Slashdot Mirror
Google Wins Dismissal of Suit Over Facial Recognition Software (bloomberg.com)
A lawsuit filed against Google by users who said the world's largest search engine violated their privacy by using facial recognition technology was dismissed by a judge on Saturday. From a report: U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang in Chicago cited a lack of "concrete injuries" to the plaintiffs. The suit, initially filed in March 2016, alleged Alphabet's Google collected and stored biometric data from photographs using facial recognition software, running afoul of a unique Illinois law against using a person's image without permission.
Data collection isn't yet considered harmful by the law until the law gets amended.
Teh G wants to own you. It already owns many of YOU!
federal courts will always dismiss shit like this unless you can absolutely prove personal monetary 'injury'.
why the fuck wasn't this filed in state court?
There is no expectation of privacy in public.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Is that really a thing? If you break the law and nobody gets hurt, doesn't mean you shouldn't be penalized. For example, what if I'm texting and driving and I don't hit anyone? Does that mean I shouldn't be slapped with a fine for distracted driving -- because there are no concrete injuries?
Busy wondering if skynet will reduce the land masses to concrete...
You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society. Also not enough kids get punished by hitting their hands with rulers.
Mom! Phineas and Ferb are making a title sequence!
Data collection isn't yet considered harmful by the law until the law gets amended.
Because it isn't.
Nobody was harmed by Google being able to auto-tag people in pictures. No harm no foul.
#firstworldproblems
Are we all nudist psychics now, or did I miss something?
Now that was a majestic cartoon! Not as fierce as thunder cats and not as terrible as smurfs
C'mon.
why the fuck wasn't this filed in state court?
IDK. It makes no sense. According to TFA, the case was filed on the basis of an Illinois law, so why was it a federal lawsuit?
nobody knows what skynet does. The first words out of their mouth are kneel before me
Man, the USA is a strange place to us Germans.
Even before US data protection laws, recording somebody without somebody's permission, and then publishing them, was always illegal. Yes, also in public.
There were/are, of course freedom of the press laws. So in some cases, they were in direct contradiction, and if somebody sued, a judge decided.
Note how it says "and then publishing them". You could still record them.
Because this whole thing was never about acting like you are in private when you are in public.
(Although courtesy dictates that you leave people alone, even in public. Like when a couple is kissing on a bench behind a bush in a public park, you don't go and stare at or record them.)
It was about the problem of making something that should be forgotten when people forget it, permanent for all eternity. ... While even law, on top of basic human decency, dictates, that everybody must have the chance to be forgiven, eventually. Hence prison sentences not being literally forever.
Because then, somebody can still hate you and harass you for something you did, twenty fucking years ago.
And because statistically you can calculate that there are about 5000 people on this planet, who have the will and the means to bloody murder you for something, whatever that something is.
Add those things together, and taking a photo of you, and uploading it online, knowing the above risks, would have to be considered an act of aiding in bloody murder.
(I would not say that, unless I’d have hard real-world statistics on that calculation above, but technically, using common sense, one would have to.)
This is exactly why we have a "right to be forgotten" law in the EU. And data protection laws.
Not that their implementation is good. Or written by people with a clue about the Internet and modern technology. I'm certainly no fan of the EU (nor nationalism/racism, for that matter).
But it's way better than dismissing the problems in their entirety.
The Illinois statute says the plaintiffs are entitled to the greater of:
A) $1,000
B) Their actual injury / loss
The (stupid?) plaintiffs' attorney filed a federal action under title 3 which requires injuries addressed to be "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."
There is no concrete injury here, so it looks like the plaintiff's attorney screwed up. Should have filed in Illinois and taken $1,000 / person. It's possible that they did first file in Illinois and screwed up the jurisdiction argument.
And I *checked* the preview. --.--
I hope you can forgive that silly blunder. :)
Or do you think stalking somebody against their will is not noticed by the stalked person and hence not entering her senses and then her brain, where the neural signal by definition of the neuron alters the neural pathways and triggers memories, emotions, and actions?
Or do you just think those alterations are "not real" or "not physical" and prefer to choose to believe in the non-corporeal "soul" or something equally useless?
Or why would you not count that type of knowingly done literal physical alterations of somebody's body through targeted actions?
Maybe because like sadly most people, you never actually thought about it...? ... :)
(I agree with the general intention of what you probably tried to say, by the way. The example could just have been better.)
Did you read the arguments? They were awful except for the tangential one where the guy showed that some observation must be correct. I can picture the judges surprise at some of these things
As much as I dislike the idea of meatspace tracking (and joining of data between meatspace and internet, make no mistake -- this is the ultimate goal of Google et al), I'm pleased with the decision. Don't like it? Take it up with your congresscritter.
Yes. And also I insis that survival overrides comfort
First, It's Article III, not "title 3." Secondly, Spokeo recognized that a statutorily-defined injury could survive Article II standing analysis, and the 9th Circuit (where that case arose from) continues to assert that this proposition is good law. The Google case came out of the 7th, which has tended toward more rigid interpretations in this area, and it's possible Google motioned for removal to that Circuit for just that reason.
"No expectation of privacy when in public" was a notion devised at a time when it was impractical to collect and aggregate data on a truly massive/global scale.
New technological capabilities mean new risks, and the need for new regulations to reduce those risks.
Prior to ubiquitous mobile phone cameras and fixed cameras, there was essentially some level of "privacy" even when in public, because of the impracticality of gathering such data and having the wide scope of data collection to be able to "connect the dots". This level of the promise of relative anonymity was acceptable to the general public. But, are people really aware of the implications of the level of surveillance and analysis that is happening today?
I think the "no concrete damages" will, very unfortunately for the public, prove to be the successful legal defense which empowers the utter oppression and exploitation of the masses. This is similar to this situation of a corporation or government department which has designed their organization in such a way that the responsibility for customer or citizen concerns is dispersed so widely (e.g., must go through numerous steps to address grievances) that a remedy effectively does not exist. In the same kind of way, the damages suffered by a member of the public are so indirect and impractical to explicitly demonstrate (because it would require deep investigation of corporations, and careful accounting of all the damages to the individual), despite the almost certain severity, that people will be helpless unless regulation stops particular kinds of involuntary participation in mass surveillance.
Is the argument by supporters of such surveillance that people should avoid going to public spaces without disguises? Or that people should just accept the total analysis of their lives in the outdoor world? Yes, there is no stopping people taking photos and videos in public spaces -- but we can certainly require that social networking and marketing firms not form any database of faces, and especially a geolocated database of faces (which would easily provide the capability of establishing timelines of activity for individuals).
Alas, maybe we are heading toward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Private_Eye
Except that it isn't. It's a violation of privacy which is indeed a right in the U.S. Your misuse of the term 'first world' pretty much invalidates everything you said. The attourneys blew it.
More bungling of everything as usual :)
I find it interesting that you would cite the 9th circuit's reasoning in Spokeo, and fail to note that the ruling you cite was overruled by Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court held in Spokeo:
--
a plaintiff does not automatically satisfy
the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a right and purports to authorize a suit to vindicate it. Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.
--
Are you going to cite Dred Scott next and pretend it's current and correct law?
More from the Supreme Court in Spokeo, the exact case you tried to cite: ...
--
(1) The Ninth Circuit's injury-in-fact analysis elided the independent "concreteness" requirement. Both observations it made concerned only "particularization," i.e., the requirement that an injury "affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way," Lujan, supra, at 560, n. 1, but an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized, see, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. Concreteness is quite different from particularization and requires an injury to be "de facto," that is, to actually exist.
We have made it clear time and time again that an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized.
--
Prior to ubiquitous mobile phone cameras and fixed cameras, there was essentially some level of "privacy" even when in public, because of the impracticality of gathering such data and having the wide scope of data collection to be able to "connect the dots".
Always been legal to have a P.I. tail and photograph you in public.
Always been legal to sit on a bench every day for twenty years and make a note of who passed by.
There were many ways even before smartphones you COULD HAVE easily been tracked if someone cared. Just because there's a lot more data around now does not change the equation even slightly.
What would it even mean to have the right to "public privacy". You can arrest someone from taking a picture of a nice looking park because you happened to be laying the grass? If someone looks at you inadvertently they can be arrested, or later mind-wiped?
The reason why capturing images in public is legal is because anything else is the road to madness and collapse of society.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Recognize my cock!
Dear judge,
Don't infringe my Faceright (c).
Sheesh, no:
1) Explain the link between them not liking their picture analyzed by a computer and it being an injury. Something you don't like is not automatically an injury, otherwise I'd be suing the pants off lima bean farmers everywhere.
2) Explain your understanding of this right to privacy, where it comes from, and how it is violated in this case.
The right to privacy is defined under Article II of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Furthermore, libel, slander, unlawful search and seasure laws also apply regarding individual privacy rights and how Google chooses to give out the info of a person's image connected with any kind of identifying info.
Outside of direct privacy violations, other problems arise when data collected by Google is stolen or used by law enforcement/intelligence agencies which makes Google liable if it is the one who took otherwise anonymous info of a person's image and attached an ID to it which was later used. If the ID was accurate and ID theft occurs, Google willingly and actively facilitated that act. If the ID is incorrect and it identifies someone else and either party is part of a crime requiring them to be accurately ID'd, Google is on the hook for bearing false witness.
Most states (and countries) recognize your right to control your own likeness, and prohibits others from profiting from using your likeness for commercial gain without your permission. Historically that has meant that entertainment TV shows have to get signed model releases from everyone who shows up in the picture. That's why reality shows frequently blur out people - they weren't able to get model releases from those persons. (News TV gets a waiver because the importance of reporting news is judged to override personality rights.)
The question here was does that right to control your likeness extend beyond a visual likeness, to cover facial recognition parameters which uniquely identify you and are then used or sold for profit? This judge decided no.
So you can violate the law and get away with it if nobody can prove harm? Amazing.
America is NOT the "Old" (first) world, it is the "New" (second) world.
The "Old world" is Europe, where such things are an offence against the GDPR (as in "I laugh in the face of your GDPR, you old fashioned weaklings").
You, in America "have the right to a blow on the head from a blunt object" and "the right to remain illiterate" - it is in your constitution - no amendments needed!
Sure they were, first their privacy was violated. Second your biometric data like your DNA is your own property, especially in the United States where you copyrighted it upon creation via growth and grooming and copyrights multiply with contributors not divide. Google used that property without your consent and also devalued any gains to be made by privacy and may have caused secondary damages for many people (divorces, social complications, etc).
Anytime someone abuses your freedoms and makes revenue there are actual damages of at least that revenue which Google made rather than you.
Omg that show kills me
FYI, while the EU may be getting at least some of this right, the US (at both federal and state levels) maintains permanent, public records of pretty much any conviction, with extra sauce for people on various lists. These people are literally facing retribution for life; unable to find employment, credit ratings ruined, can't live here or there, constantly under extra scrutiny, etc.
The US doesn't do rehabilitation. The US does retribution.
...someone just wanted to get paid.
It's a thing in civil court. The government can fine you without demonstrating injury (your "texting and driving" example), but I cannot sue you for texting and driving next to me unless you injury me in some way (crash into me, etc.) Copyright law attached a "statutory injury" for copyright violations, at the RIAA/MPAA request. So they no longer have to prove the loss of sales, the law already assumes it. We should have statutory injury for privacy violations. Then you would just be able to say "publishing my SSN caused me $100,000 in injuries, because that's what the law says it's worth at a minimum"
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The right to privacy is defined under Article II of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Right but what Google is doing does not violate that. There is no "interference" or "attacks" happening here.
Their privacy was not violated, most of those things you list are not even copyrightable and even if they were Google's use of them would not constitute a copyright violation. It seems quite clear here you have no idea what copyright even means. I am certainly curious as to what you think copyright is that leads you to believe that paragraph of absolute drivel though.
Anytime someone abuses your freedoms and makes revenue there are actual damages of at least that revenue which Google made rather than you.
No. That is the same garbage line of "lost profits" that the MPAA makes against piracy. Imaginary damage is not real damage, clue is in the title.
U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang from Chicago retires to live in paradise resort in the French Polinesia.
"I've had millions saved all along, from a life of hard work. The Alphabet lawsuit just marked the decision that I had enough. It's too much stress." he says from his new personal yacht.