Isn't Jeff Jarvis a big Google supporter? Not surprised his book reviews are writing off privacy so easily as a misunderstanding; from what I've heard the book itself is a lot better balanced in the conversation. Got a chuckle that Dread is propping up an Occupy Wall Street supporter though
"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."
Jarvis himself has a relatively balanced view:
Mr. Jarvis argues it should be up to each person where to balance the risks and rewards of being more public. "When new technologies cause change and fear, government's reflex is to regulate them to protect the past," he says. "But in doing so, they also can cut off the opportunities for the future."
Congress is considering several privacy bills. But Mr. Jarvis calls it a "dire mistake to regulate and limit this new technology before we even know what it can do."
Privacy is notoriously difficult to define legally. Mr. Jarvis says we should think about privacy as a matter of ethics instead. We should respect what others intend to keep private, but publicness reflects the choices "made by the creator of one's own information." The balance between privacy and publicness will differ from person to person in ways that laws applying to all can't capture.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22966
Told you they weren't anti-tech
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Ah the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
To be fair though, this is the German government we're talking about. Who's ever had reason to fear an authoritarian German government?
Its far more serious to be worried about a voluntary, opt-in, private service that you can choose to use (or not to) that may recognise your photos based upon photos that you yourself (or your friends you've accepted as friends) have chosent to upload ... than it is to be worried that a German government may misuse its authoritarian powers. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Do I have to point out that our Constitutional Court will slap them around with a big fish? Because they already expressly forbade using stuff like that - I expect there will be major fallout over this.
I don't see the hypocrisy. Not to mention that two completely different arms of the government are involved.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Yes you do have to point that out.
Its only not hypocritical if the courts do that.
I'm also a bit confused as to why you think that a) our government is a monolith when b) in fact it's a federation of several states who c) sometimes differ quite a bit and d) have different ministries/agencies to boot, in this case the data protection ministry of Schleswig-Holstein and the ministry for the interior in Bavaria. They're not only located on opposite sides of our republic, no, their purpose is diametrically opposed.
What's next? You complain of hipocrisy when a country's minister for education wants to spend more money while the minister for finance wants to save more money?
Or when someone in Florida does something while someone in Texas does the complete opposite? Because that's the level of difference we're talking about here. They're different states.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
If the court strikes down corporations, but not states, then the court is being hypocritical.
It's a bit more complicated than you make it out to be, Rand. Also, I'd be mightily impressed if any court found anyone guilty after a mere two days. But then you'd be screaming: Banana republic!
Secondly, it's not the court which did a strike at Facebook, it was the ministry for data protection...
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I do hope this idea gets blocked, but that statement of yours strikes me as being a strange position to hold in a modern society where the govt. has many privileges that individuals and corporations are denied. You may call it "hypocrisy as usual"Originally Posted by RandBlade
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
On the face of it, you're absolutely right. But if we take it as making an assumption that the repeated assertions made by the privacy advocates here are true, regarding the primacy of protecting the privacy of the individual, then he has a point. Certainly no hint of a distinction between this sort of behavior being ok for governments but not corporations was made. Quite the opposite, it seemed to me.I do hope this idea gets blocked, but that statement of yours strikes me as being a strange position to hold in a modern society where the govt. has many privileges that individuals and corporations are denied. You may call it "hypocrisy as usual"
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Wait, wait, wait. Before you get your knickers in a knot, this is intended as a surveillance tool for the police. It is overreaching, yes, but basically it's a surveillance tool like so many others based on hardware. Which, as far as I know, have been used since the dawn of time by your own FBI, DEA and other law enforcement agencies.
Please also note that everyone, including the CCC and the Constitutional Court, don't talk about the validity of surveillance tools - but about the scope of said tools. And this particular tool has some functions which make it problematic.
So, unless you want to tell us that the DEA has no place bugging a house with potential drug dealers when okay'ed by a judge, then I'm not quite sure where your argument is going. That is, unless you also believe in crippling law enforcement.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
/. article with lots of links
'[The] Bavarian Interior Minister [confirmed] that state officials had indeed used the software, but argued that the use had been conducted legally. [...] [A] lawyer said his client had had the software in question installed on his computer during a customs check. That software, which could be legally used for monitoring telecommunications, had been altered to allow it to grab screen shots.' The H's sister site heise.de reports this case involves nothing like terrorism, but legal substances which 'may become' illegal when exported. (German original) The Bavarian press release (German original) also says the code analyzed by the CCC might be an earlier test version."
"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."
Oh, what a retarded web we weave, when first we set out to legislate.
"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.
By the way I keep hearing the Germans were inspired by FBI's malware shenanigans. Is it the apparent hypocrisy you guys have a problem with or is it the potentially reckless use of malware?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Can we change the thread title to American anti-tech lunacy (another example of the negative preemptive discriptions I mentioned in the ID thread)?
Facebook Sued For Violating Wiretap Laws
"Facebook is being sued in multiple states for tracking its users even after they logged out of the service. All the lawsuits allege the company violated federal wiretap laws. The most recent lawsuit, filed by a Mississippi woman, says: 'Leading up to September 23, 2011, Facebook tracked, collected, and stored its users’ wire or electronic communications, including but not limited to portions of their internet browsing history even when the users were not logged-in to Facebook. Plaintiff did not give consent or otherwise authorize Facebook to intercept, track, collect, and store her wire or electronic communications, including but not limited to her internet browsing history when not logged-in to Facebook.'"
"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, 'cause if there's one organization I support without fail, it's the US federal government.
Did I miss Sweden legalizing some wonderful recreational drug or something?
"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.
The hypocrisy on the part of the Germans. Jesus
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
After that stroke you had last time you tried to broach the subject of hypocrisy, it's hardly reasonable to except the rest of us to read your mind on the subject. Now, to which particular German hypocrisy are you referring, or is it more a package deal situation? And are we allowed to pick an option you haven't listed, or are we only allowed to be bothered over hypocrisy or recklessness?
"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.
I'm also not quite sure what "hipocrisy" he's talking about, exactly. It's pretty much a given that law enforcement agencies have very different rights and powers from those of corporations and private citizens.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I'm working from the assumption that this is the "hypocrisy" he's referencing. And I'd make a comment on that, but I don't particularly want to see him stroke out again.
"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.
it all started here
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Not that we all haven't gone over the foolishness of your anti-germany stance, but its worth pointing out that members of the US congress are now talking about the need for legislation to limit how companies and the government can use facial recognition software.
and there are people who agree with that idea.
"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."
OH NOES!!! Now Norway is trying to become the next Germany!
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/...iny-in-norway/
"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."
It never ends! See, it's okay to have your users submit photos and to categorize them and squirt them out onto other people's news feeds. But developing smart ways to interpret those photos, that's bad according to the Jihadist "data protection commissioners".
Interestingly, I wonder/doubt if the German government has pursued companies for using content ID systems to spot pirated videos.
Just imagine that -- a whole bureaucracy designed to "protect" people against the sites they voluntarily register for and upload photos to. It's a wonder to behold.
August 15, 2012
Germans Reopen Investigation on Facebook Privacy
By KEVIN J. O’BRIEN
BERLIN — Data protection officials in Germany reopened an investigation into Facebook’s facial recognition technology Wednesday, saying that the social networking giant was illegally compiling a huge database of members’ photos without their consent.
The data protection commissioner in Hamburg, Johannes Caspar, suspended the inquiry in June, but said he reopened it after attempts to persuade Facebook to change its policies had failed.
“We have met repeatedly with Facebook but have not been able to get their cooperation on this issue, which has grave implications for personal data,” Mr. Caspar said in an interview.
The company’s use of analytic software to compile photographic archives of human faces, based on photos uploaded by Facebook’s members, has been problematic in Europe, where data protection laws require people to give their explicit consent to the practice.
Instead of using such an opt-in system, Facebook requires them to opt out instead.
The Hamburg regulator is demanding that Facebook destroy its photographic database of faces collected in Germany and revise its Web site to obtain the explicit consent of members before it creates a digital file based on the biometric data of their faces.
Mr. Caspar, who led Germany’s investigation into Google’s illegal collection of personal Internet data during its Street View project, said he had met with Facebook executives several times on the issue since he opened his investigation in June 2011, but closed it a year later when Facebook appeared to be complying with his demands.
In their meetings, Facebook representatives acknowledged that the company was compiling biometric data on users, Mr. Caspar said, but have maintained that the practice is legal in Ireland, where Facebook’s European operation is incorporated.
Mr. Caspar said he planned to end his investigation and make a formal request to Facebook to amend its practices by the end of September.
Facebook said in a statement that it was not breaking European Union law with facial recognition software, which prompts members to “tag,” or identify, people in photos uploaded to the service.
“We believe that the photo tag suggest feature on Facebook is fully compliant with E.U. data protection laws,” the statement said. “During our continuous dialogue with our supervisory authority in Europe, the Office of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, we agreed to develop a best practice solution to notify people on Facebook about photo tag suggest.”
Irish officials appeared to dispute that view, and were concluding a second audit of the company’s data protection practices. Gary Davis, Ireland’s deputy data commissioner, said the agency was continuing its talks with Facebook and hoped to reach a settlement on obtaining a consent agreement and on the status of photo archives compiled from European users.
Facebook, Mr. Davis said, had voluntarily agreed to suspend its tagging feature for all Europeans who join the network as of July 1. The situation for others “remains under active discussion,” he said.
“Those discussions are continuing, and we remain hopeful that they will be concluded satisfactorily shortly.”
European data protection officials have limited means to compel global companies like Facebook to alter their businesses to conform with local law.
In Germany, Mr. Caspar could fine Facebook up to 25,000 euros, or about $31,000, should it refuse to destroy its biometric database and alter its consent practices.
He could also sue Facebook and try to obtain a court order to compel it to alter its German operations. But establishing legal jurisdiction would be difficult, especially over a global online company with headquarters in the United States, said Ulrich Börger, a privacy lawyer in Hamburg with the law firm Latham & Watkins.
“The fines are ridiculously small for a company the size of Facebook,” Mr. Börger said. “The most important thing for Facebook is the reputational risk.”
Mr. Caspar said he was exploring that option but agreed that his staff had difficulty establishing jurisdiction over Facebook, which maintains that its activities at its German headquarters in Hamburg are limited to marketing activities, and not the technical and privacy-related functions relevant to Facebook’s collection of biometric data.
In March, in response to the dispute, the European Union’s top advisory panel on privacy, the Article 29 Working Party, released an opinion that the collection of biometric data without the explicit consent of users was illegal.
The decision by the privacy panel, which is made up of regulators from the 27 member countries of the European Union, prompted the Irish regulator to reopen its own negotiations with Facebook. After an audit of Facebook last year, the Irish regulator advised the company that it could simply inform people of its biometric data collection practices and Facebook did so on its Web site this year.
But the decision by the European panel has increased pressure on Irish regulators to toughen their stance.
Ciara O’Sullivan, a spokeswoman for the Irish data protection agency, said that in September it planned to publish the results of an new audit of Facebook’s privacy practices conducted last month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/te...y-inquiry.html
Was wondering when you were going to get around to this and how you were going to manage ignoring the other issues brought up by other countries.
There is a huge difference between using a site voluntarily and having said site later add an option as opt out that may legally be required to be opt in. Especially when it concerns someone's privacy.
Wonder how Germany will go about forcing Facebook to delete this database. I suggest helicopters and armed soldiers.
"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."
You know, that would be lovely and all except the bolded part clearly conflicts with the charge:
Data protection officials in Germany reopened an investigation into Facebook’s facial recognition technology Wednesday, saying that the social networking giant was illegally compiling a huge database of members’ photos without their consent.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I still think that the idea of personal control over public images is ridiculous. Your image already ends up in any viewer's brain when you're in public, I don't see how that image being on film or computer disk is transformative. I can see a rationale in asserting such images can't be altered, editing image can certainly be transformative, but not this.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Yes, but the standard for consent is totally bogus. If you don't like the idea of Facebook keeping a database of your photos...don't upload your photos to Facebook.
When you upload photos to Facebook, you can reasonably expect Facebook to store and process them as part of the experience of being on Facebook. As Fuzzy said, this concept of personal control over public images that happen to contain faces really weird to us.
The issue isn't the photos, its Facebook creating and storing a database of those pictures combined with labels and identifying information that may not have been available in that moment when the picture was taken, and making it a tool for people who also weren't there at that moment. Its that fine line of combining two separate strands of information into one resource. Thats what a lot of the world's data privacy regulation boils down to.
You don't have to take or personally upload any photos to facebook and yet facebook still expects every user to know how to opt out of the service so that facebook doesn't create a profile of you in this database based on other people's photos. Thats one reason why EU law requires services like this to be opt in; to protect those that aren't all that tech savy.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-16-2012 at 03:47 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."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote