Facebook Must Face Class-Action Lawsuit Over Facial Recognition, Says Judge (kfgo.com)

U.S. District Judge James Donato ruled on Monday that Facebook must face a class-action lawsuit alleging that the social network unlawfully used a facial recognition process on photos without user permission. Donato ruled that a class-action was the most efficient way to resolve the dispute over facial templates. KFGO reports: Facebook said it was reviewing the ruling. "We continue to believe the case has no merit and will defend ourselves vigorously," the company said in a statement. Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment. Facebook users sued in 2015, alleging violations of an Illinois state law about the privacy of biometric information. The class will consist of Facebook users in Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored facial recognition algorithms after June 7, 2011, Donato ruled. That is the date when Facebook launched "Tag Suggestions," a feature that suggests people to tag after a Facebook user uploads a photo. In the U.S. court system, certification of a class is typically a major hurdle that plaintiffs in proposed class actions need to overcome before reaching a possible settlement or trial.

Comments

Good

[Aero77]

I look forward to my free years' worth of Facebook Premium (tm) as compensation. (/s)

Re:Good

[ShanghaiBill]

... but the creation of new metadata.

So there are criminal algorithms? I realize that we are all supposed to hate Facebook, so everyone is cheering for the plaintiffs, but is it really a good idea for particular matrix operations on an array of pixels to be illegal?

If the photo is online, then the "identifiable information" is already public.

Re:Good

[Rockoon]

The lawsuit is not questioning Facebook's right to display the images

Exactly. The lawsuit is questioning facebooks commercial use of the "biometric" (*) information gathered from the images.

(*) Facial geometry sold for use in commercial facial recognition applications.

Re:Good

[AmiMoJo]

The EU has harmonized rules for personal data protection, which include a prohibition on the collection of biometric data without explicit permission from the subject. That includes facial recognition data.

So yes, in this case running that algorithm without the subject's permission is illegal.

Re:Good

[Ol Olsoc]

Fakebook IS making commercial use of the data.

The lawsuit is not questioning Facebook's right to display the images, and running an algorithm on pixels is not a form of commercial use that requires a model release.

We're getting to broad brushing some stuff about model releases here.In a public place, a person has no particular privacy. As well if the image was newsworthy.

Even then, the law is not absolute. If say an attractive woman model is shown sitting at a bar with a bottle of liquor, and used in an advertisement for that liquor, a standard model release is sufficient. If someone uses that same photo in an article about a troubling rise in alcoholic women, or about prostitutes working in bars, the photographer darn well better have had that mentioned in the model release.

While some releases declare "any and all uses", that could become a bit vague, and a judge will almost certainly allow a trial to go forward.

Other possibilities are if someone posts an image of people in a private domicile. Private places have private protections.

And a bar is also private property.

To top it all off, model releases can be held null and void if there is no consideration given, ie money passes hands. So if I have been in a situation where I've used models either at work or a part time video/photo/animation business of mine, they'd get at least 5 dollars. Of course usually much more.

So whether this particular case is involved with copyright, Facebook is facing some issues of privacy if images from a private place are posted. And the path stops at where and who makes the money. A friend might have posted the pictures, so discouraged, but no legal harm. But the property owner will have a case. And if Facebook monetizes a copyrighted image, they owe the copyright holder.

The issue was dealt with during the Google Glass saga, where bar owners asserted their private property privacy rights to tell the Glassholes that they could not stream video in their establishments. IANAL, but I've dealt with this issue over the years.

Re:Good

[Anne Thwacks]

There is no such "European law".

Slightly true.

The general process is that there is a "European directive" - which is essentially guidance as to what each European country should enact, and then they do so, in line with local practicality and custom, at the pace they are comfortable with.

However, in the case of data protection, the GDPR (Google is your fiend), will apply from 25 May 2018*, all across Europe, including the UK, even after Brexit. Penalties are EUR25Million or 4% of your global turnover. Hopefully, per offence of face recognition of non-subscribers. I do not doubt that a great many European citizens are campaigning at this minute for jail sentences for Zuk and the like, but the legal system is happy to take payment by plastic.

There is no question whatsoever that facial recognition of non-subscribers is a very serious offence under the GDPR.

It would most definitely require prior, informed consent, and registry with the Information Commissioner's Office before doing it, with a credible explanation of why you are doing it.Sure, you can take a photo of me in public without my consent. BUT if you publish it without my permission, I have the right to sue your balls off, and if you have any money, I am sure I can find a lawyer willing to do it for "no win-no fee".

Believe me, that is preferable to a visit from my friends with big sticks and angry rottweilers, or nuking from high orbit. So: stay within the law, and be happy the law is created by sane people!

* It applies to anyone in the EU collecting data, or anyone wherever, collecting data on live people in the EU, some countries may grant exemptions for dead people if the feel so inclined. The situation regarding Zombies is still TBD. This was announced two years ago, so you have had time to find out.

Re:Does ANYONE think this lawsuit is a solution?

[Opportunist]

It isn't. But it's one more nail in the coffin, I hope.

You won't convince people to ditch something harmful if you have one huge story about how it fucks up lives. But if you keep the stories coming and if you can give them something else to read about it every day, eventually they'll catch on.