What is wrong with pop up asking if I want to accept a cookie? Not only they should ask permission every time they drop something on your pc, it should also include a description of the purpose of the cookie.
What is wrong with pop up asking if I want to accept a cookie? Not only they should ask permission every time they drop something on your pc, it should also include a description of the purpose of the cookie.
and most upload servicers aren't banned in the EU.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
and at this point I've given up hope that you are actually reading the articles you are linking to and bitching about. No one is outlawing your own photos of yourself from being uploaded to the internet. again, its how the service is used. by allowing someone else to add people to facebook's facial recognition program without their consent.
and news sources have all types of rights that extend past regular citizens, is that really your best defense? Not to mention this has absolfuckinglutely nothing to do with the problem facebook ran into. As far as I'm aware facebook's captioning option, something its had since the early days, is not under attack and thus far has not been banned. But don't let that get in the way of screaming doom and gloom.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-11-2011 at 12:49 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Right, they're trying to eliminate any semblance of free speech, or freedom of expression, and based on the truthful expression of certain individuals, are trying to punish a third party and prevent it from improving the free service it offers.
This doesn't make you come off looking any better, by the way... but if you're going to insist on pointing out how your cause is actually far worse than Randblade's portraying it as, I won't stop you. Please, do continue. Just remember that I have the right to control what's posted about me, so if you say anything about me I don't like, I may be forced to haul you in front of some European commission on human rights.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
If that's what you want, do it. Set your browser to ask you every time before accepting cookies. The problem isn't choosing that option, the problem is forcing that option on everyone (as would happen with legislation).
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Patriot Act vs EU data protection laws.
According to German-language magazine WirtschaftsWoche, a Google spokesperson confirmed that the company has complied with requests from US intelligence agencies for data stored in its European data centers.
The situation is likely to spark an official inquiry from the European Commission, with some members of the European Parliament already reacting to the stories.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
How is that any different from someone uploading a photo to a blog and saying in the caption, "That's Joe"?
If you don't have a Facebook account you're not participating in the Facebook tagging process. But there's tons of people and businesses that exist on photographs on the Web.
I've given up hope that you weren't educated in Norwegian academia.and most upload servicers aren't banned in the EU.
and news sources have all types of rights that extend past regular citizens, is that really your best defense? Not to mention this has absolfuckinglutely nothing to do with the problem facebook ran into. As far as I'm aware facebook's captioning option, something its had since the early days, is not under attack and thus far has not been banned. But don't let that get in the way of screaming doom and gloom.
As Cain pointed out, this isn't about photos of yourself but about photos of your friends. All this Facebook feature does is do what your own mind does —*see who has the same face and suggesting who among your existing tags applies to a given photo. There is no privacy being violated here, and I haven't seen even the semblance of an argument as to how it does.
So on one side of your mouth you demand strict government regulation, than on the other hand castigate a company for complying with government regulation?
What the fuck are you talking about?
This facial recognition requires a database of information in order to work. What the government is opposing is that facebook currently allows anyone to add other people into that database, without any form of consent. There is a huge difference between sorting this information in your mind, in your livingroom, or even via captioning, compared to giving all that information to a 3rd party and possibly making it public, without consent. Here, maybe you don't understand yet how it works? Current (or previous depending on how you look at it) forms of captioning does not work like that.
So on one side of your mouth you demand strict government regulation, than on the other hand castigate a company for complying with government regulation?
whoosh
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-12-2011 at 01:47 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Facebook has millions of users, and is a popular source for social data mining. Some random schmoe's blog is not.
Also you can tag people who don't have Facebook accounts. You could technically tag a cactus and label it "Cactus" if you wanted to.
. . .
Problem: government regulation.
Solution: more government regulation!
Kind of a succinct, albeit depressing, way of summing up liberal politics.
In other words, the problem is the people who uploaded the information to the interwebs in the first place. Because once they're up there, the photos are accessible, searchable and downloadable.
Banning Facebook (or Google or anyone else) from having a database doesn't really do anything, because any shclubb with a copy of "Scripting for Dummies" can build his own database from publicly accessible information and do the exact same thing you seem to find so objectionable. What's creepier, when Facebook publicly auto-tags photos as a service to its users, or when some guy secretly does it in his parents' basement to get his rocks off (or whatever)?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Using the very low bar being thrown around, a database of photos and captions is absolutely a database of personally identifiable information. It can show me where a group of people was at a given time. The world will end!correct, and a database of tags is not a database of personally identifiable facial features that can remotely and automatically used to publicly out people in anything its shown (what Germany has requested to be deleted). Amazingly enough, the EU doesn't ban databases in whole. Wonder why that is
This isn't just a OG be crazy thing either. Simply google facebook facial recognition. All the top results are either on how to turn it off, why its creepy, or how its being challenged.
Just because there are articles about disabling it doesn't mean it's not crazy to ban it. Google Picasa has had facial-recognition photo tagging for years.
Tagging someone who doesn't have a Facebook account is no different than posting anything else on the Web with someone's name next to it. If the New York Times posts a photo with someone's name in the caption it's a problem, but if the Iowa Dispatch does the same thing it's not?
Free speech is about having the most universal standard possible. You don't ban a pretty well-established feature just because a company of a particular size is taking advantage of it.
This isn't some anti-google or anti-facebook law thats being used right now. Its part of the EU suite of data and privacy protection laws. Doesn't matter if you're facebook or john doe. What your suggesting is like saying laws should be legal to break as long as no one knows
Yep. still not understanding how facebook's facial recgonition appears to work. The fact you're now trying to compare it to how Google's Neven Vision (from Germany [hint hint]) works shows that.
"well-established"? Facebook's facial recognition is extremely new in the states, it didn't go full scale public with it until this summer in the US and its even newer in the EU (opting everyone into the program by default). Isn't technology focused legistation reactive by nature anyway?Free speech is about having the most universal standard possible. You don't ban a pretty well-established feature just because a company of a particular size is taking advantage of it.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-12-2011 at 07:18 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Well this is an easy question to answer. Who would you rather have be able to see pictures of you drunk? An audience of millions or an audience of hundreds? The number isn't so much a problem, but instead it is representative of the possibility/probability that someone you know/may not know, who can affect your life, is going to be part of that audience.
You don't ban it. What would be nice was if you could opt out without being part of the service, and not be auto-opted in if you are a part of it. How would you feel if I wrote a server side script so that every time you posted, your current IP address was publicly appended to your post, along with your current GPS location (if available), claimed that you opted in with whatever you agreed to whenever you originally signed up for the forum, and that this feature was to make the forums more social and streamlined? I don't think you'd like that very much.Free speech is about having the most universal standard possible. You don't ban a pretty well-established feature just because a company of a particular size is taking advantage of it.
. . .
I've been very clear that this is way beyond just photos of yourself. And a third party-hosted database of photo tags based on automated facial recognition is no different than a third party-hosted database of photo tags based on manual tagging.
It's all photos of people hosted on a Website. Using your boundaries of the power of consent, any photo of anyone uploaded anywhere could be taken down because it's being hosted by a third party.
I've been very clear that this is way beyond just photos of yourself.
This is you not understanding. The problem isn't the tagging. Its the database of information required in order for the "automated facial recognition" to work.And a third party-hosted database of photo tags based on automated facial recognition is no different than a third party-hosted database of photo tags based on manual tagging.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Er, grammar fail OG. "Your" is possessive. "Photos" is a noun. When I say "your photos" I mean the photos that belong to you. Which can, of course, include photos of you, but still. Come on.
And a database of photo tags is a database of information.
correct, and a database of tags is not a database of personally identifiable facial features that can remotely and automatically used to publicly out people in anything its shown (what Germany has requested to be deleted). Amazingly enough, the EU doesn't ban databases in whole. Wonder why that is
This isn't just a OG be crazy thing either. Simply google facebook facial recognition. All the top results are either on how to turn it off, why its creepy, or how its being challenged.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-12-2011 at 03:12 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I don't see (yet) what the difference between Facebook able to recognise who you're posting and Google being able to recognise what you're searching for.
Its not my responibility to hold someone's hand and force them to learn something new if they have shown clearly they don't want to learn to begin with. If this is your way of asking for more information, that works.
Picasa Web Album does not have a facial recognition program that can tell you "hey, thats bob, lets tell bob, all of bob's friends, and all of your friends that Picasa knows what bob looks like". Picasa Web Album does however know (generally) what a face looks like, which makes it easier to tag people manually; sorta like how cameras can find a face before taking a picture. The web album also defaults so that pictures aren't shared or published without permission.
Picasa 3.5 and beyond does include a more robust facial recognition tool, but it only works with the information on your computer. It doesn't send that information overseas, or to any central database. It can also take hours to scan through a hard drive worth of information because its designed like this.
Facebook's tool however combines this desktop feature with the online feature. Adding biometric facial profiles to a centralized database that facebook uses to improve its general "hey thats a face" and its "hey, thats bob, lets tell bob, all of bobs friends, and all of your friends we found bob."
The issue isn't the tagging, never was and thats obvious when reading through the OP links. The issue is where and how this biometric information is being stored and how its being provided, used, and stored without consent.
Google's analytics, which is used to help localize search results, has also come under fire.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-12-2011 at 07:43 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
i.e. "I think I know something, I think you don't, I will therefore act like a smug asshole." This is a public forum. If you can't bring yourself to address that person, address the rest of us who aren't familiar with the topic and don't know the differences.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I wondered why I hadn't seen it on my last upload. I thought it was because the upload interface had changed and I was just missing it.
But there is no mention of a privacy issue. They seem to want to focus the feature on the desktop client. Unless we're going to start planting conspiracy theories here, which is pointless. But even assuming they were pre-empting the all-seeing German regulators, that only bolsters the point that stupid regulators are gumming-up new products with made-up ideas of privacy.
My apologies if my SEO phrasing wasn't accurate, oh humble lord of stuff he doesn't actually know too much about. But the point is still valid: Google's algorithm has hundreds of variables and "site popularity" isn't directly one of them (except in the sense that link structure can create de-facto site reputations in a sort of a recursive calculation). If a random blog has my photo and picture, plus the right combination of other variables (link structure pointing to that site, high CTR on an organic search results page, etc) it will rank highly.
That's the whole freaking point of Web search after all. It's only been around for over a decade, though that doesn't seem to stop German regulators or even dumb US regulators from thinking of new ways to slow down technological change.
This is google, king of the cloud, taking something offline and putting into its standalone software package only months after Germany passed the enhanced data protection act you are taking issue with. There is no conspiracy here. There is no made-up ideas of privacy here. You tried to prop up Google's facial recognition of as an example of pre-existing software alive and well on the web and you failed. Google also killed facial recognition in its google goggles for the same reasons.
lashing out cause you're butthurt isn't your thing.oh humble lord of stuff he doesn't actually know too much about.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm guessing YouTube is going to be closed under this logic?
Youtube has a system in place to deal with uploads, even though the similarities betweens facebook's and youtube's focus are minimial at best.
Remember the bullied kid that bodyslammed his tormentor? Youtube was pulling those faster than they could be uploaded. As well as 4chan's failed attempt to turn youtube into youporn for a day. Any automactic programming youtube uses to shift through existing uploads is provided by the source of the material, not 3rd parties.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-13-2011 at 04:30 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Two things:For the third time, link structure is a proxy for reputation and relevance. It's not a proxy for popularity. A bit more detail is outlined in the original paper describing PageRank, section 2: http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf
1) Google are constantly changing and refining their algorithm, you can't really use what they wrote in their original paper to determine current behavior. The recent Panda update in particular takes into account user behavior to try and determine if a site is shit/not relevant - if Google sends user to a site, and then they immediately come back to Google, then that site gets marked down.
2) PageRank was only ever one part of the google algorithm, one of many signals they take into account, and not an especially relevant one.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Ziggy Ziggy Ziggy.Dread, Dread, Dread.
You have to learn to at least feel a little silly after you jump to wrong conclusions instead of this air of innocence you pulled on me as well (Remember "There's 16.431 posts here, I only read 16.430. How could I know" bullshit? We even hugged. Have you forgotten already?) . Because as it seems, you feel you are not to blame here, even are surprised anyone would think so, and don't feel a bit silly. So I'm afraid it'll happen again. And then you'll have to do this whole routine again.
And we woudln't want that now would we?
OG has spent years defending software/music/movie pirates. Encouraging people to disable DRM was one of his main hobbies at the Atari forums. It's not unreasonable to assume he's pirated software/music/movies at some point.
But I wasn't judging him on the issue at all.
I was pointing out that OG feels many copyright laws are stupidly implemented in the digital age. He feels they are so stupid we shouldn't judge people for ignoring them. So, I was expressing surprise that he would turn around and support a government's ham-fisted attempts to create unrealistic and stupid laws for privacy in the digital age.
Can you at least appreciate the point I was trying to make?
You are correct, that has been my point all along and what I've been trying to convey to Illusions. Google has hundreds of variables to a constantly-changing algorithm. I was just simplifying things to make this clear to Illusions. He was incorrectly arguing that a Facebook page will always be the highest-ranked link for a search simply because Facebook is a "popular" site.
You and I are both saying that's not true.
You're still doing it.
Removing DRM is a far cry from attacking copyright laws. Is there really a connection there? Hell, I don't even remember making it one of my "things" over at atari. May have helped a handful of people when DRM was the problem, but I sure wouldn't have called it a hobby. But hell, you said so, so it must be true.
Also don't recall using DRM as an avenue to attack copyright law as stupidly implemented.You're pulling a lot of he "thinks" and he "feels" here, and I don't know, its not like I'm Ominous Gamer or anything, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and again say this is a subject you're not in full understanding of.
Most preplexing is how removing game DRM, which the DMCA allows in certain instances (damn those laws!), is somehow concrete evidence to accuse me of pirating movies and music
Thats not even getting into the idea that in your mind, being against one specific sweeping regulation or law somehow means everyone should be against all of them.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-13-2011 at 10:01 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I think it really depends on the blog and how it fares under those hundreds of variables, but the broader point Cain and I are making is the principles of free expression are the same whether it's a blog or Facebook.
If it wasn't your thing, I sure spent a lot of time trying to stop the admins from banning you for promoting software piracy.
And the point I'm making is that Facebook already has tools available for what you consider "censorship", ie. that you can untag yourself after the fact, or opt out of a service after you're automatically opted in, or do those things once you become a member, and I am asking how you assume it is intrinsically different "censorship"-wise whether you opt out beforehand (my suggestion for how Facebook could operate), or opt out afterwards (currently implemented functionality).
Besides that stop acting like all censorship is bad. Your entire position here at the forums is to censor people when we ask for it. You don't post about who you actually are in real life, and have edited this information out of your own posts when it accidentally happens, and have edited it out of the posts of others. Is this not censorship too? How would you feel if I posted your IP address? The other person I'm arguing with uses a Tor gateway or other anonymizing proxies to hide or "censor" his IP address from us. Hell didn't Cain, at the other forums, go on a huge deleting spree to remove his posts? For two people arguing how awful censorship is you seem to be alright with it to a degree.
Last edited by Illusions; 08-14-2011 at 03:03 AM.
. . .
If all other things are equal, Facebook would rank well above some random, obscure blog. I think you and Cain are mostly right here, but the idea that photos on Facebook don't have more exposure than Joe Blogger's Blog is a bit facile. Hell, never mind the Google rankings, for many people Facebook *is* the internet.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Facebook does some censoring on its own as well. They have blocked, banned, or removed plenty of topics, keywords, links and other doodads over the years.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
