Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Silently Enables Facial Recognition Abilities For Users Outside EU, Canada (neowin.net)

Facebook is now informing users around the world that it's rolling out facial recognition features. Users in the European Union and Canada will not be notified because laws restrict this type of activity in those areas. Neowin reports: With the new tools, you'll be able to find photos that you're in but haven't been tagged in; they'll help you protect yourself against strangers using your photo; and Facebook will be able to tell people with visual impairments who's in their photos and videos. By default, Facebook warns that this feature is enabled but can be switched off at any time; additionally, the firm says it may add new capabilities at any time. In its initial statement, Facebook said the following about the impersonation protections it was introducing: "We want people to feel confident when they post pictures of themselves on Facebook so we'll soon begin using face recognition technology to let people know when someone else uploads a photo of them as their profile picture. We're doing this to prevent people from impersonating others on Facebook."

70 comments

  1. Silently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    How is telling you they're doing it and telling you how to turn it off 'silently enabling' it?

    I got a clear message about this when I logged in

    1. Re:Silently? by blahbooboo · · Score: 1

      How is telling you they're doing it and telling you how to turn it off 'silently enabling' it?

      I got a clear message about this when I logged in

      My message said i had to turn it on as it was off already...

    2. Re:Silently? by darkain · · Score: 0

      ssshhhhh, let the fear-mongering article writers get their click-bait ad revenue!

    3. Re:Silently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      If you have a Facebook account you deserve to be anally raped to the maximum extant possible.

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

      You had to have previously turned it off in some preference setting that was I believe grouped in with other stuff. By default it was on, but just not in use by Facebook. Now that they've enabled it they are bugging those who turned it off previously.

    5. Re: Silently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you offering?

    6. Re:Silently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most have facebook "account" even if they didn't create it themselves.

    7. Re: Silently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll use this to track you like never before.

    8. Re:Silently? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Presumably they enabled the facial recognition back end ages ago. Maybe even for EU citizens. Even if the user part has only just been turned on, that database exists somewhere.

      Just wait until that leaks out. Of course I'm assuming GCHQ and the NSA hacked it long ago anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Silently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > GCHQ and the NSA bought it

      FTFY. Get up with the times, man....

    10. Re:Silently? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why should I go through the hassle of hacking something that I can get by simply asking nicely? Or if that doesn't work with an "or else" attached.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Silently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mine was off by default

      my friends was on by default

      both live in AU

  2. Eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fb has been using this tech for years

  3. it just keeps getting worse. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook used to be a digital Rolodex of aggravating people you'd rather send an occasional birthday card than speak to in person, but in the last 7 years it's shaping up to become new societal piss-test for everything from dating to employment. Now you can look forward to not only being ostracized for your lack of facebook participation, but actively chastised for it when facebook identifies you as a friend/coworker/acquaintance in someone elses account.

    with facebooks mandatory facial recognition it soon wont matter if you avoid the site at all, theyll just build and publish a profile of you anyway.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:it just keeps getting worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well ostracise and chastise away because I'm NEVER going to be on facebook, twitter, or any other social crap-site.

      Oh yeah, consider this notice that I, alone, retain all rights to my image and personal information and specifically disallow facebook, twitter, snapchat, or any other social network from storing, transmitting, or displaying any likeness of me or divulging any of my personal info,

      Now if we could only get a few million people to send that message...

    2. Re: it just keeps getting worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your meds. Sheesh!

    3. Re: it just keeps getting worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I could be high as a kite on drugs *and* drunk out of my mind *and* stoned on prescription drugs, and I still won't sign up. Maybe heavy medication explains why people are on facebook.

    4. Re:it just keeps getting worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck do you care about all that shit?

    5. Re:it just keeps getting worse. by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Facebook used to be a digital Rolodex of aggravating people you'd rather send an occasional birthday card than speak to in person, but in the last 7 years it's shaping up to become new societal piss-test for everything from dating to employment.

      Wanna see where this end up? Black Mirror, season 3, episode 1: Nosedive

    6. Re:it just keeps getting worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook must own you. The real question is why the fuck don't you care. Each to his own, I guess.

    7. Re:it just keeps getting worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They already build one. I signed up for an account a while back to keep in touch with a small-ish group. Facebook suggested people I hadn't interacted with for years. My account was new, but my profile was already there. A bit creepy if you ask me. I hope the US grows a backbone and clamps down on what they can do without users and non-users permission.

    8. Re: it just keeps getting worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know you have a shadow account, right?

    9. Re:it just keeps getting worse. by Guyle · · Score: 0

      Where is it mandatory? The message I got said "we can do this now, right now it's turned off, if you want to participate then go here to turn it on."

  4. Wrong or confusing post by Ada_Rules · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am in the US. Message told me the feature was available. It was off by default. It told me how to enable it if I wanted it.

    --
    --- Liberty in our Lifetime
    1. Re:Wrong or confusing post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be in the minority, most people had to disable it.

  5. Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in the US and have seen the Facebook notification about facial recognition. I have also checked in my preferences to verify that I'm making an accurate statement.

    The feature is disabled by default. Users must opt in for facial recognition to be turned on.

    I despise Facebook and find them incredibly creepy. However, if we're going to criticize them, let's get the facts straight.

    1. Re:Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      I had to turn it off, it was enabled by default for me (and I made a post bitching about having to turn it off immediately after, which means I have backing proof) so, no.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re: Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At the very least, it's disabled by default for some users, as you can see by the posts here. It may be enabled by default for others, and I have no reason to doubt you. I posted based on my experience.

      So, is it on or off depending on the country or state the user is in, or something else? I'm in the US, in Nebraska, and it was disabled by default.

    3. Re:Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The feature is disabled by default. Users must opt in for facial recognition to be turned on.

      And if you believe that, I have a few bridges to sell you. This garbage is always on, always enabled. You only opting to not see it. It's still there. All our faces are stored in their databases. I've never uploaded a picture of myself to Facebook, EVER, and it still fucking has my face, when others have uploaded pictures with me in them, it knows who I am. Even when closed my account, in 2009, it still knows and attaches the id to the face, should anyone upload something with me in it.

      Even more disturbing, when I reopened an account under a pseudoname to participate in a contest on Second Life, it pretty quickly figured out who I am, and started recommending I friend all the people I used to have as friends. Super creepy.

      My solution? I let my mother use my account to play farmville and accumulate a bunch of nonsense friends to muddy the waters. I don't even use the account anymore, haven't in years.

    4. Re:Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by Anonymice · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mr Coward seems to be forgetting that the world extends slightly beyond the peripheries of the northern Atlantic.

      I'm in Brazil at the moment, and got a message from Facebook today telling me it was on by default. Although as I'm actually European, it makes me wonder how Facebook decides which locale's rules to apply to my profile. Does it automatically opt you in to everything it can as soon as you login from a location with weaker protections?

    5. Re: Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Most likely enabled or disabled based on other settings. I mean, it's software. When you add new switches, you set their default state to whatever makes the most sense based on the state of other settings.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      when others have uploaded pictures with me in them, it knows who I am.

      Because they tag you, you poor dingbat.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    7. Re:Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      "I don't use Facebook, but let me list all the ways I use Facebook..."

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    8. Re: Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Singapore.

      FB popped up that msg a week ago and it was off by default.

      Of course they may not state when they automagically accidentally enable it.

    9. Re:Summary is 100% false. Correct your summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because ONE OF THEM tagged you.

      Corrected that for you.

  6. I'm in Australia and it's ON by default. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I got the message yesterday.

    It's ON and they say you can go to settings to turn it OFF.

    1. Re:I'm in Australia and it's ON by default. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that different people on different systems will get different behaviors. All factory systems are in test groups, some control and others looking at different reactions to different stimulus. Any given shipment you might get could exhibit different behavior.

      I opened 3 new IDENTICAL FROM THE FACTORY Windows 10 systems yesterday and today. They were all from the same shipping lot so they were most likely images using the exact same process. It was slow so I did all three manually using a KVM to see what happens with out-of-the-box systems. All three have different behaviors as far as when they asked for the 'Creator's' update, timezone changes sticking past a reboot, behavior when changing default program settings, default homepage changes sticking or reverting to factory, activation of Office, etc.,... Might be fine for a single system unless you need help and need to replicate behavior moment to moment. Not cool at all when you need to compare systems when you can't be sure are the same or even similar moment to moment.

      I don't have a week for them to be 'synced enough' as determined by their own whim to be comparable to each other. If I install a patch on a baseline system, I don't want to have to wait an indeterminate amount of time before it is installed or even available on a comparison. If the systems are supposed to be identical, why do they behave in different ways? Well, that is because they have identical programming that instructs them to go online to lookup all the ways they should behave as differing test cases.

      Fuck that. QA is not my or any customer's job.

      Why on Earth am I not installing the custom Enterprise/Education image of Windows you might ask? Usually, I would do just that. However, even though small/medium scale businesses might push software via Group Policy, they don't push a customized image of Windows Enterprise. Small/medium business and consumer installs are BY FAR the majority.

    2. Re:I'm in Australia and it's ON by default. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you high ?

      You don't seem very coherent.

    3. Re:I'm in Australia and it's ON by default. by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      We can experiment on users pretty easily. That's what he's pointing out. Software can behave differently purely out of choice to find out what users do given different options (followed by a survey asking them how their experience was.) When you have a huge install base, this can be useful.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  7. Protection Racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they'll help you protect yourself against strangers using your photo

    I don't like facial recognition. But I do like stopping people from using photos of me. It sure is nice of facebook...to offer to protect us...from facebook. All they need in return is a little more intrusion. Well played facebook. Well played. Even shifted the blame to other users.

    1. Re: Protection Racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they don't need any more intrusion ... They already have the photos. If nobody else gets to see the photos that didn't have access before, then nothing really changed , and they didn't need to ask permission.

      However... If "their" facial recognition is actually being provided by another company that needs access to all the photos to do that , then yes they need permission.

      I'm just wondering what a notice will look like if I upload someone else's photo as my profile photo. Will they say there's already a user with that face?

      Or will they say that face and username are invalid and not tell me which one is wrong because they don't know if I uploaded the right face to the wrong account , or if I uploaded the wrong face to the right account ...

    2. Re:Protection Racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like facial recognition. But I do like stopping people from using photos of me. It sure is nice of facebook...to offer to protect us...from facebook. All they need in return is a little more intrusion. Well played facebook. Well played. Even shifted the blame to other users.

      And, of course, the logical conclusion of this is that governments will demand Facebook hand over all of the facial recognition data so they can use it to track everyone.

      Imagine every surveillance camera on the planet correlated with facial recognition data which identifies everybody Facebook has ever seen a picture of ... then you pretty much have the total surveillance state which is the dream of lawmakers everywhere.

      Say goodbye to privacy.

      Fuck you, Facebook.

    3. Re: Protection Racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have the photos, but this is an additional confirmation that 'you' are the person they are identifying as you, and all of the additional context that provides. It's a goddamned goldmine of information they get you to validate for free.

    4. Re:Protection Racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too true, too true.

    5. Re:Protection Racket by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      (Don-Corleone-Voice)
      Nice social life you have there, shame if anything bad was to happen to it...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. The mormones must get excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where they tried for decades to map the whole population, Facebook does it in a mere decade.

  9. Off by Default for many of us in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am in the US. Message told me the feature was available. It was off by default. It told me how to enable it if I wanted it.

    My wife and I saw this same message on facebook ("feature is available, off by default"). I just checked my facebook privacy settings, and it is indeed off. Interesting that some people are reporting it on by default though.

  10. Creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Make one mistake and it will follow you around forever. Welcome to the Internet, with folks who never forgive and never forget.

    Liberals are so tolerant, except when they aren't.

    Captcha::erasable

  11. Doublespeak much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook's 'explanation' makes it sound so innocuous, so user-friendly. But the truth is just the opposite. The exploitation and abuse potentials of this are not only already known and demanded by various authorities and marketing agencies, but are several magnitudes above and beyond whatever little utility this could ever have for the average person.

  12. I apologize to ISR-meme haters in advance... by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    Outside of EU, Facebook looks at YOU!

    1. Re:I apologize to ISR-meme haters in advance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They look at you inside EU just as well. Except that they pretend not to.

  13. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been enabled for years in the U.S. More, typical CYA crap from Facebook, the world's favorite, hackable social media platform.

  14. Huh, interesting... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 2

    Here in Brazil the thing rolled out but off as default, much like it was reported in US.
    I wonder what Facebook is taking in consideration to make it off or on by default.
    I'd think that in EU it'd be the last place on Earth that Facebook would force something related to privacy erosion as on by default, but we'll see how that goes for them. If they end up sued, it's their own fault.

    1. Re:Huh, interesting... by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another user from Brazil said it was on by default. I wouldn't rush to assumptions.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Huh, interesting... by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

      I'm from Brazil and it's on by default for me.

  15. Is not silently if you are notified by williamyf · · Score: 1

    Is not silently if you are notified

    but is still a tad creepy.

    The only upside is being notified of photos were you are present but not tagged.

    I choose to let it be for the time being.

    Let's see how facebook deals with the fact that i lost 38Kilos in 2011 (84 pounds)

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
  16. For your protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hilarious how this is being spun as a benevolent policy to protect their users. I doubt profile picture impersonation is such a big deal, but if FB plants that seed of doubt it might convince people to opt-in "for their own good".

  17. EU by tsa · · Score: 1

    So happy to live in the EU.

    --

    -- Cheers!

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

      Lol. Like it meant anything. What they say is one thing, what they do quite another. The EU cannot afford to take Facebook away from their populace and they know it. Zuckerberg knows it too.

    2. Re:EU by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But... think of the productivity spike if they did!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Changed my location to canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up yours fb

  19. YOU are their product to sell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This has zero to do with protection - this is just another way to mine data about you, as if you were a Bitcoin... Look no further than going to your "General Account Settings" page. There I found that it no longer had my email address lableled as email address, but rather it is now labeled "Ad account contact", implying your email is now how they wrap up your info and sell it off.

  20. No promise of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... can be switched off at any time ...

    Like that's meant anything to Facebook, which has more than once, changed the default settings to whatever is most profitable. Hell, with most EULAs and ToS reading as "we can fuck-over you, anytime, anyhow", no promise of privacy is binding. That is so because data privacy laws can only be applied to the data held in that country: Allowing an obvious loophole for all corporations.

  21. What will Facebook be able to do? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ...With the new tools, you'll be able to...

    How is Facebook going to use this new capability? Will it offer money to stores to obtain real-time video feeds and find out who the customers are? Will it tap into local government security cameras to track people as they walk past a store?

  22. I need this technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to help me to recognize the guy I see in the bathroom mirror every second Saturday morning.

  23. Bullshit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    They're not doing this to 'protect' anyone. They're doing it to facilitate their building of comprehensive profiles of all Facebook users.

  24. And you thought EU/Canada had no rights by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Look, you live in a third world country if you're in the USA.

    Adapt.

    They are watching you. Everywhere.

    And is it ok if I have that choco bar you forgot?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  25. GDPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual law states citizens without regard to nationality or residence, which means EU citizens living in USA or on the North Pole. I keep seeing blogs and news articles talking about GDPR applying to EU "residents". Which isnot the case. Anyone else actually take the time to read the law that was published?