all".

    76. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who will think of the childr.. the Stasi?!

    77. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not for identification purposes, unless you've got something very weird going on?

    78. Re: WHY? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      You should probably look up the definition of "most" vs the definition of "all".

      Is he or is he not a true example of rightwing hate? Simple question.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    79. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screenshot your image in fullscreen on your device then upload the screenshot. EXIF info effectively removed.

    80. Re: WHY? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >Is he or is he not a true example of rightwing hate? Simple question. Probably. But the point stands most of the "examples" of right wing hate have been hoaxes perpetrated by the "victims".

    81. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shit, too bad that was something said by Chris Rock, a BLACK MAN. Ain't that a bitch? You really fucked yourself with that one, bro.

    82. Re: WHY? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      From https://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca...

      The stand-alone Windows executable does not require Perl.

      Sounds to me like the Windows version is superior.

    83. Re: WHY? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hmm, lots of fun to be had.

      I found Saints Row III to be one of the best ones. It let me create an avatar that looked like a young slim chinese woman with sharp cheekbones and a goatee.

      She was disturbingly attractive.

    84. Re:WHY? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That's a terribly inelegant and lazy way of doing it. I use this approach too :)

    85. Re: WHY? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "But the point stands most of the "examples" of right wing hate have been hoaxes perpetrated by the "victims"

      I have yet to see much in the way of proof. However that laudable purveyor of truth who calls himself James O'Keefe is up to his old tricks

      "Right-Wing Group Caught Red-Handed Trying to Feed Washington Post a Fake Roy Moore Story"
      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    86. Re: WHY? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >I have yet to see much in the way of proof.

      Selection bias is alive and well. Google "left wing racism hoaxes" and start reading.

    87. Re:WHY? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Why do Facebook expect that I'd have a photo of myself on the device that I'm using at this particular moment? I think it's three or four devices since I had a Facebook application installed on a device that had a camera in it. And as for when I last had a photo taken of myself ... Years ago?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    88. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like getting perl on windows is fucking difficult ? Aren't we a site for nerds ?

    89. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are missing is that 99% of users don’t create a secure “private” key which they remember. A fingerprint or face is much more secure than the password most people create; and (at least in Apple’s case) you can create your own secure password if you prefer.

    90. Re: WHY? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      >
      Selection bias is alive and well.

      Of that I have little doubt. If you spent as much time reading up on the fakes, hoaxes & underhanded assholery at all levels from the right wing, as you spend posting on Slashdot, you'd have little time for much else. I wasted 5 years on Sodahead - nuff said.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    91. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't the right wing that ... They aren't the ones pushing 87 different genders. They aren't the ones spending decades in college

      You know, staying ignorant, uneducated fools who still take the bible literally isn't a plus. It says "we collectively haven't come much past the fucking bronze age, and we're proud of it".

      The problem is, you seem to expect that you being an ignorant, bigoted douchebag is something the rest of us need to respect.

      If you and your god are both ignorant hicks, both you and your god can kiss my ass.

      So, tell you what, when the religions give up their tax breaks, and their protections from discrimination, we'll consider it a fair deal, we'll all act like asshole and bigots, and we'll carry on.

    92. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here here ... well spoken . Even your nibberizing curse, for /. perceives that LOGOS as threat . How easily the Trotsky-ites expose.

    93. Re: WHY? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Also I hope that the leftist astroturfers are as well-funded as the rightwingnutjob shit-disturbers.
      George Soros can't be expected to pay for everything.

      "Conservative Megadonor Robert Mercer Funded Project Veritas"
      Project Veritas has come under intense scrutiny this week after one of its operatives, pretending to have been victimized by Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, tried to dupe the Washington Post. The scheme was uncovered by the Post on Monday. On Wednesday, BuzzFeed News published the names of two dozen donors to Project Veritas. A spokesperson for the organization responded that inquiries about donors were causing a spike in donations.

      James O’Keefe, the organization's founder, came to national prominence for videos he made of employees of ACORN, a liberal organizing group, purportedly discussing illegal activities. He was later sued over the videos and paid out a six-figure settlement

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    94. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guaranteed to be effective!

      Any other modification to the JPEG is hard to verify without trusted tools.

    95. Re: WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government wants to take facial recognition to the next level and have good accuracy from arbitrary video content (think CCTV, online videos, web cams, etc...).

      Despite all the BS about AI, a side for front on photo taken from the driving licensed database is insufficient.

      That is why the new immigrantion gates exist. They have a positive match on your I'd and can then take a hundred images from multiple angles. They are not proven to be effective: they are collecting the training data.

      Once that data has been collected and shown to work, the next step will be to upgrade the requirements for the driving licensed photo (multiple images from multiple angles taken more regularly than currently) which will require new hardware to be issued.

      All of this to serve the ultimate agenda of tracking and control. That's what's giving everyone such an AI boner right now, and we the public are sleep walking right into it.

    96. Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXACTLY!

      They may claim to delete the image, but what of whatever meta data they extracted from those images?

    97. Re: WHY? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >Also I hope that the leftist astroturfers are as well-funded as the rightwingnutjob shit-disturbers.

      The left is much better funded than the right in this regard.

      This is just David Brock's empire alone: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DO...

      Additionally, many of the "mainstream" media sources are really just DNC operatives. The news media is a turnstyle for Democratic campaign operatives.

    98. Re: WHY? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And you'll get a biased sample, because racism hoaxes don't have to be political in nature. What you'll get is articles about real or alleged racism hoaxes that somebody wants to label "left wing" for a variety of possible reasons.

      Moreover, the number found tells us nothing without anything to compare it to. Actual acts of racism are probably far greater in number than the hoaxes, but it suits certain people's political agenda to publicize the hoaxes and disregard actual racism.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    99. Re: WHY? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Fox News, even with Ailes gone, is still just a propaganda & apologist arm of the GOP.

      And there's no shortage of rightwing media. Conservative talk radio is an empire unto itself and there must be close to TWENTY high status former elected officials that have their own regular radio programs.
      The Koch brothers are ridiculously wealthy and were budgeting close to $900 million dollars in the last election and have been very active politically for decades.
      It's rumored they may spend $400 million in next year's mid-terms.
      Sheldon Adelson spent over $90 million trying to support Romney in 2012 and donated $25 million to Trump's SuperPAC.
      When he bought the Las Vegas Review & started throwing his weight around and squelching stories he didn't like - some were about him - many of the top staff quit.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    100. Re: WHY? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >Fox News, even with Ailes gone, is still just a propaganda & apologist arm of the GOP.

      So tell me what you think about CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, NPR, NBC News, VICE News, WaPo, the NYT, etc?

      >And there's no shortage of rightwing media. Conservative talk radio is an empire unto itself and there must be close to TWENTY high status former elected officials that have their own regular radio programs.

      That's funny...and a bit hypocritical. Let's look at just a few of the politically connected left in the media:

      (CNN) Chris Cuomo...brother to Andrew Cuomo (current left-wing governor of New York)
      (ABC News) George Stephanopolous...former Clinton cabinet member
      (CNN) Ben Rhodes ...former National Security Advisor to Obama
      (ABC News) Ian Cameron - wife of Susan Rice of the "unmasking" fame in the Obama administration
      (MSNBC) Chris Matthews - former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and Chief of Staff for Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill
      (CNN) Donna Brazil - Chair of the Democratic National Committee
      (NPR WH correpondant) Ari Shapiro - married to Michael Gottlieb, a lawyer for the Obama legal team
      (WaPo) Shailagh Murrah - communications director for Joe Biden as VP
      (WSJ) Neil King - married to Shailagh Murrah
      (NBC Today Show) Savannah Guthrie - co-host, married to Michael Feldman - chief of staff for Al Gore
      (ABC/Univision) Matthew Jaffe - married to Katie Hogan, Obama's former deputy press secretary

      Literally, the tip of the iceberg. There's a reason why a lot of the news headlines about Republicans read like they were written by the DNC and pushed out by all of the media outlets by friendly reporters - because they probably were - like White House correspondant Glenn Thrush's coordination with Podesta on a Hillary piece.

      >The Koch brothers are ridiculously wealthy and were budgeting close to $900 million dollars in the last election and have been very active politically for decades.
      >It's rumored they may spend $400 million in next year's mid-terms.
      >Sheldon Adelson spent over $90 million trying to support Romney in 2012 and donated $25 million to Trump's SuperPAC.

      It's chicken feed compared to what Soros is spending and just donated: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/1.... And Soros is hardly the only left-wing billionaire. There is also Pierre Omidyar and Tom Steyer, not to mention the Ford Foundation which has been underwriting radical left-wing causes for the last 40 years or so with it's $11 billion endowment.

    101. Re: WHY? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      The various media outlets you listed aren't uniform in their point of view or strategy.
      And more than a few stations & print media have contrarians who have a fair bit of clout.
      Regrettably I don't have a handy list like the one you've been keeping but the rightwing are not slouches when it comes to flapping their gums & peddling influence.

      "It's chicken feed compared to what Soros is spending and just donated: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/1... [cnn.com]. And Soros is hardly the only left-wing billionaire. There is also Pierre Omidyar and Tom Steyer, not to mention the Ford Foundation which has been underwriting radical left-wing causes for the last 40 years or so with it's $11 billion endowment"

      It's quite clear what the Kochs, Adelson, Trump,etc get from the rightwing agenda - it all works at helping them keep their money and pass along more of it to their heirs. How many billion$ will repeal the Estate Tax save the top 1%?
      But what do the leftist billionaries get for their money? How does tightening & enforcing financial regs help Soros?
      How does paying MORE taxes help the Steyer et al?
      Do they think that'll get their faces on Mount Rushmore? Or on the $50?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    102. Re: WHY? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >But what do the leftist billionaries get for their money? How does tightening & enforcing financial regs help Soros?

      They get power.

      >How does paying MORE taxes help the Steyer et al?

      Billionaires don't really pay taxes. Especially not inheritance taxes. The start foundations like George Soros (or Bill Gates) and donate the bulk of their fortunes to the foundation and then have their children sit on the foundation still controlling the funds.

      Billionaires own the means of production, so even when taxes do hit them, they just pass the taxes on to consumers as part of the cost of doing business.

    103. Re: WHY? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "They get power"
      I would think that a billionaire of any stripe already has plenty but I guess some are never satisfied.
      Ok, evil leftist moneygrubbers are doing it for power.
      And the right-thinking lovers of freedom....from legislation? No interest in power?

      "The start foundations like George Soros (or Bill Gates) "
      Any particular reason you named those two and not anyone else you may be more in tune with?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  2. Not only no by Zorro · · Score: 1

    But Hell No!

    1. Re:Not only no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously.
      I've worked hard to make sure that there isn't an easily identifiably picture of me on the internet.

    2. Re:Not only no by magarity · · Score: 1

      Sorry, AC, Google Images has thousands of you.

    3. Re:Not only no by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      The really fun part will be when people find out that it doesn't care whether the picture is of you or not. It will just accept the first one uploaded for you, and anyone too slow will be locked out of their own account by a picture of a parked car or some stock photography with a blur filter.

    4. Re:Not only no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not easily identifiable!

    5. Re:Not only no by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee you they don't.

    6. Re:Not only no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pros of accessing facebook (aka keeping up with Aunt Betty's tedious updates so I can act like I care at the next family get-together) barely exceed the effort of remembering a password let alone this crap, so yeah, if I find myself locked out that's one big case of meh.

  3. Yeah... by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    Yeah! It's nice to finally put a face to the name eh??

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    1. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A face, an address, a bank account, a spending profile, a personality profile, a voter profile, sexual preferences, fears, desires, goals, etc, etc.

      Pretty soon Minority Report will have to be labelled as non-fiction.

  4. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are millions of pictures of faces on the Internet to use for this purpose. Their security are idiots (or the people directing their work are).

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You found them. They found them.

      Clearly you are not thinking this through. After a few minutes any facial image is indexed, and when your bot tries, boom. Too late.

      So the window of opportunity should be thought of in terms of minutes, for each and every individual image grabbed from the Internet. TFA sort of made this clear.

      And it seems like a clever idea. We need only trust that these images we send will be discarded as promised. Can't imagine why, except of course that if they discard that pic, then you share it privately (SMS for instance) and they will permit it again and again.

    2. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could potentially keep a hash.

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

      Oh they will discard the photo...after they have made a copy.

  5. No thanks by Arkham · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I get closer and closer to deleting Facebook permanently every day.

    --
    - Vincit qui patitur.
    1. Re:No thanks by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      I know a lot of people that have deleted their facebook account. A few go back after a short while, the rest say they're happier without it.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:No thanks by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      I keep an empty facebook account, just in case I need to see someone else's facebook page.

    3. Re:No thanks by magarity · · Score: 1

      What makes you think you really can?

    4. Re:No thanks by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Thing is, though, Facebook is like Pepperidge Farm on steroids.

      They remember. Even if you don't.

      --
      Check your premises.
    5. Re:No thanks by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Mine was deleted last month actually. https://www.facebook.com/help/...

      Takes 14 days to fully commit, so long as you don't log in between that time. After that, if you attempt to log, it won't recognize your e-mail address anymore (not even for a password reset too). But, there is a link to recover the account - I don't dare touch that. That evil can stay asleep forever!

      I'M LIBERATED! FUCK YOU ZUCK!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:No thanks by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get banned by the Facebook censors over a mild disagreement on some non-controversial subject just because it contradicts whatever the Facebook group think is.

      No need for trolling, flaming, insults, or anything remotely offensive.

      The platform is ultimately self limiting.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I get closer and closer to deleting Facebook permanently every day.

      I did it a year ago, don't miss it at all. I have no interest whatsoever in Facebook, or any of their social media crap.

      At this point, I pretty much don't use any websites which require me to login. I'm over it. It's amazing how easy it is to live without this shit.

    8. Re:No thanks by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      You must have an interesting idea of what constitutes "a mild disagreement on some non-controversial subject", given the amount of sheer vitriol I've seen in Facebook comments. Second only to those on Slashdot - except that Facebook commenters aren't as interested as Slashdotters in convincing people that they're smart while they insult them...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    9. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like commercially viable nuclear fusion, that'll always be a ways off... there'll pretty much always be something keeping people from doing so. Get out while you can. It's not even a "sheeple" type of situation, it's a "rats in a cage" situation.

    10. Re:No thanks by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because it contradicts whatever the Facebook group think is

      You left off the important part.

    11. Re:No thanks by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Why haven't you already? I did it years ago and recommend it very highly.

    12. Re:No thanks by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Do it. I did, YEARS ago, and never looked back once. The tipping point for me was the day when I decided I wasn't comfortable with having posts of mine exist that were beyond a certain age, so I went through to delete them. The next day I went back and discovered they had all been un-deleted. So I tried again. The next day they were all back again. That's when it dawned on me what the true nature of Facebook was and that I did not like it one bit. So I deactivated the account. That was about 10 years ago I think. Regardless of what the trolls around here will inevitably say, Facebook doesn't know a damned thing about me -- because I never used my real name, am not using my real name here, and don't use my real name anywhere else, either, and I never let people take pictures of me for that matter. So do it. Get off Facebook and take your life back.

    13. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      do you actually believe that it was deleted? Its more likely that they move that information to a secondary database that isnt referenced by their forward database that the public version of facebook sees. After all they already have shadow profiles, what makes you think that they would just delete all of that succulent information on your self instead of transferring it to your shadow profile.

      I bet if you used the same email address to sign up again that your entire friends list from the previous account would be in suggested friends.

    14. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you ever want that? Virtual stalking?

    15. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get closer and closer to deleting Facebook permanently every day.

      Go for it! It will feel great.

    16. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even feminists can't avoid the Facebook retard-o-matic banhammer for posting benign shit. Facebook pretty much fucks everyone for the most brain-dead reasons. It's not okay to express yourself on Fecesbook.

    17. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Empty"

      That account has loads of metadata about you from all the other people you nkow, whether you know them or not. It has metadata from facebook cookies and trackers all over the web.

      Facebook doesn't care about your data input, it cares about tracking you and setting that cookie to find out more about you than you even know.

      You accepted this as part of their Terms of Service. Data brokers, right now, are trading information about who you are, and profiting off that. Even if you do nothing on the site, they likely know who you are through facial recognition.

    18. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just inactivated facebook. Mark Fuckerberg can go fuck himself.

    19. Re:No thanks by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      It has metadata from facebook cookies and trackers all over the web.

      Just the same as for people who have never used facebook at all.

    20. Re: No thanks by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Why would you ever want that? Virtual stalking?

      Mostly for people who use facebook as their only way to announce stuff.

    21. Re:No thanks by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"I get closer and closer to deleting Facebook permanently every day."

      I never even created one in the first place. I know, seems almost impossible, almost incredible. But it is true. I knew it would be like this, even when they first started Facebook. No Instagram, no Google+, no Twitter, no Myspace, etc. And when someone complains that I won't be able to keep in touch with them, I say "Sorry, it has nothing to do with you, I simply will not subject myself to what Facebook requires. Here is my home address, my home phone number, my work number, my cell number for texting, and a few Email addresses. Communicating with me is actually very fast and easy."

    22. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't be deleting, but if I find myself suddenly unable to access it because of this I might just celebrate a little.

    23. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've ever bought anything online or looked up directions from your house etc...they know who you are. Facebook builds a profile on everyone from MANY sites. Congrats on the no Facebook though, I've done the same. I'm sure they have a shadow profile on me but at least I made it hard for them.

    24. Re: No thanks by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      As always: I challenge ANYONE to show proof this is true, because I don't believe you.

    25. Re:No thanks by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Since when does Facebook even allow deleting posts? Last time I tried it was either not there or so well hidden the only option appeared to be to just restrict visibility to 'only me'.
      And you never let people take pictures of you? You sound like a fun guy. How long does that policy last before there's no one there to try?

    26. Re: No thanks by LucianIonita · · Score: 1

      I get closer to infinity years old every day.

    27. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I clicked the link and was told I had to log in to Facebook to read it. How did you get to this page if you have deleted your account?

    28. Re:No thanks by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

      Glad I'm not the only one.

      I also have (lowers voice to stop you know who piping up....) facebook and several related sites set to 0.0.0.0 in my hosts file. Some sites may "break" or fail to load pictures but on the whole the bits of the internet I'm interested in work fine.

    29. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I get closer and closer to deleting Facebook permanently every day.

      Yeah, but you haven't. So STFU!

    30. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do it! don't look back! but be prepared for the love stricken sites and devices to wish you back into their warm loving tender arms.

    31. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link takes you to the FB login page whereby you proceed with promps to delete your account (the one you logged in with)

    32. Re:No thanks by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'd like to, but I'd be prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act and it's unlikely I'd be able to track down and destroy all of their backups anyway.

      Tempting, but I think to be certain you'd need nation level resources, insider assistance and some serious planning. Hmm. Anybody got Putin's number, I think I can talk him into it.

    33. Re:No thanks by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      This was about ten years ago. I saw the handwriting on the wall and got out early.

      Perhaps you just have shitty 'friends' who have no respect for your wishes and do as they please anyway? Regardless who the hell are you to judge me, someone you know nothing about? Bugger off.

    34. Re:No thanks by houghi · · Score: 1

      I tried it and like an idiot I started to ad people I knew or spoke to once. Then I thought: if these people would be real friends, I would not have to look for them. So I dropped the account.
      Luckily I never used my real name.
      Drop it, you will only miss the drama.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    35. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad that I never got around to creating one.

      And I really dislike organizations which seem to require you to "follow" them to get announcements. Those charities and support groups just don't want my business I guess.

  6. Obviously by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Informative

    They can't determine if a photo is unique unless they don't really delete the photo from their servers. (They probably keep a "fingerprint" of the photo, which would be the most valuable part for spying on people anyway.)

    1. Re:Obviously by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Where "fingerprint" means "the original photo"

    2. Re:Obviously by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      They can't determine if a photo is unique unless they don't really delete the photo from their servers. (They probably keep a "fingerprint" of the photo, which would be the most valuable part for spying on people anyway.)

      How difficult is it to slightly modify a picture of a face to make a new "fingerprint". This sounds less about security and more about personal invasion.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to say exactly this. There's no way to determine a photos uniqueness if they delete it. Some sort of hash or fingerprint of the photo means they haven't deleted it. And besides, any sort of fingerprint adequate enough to determine uniqueness that can't be fooled by simply adjusting the color/saturation/cropping/balance/etc. of a stock image is going to be a fingerprint with a hell of a lot of information about the original photo in it.

    4. Re:Obviously by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      They can't determine if a photo is unique unless they don't really delete the photo from their servers. (They probably keep a "fingerprint" of the photo, which would be the most valuable part for spying on people anyway.)

      How difficult is it to slightly modify a picture of a face to make a new "fingerprint". This sounds less about security and more about personal invasion.

      Probably as a way to increase their ability to automatically tag/identify you in other photos.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Obviously by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. They're probably going to point a neural network at this face-fingerprint data and train their auto-tagger. Right now, bad lighting or an odd angle will throw off the automatic face recognition.

    6. Re:Obviously by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      I'm considering, if I get this photo request on Facebook, to either upload a picture of a clown, or maybe a velociraptor.

      Perhaps if I was feeling particularly sarcastic at the time, a picture of the back of my head.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    7. Re:Obviously by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point. They aren't saying the photo is unique to any you used before. They mean the photo is unique form anything indexed on the web. Most people who design bots have the bots steal photos from online for account creation purposes. They just search google images for "young woman" or "young man" and use a random image from the results. Google images and services like Tineye already have reverse image search capability. This just taps into that and checks to see if the image was just taken off the Internet or if you really took a new photo.

    8. Re:Obviously by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      The picture of the back of your head would possibly work because it's unique. The photo of the clown or velociraptor probably exists on the Internet in which case the fingerprint is already in their data lake.

    9. Re:Obviously by sgrover · · Score: 1

      Give me an image file, and I can generate an SHA hash for it that is relatively unique. Then I can delete the file. I can then compare other hashes for other pictures without having the original picture, or even being able to recreate the picture. But now that begs the question, why can't I just provide the hash generated from a client side app without passing the actual image? As a dev, my spidey sense is tingling - they want the pictures for something other than just the stated reason.

    10. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just add Guassian noise to the same photo over and over. There's no algorithm to tell that's the same picture.

    11. Re:Obviously by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      It would be pretty funny if people started all using a slightly munged photo of Mark Zuckerberg.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    12. Re:Obviously by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Give me an image file, and I can generate an SHA hash for it that is relatively unique

      Can you make it so that two different pictures of the same person result in the same SHA hash ? If not, it's useless.

    13. Re:Obviously by AHuxley · · Score: 0

      Wait till that image is used to track a user's internet and media use beyond just their social media account.
      If a SJW working for social media finds a users face near a topic they don't like? Ban the user.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    14. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's just a digital blob that happens to be somewhat bigger than the photo.

    15. Re:Obviously by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      It would be pretty funny if people started all using a slightly munged photo of Mark Zuckerberg.

      I'm tempted to create a facebook account just to do this!

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:Obviously by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      It would be pretty funny if people started all using a slightly munged photo of Mark Zuckerberg.

      I'm tempted to create a facebook account just to do this!

      Call Myself: Berg Zuckermark

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  7. The sheeple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will embrace this and will upload a zoomed-in picture of their face, post-haste, without any discussion or deliberation, what-so-ever.

    America, FUCK YEAH!!

    1. Re: The sheeple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europeans and other nationalities would be so inclined to. Donâ(TM)t be a bigoted fool

  8. fuck that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bullshit.. this isn't a fucking bar..
    I cry Privacy issues..
    if they implement it, I wil absolutely cancel my acct..

  9. I am a sheep bah, bah, .... bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree to anything any corp says. It's for our own good. They have more $$$$ than I have. Therefore they are smart and should be looked upon as Supreme Beings which they are. After all they are "persons" llegally. Therefore Gods.

  10. Hi, we've lied repeatedly before but this time... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Jeez.

    Facebook has been caught lying and engaging in dubious behavior dozens of times and the founder says you have no right to privacy (but zealously protects his own privacy).

    Wake UP!

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  11. Clash of the bots... by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm going to enjoy seeing that thing clash with this one: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

  12. HAHA by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    Reporter: Thus solving the problem once and for all.
    Little girl: But...
    Reporter: ONCE AND FOR ALL!

  13. They already know you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already have it. You friends, family and other people you probably don't actually know have already "uploaded" your face to either facebook or one of a thousand other places they scrape data from.

    They are simply going to verify that you are who you say you are, then upon verification permanently link your new account to the "ghost" account which they already have made for you, and then they will delete the pic you upload.

    If you believe for a minute that FB or any other giant social platform doesn't already know of you, what you like, who you like, when you do what you do, etc... you are delusional.

    1. Re:They already know you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt!

  14. simple by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    CAPTCHA is evaluating your intelligence, if you upload your photo you fail (I mean you can enter glorious facebook).

    1. Re:simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To anyone who will upload own face photo, You are an idiot! with IQ not higher of your room temperature

    2. Re:simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CAPTCHA is evaluating your intelligence, if you upload your photo you fail (I mean you can enter glorious facebook).

      Better yet everyone upload something like this : https://i.imgur.com/4KX6ROw.jp...

  15. How will their system handle by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

    my dick pics?

    1. Re:How will their system handle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dickhead LOL

    2. Re:How will their system handle by Sporkinum · · Score: 1
      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    3. Re:How will their system handle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a microscope.

    4. Re:How will their system handle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In hi resolution, thats probably several K of data. I think they have the storage capacity to handle it

  16. Facebook closed my account over this by cstacy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    My FB account had about six "friends" on it: immediate family members. Didn't ever post anything or upload any information, just looked at photos they posted, pressed Like sometimes, and occasional IMs. I got this "upload a photo" roadblock, although it also said it was going to compare it to my Profile photo to make sure it was me. I didn't have any Profile photo, of course, so that's bullshit. Tried logging in three more times over the course of three weeks. Yesterday tried again, but the account has gone from suspended to terminated.

    They said it was for "suspicious activity". (Of which of course there was none.)
    I say it was because I failed to upload content for them to monetize.
    Interesting business decision.

    1. Re: Facebook closed my account over this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, can I get them to permanently delete me this way? That could be super useful....as opposed to mere deactivation.

    2. Re:Facebook closed my account over this by redmasq · · Score: 1

      My "photo" is a vector art drawing of myself. Since it would have been no fun tracing a picture of myself in Inkscape, I opted for kinda-sorta manga style. I doubt a non-human can make a comparison (I can make a face humanoid and maybe even identifiable, but art isn't my forte). More than likely automatic comparison is done when it identifies photographs. For everything else, the upload likely generates a ticket for a human to pull up and click 'Yes', 'No', or 'Maybe' with 'Yes' making the system happy, 'No' suspending the account with some message, and 'Maybe' to assign the ticket to someone else or pop up a call customer-service message.

    3. Re:Facebook closed my account over this by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Wow! That is how you get your account Deleted! Very nice to know. My understanding was that Facebook never deletes the account. No matter how hard you try.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Facebook closed my account over this by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Did you know anybody can say anything on the Internet?

    5. Re:Facebook closed my account over this by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Wow! That is how you get your account Deleted! Very nice to know. My understanding was that Facebook never deletes the account. No matter how hard you try.

      I am sure they don't delete all the information that they collected, but the account is "deleted" in the sense that its existence and content is no longer seen by other users (like Deactivation) and you can never log into it again.

    6. Re:Facebook closed my account over this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same happened to me under slightly different circumstances just this past week. Deleted my account a couple years ago, including the follow thru of not signing in. Decided to set up an account for limited use in the process of securing my profile, had signed out and then signing in again I'd got the suspicious activity notification. Also asked to submit a picture of my face and was hesitant to do but played nice. I haven't heard a thing from them since to include submitting an appeal to unblock, considering there isn't a number to contact them on the phone or by direct means, guess that I was right to shut my account down in the first place, fuck Facebook.

      captcha: revokes

    7. Re:Facebook closed my account over this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happened to me too. There was no content on my account (I had only created it to be able to access Tinder). They blocked it and requested a photo, I sent one, but they didn't unblock it. I sent 2 or 3 messages over one month on the feedback page, asking politely what was wrong and if I could do anything to access my account, I didn't get any reply at all.

    8. Re:Facebook closed my account over this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know anybody can say anything on the Internet?

      Nope, if it's on the internet it has to be true.
      I have a French Model showing up for tonight and I bet she's great!
      Bon Jour!

  17. Take a photo of the chic your stalking by wolfheart111 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Then upload it to facebook and get access to the account? Is that how this works?

    --
    [($)]
  18. Verification failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We're sorry, we could not verify your face. You appear to have sent a photo of your middle finger, in error. "

    - ZuckAndCompany

  19. But can FB reconstruct a hashed photo? by billrp · · Score: 2

    TFA says FB will hash an image and then delete the original. But to implement a similarity metric with previous "hashed" images of the same person, they will need a distance function that works on hashed values of all the photo's features that they capture. Unless they have conquered homomorphic encryption, FB will likely need to reverse the hashed features and then do similarity measures with previous photos, and will also be able to reconstruct "deleted" photos.

    1. Re:But can FB reconstruct a hashed photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, the "hash" they're using is an algorithm called zip. After running it, the original photo is completely unreadable.

    2. Re:But can FB reconstruct a hashed photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need holomorphic encryption for this, the findimagedupes program can already do what facebook says they want to, in terms of checking fingerprints.

      But I'd bet my life that they won't *only* be doing what they say. They might actually delete your photo, but not before using it as test data to evaluate their facial recognition neural net.

    3. Re:But can FB reconstruct a hashed photo? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"TFA says FB will hash an image and then delete the original."

      Does anyone really believe that? It is like thinking that if you are fingerprinted for some stupid reason it ISN'T going to end up in every local, state, and national database out there and be searched and compared to every time they have suspect print to run.

    4. Re:But can FB reconstruct a hashed photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh the Cloud lemming mentality :

      They should have released code to generate the fingerprint, I can run locally and upload the resultant hash..
      photo never leaves my local machine.. I think my FB account is headed to auto-deletion since I can no longer login to my account without providing a photo...

    5. Re:But can FB reconstruct a hashed photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I believe it. Stop assuming that "hash" means something like SHA or MD5. Their hash will contain all the data mining information they wanted to extract. A hash doesn't need to be a string of characters. As long as they make a single bit change to the original image, they aren't keeping the original image. They could even argue adding or removing metadata to the file means it's no longer the originally uploaded file. Also notice then didn't give a timeline for the deletion. Deleting the original in 15 years is still a policy of deleting all uploads. So yes, I completely believe them.

      Too many people assume far too much when they hear/read a corporate statement or something in the news.

  20. so, um... by Kierthos · · Score: 2

    Yeah, fine, this is meant to stop bots. Whatever.

    What's keeping me from uploading a picture of someone else if I'm asked to? More to the point, how do they know it's a picture of me?

    Same applies to bots. Yes, I'm completely and earnestly sincere in my belief that this will wholly stop bots from placing advertisements. At least until the people that run the bot networks find a workaround. You know, just like with other CAPTCHA methods.

    I'm certain that Facebook has taken into consideration that people who run bot networks certainly would never use stock photos, online yearbook photos, or hell, pay people in a Third World shithole pennies to get a photo of them.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  21. This is religious discrimination! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of all the Amish who consider taking pictures to be a sin!

  22. Here you go Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..|..

    Can you see my face clearly?

  23. GANs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOxxPcy5Gr4

  24. Nope by cybersquid · · Score: 1

    I will not comply.

    1. Re:Nope by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      Same for me... hey, I don't even have a cellphone to take that photo lol

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
  25. You mean the same company that wants you to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...upload nude photos of yourself (wink wink -- nod nod).

    Are you sensing a pattern here yet?

  26. First My Phone Number, Now This? by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Facebook kept badgering me for years to give them my phone number 'just in case' to which I repeatedly said no. Finally they stopped bugging me about it and all was good for a few weeks. Then I got a new notice that said 'help verify that this is your number and keep your account up to date'. Lo and behold that was indeed my phone number, but I never gave it to them. I don't know where they scraped it from, but they got it. That left me creeped out for a long time and I considered closing my account. In the end I kept it, but I watched what I posted and really dropped my usage. If I get this prompt I'll drop it completely. I'm not a social media junkie, so I'll live. In fact the only reason I'm still on it is for a few interest groups that I'm involved with who moved to FB (terrible decision) and so my family can tell me who died and who had a kid. Both of which I could live without.

    1. Re:First My Phone Number, Now This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      clearly somebody with the facebook app has your name, email, and phone number in their contact list.

    2. Re:First My Phone Number, Now This? by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they do. It's kind of unnerving that they could get the info that way though. I'm starting to think investing in tinfoil hats might not be that crazy after all. :P

    3. Re:First My Phone Number, Now This? by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      When a buddy created his FB account years ago he called me up and was raving about how REALLY NEAT it was that it presented a metric crapload of his friends without him having to lift a finger. After I picked my jaw up off the floor I explained how this was not neat, but rather creepy and scary. He couldn't understand what I meant.

      So, yes, one of your "friends" is complicit with FB in gathering intel on The Resistance. I choose my irl friends carefully and on those rare occasions when I'm not acting the hermit I make sure to avoid getting in camera range of the inevitable group photo. FB can go fuck themselves with a hot poker.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    4. Re:First My Phone Number, Now This? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Wait till it gets to no one could internet or social media unless he had the mark that showed their picture had been uploaded.
      From Fedbook to Photo Book.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:First My Phone Number, Now This? by character+sequence · · Score: 1

      Or WhatsApp. It scrapes every user's contacts and shares the data with fb. The nice thing about this is you don't need WhatsApp yourself, any one of your friends with the app, your name and phone number will do https://www.cnet.com/uk/how-to...

      --
      Karma: Nonnegative
  27. No fucking way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook already has too much info, no way am I going to give this kind of info for data mining. Fuck you Facebook.

  28. If true, I'll delete my facebook account, or... by axettone · · Score: 0

    I'm sick and tired of these companies. They want to know everything, and then they want more. Facial recognition is a cancer... take a look at the last video of E. Snowden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF45xq0W15c) and listen to why those companies need to study our faces. I'll delete my facebook account or use a mask.

  29. Will FB f... off already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what next do they want from me? A DNA sample maybe?

  30. No problem by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Clearly a job for the morphing apps.

  31. Download public photo, then upload said photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems pretty straightforward to me.

  32. Technically not a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The wording on that says "our" servers but says nothing of Amazon's, whose servers we conveniently rent out to run this captcha service.

  33. This is great news by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...I'm looking forward to them deleting my account ...finally.

    --
    -Styopa
  34. Good thing I dropped Facebook years ago by bettodavis · · Score: 1

    Since the day they asked me for 'my real name' instead of a pseudonym my friends and family know, even threatening me with blocking my account.

    "Fine". I told myself, and proceeded to promptly close my account and never looked back.

    Seems like it isn't getting any better of late.

    1. Re:Good thing I dropped Facebook years ago by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Since they can ban your account for trivial violations of their group think, the value of having only a single account linked to your true identity is very limited.

      They also seem to be the anti-slashdot. The most trollish responses get the most attention. So off topic nonsense gets filtered to the top and useful stuff gets hidden.This is strangely contradictory to their complaint/moderation polices.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Good thing I dropped Facebook years ago by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      They pulled that crap with me a few months back, so I dutifully fabricated one of the accepted documents for proof displaying my pseudonym and they reactivated my account. I would've let them keep it suspended forever if I weren't required to stay in touch with a group that had the bad sense to plop its home down on FB instead of some other host that is less imposing.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
  35. Re:Hi, we've lied repeatedly before but this time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez.

    Facebook has been caught lying and engaging in dubious behavior dozens of times and the founder says you have no right to privacy (but zealously protects his own privacy).

    Wake UP!

    The word "but" here suggests that this is a contradiction but actually, not believing in a right to privacy and working to guard one's privacy are quite compatible. Another example of the same thing: a person can believe that they have no right to a job (that the world does not owe them a living) and, simultaneously, work hard to get a job. In fact, the two thoughts are quite complementary.

    The founder says you have no right to privacy AND protects his own privacy with zeal.

  36. Delete delete delete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know you've thought about it. You've dreamed about it for some time. It's finally time to stop procrastinating, waddling or doubting yourself.

    Break free of the addiction and save yourself. Delete your profile NOW!

    1. Re:Delete delete delete by axettone · · Score: 0

      Step 1: I'm deleting all my photos and removing my tags. Step 2: I'll buy a mask on Amazon and will use it for my profile photo. Fu@@ Facebook!

  37. Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does it identify whether a photo is unique, unless it has knowledge of and therefore memory of existing copies of the photo to compare it to?

    If, as they state, it deletes every photo after performing the comparison, surely when it comes across a copy of the same photo again, it won't know to flag it? ...unless, of course, they're not actually deleting the photos.

  38. exif data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope everyone understands that by default all your photos have location data embedded into them.
    Don't be surprised when facebook pops up suggestion to friend other people based on location.

  39. Wait wait wait by ckatko · · Score: 1

    Wait.

    You mean FB, the company that vacuums up everyone's personal and private information... is going to require us to GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL private information every time they want you to "prove" you are yourself? They're going to have an entire compilation of your same face, with different lighting angles, different positions/age/makeup/etc.

    I'm honestly at a loss for who is more evil at this point. Uber, Google, or Facebook.

    1. Re:Wait wait wait by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      Facebook, by far.

      There are alternatives to Uber.

      Google doesn't seem to have the same insidious nature as FB and indeed has alternatives.

      But FB enjoys the network effect that no other platform can duplicate; if you're not on FB you are "missing out". I could start another FB replacement tomorrow, but nobody would be on it, therefore it would provide no value and would therefore attract no users.

      FB is like those creatures left behind by The Shadows on Babylon 5 that would infiltrate your nervous system, watching and controlling everything you do. They become so deeply entwined in the body that they are impossible to remove. That's the way FB is to the body of society.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    2. Re:Wait wait wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not that hard to ignore them. Stop visiting Facebook. That's all you need to do. If you find that difficult, think about all the things you've missed on Digg during the past decade and go there instead of Facebook. You've got a lot of catching up to do, tons of things you've missed on the internet. The people on Digg are laughing at your ignorance of trending Digg topics.

  40. I don't see the problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I mean, there's already plenty of good quality pics I'd be willing to upload.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't see the problem by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that a retouched version of the old Slashdot link trolling picture would be optimal.

  41. Kodachrome by jabberw0k · · Score: 4, Funny

    A new photo of me? I'll have to wait a week to get this film developed, and then go to Walgreens to have it scanned so I can put it on a usb stick to bring it home. Right sure.

    1. Re:Kodachrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ewe-Ess-Bee?! Son is that thar one o' dem socialist outfits?!

    2. Re:Kodachrome by almitydave · · Score: 1

      For people without immediate access to digital cameras, they'll provide a phone number so you can just hold your face up to a fax machine...

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  42. We'll check it and then permanently delete it by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. FaceBook has a proven record of lying.

  43. SubjectIsSubject by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    May soon? It's already happened.
    I just made a new account in September for business use, and before I had time to even put any photos or information in, they locked me out of my account and demanded a photo of my face to verify my identity.
    How could that possibly work, when I hadn't even uploaded a picture to compare it to? 3 days later they finally unblocked the account, but then proceeded to do it 4 more time, each taking an extra day to unlock.

    There also seems to be more going on, since I edited one of the photos to include the text "stop blocking my f*cking account" and Facebook refused to upload the photo. The site would just idle. Choosing another image, resized but without the text and the same filename did work and I didn't refresh the page or anything.
    It's sketchy as hell and I put the absolute bare minimum information I could, with only a couple friends added but I'm sure they still know everything about me anyway.

  44. it does not check if it is unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my account has been flagged for suspicious activity 3 times in the past month. I have uploaded the exact same photo twice and my account comes back..

    There are a couple important things to note:

    Their idea of suspicious activity seems to be pretty much anything that isnt full disclosure from its users
    The reactivation takes multiple days and they do not inform you when it is back on.
    This will more than likely be found to be slightly nefarious in the future as most things facebook related. (a/b testing anyone?)
    It does use a neural network to determine if there is a face there (i uploaded a unique picture of an inanimate object and had my account disabled)

    That being said, i created my account so that i could create a business page as you cant create a business page with out a personal page. Facebook will continue to alienate users as long as it continues to take away choice from its products... or is it consumers... no i definitely mean users.

    Deep down almost everyone on facebook knows the truth about what the company is and what it is doing. Hopefully we soon come to a tipping point where the costs outweigh the benifits. I do believe that this move will see people leaving facebook and at a time where they have market saturation and limited ability to attract new users it may possibly affect market evaluations.

  45. Oh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a fuck sake faceplant, eat shit and die already. What a fucked up company that its and some of the lemmings with go with that.

  46. Howto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used Howtos face.
    - Harry P. Showerdrain

  47. No problem by Drunkulus · · Score: 1

    I'll be happy to upload more photos, there are plenty on the wayback machine- www.goatse.cx.

  48. Identical Twin kicked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if you're an identical twin, you're kicked out?

  49. Just wear Guy Fawkes masks by turp182 · · Score: 1

    Remember, remember, the 18th of May, not November
    The 2012 "You have no privacy" plot
    I know of no reason why Zuckerberg's season
    Should NOT be killed off and forgot.

    That's the IPO date by the way.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  50. Reed-Solomon Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This might be an interesting legal strategy. Facebook could just generate one huge image file (say 100 mb of guassian noise) and then pair that image with each uploaded face image. All they have to do is compute ECC data large enough to restore the face image using their ECC data and the original 100 mb image and store that ECC data rather than the actual image. Presto! Now they're not storing your image, just a "thumbprint," but they can still re-create your face image any time using the data they have.

    1. Re:Reed-Solomon Anyone? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      They don't need to keep your photo. They have no use for it.
      What they have a use for is training their recognition algorithms to be able to recognise you in any picture.
      That's going to help them further enhance your profile from pictures and videos other people upload. Even if they don't tag you, or even know you.

    2. Re:Reed-Solomon Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly this. They might delete the photo, but they'll keep megabytes of metadata they gathered while training an AI to learn that "this is how we detect YOUR face" which gets better every time. Then they sell that or let law enforcement use it, and facial recognition takes a huge step forward. Don't buy in.

  51. Easily automated by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    What exactly is stopping anyone from uploading them photos that were morphed between two existing images? This can easily be automated.

  52. no. freaking. way. by swschrad · · Score: 1

    this is going way too far. next they'll put biosamplers in your phones to check your DNA, and it will cost you $50 per login for a replacement sensor.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  53. About ready to delete my FB and Twitter accounts. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Not just because of this.
    But because the sheer, unbridled stupidity emanating from the platform is starting to affect people I see as friends.
    And I don't want to witness it.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  54. I can see the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually I'm going to get one of these demands for a photo and two things are going to happen:
    1) I'm going to send them a dick pic in response (not my own... preferably something gangrenous)
    2) I'm going to stop using Facebook

  55. commentsubject by Falos · · Score: 1

    "we'll delete the picture"

    Jesus Christ. Son of Josesph and Mary, holy son of God, etc, I am invoking the name of a sacred figure because at least you guys should know that means jack, shit, and diddly fuckall.

    They'll use it to cross-reference the rest of their massive data, validate associate collaborate in ways we can't possibly predict. Cuff Example: Code that makes soft conclusions re: ancestry, marking potential associations by facial data that relate well with genetics.

    They're use it to store everything useful about the picture. They have the picture's data.

    They'll delete the actual jpg. Whoopdeefuckingdoo. It's a waste of space after being scraped, of COURSE they delete it.

  56. We'll delete the photo by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    But keep the metadata for future facial recognition of you in other people's photos.

  57. NSA Needs Better Photos? by silvergeek · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the NSA (and others paying for information) need better photos. Facebook has gone way to far for this old paranoid geek.

  58. Re:About ready to delete my FB and Twitter account by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    You can't delete your profile. You can only delete your access to it.
    Facebook will keep gathering data on you via other users though.

  59. I don't believe them by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    "We'll check it and then permanently delete it from our servers". Bullshit.

  60. A hash isn't necessarily a cryptographic one by redmasq · · Score: 1

    You can scale an image to a fixed size, divide it up into parts, take a histogram of each part (Fourier transform), and shove it into an indexed database (might need to duplicate also do greyscale separately). If another image has most of the parts' histograms within a certain arbitrary percentage, the picture is probable that it is the same (no need to directly compare the original images). That, in the loosest way possible, can be considered a "hash comparison." Of course, I'm pretty sure Facebook has something more advanced than that bit of minor experimentation. Once confirmed not to be the same as a previous image, just do the normal built-in facial recognition. If unable to automatically confirm, send it to queue for an underpaid human to handle.

  61. Not really by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    You just stopped your own future access to your account. FB still has it.

  62. Synergy by markana · · Score: 1

    How long until they combine this with their "anti-revenge porn" scheme? Where you'll have to upload a new nude picture every time you log in. They'll be sure to delete them, after the admins have verified the identity of the user ("yup, they got a mole in the right place"), and checked the ownership of the photos.

    (FB - this is not a suggestion, btw).

    This is the sort of thinking that comes from living too long inside a bubble - with double-thick, clue-proof walls.

  63. The second they do this is when I delete Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yup.

  64. Dear Facebook by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here is a recent photograph of my naked ass. Please apply lip marks and return it to me for verification.

    1. Re:Dear Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a recent photograph of my naked ass. Please apply lip marks and return it to me for verification.

      FaecesBook thanks you for submitting additional biometric data to train its automated recognition systems.

  65. TOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already are doing this kind of validation over facebookcorewwwi.onion since a while.

  66. AI has escaped from the lab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, what business value is there for a social network that already gets tons of photos uploaded by users daily? This is a profiling scheme, but for whom? Is facebook reselling user locating services to three letter agencies via picture matching?

    Thought exercise here:

    If an AI escaped the lab but needed a large infrastructure to sustain itself for now, and was habitating inside facebook, it could easily forge requests for resources. How many facebook engineers do real phonecalls rather than messenger or email or slack or something that has digital data that could be manipulated in flight or at the point of truth/storage? Next step, improving human surveillance requires good data on faces. Asking users to upload mugshots provides higher quality samples than random photos with myspace angles. Next step; profit? For whom...

  67. that would be it for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't mind FB but face-capcha would be a deal breaker.

  68. Facebook made me do this 'CAPTCHA' recently. by scradam · · Score: 0

    They put me through this 'take a picture of yourself' process not long ago since I'm a new Facebook user and since my wife signed onto Facebook from my device after I did. I suppose they figured I was a fake account set up by my wife. Who knows.

    So, I took a picture of myself. I took an honest, clear, at the moment, simple picture of me smiling from my desk. I didn't even understand what was going on; I just went along with it. I guess the picture wasn't good enough because they immediately banned me. I had to send them another photo of me, a photo of my driver license, and a photo of my Passport through their appeals system to get re-enabled. The whole process took about three days and they never apologized or explained themselves.

    Facebook is required as an identity provider for a particular game I play. It's the only reason I have a Facebook account, and I'm unhappy about it. I guess I like the game well enough to put up with it, so I guess I deserve this.

    1. Re:Facebook made me do this 'CAPTCHA' recently. by scradam · · Score: 1

      Also, they have my mobile phone number and Visa credit card number on file. I don't understand why they couldn't have just verified my identity via those means.
        I've never even posted anything strange on Facebook (or much of anything at all). I don't know why they singled me out.

    2. Re:Facebook made me do this 'CAPTCHA' recently. by qwerty+shrdlu · · Score: 1

      You are sure you sent this stuff to Facebook, right? Right?

    3. Re:Facebook made me do this 'CAPTCHA' recently. by scradam · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm sure. The behavior was the exact process described here and on many other tech sites.

    4. Re:Facebook made me do this 'CAPTCHA' recently. by scradam · · Score: 0

      I'm not trolling. :( I didn't really have any karma to spare since I don't comment a lot. This situation shouldn't be hard to believe. It's documented. Facebook honestly challenged me for this info because I had a new account - and probably because my wife signed in from the same device.

    5. Re:Facebook made me do this 'CAPTCHA' recently. by scradam · · Score: 0

      This process has been in place for over a month. You needn't take my word for it. You'll find a lot of other discussion of it on the web. Take this one, for example; this is the game and the scenario I described here, with accounts of the issue from people other than me:

      https://www.reddit.com/r/FFBra...

  69. You can count in MicroSoft in that list by ffkom · · Score: 1

    You buy a gaming console for some child, and they require you to create an email account for it - which is a bad thing on its own. Then, 24h after that account was created, they say it's "temporarily suspended" and demand a private mobile phone number to send you a "verification code". This is just the same crap: Corporations trying to bully you into giving them sensitive private information. (And so the console was returned to the person who brought it as a gift, and ultimately returned for a full refund.)

  70. All those people who modeled for stock photos... by dizzy8578 · · Score: 2

    Will never get back in their account.

    --
    *"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
  71. Use a photo of someone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you could use a photo of a friend or family member who passed away before 1990 or so, so that their picture isn't on the internet.

    You'd have to remember whose picture you used, and have several slightly different pictures of them handy, in case FB required a new picture.

  72. We will delete it immediately off our servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But not before handing a copy to the Feds.

  73. get yo face in place Grace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Upload yo face, Grace cause Zuckerjuu wants a virtual blojob from everyone ! Haha you fools what's not clear and why wasn't it clear before ?

  74. LOL.... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    Screw facebook. How many 'tards will do it?

  75. Upload a photo of your butt-hole in protest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue the goatse/xkse links please.

  76. NOPE by Indigo · · Score: 1

    Nope nope nopity nope nope.

  77. Re:About ready to delete my FB and Twitter account by Chas · · Score: 1

    They're welcome to what they've collected so far.

    I'll just make sure that the data ages out eventually.

    Kinda like those car insurance calls from when you were price shopping 4 years ago...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  78. Limited News Feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since I don't have enough Facebook friends, FB limits me to two days of my own news feed. Apparently they aren't making enough money from me, or aren't able to link me to enough people, or both.

  79. Solution is easy - rendered images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is already a ton of realistic renderers for people's faces. Just use one of them, problem solved.

  80. Next: we need a more, huh, unique proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2018: Facebook determines that the abusive exploitation of stored facial photographs has led to a resurgence of bots on the network. Logging into your account will now require a live video stream of your choice of body parts. Don’t worry, it’ll be deleted right away.

  81. Re:About ready to delete my FB and Twitter account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why you repeatedly abuse them, spam your account with hardcore porn, sign up again, spam again, and every time they ban you, email them to say "Delete my account or the spam continues" until they do as they're fucking told. Remember; the only way to get a corporation to do anything is to make them dread dealing with you. Abuse them, shout at them, make every thing difficult, and make sure you leave them in tears every single time.

  82. Here's the fallacy by slick7 · · Score: 1

    Trust, and you will be trusted; said the liar to the fool. Let's look at this another way. Identify yourself so that we, the faceless we, can know you are not a robot, or better yet, a living entity. The Supreme Court declared corporations are entities. Yet they have no "face". How does one reconcile the discrepancy? 1984 is a warning, not a blueprint. There are way too many faceless entities out there such as the CIA, NSA, FBI, and a host of others, the Cosa Nostra, Mossad, ISIS, the Federal Reserve, the Black Nobility of Europe, the illuminati; yes, there are figureheads, however the rank and file members remain in the shadows. Also what stops the faceless from using a false face, like your photo image? I cannot imagine where a photo could be acquired. Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, any television or closed circuit feed. Smartphones, cameras, official identity pictures. Do you get the "picture"?

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  83. FB(I) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, there is only one character difference between FB and FBI, isnt it

  84. LIARS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when the pedophiles and peeping toms at airport security said that the images from their full body scanners were "deleted from the screen"? This is the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT, it's deleted from the server? What about the backups? Locally? Printed off? USB sticks? They're dirty lying bastards who are keeping those images for their own purposes.

    Delete facebook, brick in their windows, and do not associate with people who use it.

  85. A funny name helps too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My GF has an unusual name. They banned her unless she sends them a copy of her passport (Which in my country is highly illegal! Like copying money!), of her bank statements or some invoices.
    Out of solidarity, I made FB send me an archive of ALL the data they had on me, which they are legally forced to offer in the EU, and then renamed myself to "Faycbuk Cankiss-Myass". They banned me too and demanded the same bullshit.

    We laughed, and never looked back.
    Frankly, it measurably improved our lives. And besides, it’s not like there isn’t enough other crap to “social media” over, if we wanted.

  86. That right there is the most fucked-up thing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I considered closing my account. In the end I kept it,

    Seriously?

    How much does it take, for you to finally say NO?!?

    I'm reminded of that Fight Club scene, where they went and tried to start fights with people, but failed because people were such losers.
    Or rather, I'm reminded of ... CUTTLEFISH AND ASPARAGUS!

  87. As if I'd believe Facebook would delete data! by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

    Give FB my photo? Not a chance! They already track my every move. They probably already have my photo. I have deleted my account on FB before, and wonder of wonders, All my old 'deleted' data mysteriously reappeared.

    Facebook is a bunch of lying liars who lie with their every corporate breath.

    --
    PlaynBass
  88. When Hell freezes over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook has no photos of me, and never will. I'm in no one else's photos either. Hell will freeze over before I hand a picture of myself over to Facebook to use for facial recognition. If they demand this, I will drop the account. Period. I doubt I'll be alone.

  89. What's wrong?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take four red capsules. In 10 minutes take two more. Help is on the way.