Jamie123
Mentor
What's your point? No one's forced to follow Kant's categorical imperative. You can read Kant and either you're convinced or not. You can decide to follow it or not.
You can also decide to follow Google's "Don't be evil'' code of ethics if you want. Anyone can set up a code of ethics. Unless it's backed up by law you're not forced to follow it at all.
GSNfan
-
I'm not forced, yet, but the followers of such code can come to power or pass legislation that will force me into accepting their version of whats ethical.
Fear is a powerful weapon and if people are frightened enough they will accept any sort of absurd law. History is full of such instances.
35photo
Well-known
You hit the nail of the head...
ampguy
Mentor
Arjay, fb's facial recognition tagging has already rolled out to a small segment of users. From my experience, it is no more advanced than picasa, flickr, or iphoto's facial recognition, as it is initially using the same Open CV face recognition as the above sites (and implemented in some camera, and camera vendor software).
In other words, it is wrong in a high percentage of facial recognition attempts,and the technology for real-time face recognition has a long ways to go.
While fb touts the benefits of not having to manually tag friends in photos, as well as having the ability to be notified if a friend has tagged you in a photo, and you'd rather not be tagged, or say tagged in a given photo or set, the current privacy concerns seem to be centered on whether the face tagging features (of you, and for you) should be the default opt-in behavior as fb is pursuing, or vice versa.
Here's a way to disguise yourself in the meantime:
http://cvdazzle.com/
In other words, it is wrong in a high percentage of facial recognition attempts,and the technology for real-time face recognition has a long ways to go.
While fb touts the benefits of not having to manually tag friends in photos, as well as having the ability to be notified if a friend has tagged you in a photo, and you'd rather not be tagged, or say tagged in a given photo or set, the current privacy concerns seem to be centered on whether the face tagging features (of you, and for you) should be the default opt-in behavior as fb is pursuing, or vice versa.
Here's a way to disguise yourself in the meantime:
http://cvdazzle.com/
Last edited:
Arjay
Time Traveller
Good grief - you've changed the topic of this thread.
Now you're talking about the roots of a nation that founded itself on the psychological traumata of religious refugees that fled Europe 200 years ago.
Now you're talking about the roots of a nation that founded itself on the psychological traumata of religious refugees that fled Europe 200 years ago.
GSNfan
-
A question about this scary face-recognition software:
A photograph has no information about who is in it, on what basis then the face recognition software 'recognizes' the picture?
For the software to ID the person in the photograph it must have a database and a picture database already, otherwise it cannot just 'guess'.
Where will it get this picture database and perosnal information database? The government? But then almost every government in the west at least have privacy laws that strictly forbids that.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced about the potential danger of face-recognition software. The very strict privacy laws that street photographer hate, in a strange way they also end up protecting their work.
A photograph has no information about who is in it, on what basis then the face recognition software 'recognizes' the picture?
For the software to ID the person in the photograph it must have a database and a picture database already, otherwise it cannot just 'guess'.
Where will it get this picture database and perosnal information database? The government? But then almost every government in the west at least have privacy laws that strictly forbids that.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced about the potential danger of face-recognition software. The very strict privacy laws that street photographer hate, in a strange way they also end up protecting their work.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Sorry: who's changed it, and what nation are you talking about?
Assuming it's the USA, that's pretty shaky history.
Cheers,
R.
Arjay
Time Traveller
Roger, the people this is addressed to will know. I certainly wasn't talking about your contribution.
Thanks folks. I'm out before I'll start writing something impolite.
Thanks folks. I'm out before I'll start writing something impolite.
Last edited:
Jamie123
Mentor
Sure, freedom has to defended or sometimes even fought for. If someone wants to pass legislation you believe to be wrong you should definitely do everything in your legal power in order that it does not pass.
I think the more freedom we have in a society, the more important it is to discuss what we think is right and wrong. Fear is indeed a powerful weapon. Our best defense against it is reasonable discourse not a 'to each their own' attitude.
israel_alanis
The Laugher
Hello Arjay, I think, talking about facial recognition, each page of internet could stop the software scan on theirs photographs, for example, some pages can hide some contents to search engines pages, so I we are worry about hide the future tags of our photographs we could ask (for example) to rangefinderforum.com to not allow the facial recognition work here in.
Regards.
Regards.
oftheherd
Mentor
That is a good question, the answer to which has been pointed out in prior posts. You and others have not read closely if at all. I don't mean that as a put down, but indeed that has been answered.
To answer it again in different terms, consider; sites like facebook, do have identifying data. You can place your photo, name, and as much as you wish about your location. Utilities and commercial businesses have other information, including street addresses. Your friends and acquaintances will be listed in facebook or similar sites.
Facebook has your facial photo. It can be linked to any other photo of you. Any of those photos that have GPS data tell where you are in relation to your residence. You post photos of yourself and family on vacation in Cancun, and a theif can check photos in facebook or wherever that you took in your back yard (possibly with GPS info). He knows you are in Cancun with your house now empty. He may exploit that.
Given the above information about you in various databases: You have just obtained good-coverage medical insurance. Two months later, you report to your doctor with symptoms of heart artery blockage, and are so diagnosed. Expensive surgery and treatment will be needed. Your insurance company does the (now) standard check and finds a "street photo" of you on RFF, where you are seen entering a cardiac specialist's office 5 months ago. There is no mention in you application. They now cancel your insurance for you being untruthful about prior existing conditions. Now no other company wants you either. The doctor has retired and is variously reported as having retired to Puerto Rico, or Costa Rica, or being on an extended world cruise. He is unavailable to confirm he gave you a clean bill of health, or that you were simply doing research, with no suspicion you were ill.
You post cell phone photos of your daughter playing with her friends at your local playground. She is caught unintentionally in a pose that some might consider provocative. Even though the photo provides no visual clues as to the location, the GPS data does. A sexual offender conspires with another sexual offender and they show up at the playground. While one distracts you and others nearby, the other kidnaps your daughter.
A very paranoid president is elected in the USA (couldn't happen, right?). He appoints heads of critical departments that think like him and are loyal to him. He learns he has at his disposal, databases containing all types of personal information, including photos posted on RFF, some of which may be used against individuals. 1984 looms on the horizon.
The first scenario has been reported as happening. The other three are plausible. They are not far fetched. Does that mean we should stop doing street photography? Does it mean that street photography should be illegal or so morally reprehensible that most of us would shudder at the thought of engaging in it?
Actually, I don't think so. But I think discussions like this are valid so we can consider the implications of what we are doing, and if some kind of law should be enacted. Also so we know what is prudent to protect ourselves.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Mentor
You are assuming that all web crawlers are dispatched by ethical, law-abiding people.
Matus
Well-known
ofthered, you have a lot of valid points. But there is no other way round than learn to live with it. As the time will move on more and more detailed personal (location is part of it) information about us will be available to those who are interested (There will always be people or whole organizations who will try ti misuse these data) But the society will slowly implement these changes and adapt.
We are in a mixed state right now - I am sure that in 10 - 20 years nobody will care as most electronic devices will probably be continuously taking 360 degree panorama videos tagged with GPS data. I guess I will stop cheating on my wife and insurance company then ...
______________
The fact remains - most of the street photos taken in Germany are outlawed. Even those that were taken with the best intentions and which are not offending anyone in any way.
We are in a mixed state right now - I am sure that in 10 - 20 years nobody will care as most electronic devices will probably be continuously taking 360 degree panorama videos tagged with GPS data. I guess I will stop cheating on my wife and insurance company then ...
______________
The fact remains - most of the street photos taken in Germany are outlawed. Even those that were taken with the best intentions and which are not offending anyone in any way.
robert blu
quiet photographer
oftheherd your scenario is frightening, but not so far from a (possible future) reality...
robert
robert
lilmsmaggie
Established
It is not bogus, and I am not trying to abrogate my ethical or moral responsibility.
We're looking at this issue from different perspectives. I'm simply pointing out a fact from the viewpoint of someone that works in information technology. It's one thing to respect individual privacy, it's naive to believe that you can protect that person's privacy by your actions alone.
The central issue here is "Privacy" and laws that come into play that govern the usage of personal information. Privacy needs to be viewed in its broadest context.
If one approaches this from a altruistic "goodie two-shoes" mindset, you're kidding yourself.
having said that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a personal philosophy towards your fellow man/woman to "Do no harm," its quite another to believe that your act of respect, or kindness somehow shields that individual from other forces at play in society.
If you as a photographer decide that you choose to take precautions to protect the individual or individuals you photograph -- that's honorable.
But you should have no expectation to believe that by your actions, you have imbued them with immunity from an invasion of privacy. It would be an illogical unfounded fallacy.
GSNfan
-
I'm sorry to say this but what you just posted is circumstantial and extremely far-fetched paranoid scenarios that just cannot be taken seriously.
But most importantly you based all of that on a single act of posting personal info on facebook... which is once again related to the question of personal responsibility. Secondly GPS data in photos are an option not mandatory so your argument crumbles there as well.
Anyway, enough of perpetuating the culture of fear that we already live in. Lets just take a deep breath and stay rational. I'm done with this thread as well.
lilmsmaggie
Established
Ditto - I had just developed an interest in street photography but the thick cloud of paranoia that seems to hang over it is changing my mind. Think I'll stick to photographing landscapes -- Oops! "Hey you can't photograph here!"
froyd
Mentor
It absolutely makes a difference. Just from a quick visit to RFF I can learn the name, location, age, marital status, occupation, and several other details of members who have decided to share such information. If they have opted to post in either of the "N/W Sons" and "N/W Daughters" threads, I can see what their children look like.
Whether sharing this information poses any risk is another matter, but undoubtedly the Internet make a difference on the amount of information snippets that can be aggregated. Apparently HR departments of larger companies are occasionally using the Internet to garner glimpses of the "private" lives of their prospective hires.
On the other hand, I completely agree with the comment about living in a climate of paranoia!
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Ah, sorry, I meant that the internet makes no difference to street photography. I should have been clearer.
heers,
R.
oftheherd
Mentor
As I said, the first scenario has already been reported. As to facebook, how many other places are people photographed with personal identification tied to a photo? Does your company have a photo ID? Is it tied to a database? Is that database on its own discrete network or tied to your company's IT backbone. If to the backbone, it is potentially available to IT organized crime. You have no idea apparently. Sadly it is not circumstantial.
True, people can now choose not to join facebook or the like, and GPS can be turned off. But how many make those choices? Have you never read of features that were supposedly selectable, but in fact were not turned off, even if that was selected?
And don't think that companies are now, or in the future will suddenly turn altruistic. Their primary function is to make money. Sony has already gotten caught installing root kits on home computers (Sorry, an employee error. Now that you have caught us, we will of course stop in the future. Those already infected can stay so), (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal ).
I know I sound like a gloom and doom person, but that isn't my intent. Just to point out that the OP's post deserves serious consideration since the potential for harm is certainly there. How much any one of us is or will be culpable remains to be discussed and seen.